Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB packet 3-4-25 mtg- Game Farm Road FHF1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: February 25, 2025 RE: Cornell Game Farm Rd Field Hockey Field – SEQRA Discussion Enclosed please find additional materials related to the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex (also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex). The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing natural grass practice field (McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The enclosures include: 1. Planning staff research, requested by the Planning Board at the January 7, 2025, meeting 2. Additional information from the applicant, requested by the Planning Board at the January 7, 2025, meeting The Town of Ithaca Planning Board established themselves as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project on January 7, 2025, where they considered the environmental review process for this project. After a long discussion, the Board asked the applicant and staff to prepare and provide additional research to assist them in making an environmental determination (see attachments). The purpose of the March 4, 2025, Planning Board meeting is for the Board to determine whether the field hockey field project has the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact, and whether such impact might necessitate an environmental impact statement process. To that end, the enclosures do not include a completed environmental assessment. Town staff will provide a completed draft Full EAF at a future meeting, based on the Board’s decision on March 4th. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this proposal by phone at 273-1721, extension 121, or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov. 2 Cc: Elisabete Godden, Project Manager, Cornell University, Facilities and Campus Services Leslie Schill, Director of Campus Planning, Cornell University, Office of the University Architect Kimberly Van Leeuwen, Director of Landscape Architecture, Fisher Associates Town of Ithaca Planning sta research on synthetic turf 2025 1 Planning Board requested the following information to make a SEQR determination for the CU GFR project (from 1-7-25 Planning Board meeting) 1. Cornell’s responses to the Article 87 Meinig lawsuit, insofar as Susan Brock mentioned at the 12/17/24 PB meeting. 2. Documents that show: a. Actual turf materials b. Proposed product manufacturer specifications for proposed turf c. Chemicals in turf – including, but not limited to, PFAS contents and components d. Analysis of what will break down over time and how it will break down 3. Third party interpretation of the documents in #2 – town sta to find the third party and it cannot be someone from applicant team, Cornell University, or the public that has commented on the topic. 4. Understanding of how the project will impact the stormwater filtration system for anything not covered in the SWPPP. What could the new field produce in sizes and concentrations? What can actually be treated? Microplastics? PFAS? Other materials in the product list? 5. Someone to review the evidence on human health impacts of synthetic turf materials. Summarize not just the findings, but the quality of the evidence (e.g., how rigorous are the studies?) *There is no crumb rubber in this proposal, so this wouldn’t need to be part of the review. PFAS would be excluded from the review as the project will comply with NYS law that comes into eect in 2026. Town of Ithaca Planning sta research on synthetic turf 2025 2 Town Planning sta research relative to Planning Board request #3/5 above: 1. Tompkins County Whole Health Director, Liz Cameron – phone conversation (607- 274-6688).  TC Whole Health is “not qualified to do what Planning Board is asking.”  Recommended hiring an independent consultant, particularly for request in #5: o Liz Moran, Ecologic (Cornell-ailiated) o Roxy Johnston, City of Ithaca o O’Brien & Gere o LaBella  Recommended the town contact NYSDOH, as they have toxicology experts (518- 402-7800). They might be able to assist with #3. But they won’t have the sta to do #5. See below. 2. Roxy Johnston, City of Ithaca Watershed Coordinator (called 607-273-4680, left message)  Returned my call and left message: she cannot assist, not qualified. Recommended contacting Damian Helbling, Cornell, or his assistant, Rassil Sayess, or Susan Allen, Ithaca College. [did not contact because Cornell/IC ailiated = conflict of interest]  Emailed me NYS research that was done for PFAS in drinking water. NYS research was rigorous until 2023/2024, when EPA took over. According to phone call with Roxy, EPA research is not rigorous (emails attached for reference). 3. NYSDOH (518-402-7800), btsa@health.ny.gov – called and emailed on 1/28/25 and left messages. Called again 2/6/25, left a message. DOH responded via email 2/18/25 (attached)  Cannot endorse or recommend a specific expert. Suggested the town use environmental or engineering consulting firm.  Department currently reviewing more recent literature and cannot provide a summary at this time.  Email contains links to April 2024 Federal final report on human exposures and potential risks to dierent chemicals in artificial turf fields and playgrounds (primarily focused on recycled tire crumb rubber). 4. NYS DEC Division of Environmental Remediation- phone conversation (518-402- 9543)  Cannot assist. Recommended calling NYS DMM or NYS DOH, and only after receiving chemical list of materials from Cornell. 5. NYS DEC Division of Solid Waste Management- division that oversees the 2026 carpet law (called and left message 518-402-2724) Town of Ithaca Planning sta research on synthetic turf 2025 3  Returned my call and left message: requested my email, Conor Shea will email me back (see email exchanges attached).  Cannot recommend a consultant, no one from his division is qualified to do what the Planning Board is asking.  Email embedded links to the 2026 carpet law, the NYS Senate Bill 2025-S3797 (if enacted, would establish a moratorium on installation of synthetic turf), and the NYSDOH report (email attached). 6. Community Science Institute (607-257-6606) info@communityscience.org –  Left a voicemail and emailed the general email. Email response provided (attached). The request is outside their scope of expertise.  Recommended contacting Dr. Yuxin Wang, Binghamton University, included links in email: https://telescopecc.wixsite.com/yuxinw/research-and-facilities. [did not contact because of potential conflict- Dr. Wang did her postdoc at Cornell] 7. Finger Lakes Institute (315-781-4381, Dr. Lisa Cleckner, Director) cleckner@hws.edu  Left a voicemail message and emailed Dr. Cleckner directly. Email response provided (attached). The request is outside their scope of expertise.  Recommended Genoa Warner, NJ Institute of Technology, Dept of Chemistry and Environmental Science. Published a paper on exact issues faced by the PB. https://people.njit.edu/profile/grw4 https://genoawarner.com/ o Contacted Ms. Warner – she is not taking outside consulting at this time but oered to chat about her research. Email exchange attached. Subsequent phone conversation was brief but informative: 1) Genoa clarified- she is a chemist, not an epidemiologist. 2) Her experience and research has discovered that there is not enough rigorous study happening. Also, Federal funding has either been pulled or is at risk of being pulled (new administration issue). 3) There are lots of studies that prove that synthetic turf chemicals are harmful. BUT there are no studies about the eects of that turf specifically on the human body, on water systems, in soil, etc. Some studies are occurring now in relation to water, water systems, and soil. 4) There need to be large scale human studies – not “anecdata” – but large scale human studies. They will definitively inform public health impacts of synthetic turf, and those studies simply aren’t being done. 5) Oered to speak to the Planning Board via Zoom if necessary. But cautioned at the end of the phone conversation that she is seen by the turf industry as the “opposition.” She is personally opposed to synthetic turf and has protested against it in her community. She is not unbiased personally. 1 Chris Balestra From:Roxy Johnston <RJohnston@cityofithaca.org> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 9:09 AM To:Chris Balestra Subject:PFAs info Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Easy summary: https://www.exponent.com/article/new-york-state-proposes-new-restrictions-pfas-drinking- water New York State Proposes New Restrictions on PFAS in Drinking Water Twenty-three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are targeted for expanded analysis. On October 5, the New York State Department of Health issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water. www.exponent.com NYS Register - as posted for public comments https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/10/100522.pdf Issue 40 REGISTE NEW YORK STATE R - Department of State KATHY HOCHUL GOVERNOR ROBERT J. RODRIGUEZ SECRETARY OF STATE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE For press and media inquiries call: (518) 486-9844 For State Register production, scheduling and subscription information call: (518) 474-6957 dos.ny.gov The video! https://totalwebcasting.com/view/?func=VOFF&id=nysdoh&date=2024-12-17&seq=1 The video will contain information on any turf compounds that are also included in the proposed NYS drinking water regulations. Good luck! Contact #2- Roxy Johnston, City of Ithaca 2 Roxy Roxanna Johnston Watershed Coordinator, City of Ithaca Laboratory Director, Drinking Water Plant City of Ithaca Drinking Water Plant 202 Water St. Ithaca NY 14850 Phone: 607-273-4680 x 4619 Email: rjohnston@cityofithaca.org www.ithacawater.org 1 Chris Balestra From:doh.sm.BTSA <btsa@health.ny.gov> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:21 AM To:Chris Balestra Subject:RE: Municipal assistance request - Town of Ithaca Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Good morning Chris, As a government agency, we do not imply endorsement or provide recommendations of any specific expert, but other municipalities and school districts use environmental consulting or engineering firms to analyze the chemical components of artificial turf. Additionally, we are in the process of reviewing the more recent literature and cannot provide a summary at this time. Our current website outlines the health and safety concerns related to artificial turf. Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields In April of 2024, The Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds (FRAP) released their final report. This final report discusses the findings related to human exposures and potential risks to different chemicals in artificial turf fields and playgrounds (primarily focused on recycled tire crumb rubber). This report does not discuss other concerns such as injuries, heat stress and environmental impacts and states there are still exposure uncertainties. Although you mentioned not using crumb rubber, we would recommend reviewing this report. Their website also lists other government websites that can be reviewed. Federal Research on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds | US EPA Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan Government Organization Websites Related to the Use of Tire Crumb on Fields and Playgrounds | US EPA Please reach out if you have additional questions. From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 3:14 PM To: doh.sm.BTSA <btsa@health.ny.gov> Cc: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: Municipal assistance request - Town of Ithaca You don't often get email from cbalestra@townithacany.gov. Learn why this is important Contact #3- NYS DOH 1 Chris Balestra From:Shea, Conor M (DEC) <Conor.Shea@dec.ny.gov> Sent:Friday, February 7, 2025 5:20 PM To:Chris Balestra Subject:Re: PFAS in Artificial Turf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Chris - As a state employee, I cannot provide a recommendation on a consultant for this analysis, and do not think I would fit the profile for a "soil/water/toxicology expert" myself. However, I would like to point out that the law restricting the sale or offering for sale of carpet that contains or is treated with PFAS goes into effect December 31, 2026. Artificial turf is included in the definition of carpet, and as such, is subject to the sales restriction after this date if it contains or is treated with PFAS. While the law does not place restrictions on the purchaser, it does ensure that any artificial turf sold after that date in the state will not contain PFAS, so this may be worth considering as a potential purchaser. Also, regarding recently introduced legislation, NY State Senate Bill 2025-S3797 was reintroduced from last session. If enacted, it would establish a moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf pending a comprehensive environmental and public health study by DOH and DEC. The study would investigate the exposure and contamination potential of synthetic turf, including routes of exposure through the installation, maintenance, removal, and disposal of synthetic turf, as well as alternatives including natural turf. Additionally, I'd like to note that the New York State Department of Health published a report which evaluated the health and safety issues associated with crumb rubber infilled artificial turf fields. I understand that the proposed field will not contain crumb rubber infill, however it will still be an artificial turf playing field, so there may be worthwhile studies that are cited in their report, which would have been authored by experts on this topic or related topics. I hope this is helpful. Thanks, Conor From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:20 PM To: Shea, Conor M (DEC) <Conor.Shea@dec.ny.gov> Cc: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: PFAS in Artificial Turf ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Contact #5 - NYS DEC Division of Solid Waste Management, Conor Shea 1 Chris Balestra From:Community Science Institute <info@communityscience.org> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 1:52 PM To:Chris Balestra Cc:CJ Randall Subject:Re: Municipal assistance request - Town of Ithaca Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Hello Chris, Thank you for reaching out to us about this issue! While I wish we could help, I am sorry to say that a project like this is outside the scope of CSI's capacity and expertise. I am not sure if you are considering academic experts, but if you are, I have a recommendation for you. I attended graduate school at Binghamton University where I came to know Dr. Yuxin Wang. I would consider her an expert on risk assessment of anthropogenic contaminants, particularly PFAS. Here is a link to her website: https://telescopecc.wixsite.com/yuxinw/research-and-facilities. However, I just read her bio and saw that she did a postdoc at Cornell so I'm not sure if that would disqualify her from your consideration. If her former connection would disqualify her as an impartial expert, she might be able to refer you to a colleague with similar qualifications and experience as her. Thank you again for thinking of CSI for this project. I apologize that we are unable to be of more assistance. Kind regards, Grascen Grascen Shidemantle, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) Executive Director Community Science Institute gshidemantle@communityscience.org 607-257-6606 On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:29 PM Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> wrote: Good afternoon, Contact #6 - Community Science Institute 1 Chris Balestra From:Cleckner, Lisa <CLECKNER@hws.edu> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2025 11:41 AM To:Chris Balestra Cc:CJ Randall Subject:RE: Municipal assistance request - Town of Ithaca Attachments:HealthImpactsArtificialTurf.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Hi Chris, Thank you for sending all of this information and I am sorry that we did not connect by phone earlier this week. While I appreciate that you reached out to the FLI and I do have my graduate degrees in chemicals and environmental health sciences, I do not think we are the best to provide the analysis that you are looking for. I can only imagine the information that you are trying to compare and sort. I did a short literature search a couple of days ago and found the attached review paper that might be helpful. And, it looks to me like the corresponding author, Genoa Warner, might be a good person to ask for further help? Here are a couple of links to her research and institutional info – https://people.njit.edu/profile/grw4 https://genoawarner.com/ Happy to try to track down other resources that can help with this if you hit a wall. Thanks again for reaching out. Best, Lisa Lisa B. Cleckner, PhD, MBA (she/her) Director Finger Lakes Institute Hobart and William Smith Colleges Office: 601 S. Main St Mailing: 300 Pulteney St Geneva, NY 14456 315-781-4381 (office) 585-755-3038 (mobile) 315-781-4399 (FAX) Contact #7- Finger Lakes Institute - Dr. Cleckner 1 Chris Balestra From:Genoa Warner <grw4@njit.edu> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:51 PM To:Chris Balestra Cc:genoa.warner@njit.edu; CJ Randall Subject:Re: Municipal assistance request - Town of Ithaca Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Chris, Thanks for reaching out. I am an academic researcher working in this area. My group studies the health and environmental impacts of plastics, and artificial turf is one of my areas of interest. As a pre-tenure faculty member, I am not doing outside consulting at this time, but I would be happy to meet with you to discuss my article and share some thoughts. My article was written to address the exact question the planning board has asked about health impacts, and I also have research ongoing to measure AT PFAS content and leaching. This is difficult to measure, which makes me skeptical that you will receive the data you have requested. It is great that you are looking for a objective third party to review this because so many communities rely exclusively on information from manufacturers. I'd be happy to chat informally to see if I can help you. Best, Genoa __ Genoa Warner, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science New Jersey Institute of Technology grw4@njit.edu pronouns: she/her On Jan 24, 2025, at 2:20 PM, Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> wrote: This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Good afternoon, Ms. Warner, I was referred to you by Dr. Lisa Cleckner of the Finger Lakes Institute at Hobart William Smith Colleges in NY. She came across the attached review paper relative to artificial turf and thought you/your team might be able to assist us. I am a senior planner with the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. I’ve been asked by my Planning Board to find a third-party consultant to review and provide analysis of a Planning Board project associated with the construction of a synthetic turf field hockey field in the Town Contact #7- Genoa Warner, Researcher Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Supplemental Materials Submission Cornell University Ithaca, NY January 31, 2025 Cultivating our gifts to create a legacy of infrastructure that improves quality of life. January 31, 2025 C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Director Randall, Attached please find additional materials regarding the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project for Cornell University. We have provided information requested by the Town planning board members during the January 7, 2025 meeting and also by the Town Code Enforcement Department in their project review letter of the same day. We are looking forward to discussing SEQR at your February 18 meeting. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Kimberly Michaels Director of Landscape Architecture 1001 W Seneca Street, Suite 201 • Ithaca, New York 14850 • 607.277.1400 • fisherassoc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Overview .................................................................................................7 Article 78 Lawsuit ...............................................................................................8 Synthetic Turf Details ........................................................................................10 Recycling Plan ..................................................................................................12 Microplastics ....................................................................................................12 Public Health Research Findings .......................................................................13 VOCs and Phthalates .....................................................................................14 Heat Island ....................................................................................................14 FEAF Item Clarification ......................................................................................15 Long-Term Plans ...............................................................................................16 Barn Information ...............................................................................................17 Stream Setback Law ..........................................................................................17 Updated Photometrics Diagram .........................................................................17 Appendices 1. Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Verified Position 2. NCAA Site Selection Process for Division I Field Hockey 3. International Hockey Federation (FIH) Hockey Turf & Field Standards 4. Project Location Exhibit 5. Stream Setback Exhibit 6. Project Lighting Plan - Technical Drawings 7. ECS Compliance Checklist and Memo for Restroom Building 8. ECS Compliance Checklist and Memo for Press Box Building 7 PROJECT OVERVIEW Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed, NCAA-required synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. An additional building (phase two) for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation. The building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team. The clubhouse will include team locker rooms, offices, meeting rooms, a physical therapy/training room, a lounge, toilets, showers, and an indoor training space. The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The full buildout with Phase II building is visible on the title page. The proposed septic system, stormwater management system, and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate both phase one and phase two development. Figure: Phase I 8 Information requested by the Town Planning Board and Code Enforcement Department Per the request of Town Attorney Susan Brock, below please find information about the Article 78 lawsuit brought by Zero Waste Ithaca (“petitioner”) alleging that the City of Ithaca Planning Board’s negative declaration of environmental impact pursuant to SEQR for the Meinig Fieldhouse project was arbitrary and capricious and should be rescinded. The following paragraphs are paraphrased or direct excerpts from Cornell’s 27-page response, which the City of Ithaca adopted in its own legal filing in the proceeding and is included in this package (see Appendix 1). THOROUGH REVIEW Petitioner alleges that the Planning Board failed to take a hard look at several issues tangentially related to the installation of synthetic turf, such as PFAS, microplastic shedding from the site, air emissions, and VOCs and phthalates. However, as described in detail in pages 3-8 of Appendix 1 and the 3,762 page certified Record of the environmental review process filed by the City, the Planning Board considered each of these potential environmental impacts of synthetic turf in great detail. It received, reviewed, and discussed for hours thousands of pages of scientific literature, opinions and literature reviews from various consultants, and community feedback on these topics over the course of a months-long environmental review. It asked questions of Cornell about these issues at every meeting at which the Project was discussed, and specifically requested and received information from Dr. Frank Rossi, a turf grass expert independent from the project. Notably, although Dr. Rossi encourages the use of natural turf generally, he opined that synthetic turf was appropriate for the project, and that the design and product selection specifications were sufficient to limit any resulting environmental impacts. The Planning Board entertained a detailed and vigorous debate over the project’s alleged environmental impacts. The Project was reviewed by the City of Ithaca Planning Board on no fewer than eight occasions: four full Planning Board meetings, and four Project Review Committee meetings. The Board received over four hundred pages of submissions from Cornell, heard nearly two hours of public comment and received over six hundred pages of written public comments, and in addition to the time they spent reviewing the material outside of meetings discussed the issues for two and a half hours. After this extensive review, the Planning Board unanimously determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. SEQRA does not state that no building project can move forward unless the applicant can show that it will have no impact whatsoever on the environment. Rather, SEQRA’s purpose is to ensure that “[s]ocial, economic, and environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities.” N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW §8-103(7). “SEQRA seeks to strike a balance between social and economic goals and concerns about the environment … by requiring an agency to engage in a systematic balancing analysis.” WEOK Broad. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 380-81 (1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted)). “It is not the intention of SEQR that environmental factors be the sole consideration in decision-making.” 6 NYCRR §617.1(d). (Appendix 1, p.17.) Petitioner’s argument is largely built on its repeated refrain that the Project is presumed to have a significant impact on the environment simply because it is a Type I project. While Type I projects are “likely to have a significant adverse impact” and are “more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted actions,” 6 NYCRR §§617.4(a) and (a) (1), the lead agency is still charged with assessing potential environmental impacts and determining whether an EIS is required. “A type I action does not, per se, necessitate the filing of an EIS.” Vill. of Ballston Spa v. City of Saratoga Springs, 163 A.D.3d 1220, 1223 (3d Dep’t 2018) (affirming dismissal of petition challenging negative declaration for Type I project). Courts have repeatedly dismissed petitions alleging that a Type I project improperly received a negative declaration. See, e.g., id.; Briuner v. Town of Schodack Planning Bd., 178 A.D.3d 1181, 1183-84 (3d Dep’t 2019) (affirming dismissal of petition challenging negative declaration for Type I project). The sole issue is whether the ARTICLE 78 LAWSUIT Planning Board took the required hard look and issued a reasoned explanation, and it did. (Appendix 1, p.17.) Importantly, “[a]n agency complying with SEQRA need not investigate every conceivable environmental problem; it may, within reasonable limits, use its discretion in selecting which ones are relevant.” Save the Pine Bush, Inc., 13 N.Y.3d at 307 (reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing petition). “While it is essential that public agencies comply with their duties under SEQRA, some common sense in determining the extent of those duties is essential too.” Id. at 308. And in challenging a lead agency’s determination, a petitioner must come forward with particularized complaints: basing a determination on “generalized, speculative comments and opinions of local residents and other agencies, would authorize agencies … to exercise unbridled discretion in making their determinations and would not fulfill SEQRA’s mandate that a balance be struck between social and economic goals and concerns about the environment.” WEOK Broad. Corp., 79 N.Y.2d at 384-85 (reversing and dismissing petition). The potential presence of PFAS in synthetic turf animated a large amount of public comment, written submissions, and discussion by the Planning Board. Petitioner submitted a number of links to documents that it purported would support its claim that the presence of PFAS in the proposed synthetic turf field would lead to environmental concerns, primarily based on studies that have been done of synthetic turf installations at different locations using turf manufactured by different companies. However, Cornell also submitted expert information from its consultants rebutting these claims, and the Planning Board decided which authority was more compelling. (Appendix 1, p.20.) Importantly, the issue of PFAS is a red herring. Cornell voluntarily modified its project proposal to comply with a New York State law prohibiting the sale of any carpet (including synthetic turf) containing or treated with PFAS substances, even though that provision of the law does not take effect until December 31, 2026. (N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW §27- 3313). Zero Waste Ithaca claimed that Cornell cannot comply with that law, but supported that argument with nothing but unsubstantiated speculation. The Planning Board was entitled to defer to and rely on a project sponsor’s compliance with applicable law, and reasonably did so. Similarly, individuals submitted information that they claimed raised questions about environmental impacts of microplastic shedding from synthetic turf. Cornell submitted extensive documentation from scientific studies and consultant analyses addressing the topic of microplastics. Indeed, Dr. Rossi’s analysis—which the Planning Board specifically requested—indicated that the stormwater management facilities included in the Project were fully consistent with a recent European study on synthetic turf microplastics. In addition, the Planning Board reasonably relied on Cornell’s required compliance with a NYSDEC-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. (Appendix 1, p.21.) 9 Several studies have assessed potential health risks resulting from inhalation exposures to chemicals contained in synthetic turf fields… The air samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and airborne particulate matter. The studies concluded that inhalation exposures resulting from playing on synthetic turf fields were insignificant, and not different from inhalation exposures on natural turf fields. The Connecticut study … authors concluded that, based on their findings, exposure levels for indoor synthetic turf fields represented only a marginal health risk, but ventilation of indoor fields was recommended. Several earlier European studies had similar findings. An Italian study found that inhalation exposures resulting from playing on synthetic turf are negligible, and that exposures associated with motor vehicle emissions in the areas near the fields during the same time period were about ten times higher. Two studies that measured a metabolite of PAHs in the urine of soccer players after playing on synthetic turf found no measurable uptake of PAHs resulted from playing on the field. A 2024 study by the US Environmental Protection Agency found that people using synthetic turf fields are not exposed to the chemicals contained in them. The Planning Board thus had voluminous, independent evidence in front of it to support its conclusions on these topics. (Appendix 1, pp.21-22.) 10 SYNTHETIC TURF DETAILS Planning board members noted during the meeting on January 7 that it would be helpful to hear again if synthetic turf is necessary for Cornell’s field hockey team and to know which manufacturer(s) and products have been chosen for this project, along with a list of the product components. Out of the 82 Division I field hockey teams that competed in the 2024 season, all 82 of them play on synthetic turf. In accordance with regulations established by the International Field Hockey (FIH) organization, synthetic turf is needed for NCAA Division I field hockey practices and regular season games, as well as for hosting Ivy League and NCAA Post- Season competitions. For more information, see highlighted text on pages 6 and 12 in Appendix 2 and highlighted text on pages 3-7, 11, and 13-14 in Appendix 3. This proposed turf will not have any infill of any kind. The proposed turf will conform to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established regulations and will comply with the requirements of the New York State Carpet Collection Program Law Article 27, Title 33 of the Environmental Conservation Law that requires all carpets – including turf carpets – to be recycled. Additionally, Cornell proposes to comply (in advance) with the addition to this law which goes into effect in 2026: Section 27-3313.[2] which states that “no carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose”. The project team has taken all currently available measures for reducing environmental impacts by choosing a manufacturer that produces PFAS-free synthetic turf and incorporates recycled content into their products. The manufacturer is TenCate, a company that removed intentionally-added-PFAS from their manufacturing process in October 2023. TenCate sends out materials for third-party testing to ensure suppliers and products remain PFAS-free. Cornell is committed to having the product 3rd party tested prior to leaving the manufacturer (pre-shipment) as well. The turf product chosen is the GreenFields TX Pro Plus. A section of the turf profile is included below. This non-infilled synthetic turf is comprised of TenCate’s U.V.-resistant polyethylene monofilament fibers looped through a woven backing cloth that provides strength and dimensional stability. For the shock pad, GreenFields’ EcoCept base layer was chosen. This product, which is designed to aid in field safety and performance, is comprised of recycled plastics, recycled rubber, and a binder material. Per the FIH (International Hockey Federation) Quality Programme for Hockey Turf, an FIH Certified Field is independently tested by an FIH accredited Test Institute “To ensure that field hockey fields are being built to the highest standard and that FIH Approved Products are being installed correctly”. Tests include measurements of how the ball interacts with the playing surface; verifies adequate comfort, well-being, and performance for the players; and ensures that the field has been built to the dimensions, line marking, slope and surface drainage requirements. Field Certification also includes a comprehensive series of quality control checks to ensure the installed Hockey Turf product is the same as the FIH Approved Product; ensuring manufacturing and installation mistakes do not go undetected. 11 The Field Hockey Field proposed to be installed at Cornell shall meet FIH Global Turf Category 2 and be required to meet the following criteria: Figure: Synthetic Turf Profile Section GreenFields TX Pro Plus TECHNICAL DATA COLOR Type Non-fill synthetic grass carpet, 3/16” gauge tufted, straight stitch pattern Pile Content 100% polyethylene monofilament, U.V.- resistant, Diamond shape, 7,200/10 dTex, LSR texturized, 150 microns Primary Backing 7.5 oz/yd2; TenCate K29 Backing Double Layer Thiobac, black, U.V. stabilized Layer 1: 100% PP / Layer 2: PET/PP blend Secondary Backing 20 oz/yd2; Polyurethane coating with drainage holes Pile Height 1/2 inch +/-10% Stitch Rate per lm (length) 360 +/-10% Pile Weight 56 oz/yd2 +/-10% Roll Width According to seaming Roll Length According to seaming Standard dark green; optional colors field/olive duotine, clay red, reflex blue, white and yellow for line markings. ve r s i o n 1 . 1 1 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 3 (855)-773-6668 | INFO@GREENFIELDSUSA.COM | WWW.GREENFIELDSUSA.COM All data shown are typical values based on tests believed to be reliable by TenCate. All technical data provided herein are subject to change without prior noti- fication. TenCate assumes no obligation or liability for the information in this document. No express warranties are given exceptfor any applicable written war- ranties specifically provided by TenCate. All implied warranties including those of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are expressly excluded. MOSTFIFACERTIFIED FIELDSWORLDWIDE FIFA INTERNATIONAL HOCKER FEDERATION WORLD RUGBY PREFERRED SUPPLIER FOR FIELDS INSTALLED WORLDWIDE O VER3500 12 RECYCLING PLAN During the January 7 meeting, Town Planning Board members stated that they wanted to know the recycling plan for this artificial turf at the end of its usefulness for field hockey play. New York State has enacted a Carpet Collection Program (NY Environmental Conservation Law Title 33, Article 27). The law includes synthetic turf in the definition of carpet (Environmental Conservation Law §27-3301(2)). Under the law, no later than 12/31/2025, every producer of carpet that is sold or distributed in the state must submit a plan for NYSDEC approval to establish a satisfactory carpet collection program. §27-3303(1). A compliant plan must provide for a program, convenient and at no cost to consumers, to collect carpet for recycling or reuse, with at least one collection site located in every municipality with at least 10,000 residents. §27-3303(4)(d). The law contains numerous additional details about plan requirements, including the percentage of carpets that are actually recycled over time and certain targets specifically for closed-loop recycling. §27.3303(4)(e)-(k). It is NYS law that recycling activities for carpet, including synthetic turf, increase. Cornell is fully committed to recycling the turf at the end of its useful life (typically 10 to 12 years). Possible facilities that are being considered for recycling the turf that are in operation at this time are: Turf Recyclers (Rockland, MA, opening May 2025), re[TURN] Reclamation Program (Dalton, GA). It is expected that, as a result of the NYS law, more recycling facilities will be available by the time the turf reaches the end of its useful life. Cornell will investigate and select the most environmentally responsible option available at that time. MICROPLASTICS Several planning board members mentioned that it would be helpful to know the size and quantity of particles that are likely to be shed from the synthetic turf field and to understand how these particles will be captured. All water falling on the synthetic turf field hockey field will infiltrate through the layers of the field system – first through the turf and shock pad, then through the porous asphalt and drainage stone, down to a panel drain. Once in the panel drain, runoff will be routed through a proprietary stormwater filter practice. The filter practice uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of capturing physical particulates of 0.025 millimeter (25 micrometer (µm)). The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines microplastics as plastic particles smaller in size than 5 millimeters (mm). With the size classification of five millimeters or less, microplastics can vary greatly in size, with larger microplastics above 1 mm visible to the naked eye, and smaller microplastics requiring the use of a microscope to view. Review of analytical methods for detecting microplastics indicates that most methods (other than the naked eye) can reliably detect microplastic particles as small as 20 to 50 micrometers (µm)10. Therefore, the proposed stormwater system will capture microplastics to a size that is consistent with what is measurable, which will therefore remove detectable microplastics from storm water runoff from the field. We could not identify information concerning how much the turf blades from the selected turf product may shed during the use of the field. However, two recent studies provide some insight into the potential for microplastics to be released from synthetic turf fields. One study was conducted in Spain which looked at the contribution of turf fibers to water in a river and water in the ocean near Barcelona11. Water samples were collected in a river and the sea surface and were evaluated for the presence of plastics. Synthetic turf fibers were identified in 50% of the water samples that were collected and represented 0.3% of the microplastics identified in river water samples and 1.2% of the microplastics identified in sea surface water samples. This study has been cited by others as demonstrating that synthetic turf accounted for 15% of the plastics found in the water samples. The value of 15% is the amount of synthetic turf-related microplastics found in some of the 417 water samples that were collected. The data provided in this study show that microplastics shed from the synthetic turf fields would be captured by the filter practice that will be installed at the proposed field. In another study, the release of microplastics from urban sources was modelled (i.e., no samples were collected)9. The study concluded that synthetic turf fields are large sources of microplastics in urban environments due to the loss of crumb rubber infill that can occur through field use. The paper noted that loss of crumb rubber from synthetic turf fields could be eliminated through use of microplastics capture technology. Although this study evaluated rubber infill as the source of microplastics, which is not applicable to the proposed hockey field, the study recommends use of microplastics filters to control the potential loss of microplastics from synthetic turf fields, which is the approach that is being implemented at the proposed field. 13 PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH FINDINGS During the meeting, planning board members asked for a summary of the evidence regarding the public health impacts of synthetic turf materials as well as a review of the quality of that evidence. A synthetic turf field typically consists of a turf carpet (the green blades) and infill material. The proposed synthetic turf field for field hockey will not use infill materials. Instead, it will use the turf carpet with a shock pad that is placed beneath the carpet to provide cushioning. Studies that have evaluated the possibility that chemicals contained in synthetic turf may cause potential health concerns, have evaluated fields that are made using crumb rubber infill. Regulatory agencies have concluded that there is a negligible health concern related to crumb rubber infill. Therefore, since the hockey field will not use crumb rubber infill (or other types of infill), it can also be concluded that the turf fibers alone would not pose a health concern. Specifically, the turf blades in the product specified for the project (Greenfields TX Pro Plus) are 100% linear low- density polyethylene. Low density polyethylene is also used for food packaging, packaging film, squeezable bottles, pipes/tubing, and medical/health care items.1,2 Since polyethylene is made from a polymer that is stable at high temperatures, it is inert and is not associated with any known health effects, nor is it considered to be carcinogenic by national and world health agencies. In other words, skin contact with the turf cannot result in exposure to the polyethylene, and if pieces of grass blades are ingested, they cannot be digested and no exposure to polyethylene will occur (polyethylene cannot leach out of the plastic and get be absorbed), just as no exposure to polyethylene occurs when drinking from a bottle made from polyethylene. The conditions where exposure to polyethylene could potentially occur would be associated with the manufacturing of polyethylene products, when polyethylene is in powder form or when it’s heated to very high temperatures.3 The turf product specified for this project also contains additives that include heavy metal-free pigments, dulling agents, and UV stabilizers which are encapsulated in the polymer, meaning that exposure to them does not occur and they therefore do not pose a health concern. Historically, some older synthetic turf blades contained lead. Synthetic turf now needs to comply with consumer product safety requirements, which means that turf blades no longer contain lead. Some synthetic turf has been manufactured using polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) as a processing agent. PVDF is a material that fits within the definition of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as defined in the New York Carpet Collection Program (NY Environmental Conservation Law Title 33, Section 27-3301 and 27-3315)4. That law requires that carpets (including synthetic turf) sold in New York State after December 31, 2026, not contain PFAS. The turf product that will be supplied for this project will comply with the law. As mentioned above, most of the studies that have evaluated health effects related to synthetic turf have focused on infill that is made from crumb rubber, because crumb rubber contains many chemicals. Scientific articles and other publications that draw conclusions about the chemical composition or health effects of synthetic turf, based on presence of crumb rubber, are not applicable to the proposed field hockey project because the hockey field will not use any infill material. Nonetheless, the New York State Department of Health concluded that synthetic turf fields that use crumb rubber infill pose a low concern regarding health risks5. Similarly, extensive evaluation of crumb rubber by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) supports a conclusion that potential exposure to crumb rubber used as infill material poses negligible concerns to athletes who use synthetic turf fields6. 14 VOCs and Phthalates Inquiries were made concerning the potential for synthetic turf to off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and phthalate compounds. The potential source of VOC emissions and phthalate compounds is related to crumb rubber infill8. Since the proposed hockey field does not use crumb rubber infill and is made of polyethylene, which is inert, there is a very low concern about VOC emissions and phthalate compounds at the proposed hockey field. For information, the following information is provided concerning VOC emissions and phthalate compounds in crumb rubber. The release of VOCs from synthetic turf has been studied by researchers and municipalities. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) developed a summary of potential health risks resulting from inhalation exposures to chemicals contained in synthetic turf fields7. The summary, which included review of studies completed by health agencies in New York, New York City, and Connecticut, concluded that inhalation exposures to chemicals in synthetic turf fields were insignificant, and not different from those associated with athletic play on natural turf fields. Testing performed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) evaluated the occurrence of phthalates crumb rubber infill8. The testing performed by the USEPA, which is the most comprehensive assessment of crumb rubber performed in the United States to date, evaluated 40 crumb rubber samples collected from synthetic turf fields. Two phthalate compounds (dibutyl phthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) were detected in testing of crumb rubber. Phthalate compounds do not occur in polyethylene turf blades. Heat Island Synthetic turf does not retain heat. Since the synthetic turf field proposed for field hockey use will not contain infill, it is anticipated that surface temperatures of the field will be lower than those typically associated with synthetic turf fields12. While synthetic turf field surfaces do get warmer than natural turf field surfaces, air temperatures above synthetic turf surfaces warm only marginally more than those above natural turf field surfaces, and synthetic field surfaces do not retain heat once daytime heating is discontinued. These differences are substantially minimized on cloudy days and do not exist on overcast days13. In that respect, synthetic turf fields are different than urban systems (aggregate buildings, roof tops, and pavement) which are associated with contributing to Heat Island effects because those materials continue to release heat well into the nighttime hours. 1 https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/polyethylene/ 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene 3 Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for polyethylene. SDS are required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to communicate potential hazards of chemicals to downstream users of the chemicals (example at: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://korellis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/POLYETHYLENE.pdf) 4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/A27T33 5 New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 2018. Information About Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields. September. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/ fact_sheet.htm 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan (Final Report, Part 1 [2019] and Part 2 [2024]) https://www.epa.gov/chemical- research/federal-research-recycled-tire-crumb-used-playing-fields-and-playgrounds 7 New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 2018. Information About Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields. September. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/ fact_sheet.htm 8 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan (Final Report, Part 1 [2019]) 9 Zhu, Zia; Matthew J. Hoffman, Chelsea M. Rochman (2024). “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution” Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 3375-3385. 10 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2023. “Microplastics”. https://mp-1.itrcweb.org/. 11 Haan, William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas, Andres Cozar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, Anna Sanchez-Vidal. 2023. “The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments.” Environmental Pollution. 334 (2023) 122094. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/environmental-pollution 12 Petrass, Lauren; Dara Twomey; Jack Harvey “Understanding how the components of a synthetic turf system contribute to increased surface temperature” Procedia Engineering 72 (2-14) 943-948). 13 Jim, C. Y. 2017. “Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment”. Landscape and Urban Planning 157 (January): 561–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012. 15 FEAF ITEM CLARIFICATION A Town Planning Board member brought up that on page 12 of the FEAF provided with the October 2024 materials submission, item E.3.b. “Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present?” is checked “Yes” but acreage is not provided. Although it is true that the NRCS Web Soil Survey (WSS) map notes “highly productive soils” in this area, the information supporting this classification has not been updated since 2003. According to USDA soil mapping, the soil in this area is Erie Channery Silt Loam (EbB) and Chenango Gravelly Loam (CdC). While these soils do not meet the USDA criteria for Prime Farmland they are classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project site was last in agricultural production (hay field) more than 20 years ago. Neither the project site nor any adjacent Cornell lands in the vicinity are located within an Agricultural District or Farmland Protection Zone. The existing project site consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a gravel drive lane; is adjacent to two other improved soccer fields; and is currently characterized by mowed grass, surrounded by fallow fields. The project will disturb approximately 0.40 acres of previously undeveloped land. 16 LONG-TERM PLANS At the December 17, 2024 Town Planning Board meeting, the Cornell team presented an overview of the past, present, and future growth projections for the Game Farm Road site. Below is a brief history of how long-term plans for the Game Farm Road lands have evolved. Beginning in 2003/4, Cornell began working with the Town of Ithaca seek approvals for the development of McGovern Fields and Fieldhouse: 4 grass soccer fields at Game Farm Road, a small support building, athletic lighting, and a new driveway with parking. That project was completed in 2006. At that time, Cornell’s 2008 Campus Master Plan was kicking off, and that plan expanded this new athletic use at Game Farm Road, imagining a new athletics complex hosting 8 field and facility-based sports, alongside open space and housing. In 2015, as development pressure on campus - particularly on Alumni Fields – was increasing, a further in-depth build out and capacity analysis was completed by Stantec on behalf of Cornell, yielding the Game Farm Road Master Plan. This plan identified environmental and physical attributes, required infrastructure and utilities, as well as enabling projects and siting work needed. This 2015 plan sought to determine what the maximum athletic development at Game Farm Road might be, totaling 10+ field sports (including Field Hockey), a large indoor facility, a complete road and parking system, alongside a small residential area and open space. These plans helped the University understand the true costs and logistics required with moving field sports from main campus. Both planning efforts advanced the vision for how the Game Farm Road site might evolve into an athletics complex over time. Each plan deepened knowledge about the long-term potential of the site and, more importantly, its constraints: natural and physical characteristics, existing and required infrastructure, and true costs of athletic facility and infrastructure development. The Game Farm Road site is expected to grow slowly and incrementally, one sport at a time (as has happened to date), rather than as a fully built-out development. In 2021, Cornell launched a project to find a new home for its varsity baseball team and immediately looked to Game Farm Road. The previous two plans envisioned baseball would relocate to this area, but the siting of the field and facilities was updated to bring it toward the center of the development site, providing a connection via Ellis Hollow Road. Booth Baseball field, batting facility, and team facility were completed in 2023. In 2023, a new Athletics Director at Cornell refined the vision for Game Farm Road, focusing future development on single-use fields supporting varsity sports. In 2024, Cornell proposed another project to come to Game Farm Road: varsity field hockey. This current field has been expected to move to Game Farm Road for approximately 10 years, as shown in the 2015 Game Farm Road Master Plan. At this time, the team reviewed and revised projected build-out at the site for the next 10-20 years to reflect the new athletics vision, showing a maximum development potential of seven total fields at the entire Game Farm Road site: four grass and three turf, along with two connected roads, support buildings and code-required parking. For comparison, today there are three grass fields and one synthetic turf field, and there is one proposed synthetic turf field hockey field in project review. For a site that exceeds 105+ acres, this is a low-density athletics complex that will continue to fit into its local suburban and farm field environs. 17 BARN INFORMATION The Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department requested more information regarding a structure that is on the easternmost project parcel. This existing building is an 854-square foot wood barn referred to as the “Casey Tract 2” barn. It is a 1950 structure located south of the NYSEG overhead transmission lines and easement area and is more than 230 feet from the project limit line/nearest area of project disturbance (septic field). The barn will not be impacted by the project. A project location exhibit map that includes all three parcels that are part of the project site as well as the Casey Tract 2 barn’s location relative to the project area is provided (see Appendix 4). STREAM SETBACK LAW The Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department also noted in their project review letter that “according to the steam setback map of the Town of Ithaca, this parcel appears to be impacted by a 100’ stream setback that needs to be identified on the plans submitted. The “bank full run” need to be established and then the stream setback needs to be delineated to determine what impact this project will have on the stream setback”. Per the Town of Ithaca law, Cascadilla Creek has a drainage area of 1,500 acres or greater and therefore requires a minimum stream setback width of 100’, inclusive of Zones 1 and 2. Additionally, when streamside wetlands or slopes 25% or greater are present, the Zone 1 setback width must be adjusted for these physical conditions. Using publicly available wetlands mapping and LiDAR contour data, these conditions and resulting Zones 1 and 2 boundaries are depicted on the Stream Setback Exhibit. The source of this data and delineation of the Zone 1 and 2 setbacks were reviewed with the Town CEO on January 17, 2025. No part of the project falls within Zone 1. A small area (approximately 1,800 sf) of the proposed extended detention shallow wetland falls within Zone 2. The land disturbing activity associated with the proposed stormwater wetland is allowed within Zone 2 per Town Code. Please see the Stream Setback Exhibit included in this package for a detailed diagram (Appendix 5). UPDATED PHOTOMETRICS DIAGRAM Two photometrics diagrams were provided with the October 2024 materials submission; one for the field athletic lighting and one for the pedestrian site lighting. In their project review letter, the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department requested drawings with all the project lighting calculated on one photometric plan and the planning board members echoed this sentiment during their meeting. Lighting for pedestrians will include twenty-two 20’ pole-mounted fixtures. These fixtures will be dark sky compliant with color a temperature of 3,000K. Site lighting levels have been designed for safety and security connecting primary pedestrian paths to the facilities and parking areas. For the athletic field lighting, four 70’ tall light poles are proposed. The fixtures will have sharp cut off features and will be fully shielded, per Ithaca lighting code, thereby projecting light below a horizontal plane through the luminaire’s lowest light-emitting part. Per NCAA requirements for safety, playability, and recording, they will have a color temperature of 5,700K. 18 A diagram of the photometrics is included below. The technical photometric plan sheets are included in this submission (see Appendix 6). Additionally, we have provided 1 full-size copy of the photometrics drawings for the town code officials to review. Figure: Combined Photometrics Diagram 19 ENERGY CODE CHECKLIST In their project review letter, the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department asked that the Ithaca Energy Code checklist be submitted. The design of the phase I buildings includes heat pumps with all components within the thermal envelope of the building. Cornell will allocate 4,800 kWh of its renewable energy portfolio annually to be in compliance with IECS for the press box building. For the restroom/team room building, Cornell will allocate 18,996 kWh of its renewable energy portfolio annually. The project will comply with the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS). As there are two buildings planned for Phase I of this project, there are two checklists and respective memos provided with this submission – one for the restroom building (Appendix 7) and one for the press box building (Appendix 8). A checklist for the Phase II building has not been provided since it has yet to be designed. The phase II building will also comply with the Ithaca Energy Code supplement. 21 Appendices 23 Appendix 1: Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Verified Position 25 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS _________________________________________ ZERO WASTE ITHACA, Petitioner, Index No. EF2024-0816 v. Justice Mark G. Masler ITHACA CITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Respondents. __________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO VERIFIED PETITION JARED M. PITTMAN, ESQ. ADAM G. PENCE, ESQ. Attorneys for Respondent Cornell University Office and Post Office Address Cornell University Sage House 118 Sage Place Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 255-5124 CI2025-01699 Index # : EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 1 of 30 26 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .......................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ...............................................................................................................2 I. Cornell’s Application ...........................................................................................................2 II. Extensive Planning Board Review Focuses on Specific Environmental Concerns .............3 A. Cornell Submits Information Responding to Environmental Concerns .......................4 B. Planning Board Receives Independent Expert Analysis ..............................................6 III. The Negative Declaration ....................................................................................................6 IV. The Planning Board Issues Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval ...............................8 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................9 I. Petitioner Lacks Standing and Capacity to Bring this Proceeding ......................................9 A. Petitioner Lacks Standing Because Its Members Have Suffered No Injury Differentiated from the General Public .........................................9 B. Petitioner’s Status as an Unincorporated Association With Limited Capacity To File Suit Should Not Be Excused, Particularly in Light of Its Attempt To Seek Injunctive Relief ..........................................................14 II. The City Planning Board Took the Required “Hard Look” at Potential Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................16 A. Standard of Review ......................................................................................................16 B. The Planning Board Took a Hard Look and Issued a Reasoned Determination ................................................................................17 C. The Negative Declaration Was Not Conditional ..........................................................22 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................24 CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 2 of 30 27 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages Bonded Concrete, Inc. v. Town of Saugerties, 42 A.D.3d 852 (3d Dep’t 2007) ...............................................................................................15 Briuner v. Town of Schodack Planning Bd., 178 A.D.3d 1181 (3d Dep’t 2019) ...........................................................................................17 Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine v. Dorm. Auth. of State of N.Y., 224 A.D.2d 95 (3d Dep’t 1996) ...............................................................................................22 Citizens Emerg. Comm. to Pres. Preservation v. Tierney, 70 A.D.3d 576 (1st Dept 2010) ................................................................................................12 Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v. Town of Moreau Planning Bd., 79 Misc 3d 1219(A) (Sup. Ct. Saratoga Cnty. 2023).........................................................19, 20 Clean Water Advocates of New York, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conserv., 103 A.D.3d 1006 (3d Dep’t 2013) .......................................................................................9, 13 Cmty. Bd. 7 of Borough of Manhattan v. Schaffer, 84 N.Y.2d 148 (1994) ..............................................................................................................14 Elizabeth Street Garden, Inc. v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.3d 992 (2024) ..............................................................................................................16 Ellsworth v. Town of Malta, 16 A.D.3d 948 (3d Dep’t 2005) ...............................................................................................19 Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coal., Inc. v. Martens, 95 A.D.3d 1420 (3d Dep’t 2012) ...............................................................................................9 Friends of the Shawnagunks v. Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., 224 A.D.3d 961 (3d Dep’t 2024) .............................................................................................12 Gallahan v. Planning Bd. of City of Ithaca, 307 A.D.2d 684 (3d Dep’t 2003) .............................................................................................13 Gladstone v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Southampton, 13 A.D.3d 445 (2d Dep’t 2004) ...............................................................................................18 Heritage Coal., Inc. v. City of Ithaca Planning and Dev. Bd., 228 A.D.2d 862 (3d Dep’t 1996) .............................................................................................13 CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 3 of 30 28 iii Hohman v. Town of Poestenkill, 179 A.D.3d 1172 (3d Dep’t 2020) .....................................................................................10, 13 Martin v. Curran, 303 N.Y. 276 (1951) ................................................................................................................14 Matter of Pelham Council of Governing Bds. v. City of Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency, 187 Misc.2d 444 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 2001) ...............................................................14 Merson v. McNally, 90 N.Y.2d 742 (1997) ........................................................................................................22, 23 New York City Coal. for the Preserv. of Gardens v. Giuliani, 246 A.D.2d 399 (1st Dep’t 1998) ........................................................................................9, 12 Niagara Preserv. Coal., Inc. v. New York Power Auth., 121 A.D.3d 1507 (4th Dep’t 2014) ..........................................................................................12 Powers v. de Groodt, 43 A.D.3d 509 (3d Dep’t 2007) .................................................................................................9 Rourke Devs. Inc. v. Cottrell-Hajeck Inc., 285 A.D.2d 805 (3d Dep’t 2001) .............................................................................................15 Save Our Main St. Bldgs. v. Greene County Legis., 293 A.D.2d 907 (3d Dep’t 2002) ...........................................................................10, 11, 12, 13 Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297 (2009) ..................................................................................................10, 12, 18 Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Town of Guilderland, 205 A.D.3d 1120 (3d Dep’t 2022) ...............................................................................16, 18, 20 Soc’y of Plastics Indus., Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761 (1991) ..........................................................................................................9, 10 Sunrise Plaza Assocs. v. Int’l Equities Corp., 212 A.D.2d 690 (2d Dep’t 1995) .............................................................................................15 Toll Land Ltd. P’ship v. Planning Bd. of Vill. of Tarrytown, 12 N.Y.S.3d 874 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 2015) ...............................................................15 Town of Mamakating v. Vill. Of Bloomingburg, 174 A.D.3d 1175 (3d Dep’t 2019) ...........................................................................................19 CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 4 of 30 29 iv Van Dyk v. Town of Greenfield Planning Bd., 190 A.D.3d 1048 (3d Dep’t 2021) ...........................................................................................21 Vill. of Ballston Spa v. City of Saratoga Springs, 163 A.D.3d 1220 (3d Dep’t 2018) ...........................................................................................17 W. Beekmantown Neigh. Ass’n, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Beekmantown, 53 A.D.3d 954 (3d Dep’t 2008) ...............................................................................................23 WEOK Broad. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373 (1992) ........................................................................................................17, 18 Statutes Pages CPLR Rule 6312(b) .......................................................................................................................15 6 NYCRR §§617.4(a) and (a)(1) ...................................................................................................17 6 NYCRR §617.1(d) ......................................................................................................................17 6 NYCRR §617.7(d) ......................................................................................................................22 N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §8-103(7) .............................................................................................17 N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §27-3313(2) .........................................................................................20 N.Y. Gen. Ass’ns Law §12 ............................................................................................................14 CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 5 of 30 30 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT At numerous public meetings held over the course of eight months, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”) conducted environmental quality and site plan review of Cornell University’s proposed Meinig Fieldhouse project (“Project”) in full compliance with State and City law. The Project—located on Cornell’s central campus and composed of an indoor athletic field, as well as a general purpose outdoor athletic field, both synthetic turf playing surfaces—is located on previously existing athletic fields, including a synthetic turf field hockey field, reserved for the use of Cornell’s Department of Athletics and Physical Education. The Planning Board entertained a vigorous debate over the Project’s environmental impacts. The Record in this case is over 3,500 pages. The Planning Board heard nearly two hours of public comment, received over six hundred pages of written comments, and discussed the issues for two and a half hours at meetings (in addition to the time they spent reviewing the material in advance of meetings). They also considered comments from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. After extensive review, the Planning Board unanimously determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. As an initial matter, Petitioner lacks standing to bring this proceeding. New York courts have held consistently that a petitioner must allege an actual injury sufficiently distinct from that of the general public in order to challenge a State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) determination. Petitioner’s only alleged injury is that two of its “members” work in office locations near the project site and enjoy a connection to “nature” provided by viewing athletic fields when they occasionally take breaks in the area. This is plainly insufficient and fatal to Petitioner’s case. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 6 of 30 31 2 On the merits, Petitioner vociferously disagrees with the Planning Board’s determination that the Project would not have a significant environmental impact. However, weighing the information submitted, determining which issues require analysis, taking a hard look, and providing a reasoned explanation is the province of the Planning Board alone—and it did exactly that. The negative declaration was not arbitrary and capricious, and the Petition should be dismissed with prejudice. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Cornell’s Application In December 2023, Cornell first proposed the Project to greatly expand access for recreation, physical education, club team, and intercollegiate athletic activities throughout the year to nearly 5,000 students per year. (Record (“R”) 0047-0162; R3487.) The fieldhouse would contain an indoor, synthetic turf field, with an adjacent outdoor synthetic turf field, to be “manufactured without PFAS.” (R0049, R0051, R0095.) The entire proposed Project site was previously developed as an outdoor sports complex with natural grass and synthetic turf fields, and spectator viewing areas surrounded by a black chain link fence and a parking lot. (R0003, R0012.) Further, the area was for authorized athletics use only, with signage by the secured entrance stating: “ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT USE ONLY – NO UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES PERMITTED”. (Affirmation of Asa J. Schindler, ¶¶4-6 & Ex.A.) This portion of central campus is highly developed: the site is “bounded by Tower Road on the north, Weill Hall on the west, Bartels Hall and parking lot to the south, and the Robert J. Kane Sports Complex Field on the east.” (R0003.) There are natural green spaces nearby, “including Cornell Botanic Gardens, Minns Garden, Rockwell Azalea Garden, Libe Sope, and other green spaces on campus” including the CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 7 of 30 32 3 Arts Quad and Ag Quad. (R0003; R0060-0061.) The Project was a Type I action for SEQRA1 purposes, and Cornell included a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”) with its initial application in December 2023. (R0027-0039.) The Planning Board served as lead agency for SEQRA review. (R3121.) In early 2024, Cornell revised the Project proposal to include a general purpose, synthetic turf athletic field that would allow for use by a greater number of Cornell community members, rather than a new field hockey field. (R0184-0185.) The synthetic turf proposed was based on independent, international standards for such surfaces. (R0193-0194.) The use of synthetic turf is mandatory for the indoor field in the fieldhouse, and the decision to propose synthetic turf for the outdoor field was informed by the local climate, recreational and athletics use needs, and the simple fact that grass in Ithaca has little potential for growth from November to April—most of the academic year. (R0194-0195.) II. Extensive Planning Board Review Focuses on Specific Environmental Concerns The Planning Board reviewed the Project on eight occasions: four full Planning Board meetings (R00043-0679), and four Project Review Committee meetings (R1533-1632). At these meetings, the Project consumed nearly 20% of the Planning Board’s total time. The Planning Board held a 47-minute public hearing on June 25, 2024 (R0834), and heard additional public comment at other meetings. The Board’s review largely focused on the use of synthetic turf. Indeed, on January 23, 2024—the first time that the project was discussed by the Planning Board at a full meeting—the members asked Cornell to provide more information about synthetic turf (R0718-0719), and followed this up with additional questions and discussion at every meeting thereafter. (See, e.g., R0833-0835; R0842-0843.) 1. For this proceeding’s purposes, there are no substantive differences between SEQRA and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Accordingly, this brief simply refers to SEQRA. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 8 of 30 33 4 A. Cornell Submits Information Responding to Environmental Concerns In April 2024, Cornell submitted a memorandum from engineering and geology firm Haley Aldrich discussing issues raised by the community and Planning Board regarding synthetic turf. (R.0205-0216.) As detailed there: • There are no federal or state laws that prohibit the installation or use of synthetic turf. (R0206.) • “Over 100 scientific, peer-reviewed, published studies have been performed worldwide evaluating the potential health risks associated with turf fields that use crumb rubber. We are not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies which draw an association between adverse health effects and use of crumb rubber. Similarly, the New York State Department of Health concluded that synthetic turf fields that use crumb rubber infill pose a low concern regarding health risks.” (R0208.) After additional pages discussing research on this topic, the memo concluded that “the chemicals that are in crumb rubber infill are unlikely to come out of the materials at concentrations that would harm people or the environment.” (R0211.) • The scientific literature also indicated that synthetic turf is not a significant source of PFAS in the environment. Indeed, although PFAS is “present in the environment (soil, surface water, groundwater, air, and even rainwater) as a background condition” (R0213), the literature indicated that “fewer PFAS compounds were detected in synthetic turf, and at lower concentrations, than those that are present as a background condition in soil.” (R0214.) CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 9 of 30 34 5 • Testing of synthetic turf indicated that “[m]ost SVOCs [semi-volatile organic compounds] were not detected, and those that were detected were below standards and screening levels.” (R0212.) Cornell also submitted additional information responding to concerns raised by the public. (R0217-R0223.) For instance, “[e]missions of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) from synthetic turf into the atmosphere were generally not detectable at 77F, and only increased slightly at 140F.” (R0218.) With respect to PFAS, the consultants clarified that “PFAS is not a chemical that is added to synthetic turf components.” (R0219.) The Planning Board also considered numerous other scientific studies that had analyzed potential health concerns related to synthetic turf, and found those concerns unfounded, including an April 2024 report from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (R1648-2826), addressing inter alia VOC emissions from synthetic turf fields, and a 2018 study by the New York State Department of Health on a variety of alleged synthetic turf impacts. (R3148-R3159.) On May 21, 2024, the Planning Board approved the FEAF Part 2, which identified several environmental areas on which the Project could potentially have a moderate to large impact (R0017-0026), including stormwater discharge and construction impacts. This guided the Planning Board’s further environmental review. At various times throughout the environmental review process, certain individuals submitted a lengthy, self-proclaimed “bibliography” to the Planning Board, purportedly supporting their claims of significant environmental impacts. (R0899-0948.) In addition to the other information it had provided, Cornell submitted specific responses to portions of the “bibliography,” noting that those studies were irrelevant to the proposed Project, did not support CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 10 of 30 35 6 the assertions made by the submitters, or were contradicted by other research identified for the Planning Board. (R0637-0644.) B. Planning Board Receives Independent Expert Analysis The Planning Board also specifically requested independent analysis of the proposal from Dr. Frank Rossi, a New York State Extension Turfgrass Specialist and The Richard C. Call Director of the Agricultural Sciences Major at Cornell, regarding the various alleged impacts and the feasibility of a non-synthetic turf installation. Dr. Rossi submitted an August 29, 2024 letter to the Planning Board that specifically addressed several topics raised by community members, including PFAS and microplastic shedding. (R0622-0623.) In particular, Dr. Rossi detailed that eliminating crumb rubber infill addressed most of the PFAS concerns, and that the Project’s proposed stormwater management practices that would filter out particles down to 0.212 millimeters were substantially similar to the types of practices recommended in recent European research and otherwise adequate. (Id.) III. The Negative Declaration The culmination of this intense review was the Planning Board’s September 3, 2024 meeting. (https://www.youtube.com/live/-BwHQb6DYuI?t=12135.)2 During its presentation at this meeting, Cornell once again addressed the various potential impacts identified by the FEAF: • Cornell confirmed that the selected synthetic turf product would comply with New York Environmental Conservation Law regarding PFAS in carpets. • The university stated that the synthetic turf outdoor field would use plant-based infill, instead of crumb rubber infill as originally proposed. 2. The Record includes links to these recordings. (R1532.) Cornell includes timestamped links for the Court’s convenience. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 11 of 30 36 7 • Cornell and its consultants explained how the stormwater filtering system was designed to restrict the migration of microplastics off the site. After the presentation, the Planning Board spent thirty minutes asking additional questions and discussing the issues. In its discussions and the drafting of the negative declaration, the Planning Board thoroughly evaluated the various potential impacts from the installation of synthetic turf, including information from the public, government agencies, and experts on PFAS, microplastics, and human health aspects of the use of synthetic turf. (Id.) T he Planning Board chair stated, “We have the whole project team here with us. Let’s take advantage of that and ask as many questions as we need to work through SEQRA tonight.” The Planning Board members asked questions and explained their reasoning for finding that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. One Board member explained that he had thought a lot about the project, reading the materials submitted, and that his concerns had boiled down to PFAS and crumb rubber infill, and that Cornell’s presentation had addressed his concerns. (https://www.youtube.com/live/-BwHQb6DYuI?t=13401.) A second Board member found the presentation and written submissions helpful, and was pleased that the synthetic turf would comply with the upcoming New York State law regarding PFAS, and stated that the additional information regarding the microplastic filtering provided by the stormwater management system answered his concerns. (https://www.youtube.com/live/- BwHQb6DYuI?t=13693.) A third Board member asked follow-up questions about heat island effects (https://www.youtube.com/live/-BwHQb6DYuI?t=13917), which Cornell answered with information from its previous submissions about the limited impact of synthetic turf on urban heat islands, and also clarified that the use of plant-based infill has been shown to reduce heat impacts from synthetic turf. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 12 of 30 37 8 Finally, the Board chair stated that she felt the use of synthetic turf was the best option for the Project, and that the voluntary switch to plant-based infill addressed the concerns she had about the use of crumb rubber infill (https://www.youtube.com/live/-BwHQb6DYuI?t=14087). Cornell’s civil engineer answered her questions about drainage patterns and the stormwater treatment practices on the site that would prevent migration of microplastics larger than .212 millimeters, and that this would capture most microplastics that could otherwise migrate in stormwater. This was confirmed by the letter from Dr. Rossi, who also endorsed the stormwater management approach being used with reference to international studies. (R0622-0623.) The Planning Board also asked follow-up questions throughout the discussion about whether this would also be effective against microplastics from the synthetic turf blades, which Cornell answered. Following that lengthy discussion, the Planning Board spent almost half an hour revising the FEAF Part 3 and negative declaration to reflect the information and discussions from that evening, including specifically PFAS, plant-based infill, and microplastic shedding. (https://www.youtube.com/live/-BwHQb6DYuI?t=14612s.) The Planning Board unanimously approved the negative declaration resolution. (R0001-0002.) IV. The Planning Board Issues Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval On September 26, 2024, the Planning Board issued preliminary and final site plan approval for the Project. (R0040-0042.) That site plan approval requires Cornell to obtain third-party testing of the selected synthetic turf product for PFAS and submit the results. (R0041.) CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 13 of 30 38 9 ARGUMENT I. Petitioner Lacks Standing and Capacity to Bring this Proceeding A. Petitioner Lacks Standing Because Its Members Have Suffered No Injury Differentiated from the General Public Petitioner’s failure to allege any injury different from what the general public would suffer as a result of the Negative Declaration mandates dismissal. For organizational standing, Petitioner foundationally must prove (among other things) that “one or more of its members would have standing to sue. Soc’y of Plastics Indus., Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 775 (1991). Petitioner must “factually demonstrate a specific, actual and concrete injury,” Powers v. de Groodt, 43 A.D.3d 509, 513 (3d Dep’t 2007) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition for lack of standing), suffered by its member(s) that “is distinct from harm experienced by the general public.” Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coal., Inc. v. Martens, 95 A.D.3d 1420, 1422 (3d Dep’t 2012) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition for lack of standing). “It is now settled that standing to assert a claim based upon an impact upon a natural or cultural resource ‘require[es] a demonstration that a[n individual’s] use of a resource is more than that of the general public.’” Clean Water Advocates of New York, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conserv., 103 A.D.3d 1006, 1008-09 (3d Dep’t 2013) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition because petitioner did not allege members used resource more than the general public) (internal citation omitted). Additionally, a petitioner must have a legal right to use the natural resource in question to have standing. In New York City Coal. for the Preserv. of Gardens v. Giuliani, 246 A.D.2d 399 (1st Dep’t 1998), aff’g 670 N.Y.S.2d 654, the Court dismissed a SEQRA petition on standing even though the petitioners had maintained community gardens on the sites pursuant to revocable licenses for a substantial time period. “[W]here petitioners have no legal right to be present on property, that is, where they lack license, lease or other evidence of legal claim or right to use the CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 14 of 30 39 10 property in question, they are without standing to challenge administrative decisions affecting that property.” 670 N.Y.S.2d at 659 (emphasis in original). Notably, proximity alone is insufficient even if an individual owns nearby property. Hohman v. Town of Poestenkill, 179 A.D.3d 1172, 1174 (3d Dep’t 2020) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA based on standing; immediately adjacent property owners failed to allege unique or distinct injury); Save Our Main St. Bldgs. v. Greene County Legis., 293 A.D.2d 907, 908 (3d Dep’t 2002) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition based on standing) (“[W]hen no zoning-related issue is involved, there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA challenge based on a party’s close proximity alone.”). Standing in SEQRA cases is not “automatic, [n]or can [it] be met by perfunctory allegations of harm. Plaintiffs must not only allege, but if the issue is disputed must prove, that their injury is real and different from the injury most members of the public face.” Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 306 (2009). Standing requirements are “particularly meaningful in SEQRA litigation, where challenges unrelated to environmental concerns can generate interminable delay and interference.” Soc’y of Plastics Indus., Inc., 77 N.Y.2d at 774. Allowing “everyone to seek [SEQRA] review could work against the welfare of the community by proliferating litigation, especially at the instance of special interest groups, and by unduly delaying final dispositions.” Id. at 779 (internal quotations and citation omitted) (“Citizens have an interest in efficient governmental action as well as … adequate environmental review.”). Petitioner submits two affirmations from “members” in an attempt to manufacture standing; both fail to allege a specific, actual, and concrete harm or injury differentiated from that of the general public. First, Emily Jernigan alleges that: (i) she is a full-time staff member at Cornell; (ii) “My office is close to the proposed site for the construction;” (iii) she “sometimes CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 15 of 30 40 11 take[s] breaks in the area”; and (iv) the installation of a synthetic turf field “will negatively impact my mental health and sense of well-being.” (NYSCEF Doc. 10, ¶¶4-5.) Second, Amina Mohamed, a graduate student at Cornell (NYSCEF Doc. 11, ¶4), alleges that: (i) “My office is right next to the proposed site for the construction, and we will lose precious true green space;” (ii) she “often take[s] breaks in the area;” and (iii) the Project will “impact my mental health and sense of well- being” because synthetic turf “will diminish the sense of calm and connection to nature that” the project site currently provides. (Id. ¶ 6.) These affirmations fall well short of the mark. First, like the general rule that residential proximity is not sufficient for standing, an individual’s place of work being located near a project site has little relevance alone. Save Our Main Street Blds., 293 A.D.2d at 908-09 (holding petitioner’s business location two blocks from project site was inadequate to establish standing). And, even if it were relevant, Ms. Jernigan’s office is not “close” to the site. Her office is located in Comstock Hall, which is over 560 feet from the nearest boundary of the proposed construction site, and is separated from the site by several multistory buildings that block any view of the Project. (Affirmation of Leslie F. Schill, ¶4.) Similarly, despite Ms. Mohamed’s claim that her office is “right next” to the proposed site, her office is located in Corson Hall, approximately 265 feet from any portion of the Project site, and similarly is blocked from a view of the Project by an existing multistory building. (Id. ¶5.) The affiants have no property interest either in their current office locations or the use of the Project site, which is limited to authorized athletics uses only. (Schindler Aff., ¶¶4-5.) Second, the affiants’ choices to “take breaks in the area” either “sometimes” or “often,” and alleged mental health effects of the Project, are insufficient for standing. They do not allege that they ever actually used either the synthetic turf or natural grass fields that already existed; indeed, because the use of the fields was restricted, they had no legal right to do so. Even where a CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 16 of 30 41 12 petitioner has actually used a project site for years pursuant to a license from the owner, revocation of that permission deprives a petitioner of standing. New York City Coal. for the Preserv. of Gardens, 670 N.Y.S.2d at 658-59 (finding no standing despite the “extraordinary efforts made by community members and others to establish and maintain the gardens in question”). The affiants’ alleged injuries are indistinguishable from those of any member of the Cornell community or general public who walks on a nearby sidewalk or drives along Tower Road. This is significant. The cases finding an individual’s regular and repeated recreational use of a natural area sufficient for standing focused on actual use or enjoyment of unique attributes of the actual location that exceed that of the general public. Compare Niagara Preserv. Coal., Inc. v. New York Power Auth., 121 A.D.3d 1507, 1510 (4th Dep’t 2014) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition because organization “failed to establish an injury distinct from members of the public who use the gorge trail to access the ruins of the former hydroelectric plant”) and Citizens Emerg. Comm. to Pres. Preservation v. Tierney, 70 A.D.3d 576, 576 (1st Dept 2010) (affirming dismissal of Article 78 petition; “A general—or even special—interest in the subject matter is insufficient to confer standing”) with Save the Pine Bush, Inc., 13 N.Y.3d at 306 (finding standing where petitioners alleged they regularly “use the Pine Bush for recreation and to study and enjoy the unique habitat found there” and their “use of [the] resource is more than that of the general public”) and Friends of the Shawnagunks v. Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., 224 A.D.3d 961, 963 (3d Dep’t 2024) (finding that petitioner had organizational standing where two members regularly hiked in Shawangunk Ridge Preservation District and had interest in flora and fauna “specific to the area”). Petitioner’s affiants do not allege they ever used the Project site a single time; they only assert that they take breaks on an infrequent basis near or around the project site, a standing argument the Third Department has rejected. Save Our Main Street Bldgs., 293 A.D.2d at 908 CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 17 of 30 42 13 (individual lacked standing even though she “regularly conducts educational walks through [an area] to highlight the historic and aesthetic qualities”). Petitioner fails to include allegations, let alone factual evidence, that these two members’ use of the area around the project site “is more than that of the general public.” Clean Water Advocates, 103 A.D.3d at 1008-09; cf. Heritage Coal., Inc. v. City of Ithaca Planning and Dev. Bd., 228 A.D.2d 862, 864-65 (3d Dep’t 1996) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition based on standing, and holding “the diminution of [an individual’s] appreciation” of building was not sufficient injury). Finally, despite the conclusory allegations that the installation of a synthetic turf field in this location will affect the affiants’ mental health and diminish their “sense of calm and connection to nature,” this is already a developed and disturbed site. In Hohman, the Third Department held that the petitioner’s allegations of harm were speculative and conjectural where the proposed project did not involve a “change in the use or character of the nature preserve.” 179 A.D.3d at 1174-75. Not only did Alumni Fields already contain a synthetic turf field; the remainder of the site consisted of regularly mowed natural grass athletic fields with soccer goals and goalposts surrounded by several multi-story buildings, a busy campus road, and a separate outdoor track and field complex. (R0001; R0058-0061.) The affiants do not allege that they can even see the Project site from their offices (because they cannot), and even if they could this is hardly the stuff of an alteration to a unique scenic nature preserve, aesthetic viewshed, or other natural resource that could support a finding of standing. Save Our Main St. Bldgs., 293 A.D.2d at 909 (affirming dismissal of petition where individuals could not see project site from their residence or business); Gallahan v. Planning Bd. of City of Ithaca, 307 A.D.2d 684, 685 (3d Dep’t 2003) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA petition where individual lived 700 feet from project site, separated by commercial buildings and roads; even though petitioner could see project site from her residence, CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 18 of 30 43 14 the project site located on abandoned landfill was not a “scenic view”). If affiants desire a “connection to nature” they, like everyone else, can take a short walk to the nearby Cornell Botanic Gardens and F.R. Newman Arboretum, which provide the general public 175 acres of green space. B. Petitioner’s Status as an Unincorporated Association With Limited Capacity To File Suit Should Not Be Excused, Particularly in Light of Its Attempt To Seek Injunctive Relief Petitioner also lacks legal capacity to maintain this special proceeding. Petitioner is a “fiscally sponsored organization” (NYSCEF Doc. 9 ¶6). Upon information and belief, and according to Petitioner’s website, Petitioner is an informal association of individuals, not a legal entity. Accordingly, Petitioner is an unincorporated association lacking capacity to sue in its own name. “A voluntary, unincorporated membership association is neither a partnership nor a corporation. It is not an artificial person, and has no existence independent of its members.” Martin v. Curran, 303 N.Y. 276, 280 (1951). Unincorporated associations are “voluntary congregate entities … accorded the capacity to bring suit through their presidents or treasurers by statute.” Cmty. Bd. 7 of Borough of Manhattan v. Schaffer, 84 N.Y.2d 148, 155 (1994) (emphasis added) (reversing and dismissing petition due to petitioner’s lack of capacity); N.Y. GEN. ASS’NS LAW §12. “Capacity, in contrast [to standing], concerns a litigant’s power to appear and bring its grievance before the court.” Cmty. Bd. 7 at 155 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where an organization has no president or treasurer—and ZWI does not allege that it has either—“the court must examine the organization’s structure to determine if the person who commenced the action is an elected or de facto officer performing equivalent functions and responsibilities.” Matter of Pelham Council of Governing Bds. v. City of Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency, 187 Misc.2d 444, 447 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 2001) (internal citations omitted). Koizumi asserts she is Petitioner’s founder (NYSCEF Doc. 9 ¶2) but offers no details about her organizational role CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 19 of 30 44 15 or who performs the “equivalent functions and responsibilities” of president or treasurer. And, she is not a named petitioner. Granted, courts can excuse an unincorporated association’s lack of capacity in the absence of prejudice to other litigating parties. E.g., Toll Land Ltd. P’ship v. Planning Bd. of Vill. of Tarrytown, 12 N.Y.S.3d 874, 883 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 2015) (holding that unincorporated association lacked capacity “to sue in its own name”, but providing time to cure due to lack of prejudice). Here, however, Cornell is prejudiced. Once already Petitioner has moved by Order to Show Cause for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt construction of the Project during this litigation. (NYSCEF Docs. 28-30.) The Court denied the motion, but permitted Petitioner to seek injunctive relief in the future. (NYSCEF Doc. 32.) CPLR Rule 6312(b) requires that a successful movant for a preliminary injunction post an undertaking set by the Court to protect the enjoined party from financial damages if the enjoined party is ultimately successful in the litigation. This undertaking is mandatory, Rourke Devs. Inc. v. Cottrell-Hajeck Inc., 285 A.D.2d 805, 805 (3d Dep’t 2001) (modifying preliminary injunction to require movant to give undertaking), and limits the amount of damages that can be attributed to the injunction. Bonded Concrete, Inc. v. Town of Saugerties, 42 A.D.3d 852, 854 (3d Dep’t 2007). Upon information and belief, the sole petitioner in this proceeding is an unincorporated association of individuals that does not appear willing or able to give an undertaking. This would have significant prejudice to Cornell, which would conservatively incur construction escalation costs exceeding $300,000 per month if construction were halted. See Sunrise Plaza Assocs. v. Int’l Equities Corp., 212 A.D.2d 690, 691 (2d Dep’t 1995) (damages for erroneously granted preliminary injunctions include increased construction costs). Accordingly, Petitioner’s lack of capacity should not be excused, and the Petition should be dismissed. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 20 of 30 45 16 II. The City Planning Board Took the Required “Hard Look” at Potential Environmental Impacts Even if Petitioner had standing and capacity, on this record the petition is meritless. The Planning Board received a litany of documentation, heard hours of public comments, and engaged in hours more of deliberation (including extensive questioning of Cornell and requests for additional information) before reaching its conclusion. The negative declaration and the underlying record reflect the Planning Board’s careful assessment of which potential environmental impacts to review and the information it received on those impacts and the benefits of the Project—from (i) Cornell and its consultants; (ii) Petitioner and other community activists generally opposed to any installation of synthetic turf; (iii) independent experts; and (iv) student- athletes. No matter how much Petitioner disagrees with the Planning Board’s conclusion, Petitioner cannot establish that the Planning Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This failure requires dismissal of the Petition. A. Standard of Review Respectfully, this Court’s role in this proceeding is limited. The lead agency’s determination may not be disturbed “so long as [it] identified the pertinent areas of environmental concern, took a ‘hard look’ at them, and made a ‘reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination.” Elizabeth Street Garden, Inc. v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.3d 992, 994 (2024) (affirming dismissal of SEQRA challenge). As the Third Department has explained, “[o]ur sole function, in short, is to assure that the agency has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively, and we neither can nor will evaluate data de novo, weigh the desirability of any particular action, choose among alternatives or otherwise substitute [our] judgment for that of the agency.” Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Town of Guilderland, 205 A.D.3d 1120, 1123 (3d Dep’t 2022) (affirming dismissal of petition) (internal citations and quotations omitted, alteration in original). CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 21 of 30 46 17 Petitioner’s argument is largely built on its repeated refrain that the Project is presumed to have a significant impact on the environment simply because it is a Type I project. (See, e.g., NYSCEF Doc. 25 at 6-7). While Type I projects are “likely to have a significant adverse impact” and are “more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted actions,” 6 NYCRR §§617.4(a) and (a)(1), the lead agency is still charged with assessing potential environmental impacts and determining whether an EIS is required. “A type I action does not, per se, necessitate the filing of an EIS.” Vi ll. of Ballston Spa v. City of Saratoga Springs, 163 A.D.3d 1220, 1223 (3d Dep’t 2018) (affirming dismissal of petition challenging negative declaration for Type I project). Courts have repeatedly dismissed petitions alleging that a Type I project improperly received a negative declaration. See, e.g., id.; Briuner v. Town of Schodack Planning Bd., 178 A.D.3d 1181, 1183-84 (3d Dep’t 2019) (affirming dismissal of petition challenging negative declaration for Type I project). The sole issue is whether the Planning Board took the required hard look and issued a reasoned explanation. It did, and the Petition should be dismissed. B. The Planning Board Took a Hard Look and Issued a Reasoned Determination SEQRA does not state that no building project can move forward unless the applicant can show that it will have no impact whatsoever on the environment. Rather, SEQRA’s purpose is to ensure that “[s]ocial, economic, and environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities.” N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW §8-103(7). “SEQRA seeks to strike a balance between social and economic goals and concerns about the environment … by requiring an agency to engage in a systematic balancing analysis.” WEOK Broad. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 380-81 (1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted)). “It is not the intention of SEQR that environmental factors be the sole consideration in decision-making.” 6 NYCRR §617.1(d). CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 22 of 30 47 18 Importantly, “[a]n agency complying with SEQRA need not investigate every conceivable environmental problem; it may, within reasonable limits, use its discretion in selecting which ones are relevant.” Save the Pine Bush, Inc., 13 N.Y.3d at 307 (reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing petition). “While it is essential that public agencies comply with their duties under SEQRA, some common sense in determining the extent of those duties is essential too.” Id. at 308. A petitioner’s disagreement with a planning board’s assessment of conflicting studies does not entitle it to relief. Save the Pine Bush, Inc., 205 A.D.3d at 1125 (“Although petitioner continues to argue that the studies upon which the Planning Board based its findings were incomplete and inaccurate, we cannot conclude that its decision to rely upon them was irrational, nor may we substitute our judgment as to the accuracy of the data presented.”); Gladstone v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Southampton, 13 A.D.3d 445, 445-46 (2d Dep’t 2004) (affirming denial of petition; “The record contains conflicting expert opinions regarding the environmental impact of the proposed project, and the Board was entitled to credit the findings of” the experts it relied on). A petitioner must come forward with particularized complaints: an agency’s reliance on “generalized, speculative comments and opinions of local residents and other agencies, would authorize agencies … to exercise unbridled discretion in making their determinations and would not fulfill SEQRA’s mandate that a balance be struck between social and economic goals and concerns about the environment.” WEOK Broad. Corp., 79 N.Y.2d at 384- 85 (reversing and dismissing petition). Further, the lead agency need not itemize in a negative declaration every piece of information it relied upon, considered, or rejected;. a reviewing court can look to the information in the record to supplement its review. “[E]ven if we agreed with petitioners that the reasoning provided by the Village Board of Trustees was not sufficiently elaborate, the ‘record is adequate CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 23 of 30 48 19 for us to exercise our supervisory review to determine that [it] strictly complied with SEQRA procedures.’” Town of Mamakating v. Vil l. Of Bloomingburg, 174 A.D.3d 1175, 1179 (3d Dep’t 2019) (affirming dismissal of petition, and quoting Ellsworth v. Town of Malta, 16 A.D.3d 948 (3d Dep’t 2005)); see also Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v. Town of Moreau Planning Bd., 79 Misc 3d 1219(A) at *22 (Sup. Ct. Saratoga Cnty. 2023) (dismissing petition with prejudice) (“Based on the Court’s review of the record, the Court finds that the Planning Board was fully aware of the manufacturing process and the potential environmental risks associated with the facility, but nonetheless considered those risks as insignificant based on the circumstances presented. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Planning Board provided a reasoned elaboration of the basis of its determination”). “[T]he Legislature has left the agencies with considerable latitude in determining environmental impacts.” Ellsworth, 16 A.D.3d at 950. Petitioners allege that the Planning Board failed to take a hard look at several issues tangentially related to the installation of synthetic turf, such as PFAS (NYSCEF Doc. 25, pp.8-9), microplastic shedding from the site (id., pp.9-10), air emissions (id., p.11), and VOCs and phthalates (id., p.13). However, as described in substantial detail above (supra, pp.3-8), the Record demonstrates that the Planning Board considered each of these potential environmental impacts of synthetic turf in great detail. It received, reviewed, and discussed thousands of pages of scientific literature, opinions and literature reviews from various consultants, and community feedback on these topics over the course of a months-long environmental review. It asked questions of Cornell about these issues at every meeting at which the Project was discussed, and specifically requested and received information from Dr. Frank Rossi, a turf grass expert independent from the project. Notably, although Dr. Rossi encourages the use of natural turf generally, he opined that synthetic CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 24 of 30 49 20 turf was appropriate for the Project, and that the design and product selection specifications were sufficient to limit any resulting environmental impacts. 1. PFAS The potential presence of PFAS in synthetic turf animated a large amount of public comment, written submissions, and discussion by the Planning Board. Petitioner submitted a number of links to documents that it purported would support its claim that the presence of PFAS in the proposed synthetic turf field would lead to environmental concerns, primarily based on studies that have been done of synthetic turf installations at different locations using turf manufactured by different companies. (R0899-0948.) However, Cornell also submitted expert information from its consultants rebutting these claims (supra, pp.4-5), and the Planning Board decided which authority was more compelling. Under Save the Pine Bush, Inc., 205 A.D.3d at 112 3, the Court must defer to the Planning Board’s judgment about which experts it credited at the conclusion of its review. Furthermore, the issue of PFAS is a red herring. Cornell voluntarily modified its project proposal to comply with a New York State law prohibiting the sale of any carpet (including synthetic turf) containing or treated with PFAS substances, even though that law does not take effect until December 31, 2026. N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW §27-3313(2); see Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1219(A) at *22 (holding that planning board rationally relied on project’s compliance with state regulatory requirements in issuing negative declaration). Petitioner claims that Cornell cannot comply, but supports that argument with nothing but unsubstantiated speculation. The Planning Board is entitled to defer to and rely on a project sponsor’s compliance with applicable law, and reasonably did so here. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 25 of 30 50 21 2. Microplastic Shedding Similarly, individuals submitted information that they claimed raised questions about environmental impacts of microplastic shedding from synthetic turf. As detailed above (supra, pp.4-5), Cornell submitted extensive documentation from scientific studies and consultant analyses addressing the topic of microplastics. Indeed, Dr. Rossi’s analysis—which the Planning Board specifically requested—indicated that the stormwater management facilities included in the Project were fully consistent with a recent European study on synthetic turf microplastics. (R0622- 0623.) In addition, the Planning Board reasonably relied on Cornell’s required compliance with a NYSDEC-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. (R0006-0007.) Van Dyk v. Town of Greenfield Planning Bd., 190 A.D.3d 1048 (3d Dep’t 2021). Petitioner’s mere disagreement with the Planning Board’s reasoned determination is insufficient to vacate the Negative Declaration. 3. Air Emissions, VOCs, and Pthalates Contrary to Petitioner’s claims, the Record is replete with scientific information demonstrating that there is little to no impact for emissions and VOCs from synthetic turf fields. (Supra, pp.3-8.) For example, in a 2018 guidance document, the New York State Department of Health reviewed several studies from around the world, and concluded that there was no to little risk of exposure with regard to VOCs, SVOCs, or airborne particulates: Several studies have assessed potential health risks resulting from inhalation exposures to chemicals contained in synthetic turf fields… The air samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and airborne particulate matter. The studies concluded that inhalation exposures resulting from playing on synthetic turf fields were insignificant, and not different from inhalation exposures on natural turf fields. The Connecticut study … authors concluded that, based on their findings, exposure levels for indoor synthetic turf fields represented only a marginal health risk, but ventilation of indoor fields was recommended. Several earlier European studies had similar findings. An Italian study found that inhalation exposures resulting from playing on synthetic turf are negligible, and that CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 26 of 30 51 22 exposures associated with motor vehicle emissions in the areas near the fields during the same time period were about ten times higher. Two studies that measured a metabolite of PAHs in the urine of soccer players after playing on synthetic turf found no measurable uptake of PAHs resulted from playing on the field. (R3152; emphasis added.) The 2024 EPA study similarly found minimal health risks. (R1648- 2826.) The Planning Board thus had voluminous, independent evidence in front of it to support its conclusions on these topics. C. The Negative Declaration Was Not Conditional Finally, Petitioner incorrectly asserts that the Planning Board’s imposition of certain conditions on the Project in the final site plan approval resolution retroactively transformed the negative declaration into a “conditional negative declaration.” (See, e.g., Petition, ¶ 52; NYSCEF Doc. 25, p.15.) While Petitioner correctly cites the background principle that conditioned negative declarations are not permitted for Type I actions (6 NYCRR §617.7(d)), it fails to cite or discuss the relevant case law that is fatal to its argument. “[A] project, especially a large undertaking such as a Type I action, usually undergoes modifications from its initial specifications. Modifications made to a project during the review process should not necessarily be characterized as impermissible ‘conditions.’” Merson v. McNally, 90 N.Y.2d 742, 755 (1997) (reversing Appellate Division, and holding no conditional negative declaration had been issued). “Indeed, the SEQRA regulations themselves help to show that the purpose of identifying ‘potentially large’ environmental impacts in the midst of the EAF process is to allow a developer the opportunity to address those potential impacts in the project proposal.” Id. A conditional negative declaration occurs only where “conditions or mitigation measures [are] identified and required by [the lead agency] so that no significant adverse environmental conditions would occur.” Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine v. Dorm. Auth. of State of N.Y., 224 A.D.2d 95, 102-03 (3d Dep’t 1996) (affirming dismissal of petition). SEQRA permits project CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 27 of 30 52 23 modifications that result from “an open and deliberative process … as part of the ‘give and take’ of the application process” and result in a reasoned determination by the lead agency that a finding of nonsignificance is appropriate. Merson, 90 N.Y.2d at 753. Where “the modifications are voluntarily made to mitigate public concerns, no additional environmental review is required,” if the lead agency is satisfied that there is no potentially significant adverse impact. W. Beekmantown Neighborhood Ass’n, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Beekmantown, 53 A.D.3d 954, 957 (3d Dep’t 2008) (affirming dismissal of petition). Here, the negative declaration contains no conditions. (R0001-0002.) Cornell and the Planning Board had extensive back-and-forth discussions throughout the months-long environmental review process. In response to Planning Board questions and some public concern, Cornell voluntarily modified its proposal to eliminate crumb-rubber infill on the outdoor field and agreed to comply with the New York State law regarding PFAS in carpets, even though that law does not take effect until December 31, 2026. These modifications—presented to the Planning Board at the September 3, 2024 meeting—resulted in a lengthy discussion about the impact of those changes, with the Board rationally concluding that a negative declaration was appropriate. These voluntary commitments by Cornell, and the process leading to them, are completely consistent with Merson and Beekmantown. Following the conclusion of environmental review on September 3, the Planning Board continued to address site plan approval on September 24. The Planning Board did include conditions that Cornell must satisfy to receive a certificate of occupancy. (R0040-0042.) Imposing such conditions is within the purview of the Board during site plan review, and the relevant changes to the project embodied in the conditions were made voluntarily by Cornell in an open, CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 28 of 30 53 24 deliberative, back-and-forth discussion with the Planning Board. Accordingly, the unconditional negative declaration complied with SEQRA. CONCLUSION Cornell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Petition with prejudice and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper. Dated: January 17, 2025 /s/ Jared M. Pittman JARED M. PITTMAN ADAM G. PENCE Attorneys for Respondent Cornell University Office and Post Office Address Sage House 118 Sage Place Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 255-5124 CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 29 of 30 54 202.8-b CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing document is 6,998 words and in compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c). Dated: January 17, 2025 /s/ Jared M. Pittman JARED M. PITTMAN, ESQ. CI2025-01699 Index #: EF2024-0816 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2025 02:16 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-0816 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2025 30 of 30 55 Appendix 2: NCAA Site Selection Process for Division I Field Hockey This page has been intentionally left blank. 57 58 2 2026 & 2027 DIVISION I FIELD HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP SPORT SPECIFIC INFORMATION 59 3 Table of Contents Section Content Page No. Section I Introduction 4 Section II Championship Structure 5 Section III General Facility Requirements 6 Section IV Event History 9 Section V Lodging 10 Section VI NCAA/Host Responsibility 12 Section VII Transportation 14 Section VIII Marketing 14 Section IX Tentative Schedule of Events 16 Section X Ancillary Events 17 Section XI Volunteer Needs 18 Section XII Budget History 19 IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT FOLLOW AND ANY SUCH SPECIFICATIONS IN THE GENERAL BID SPECIFICATIONS DOCUMENT, THE FORMER SHALL PREVAIL AND GOVERN THE MATTER. 60 4 SECTION I: INTRODUCTION The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA” and/or “Association”) is pleased to provide to member institutions/conferences the opportunity to submit a proposal to host one or more NCAA championships. The information contained in this document and the accompanying attachments provides the minimum bid specifications for hosting any of these championships, as well as essential information that will provide assistance in the development of a creative, comprehensive and competitive bid proposal. The NCAA awards the privilege of hosting an NCAA championship several years in advance so those communities may work collaboratively with the NCAA to create positive experiences for its student-athletes, participating institutions, fans and the community. A member institution or member conference of the NCAA must be designated as the host institution/conference for the championship. The administration of the championship is under the authority of the respective sports committee subject to final authority fr om the NCAA Division I Competition Oversight Committee and Division II and Division III Championships Committees. All activities and events associated with the championship are to be approved by the sports committee. 61 5 SECTION II: CHAMPIONSHIP STRUCTURE PLEASE NOTE: The Division I Field Hockey Committee will consider bids for multiple years and/or single year bids. Please indicate the year(s) in which you are interested in serving as host. Preference will be given to prospective hosts that bid for two years in a row. _____ November 20 & 22, 2026 _____ November 19 & 21, 2027 DATE FORMULAS Opening round games (2): Wednesday prior to first- and second rounds First- and Second Rounds (4): Friday and Sunday prior to finals Semifinals and final: Friday and Sunday prior to Thanksgiving The championship provides for a field of 18 teams. Two opening round games will occur on the Wednesday preceding the first and second rounds at non-predetermined campus sites at the site of two of the first- and second-rounds. Four first- and second-round games will be played at non-predetermined campus sites, with winners advancing to the semifinals. The semifinals and final will be held Friday and Sunday preceding Thanksgiving at a pre-determined site. Competition will be single elimination. Additionally, if an agency is interested in hosting the Divisions I, II and III Field Hockey Championships at a common site please use the Division I field hockey bid document to bid. A proposed schedule of events is included as Appendix A for entities interested in hosting all divisions. With the need for two venues, the field surface must be similar at both venues. 62 6 SECTION III: GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 1. The host and sponsoring agency agree that the facility shall be available for the exclusive use of the NCAA starting at 6 a.m. Wednesday preceding the competition through the conclusion of the final game for the purpose of preparing for, practicing for and conducting the competition. During that period of time, the facility will be clean and accessible, and playing conditions must be safe and of championships caliber. The sponsoring agency must agree that throughout the championship weekend, the facility will be lighted and heated in the standard manner, and that the scoreboards and public-address system will be in good working order. 2. The NCAA specifically disclaims any responsibility to investigate the safety or code compliance of the facility and parking lots or the component products, equipment, materials, designs and constructions. 3. The game field shall be arranged in accordance with the International Field Hockey Rules (FIH) as modified by the NCAA Division I Field Hockey Committee as far in advance as possible but in no event later than the Wednesday prior to competition. 4. The facility must have a comprehensive security and evacuation plan in case of emergencies. 5. All seats in the facility shall be under the control of the NCAA for its exclusive use during the championship. Seating capacity must be at least 1,500. 6. The facility must provide the following additional space, at its expense, with all areas subject to the approval of the NCAA: a. An athletic training area adequately staffed and large enough to accommodate the four participating teams. b. A minimum of two spacious locker rooms, with shower, toilet facilities and towels available for teams. It is recommended that four separate locker rooms be available. Signs with the teams’ names must be affixed to each respective locker room door. c. Locker room space for a minimum of five umpires. d. Media workspace for 25 with appropriate lighting, heat, air conditioning and toilet facilities. e. Interview area for 25 with dais, podium and audio equipment. f. One area of private office space for 10 people with Internet access for use by the NCAA is preferred. 63 7 g. A media coordination work area containing one photocopy machine with capability of reproducing statistics and other material on bond paper with a minimum per -copy speed of 40 per minute. The facility shall be responsible for the installation, service cost s and paper for this machine during the championship. The machine also shall include a collator and automatic stapler. h. Two separate rooms for drug testing, each with a waiting area, toilet facilities and a minimum of 500-square feet of space. i. A hospitality area for student-athletes, coaches, NCAA committee, media and workers. These areas can be separated out as necessary. 7. The facility shall provide, at its expense, tables, chairs, skirting, pipe -and-drape and platforms for all areas described herein as required by the NCAA. 8. The facility shall provide complimentary parking spaces for the participating teams, NCAA representatives and umpires in prime locations. 9. The facility shall provide, at no cost to the NCAA, sufficient electric power and a sufficient number of power outlets in broadcasting booths, in press locations and in identified working press areas for the operation and transmission of color television a nd radio broadcasts and for the operation of computer terminals used by the working press. 9. If broadcast rights are obtained in the future, the NCAA will work with future hosts on the details of the requirements. For broadcast specific details please reference the General Section, Broadcast, Media and Internet. Please complete the power verification form and attach it with your bid (available in the bid portal). 10. The facility and host shall be responsible for the removal and/or covering of any existing signage at the discretion of the NCAA. 11. The facility shall provide at least one main scoreboard and sound system. The facility, at its own expense, shall provide access to any video boards, LED boards or matrix boards in the facility. In addition, the facility, at its own expense, shall provide a full in-venue production for all NCAA event days (e.g. game days, open practice days and other NCAA event days – example: fan/sponsor events at the venue). This production shall include a fully staffed and operational in -venue broadcast/video board control room on all event days including cameras and their operators. In addition, the production shall include access and use of control room equipment and personnel prior to event days for any pre - 64 8 production/loading needed the week of the event (e.g. editing suites, play back equipment, video storage and editing systems). 12. A visible clock should be provided. 13. Benches for a minimum of 30 people per team should be set up on either side of the scorer’s table. 14. The NCAA owns the exclusive rights to broadcast the games on television and radio, to record the competition and broadcasts thereof for albums and tapes, and to photograph the games by means of still, videotape or other motion-picture cameras. The NCAA shall have the sole right and authority to designate usage of all broadcast, telecast and press locations, tables and work areas. The venue must meet and abide by all television guidelines as indicated in the Championships Bid Specifications document. The prospective host that is bidding on this championship agrees to all terms and conditions as outlined above in this Championship Bid Specifications Agreement. We agree to comply with all the requirements listed in this document and to administer the designated championship in accordance with the policies of the NCAA and the applicable NCAA sports committee. Prospective hosts that agree with all the requirements listed in this document for the designated championship shall signify agreement by selecting “Yes” below. YES NO NO with Exception Prospective hosts who do not agree with all requirements in this document shall select either “No” or “No with Exception” and declare any issues and/or exceptions regarding the aforementioned terms. Please note: any proposed revisions to the language in this document must be specified in the bidding portal to be considered. 65 9 SECTION IV: EVENT HISTORY The chart below contains information on previous hosts, attendance and ticket price history since the 2017-18 season. Year Host Attendance Ticket Prices 2018 University of Louisville 1,056 All-Session Adult: $25 All-Session Student: $15 Single Session Adult: $15 Single Session Student: $10 2019 Wake Forest University 1,822 All-Session Adult: $25 All-Session Student: $15 Single Session Adult: $15 Single Session Student: $10 2020 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 450 All-Session Adult: $25 All-Session Student/Senior: $15 Single Session Adult: $15 Single Session Student/Senior: $10 2021 University of Michigan 2,612 All-Session Adult: $25 All-Session Student: $20 Single Session Adult: $15 Single Session Student: $12 2022 University of Connecticut 3,399 All-Session Adult: $25 All-Session Child: $20 All-Session Student: $20 Single Session Adult: $15 Single Session Child: $12 Single Session Student: $12 2023 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 2024 University of Michigan 2025 Duke University 2026 TBD 66 10 SECTION V: LODGING The NCAA has partnered with On Location to manage the NCAA Championship Housing Program and all championship housing needs.  On Location serves as the housing partner for hundreds of events annually and, through strong relationships with various hotel brands, can deliver the appropriate mix of amenities, location and price for hundreds of thousands of room nights each year.  Utilizing their expertise, On Location will be responsible for managing the selection and contracting process for all championship housing accommodations. Housing will be required for all participating teams, NCAA staff, committee members, media, game officials, and other special guests as designated by the NCAA. Separate hotels are needed for the NCAA, media, officials, and participating teams unless specified otherwise by the NCAA. It may be permissible for the media or game officials to be assigned to the same property as the NCAA headquarters hotel. (Game officials and teams may not stay in the same hotel.) Efforts will be made to provide some preference to the official corporate champion/partner in the hotel category (should one exist at the time of contracting) of the NCAA. While hotels are the primary housing offerings that will be contracted, alternative options may be considered in certain situations. Bids will be awarded contingent upon the successful negotiation of housing needs at reasonable rates. Failure to secure such reasonable rates and properties may result in rescinding of the bid award. The host institution/conference or sponsoring agency must guarantee sufficient housing is available to meet the room block needs identified in the sport specific bid specification. Properties must meet the required service levels and be in reasonable proximity to the event venues. Rooms should not be secured or contracted nor should rates be discussed with specific properties, unless requested to do so by the NCAA. Bid responses may highlight any recommended properties On Location should consider when contracting. Specifications should also disclose any special relationships, agreements and/or financial arrangements you may have in place with the recommended properties. On Location will take into consideration all recommendations when selecting hotels; however, guarantees cannot be made that contracts will be secured with these properties. All hotels contracted must have experience with and understand the needs of large sports related groups. For certain championship events, additional room blocks may be required for fan travel. The NCAA or its designees shall have the exclusive right to sell products licensed by the Association for merchandising at the selected hotels (inside and outside the premises controlled by the hotels). The hotel will provide adequate space in its lobby for such sales. 67 11 Contracted properties will be responsible for complying will all requirements in the contract terms as presented in the sample contract. Hotel Room Block: Each team hotel should have a minimum of 25 double/double non-smoking sleeping rooms reserved. Additionally, each team should receive an upgrade for two sleeping rooms to one-bedroom suites for the head coach and the administrator at the team rate. Complimentary meeting space to accommodate 35 people per team must also be granted. The host institution is financially responsible for the game official accommodations to be reimbursed by the NCAA. All hotels shall be in close proximity (ideally within walking distance) from the competition venue. The team hotel(s) must be of comparable quality and distance from the competition venue. The prospective host that is bidding on this championship agrees to all terms and conditions as outlined above in this Championship Bid Specifications Agreement. We agree to comply with all the requirements listed in this document and to administer the designated championship in accordance with the policies of the NCAA and the applicable NCAA sports committee. Prospective hosts that agree with all the requirements listed in this document for the designated championship shall signify agreement by selecting “Yes” below. YES NO NO with Exception Prospective hosts who do not agree with all requirements in this document shall select either “No” or “No with Exception” and declare any issues and/or exceptions regarding the aforementioned terms. Please note: any proposed revisions to the language in this document must be specified in the bidding portal to be considered. Number of Hotels Service Level Wed. Thurs Fri. Sat. Sun. Notes Teams 4 Full 100 100 100 50 c/o Each team hotel should hold 25 d/d rooms. Headquarters 1 Full 8 18 18 18 c/o Officials and NCAA at same hotel. Total 5 108 118 118 68 68 12 SECTION VI: NCAA/HOST RESPONSIBILITY NCAA PROVIDES: 1. Transportation and per diem reimbursement for the participating teams. 2. Transportation, lodging (room and tax), per diem and game fee for all officials. 3. Transportation, lodging (room and tax) and per diem for the NCAA field hockey committee. 4. Awards for the participating teams. 5. Official souvenir program and merchandise. 6. Credentials. 7. Hydration product (e.g., water, electrolyte solution, coolers, etc.). 8. Participation award to the official traveling parties of the participating teams. 9. Volunteer apparel. 10. Promotional assistance, including NCAA signage. 11. Game and practice balls (host must provide additional 100 practice balls and ball bins). HOST INSTITUTION/CONFERENCE AND/OR SPONSORING AGENCY PROVIDES: 1. Facilities. The mandatory playing surface for the semifinals and finals is a “non-filled” watered artificial surface which meets Level I (global) (Global – FIH Competition) FIH performance requirements for synthetic pitches. 2. Key personnel – all workers and other volunteers. 3. Public relations/media coordination. 4. First aid/medical services/AED on-site/ambulance on-site. 5. Championships hospitality. 6. Food/beverage concessions. 69 13 7. Public address system and announcer. 8. Support personnel – ushers, ticket takers, ticket sellers, media runners, etc. 9. Security. 10. Media room (fully equipped and with internet access). 11. Media seating/work area with constant refreshments. 12. Tickets and ticket operations. 13. All computers, printers, video equipment, telephone lines, DSL lines, etc. necessary to administer the championships, and as may be required by the NCAA. 14. Appropriate directional signage within and outside the venue. 15. Head table personnel (e.g., public address announcer, official scorer, timer, etc.). 16. Athletic training staff. 17. Banquet venue. 18. Other items as later requested by the NCAA. The prospective host that is bidding on this championship agrees to all terms and conditions as outlined above in this Championship Bid Specifications Agreement. We agree to comply with all the requirements listed in this document and to administer the designated championship in accordance with the policies of the NCAA and the applicable NCAA sports committee. Prospective hosts that agree with all the requirements listed in this document for the designated championship shall signify agreement by selecting “Yes” below. YES NO NO with Exception Prospective hosts who do not agree with all requirements in this document shall select either “No” or “No with Exception” and declare any issues and/or exceptions regarding the aforementioned terms. Please note: any proposed revisions to the language in this document must be specified in the bidding portal to be considered. 70 14 SECTION VII: TRANSPORTATION There are no additional transportation requirements from the host for the Division I Field Hockey Championships outside of the parking requirements listed in Section III. SECTION VIII: MARKETING REQUIREMENTS 1. Marketing Plans. Upon selection, the host is required to submit a marketing plan for review and approval prior to activation by the NCAA marketing staff. Please refer to the appropriate marketing plan template as a guide. 2. Budgets. When the proposed budget is submitted, a minimum of $4,000 should be allocated for these purposes. The marketing budget should only include items needed for: marketing, advertising, printing costs, grassroots opportunities and promotions. 3. Creative Process. A creative marketing assistance website is available to the host for their marketing needs. This marketing website, NCAAChampsPromotion.com, is a comprehensive tool designed to help hosts create marketing pieces which will generate awareness and promote tickets and or attendance for the championship. Hosts should customize and download all necessary artwork to promote the championship. Every effort should be made to use the online marketing templates, produce the items locally and obtain reimbursement for production costs, up to the reimbursable allocation provided. All artwork and reimbursement requests must be approved by the NCAA prior to proceeding with production. Artwork requests and approvals will be managed through the website. Should you not have a local vendor, a list of preferred NCAA vendors is available on the website. 4. Radio/TV. The NCAA will provide the following television and radio elements to assist in promoting and selling tickets to the championship. Several formats will be provided in order to allow for use over a variety of platforms (e.g., websites, tv commercials, videoboards). All spots will be made available for download via the online marketing website NCAAChampsPromotion.com. 5. Support Documents. Hosts should refer to the following support documents when developing marketing plans and budgets: NCAA Ticket Promotional Use Guidelines, NCAA Sales Commission Guidelines, and NCAA Micro - Site Guidelines. 71 15 The prospective host that is bidding on this championship agrees to all terms and conditions as outlined above in this Championship Bid Specifications Agreement. We agree to comply with all the requirements listed in this document and to administer the designated championship in accordance with the policies of the NCAA and the applicable NCAA sports committee. Prospective hosts that agree with all the requirements listed in this document for the designated championship shall signify agreement by selecting “Yes” below. YES NO NO with Exception Prospective hosts who do not agree with all requirements in this document shall select either “No” or “No with Exception” and declare any issues and/or exceptions regarding the aforementioned terms. Please note: any proposed revisions to the language in this document must be specified in the bidding portal to be considered. 72 16 SECTION IX: TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Wednesday Noon NCAA staff and committee arrival 3 p.m. NCAA staff and committee facility walk-through with host staff Thursday 8 a.m. Administrative meeting 9 a.m. – 3:45 p.m. Practices (each team gets 90 minutes) 6 p.m. Championship banquet Friday 8 – 10:30 a.m. Practices (each team gets 30 minutes) 1 p.m. Semi-final game 1 Post-game press conference 3:45 p.m. Semi-final game 2 Post-game press conference Evening NFHCA Senior game Saturday 10 a.m. – 1:15 p.m. Practices (each team gets 90 minutes) 11:35 a.m. Coaches meeting Sunday 8:30 – 9:45 a.m. Practices (each team gets 30 minutes) 1 p.m. Championship game Awards ceremony Post-game press conference Schedule subject to change. 73 17 SECTION X: ANCILLARY EVENTS Banquet Arrangements should be made for a banquet to be held Thursday evening for the official travel parties (28) for each of the four participating teams. Other people who should be on the guest list include members of the NCAA Division I Field Hockey Committee, NCAA championship administrator, additional host institution personnel (i.e. president, faculty athletics representative and workers greatly involved in the conduct of the championship). A budget of $50 per person is typical for this event. Officials working the game should not be invited. Also, if room and arrangements can be made easily, the host may consider having banquet tickets for sale to each team for additional team personnel. Cost of the ticket should be based on the cost per plate. (Typically, the host has between 5-10 tickets available for sale for each team, depending on space.) The format of the banquet has called for short welcome statements by representatives of the host institution and/or community, dinner, highlight video, guest speaker and Elite 90 awards presentation. Coaches Association The National Field Hockey Association (NFHCA) is involved with the various activities during the championship week, i.e., the NFHCA Senior Game. All coaches association activities held in conjunction with the championship are conducted at the discretion of the NCAA and are subject to NCAA approval. The prospective host that is bidding on this championship agrees to all terms and conditions as outlined above in this Championship Bid Specifications Agreement. We agree to comply with all the requirements listed in this document and to administer the designated championship in accordance with the policies of the NCAA and the applicable NCAA sports committee. Prospective hosts that agree with all the requirements listed in this document for the designated championship shall signify agreement by selecting “Yes” below. YES NO NO with Exception Prospective hosts who do not agree with all requirements in this document shall select either “No” or “No with Exception” and declare any issues and/or exceptions regarding the aforementioned terms. Please note: any proposed revisions to the language in this document must be specified in the bidding portal to be considered. 74 18 SECTION XI: VOLUNTEER NEEDS The host will be responsible for securing volunteers/personnel for the following areas: • Minimum of six, adult ball people per game. • Media runners. • Spotters. • Merchandise sales. • Hospitality coordinator. • National anthem singers. • Ticket sellers/takers/ushers. The prospective host that is bidding on this championship agrees to all terms and conditions as outlined above in this Championship Bid Specifications Agreement. We agree to comply with all the requirements listed in this document and to administer the designated championship in accordance with the policies of the NCAA and the applicable NCAA sports committee. Prospective hosts that agree with all the requirements listed in this document for the designated championship shall signify agreement by selecting “Yes” below. YES NO NO with Exception Prospective hosts who do not agree with all requirements in this document shall select either “No” or “No with Exception” and declare any issues and/or exceptions regarding the aforementioned terms. Please note: any proposed revisions to the language in this document must be specified in the bidding portal to be considered. 75 19 SECTION XII: BUDGET HISTORY The chart below contains the three-year average of expenditures for the championships. Expenditures Three-Year Average Total Expenses $46,296 Promotion $880 Tickets $19 Facility $4,823 Personnel $14,038 Entertainment $23,167 Equipment $440 This page has been intentionally left blank. 77 Appendix 3: International Field Hockey Federation Hockey Turf & Field Standards This page has been intentionally left blank. 79 Hockey Turf & Field Standards PART 1 – FIH APPROVED HOCKEY TURFS Performance & quality requirements VER. 2.1 INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE HOCKEY fih.ch/qp 80 1 Foreword Hockey is the world’s third most popular team sport; the 2018 Global Hockey Survey conducted by the FIH, showed that there are now over 30 million people playing hockey. Fast, technically skilful, and requiring good levels of personal fitness, the sport is renowned for its social inclusiveness, gender equality, and ability to attract players of all ages. During much of the 20th century, hockey was played on natural grass, and even today this is till the surface used by many. In 1976, however, our sport was transformed when elite level hockey was played on synthetic turf for the first time. Today synthetic turf, and especially the versions produced specifically for hockey (which we now call hockey turf) has allowed the game to develop into the fast, technically skilful, and exciting sport we know today. Not all hockey turfs are the same and selecting the most appropriate type for the grades of hockey that will take place on a field is important. Therefore, to help guide those planning a new hockey facility we have produced our Facilities Guidance – Outdoor Hockey Surfaces, which may be downloaded at www.fih/ch/qp. When determining which form of surface is the most appropriate for a specific facility it is very important that the requirements of the various competitions that will be held on it are considered, as well as the policies and recommendations of the National Hockey Association. FIH Quality Programme People need suitable facilities to play, but these require major investment, so it is very important that hockey courts are designed and constructed correctly. To help ensure this occurs, the FIH has developed its FIH Quality Programme. The programme provides guidance and quality assurance through internationally recognised standards. These are based on over 40 years’ experience and have been developed to ensure the appropriate levels of performance and durability are achieved by a facility, irrespective of whether it is intended for community hockey, international competition, or anything in between. The FIH Quality Programme also endorses companies that manufacture high quality hockey surfaces, and contractors that have a proven ability to build great hockey facilities. FFIIHH PPrreeffeerrrreedd SSuupppplliieerrss are companies that manufacture hockey turf products and build hockey courts allowing customers to benefit from a one-stop approach to the construction of their new hockey facility. FIH Preferred Suppliers have a global commitment to work with the FIH to provide high-quality hockey facilities suitable for international, national, club, and development hockey. FFIIHH CCeerrttiiffiieedd MMaannuuffaaccttuurreerrss are companies that specialise in the manufacturing of hockey turfs. These companies have a proven ability to produce surfaces to the standards the 81 2 game requires, whilst operating quality management systems that ensure consistency in their products. FFIIHH CCeerrttiiffiieedd FFiieelldd BBuuiillddeerrss are companies that specialise in building hockey fields. Due to the nature of hockey, a small ball moving quickly across the surface, the tolerance to which a facility needs to be constructed are much more demanding than those required by large- ball sports. FIH Certified Field Builders have a proven ability to construct fields, and HOCKEY5s courts, to the standards the game requires. The FIH recommends that whenever you are planning a new hockey field or HOCKEY5s court you always: • select an FIH approved hockey turf • appoint either an FIH Preferred Supplier or FIH Certified Field Builder to design and build the field or court. Details of FIH Approved Products, FIH Preferred Suppliers and FIH Certified Field Builders can be found at www.fih.ch/qp. 82 3 1 Introduction & scope This document is Part 1 of the FIH Hockey Turf and Field Standards. It specifies the performance and durability requirements for FIH approved hockey turf products. It supersedes the 2017 edition. The requirements have been established after consultation with National Hockey Associations, members of the FIH Quality Programme, and our FIH accredited laboratories. For a hockey turf to be approved it must be manufactured by a FIH Preferred Supplier or Certified Manufacturer and meet the requirements of this Standard. The principal changes to the 2017 edition of this Standard are: • New classification of hockey turfs • Revisions to the definitions of the different types of synthetic turf used for hockey • Enhanced minimum transversal tensile strength requirement for homogenous shockpads more than 25 mm thick • Revised particle grading range for sand infills • Additional toxicology requirements for polymeric infill materials • Revised tensile strength requirements for fibres used in textile hockey surfaces 2 Definitions Approved product – a hockey turf surface that has been tested and certified in accordance with this Standard. Dressed synthetic turf or textile surface - a surface that is only partly filled with sand or other particulate material, so that the infill depth does not exceed 75% of the pile height. Dry test specimen - a test specimen to which no water has been applied. EN - Standard published by the European Standards Organisation (CEN). FIFA TM - test method specified by FIFA in their Handbook of Test Methods for Football Turf. Filled synthetic turf or textile surface - synthetic turf or textile surface whose pile is filled (>75%) with an unbound particulate material, typically sand. Free pile height – the height of the pile above any infill or the carpet backing. Hockey turf - a synthetic turf or textile sports surface designed to have the quality and performance characteristics required to allow the game of hockey to be played. Irrigated test specimen - a test specimen watered to simulate the controlled application of water by a field irrigation system. Normally only required for Global category products. ISO - Standard published by the International Standards Organisation. Long pile synthetic turf surface - synthetic turf surface whose un-stretched pile length is greater than 30 mm. 83 4 Non-filled synthetic turf - synthetic turf surface that does not contain any form of unbound particulate fill within the carpet pile. Playing surface - the synthetic turf or textile surface forming the upper surface of the hockey turf. Shockpad or elastic layer - prefabricated foam or elastomeric sheets, rolls, tiles or insitu laid elastomeric granulate and binder mixes, laid beneath the synthetic turf or textile surface and designed to aid the provision of the required sport’s performance. Short pile synthetic turf - synthetic turf surface whose un-stretched pile length is 30 mm or less. Synthetic turf surface – a carpet designed for sports use, having a tufted, knitted, or woven construction. Textile sports surface – a carpet designed for sports use, having a needle-punched or fibre bonded construction. Trimmed mean - a method of averaging test results that removes a small, designated percentage of the largest and smallest values before calculating the mean. Wet test specimen - a test specimen that has been soaked in water to replicate the conditions of the surface after rain. 3 Classification Based on the performance of the hockey turf (as defined in Section 4) and the type of playing surface and shockpad on which it is laid, the hockey turf shall be classified as follows: FIH Global Intended use: Tier 1 international and national competitions and training Type of carpet Non-filled short pile synthetic turf Irrigation Required FIH National Intended use: Tier 2 international, national & local competitions and training Types of carpet Sand-dressed short pile synthetic turf, Non-filled short pile synthetic turf Irrigation Optional 84 5 FIH Community – Hockey Plus multi-sport Intended use: Community and school competitions, and training. Types of carpet Hockey friendly synthetic turf or textile multi-sports surfaces on which other sports such as football can be played at the lower levels of community and school competition. Irrigation Not required FIH Community - Gen 2 multi-sport Intended use: Hockey friendly multi-sport surfaces intended for fields on which sports such as recreational tennis, netball, and futsal, etc are also played. Community and school competitions, and training. Types of carpet Sand-dressed short pile synthetic turf, Textile sport surface, Non- filled short pile synthetic turf. Irrigation Not required FIH Community - 3G Multi-sport Intended use: Community and school competitions, and training. Type of carpet Longer pile synthetic turfs primary intended for large ball sports, with hockey being a secondary sport. Playing characteristics similar to natural grass. Irrigation Not required Note: The use of long-pile synthetic turfs in national/regional/local hockey competitions is prohibited in some countries 85 6 The type of playing surface used in a hockey turf shall be described as follows: Non-filled synthetic turf Sand dressed synthetic turf Sand filled synthetic turf Carpet type Synthetic turf Synthetic turf Synthetic turf Non-filled / dressed / filled Non-filled Dressed Filled Pile height 10 mm – 18 mm 12 mm – 22 mm 18 mm – 30 mm Free pile above infill N/A > 25% <25% Requires irrigation Yes Optional No Requires a shockpad Yes Yes Yes Semi-filled long pile synthetic turf Non-filled long pile synthetic turf Carpet type Synthetic turf Synthetic turf Non-filled / semi filled Semi-filled Non-filled Pile height (2) ≥ 30 mm ≥ 30 mm Free pile above infill ≥ 30% N/A Requires irrigation No No Requires a shockpad Optional Yes Filled Textile Dressed Textile Unfilled Textile Carpet type Textile surface Textile surface Textile surface Non-filled / dressed / filled Filled Dressed Non-filled Pile height 12 mm – 25 mm 12 mm – 25 mm 12 mm – 25 mm Free pile above infill <25% > 25% N/A Requires irrigation No No No Requires a shockpad Yes Yes Yes The FIH do not wish to stifle innovation by being unnecessarily restrictive so if a new type of hockey turf is found not to comply with these descriptions the FIH should be consulted. 86 7 4 Requirements To be approved by the FIH a hockey turf must comply with the appropriate requirements of Clauses 4.1 – 4.7 of this Standard. In addition, the components that form the tested hockey turf shall be characterised using the test methods detailed in Section 4.2 and the results obtained shall comply with the manufacturer’s product declaration, subject to the tolerances specified in Section 4.2. Tests shall be undertaken by an FIH Accredited Test Institute (see www.fih.ch/qp for details) using the test methods specified in this Standard. When components in a hockey turf surface (e.g., pile yarns or fibres, shockpads, etc.) have been tested previously by a FIH Test Institute, the results may be carried forward for inclusion in a test report providing the Test Institute can confirm the component is the same as that previously tested. 87 fih.ch/qp 8 INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE HOCKEY 4.1 Performance requirements Property Unit Test condition Global National Community Hockey Plus Multi-sport Gen 2 Multi-sport 3G Multi-sport Hockey ball rebound mm Dry 100 – 425 100 – 450 ≤ 500 ≥ 75 Wet 100 – 400 100 – 425 100 – 450 ≤ 500 ≥ 75 Irrigation + 15 minutes 100 – 400 - - - - Irrigation + 45 minutes 100 – 400 - - - - After simulated wear 100 – 400 100 – 425 100 – 450 ≤ 500 ≥ 75 Hockey ball roll & consistency between directions of test m % Dry ≥ 9.0 ≤ ± 20 ≥ 8.0 ≤ ± 20 ≥ 8.0 ≤ ± 20 ≥ 5.0 ≤ ± 20 Wet ≥ 10.0 ≤ ± 10 ≥ 9.0 ≤ ± 20 ≥ 8.0 ≤ ± 20 ≥ 8.0 ≤ ± 20 ≥ 5.0 ≤ ± 20 Irrigation + 15 minutes ≥ 10.0 ≤ ± 10 - - - - Irrigation + 45 minutes ≥ 10.0 ≤ ± 10 - - - - Hockey ball roll deviation m Dry ≤ 0.45 @ 8.5 m ≤ 0.40 @ 7.5 m ≤ 0.40 @ 7.5 m - Wet ≤ 0.50 @ 9.5 m ≤ 0.45 @ 8.5 m ≤ 0.40 @ 7.5 m ≤ 0.40 @ 7.5 m - Irrigation + 15 minutes ≤ 0.50 @ 9.5 m - - - - 88 fih.ch/qp 9 INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE HOCKEY Property Unit Test condition Global National Community Hockey Plus Multi-sport Gen 2 Multi-sport 3G Multi-sport Shock absorption % Dry - 40 - 65 40 - 70 30 - 60 55 - 70 Wet 45 – 60 40 - 65 40 - 70 30 - 60 55 - 70 Irrigation + 15 minutes 45 – 60 - - - - After simulated wear 45 – 60 40 - 65 40 - 70 30 - 60 55 - 70 Surface deformation mm Dry - 4 – 9 4 - 10 2 - 9 4 - 12 Wet 4 – 9 4 – 9 4 - 10 2 - 9 4 - 12 Irrigation + 15 minutes 4 – 9 - - - - After simulated wear 4 – 9 4 – 9 4 - 10 2 - 9 4 - 12 Shoe – surface friction Dimple test sole Nm Dry - 25 - 45 25 - 45 25 - 45 25 - 50 Wet 25 - 45 25 – 45 25 – 45 25 – 45 25 - 50 Irrigation + 15 minutes 25 – 45 - - - - After simulated wear 25 - 45 25 – 45 25 – 45 25 – 45 25 - 50 Skin – surface friction ʯ Irrigation + 45 minutes ≤ 0.75 - - - - Water permeability mm/h Wet ≥ 150 mm/h ≥ 150 mm/h ≥ 150 mm/h ≥ 150 mm/h ≥ 150 mm/h 89 fih.ch/qp 10 INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE HOCKEY Additional multi-sport performance requirements for Gen 2 hockey turfs Property Unit Test condition Requirement Tennis ball rebound % Dry ≥ 80 Wet ≥ 80 Tennis pace Pa c e cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dry ≤ 29 Category 1 Slow 30 - 34 Category 2 Medium-slow 35 – 39 Category 3 Medium 40 – 44 Category 4 Medium-fast ≥ 45 Category 5 Fast Netball slip resistance PTV Dry ≥ 75 Wet ≥ 75 After simulated wear ≥ 75 Netball & Tennis Rotational Resistance (smooth rubber test sole) Nm Dry 15 - 45 Wet 15 - 45 90 fih.ch/qp 11 INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE HOCKEY 4.2 Hockey turf product component characterisation Notes 1 The number of filaments per square metre shall be calculated by multiplying the number of tufts per square metre by the number of filaments per tuft; this figure being the mean value of 20 tufts extracted at random from a 200mm x 200mm sample. 2 If it is not possible to extract tufts from the carpet backing (e.g., when there is an integral shockpad or the carpet is of a knitted construction, etc.) the pile weight per unit area above the substrate shall be determined in accordance with ISO 8543. This shall be noted in the test report Component Characteristic Test Method Tolerance compared to manufacturer’s declaration Properties of synthetic turf carpet (see also section 4.3) Pile height above backing ISO 2549 + 10% Tufts per unit area ISO 1763 + 10% Filaments/m2 See note 1 + 10% Pile weight ISO 8543 – see note 2 + 10% Pile dtex FIFA TM 23 + 10% Pile Thickness FIFA TM 25 > 90% Pile Profile FIFA TM 25 Same profile Pile polymer characterisation FIFA TM 22 Same profile + 3 °C (mean peak) Carpet mass per unit area ISO 8543 + 10% Water permeability of carpet FIFA TM 24 > 90% 91 fih.ch/qp 12 INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE HOCKEY Component Characteristic Test Method Tolerance compared to manufacturer’s declaration Properties of inlaid / tufted line markings Colour RAL Classic Same as approved product Polymer characterisation FIFA TM 22 Same profile + 3 °C (mean peak) Properties of shockpads and elastic layers (see also section 4.5) Thickness EN 1969 90% - 130% Mass per unit area ISO 8543 + 10% Shock Absorption EN TS 16717 + 5% SA Water permeability FIFA TM 244 > 90% Properties of infills (see also section 4.6) Particle Grading EN 933-1 / FIFA TM 20 90% between d and D Particle Shape EN 14955 Similar shape Bulk density EN 1097-3 + 15% Polymer composition (polymeric infills) FIFA TM 11 Same polymer type, ± 15% of TGA value Properties of textile carpets (see also section 4.7) Thickness of pile above substrate ISO 1766 < 10 % Fibre polymer characterization FIFA TM 22 Same profile + 3 °C (mean peak) Carpet mass per unit area ISO 8543 < 10 % Water permeability FIFA TM 24 > 90% 92 13 4.3 Synthetic turf carpets 4.3.1 Abrasion Resistance of non-filled short pile and sand dressed carpets When tested in accordance with EN 13672 the maximum pile weight loss after 2000 cycles shall be < 350 mg. Sand dressed carpets shall be tested without any infill. 4.3.2 Carpet Strength Synthetic turf carpets having a mass per unit area of less than 3.5kg/m2 shall be tested in accordance with EN ISO 13934-1 and the tensile strength of the carpet shall be > 15N/mm. If the tensile strength in either the direction of manufacture or at 90⁰ to the direction of manufacture is < 20 N/mm the maximum percentage variation between the two directions shall be < 30% of higher value. Note: experience has shown carpets with a mass per unit area of 3.5kg/m2 or greater have adequate tensile properties, meaning there is no need to measure this property. 4.3.3 Tuft Bind When tested in accordance with ISO 4919 the tuft withdrawal force for the tuft bundle shall be > 25N. Following immersion in hot water, in accordance with EN 13744, the tuft withdrawal force shall be at least 75% of the unaged value and equal to or greater than 25N. 4.3.4 Joint Strength 4.3.4.1 Stitched and bonded joints When tested in accordance with Method 1 of EN 12228, the unaged tensile strength of stitched and bonded joints shall be equal to or greater than 1000 N/100 mm. Following immersion in hot water, in accordance with EN 13744, the tensile strength of the joints shall be at least 75% of the unaged value and equal to or greater than 1000 N/100 mm. 4.3.4.2 Bonded joints When tested in accordance with Method 2 of EN 12228 the unaged peel strength of bonded joints shall be equal to or greater than 50 N/100 mm. Following immersion in hot water in accordance with EN 13744, the peel strength of bonded joints shall be at least 75% of the unaged value and equal to or greater than 50 N/100mm. 4.3.5 Dimensional Stability When tested in accordance with EN 13746 the dimensional stability of the hockey turf surface shall be ≤± 0.5% after each stage of the test. 93 14 This requirement does not apply to: • hockey turf carpets having a mass per unit area > 3.5kg/m2 • hockey turf carpets that are intended to be fully bonded to a shockpad • hockey turf carpets containing at least 15 kg/m2 of infill Note: experience has shown that hockey turf carpets satisfying these criteria have acceptable dimensional stability. 4.4 Synthetic turf pile yarns 4.4.1 Toxicology and Environmental Properties The yarns used in the hockey turf carpet shall either satisfy the requirements of Table 2 Category III of EN 71-3, or the requirements of ASTM 3188 -16. Notes: In addition to satisfying the requirements of this clause, a hockey turf surface should comply with all toxicology and environmental regulations applicable in the country in which it is being sold. Certification to this requirement does not form part of FIH Approval. 4.4.2 Tensile strength of pile yarn When tested in accordance with EN 13864, the minimum tensile strength of the yarn(s) used to form the pile of a synthetic turf shall be: • 5N for monofilament yarns • 30N for fibrillated yarns Monofilament yarns shall be tested as individual ribbons or strands. 4.4.3 Resistance of pile yarns to ultraviolet degradation 4.4.3.1 General Tests shall be undertaken on each colour of hockey turf being offered for the field of play, perimeter run-offs, line markings and any logos located within the field of play or inner run-offs. Results obtained previously on a family of yarns may be carried forward providing the tests were undertaken by an FIH Accredited Test Institute and the following conditions are met: 1. The Differential Scanning Calorimetry trace of the yarn, when tested in accordance with FIFA TM 22 shows the same profile. The main points of reference when comparing yarns shall be obtained from the second heating of the polymer sample and comprise the peak temperature, peak area and overall curve shape, all of which should be similar (peak temperature ± 3o). 2 The thickness of the yarn shall be at least 90% of the previously tested yarn, when tested in accordance with FIFA TM 25. 3 The shape of the yarn is the same. 94 15 4.4.3.2 Artificial weathering test method Pile yarns shall be artificially weathered in accordance with EN 14836 Method 2 (9600±125 kJ/m2/340nm). 4.4.3.3 Requirements Following artificial weathering, the strength of the pile yarn shall be greater than: • 5N for monofilament yarns • 30N for fibrillated yarns Additionally, the losses in strength and tenacity after artificial weathering shall be no greater than 50% of the strength and tenacity of the unaged yarn. 4.5 Shockpads 4.5.1 Shockpads and elastic layers less than 25mm thick When tested in accordance with EN 12230 the minimum tensile strength of the shockpad or elastic layer shall be 0.15 MPa. Following air ageing in accordance with EN 13817 the minimum tensile strength shall be 0.15 MPa and the loss in tensile strength shall be no greater than 25% of the tensile strength of the unaged shockpad or elastic layer. 4.5.2 Shockpads and elastic layers 25mm or thicker When measured in accordance with DIN 18035-7: 2014 (and summarized below) the minimum transverse tensile strength of the shockpad or elastic layer shall be 0.10 MPa. The test specimens, of dimensions 100 mm x 100 mm, should be cut out and glued between two plates (metal, hardwood, or the like) arranged so that their top and bottom sides are parallel, as illustrated in the pictures below: View of test specimen and mounting plates Suitable adhesive 95 16 Application of adhesive (approx. 15g adhesive used per surface) Clamping test specimen as the adhesive cures Test specimen with test machine plates mounted to plates Test specimen under test Test specimen after test A minimum of five test specimens shall be tested using a tensile testing machine compliant with Clause 5 of EN 12330. The test specimens shall be conditioned immediately prior to test in a standard atmosphere of 23 ± 2°C and 50 ± 5%RH for a period of not less than 24h. The test specimens shall be clamped in the testing machine and a tensile force applied at a speed of 50 ± 5 mm/min until failure. 96 17 The transverse tensile strength is calculated using formula: ðQZ = FB / A ðQZ = transverse tensile strength in N/mm2 FB = force in N exerted on the test piece at the point of failure A = the stressed area of the test piece in mm2. Following air ageing in accordance with EN 13817 the minimum tensile strength of a shockpad or elastic layer shall be 0.10 MPa and the loss in transverse tensile strength shall be no greater than 25% of the tensile strength of the unaged shockpad or elastic layer. 4.5.3 Shockpad with channels and slots When tested in accordance with EN 12230 but using a test specimen as shown in the figure below, the minimum tensile strength of the shockpad or elastic layer shall be 0.10 MPa. The test specimens shall be cut from the shockpad roll/tile to ensure that they contain the maximum number of channels or slots. Following air ageing in accordance with EN 13817 the minimum tensile strength shall be 0.10 MPa and the loss in tensile strength shall be no greater than 25% of the tensile strength of the unaged shockpad or elastic layer. Dimensions of test specimen dumbbell 4.5.4 Loss of shock absorption due to ageing Following air ageing in accordance with EN 13817 the shock absorption of the shockpad or elastic layer shall be ± 5% SA (absolute) of the unaged shockpad or elastic layer. 4.5.5 Resistance to Dynamic Fatigue Following dynamic fatigue conditioning in accordance with EN 17324 the shockpad or elastic layer shall satisfy the following requirements: 97 18 When tested in accordance with EN TS 16717 the change in shock absorption shall not exceed ± 5% FR (absolute) of the unaged specimen. When tested in accordance with EN 1969 the thickness of the shockpad or elastic layer shall be > 85% of unaged specimen. There shall be no tearing, splitting or delamination of the shockpad. 4.5.6 Dimensional stability When tested in accordance with EN 17326 the maximum bowing or curling recorded shall be 5mm. 4.6 Infill materials 4.6.1 Dust content When measured in accordance with EN 15051 the Inhalable Dust Content of the infill shall be classified as Very Low or Low 4.6.2 Sand infills Sands used as infill shall satisfy the following requirements: 4.6.2.1 Particle grading The particle grading of the infill shall be in the range 0.2 mm – 1.0 mm. The grading shall be determined in accordance with EN 933-1 using a range of sieves that have aperture sizes between d and D of the designated product size, and shall include 0.00, mm, 0.150 mm, 0.200 mm, 0.250 mm, 0.315 mm, 0.500 mm, 0.630 mm, 0.800 mm, 1.00 mm and 1.25 mm sieves. The apertures shall be as specified in EN 933-2 and conform to the requirements of ISO 3310-1 and ISO 3310-2. The sieves shall be mounted in a mechanical device that applies a 3-dimentional vibrating movement. The equipment shall have a timer and amplitude settings; the amplitude shall be set at 1.5 mm. The duration of the sieving operation shall be 12 min ± 15 s. 4.6.2.2 Particle shape When tested in accordance with EN 14955 the particle shape shall be classified as rounded or sub-rounded; classes C1 – C3. 4.6.2.3 Water permeability When tested in accordance with EN 12616 the water infiltration rate of a 20 ± 2 mm depth of the infill shall be ≥ 150 mm/h. 98 19 4.6.3 Polymeric infills Polymeric infills shall satisfy the following requirements: 4.6.3.1 Particle grading The particle grading of the infill shall be in the range 0.3 mm – 3.0 mm. The particle grading shall be determined in accordance with FIFA TM 20. 4.6.3.2 Water permeability When tested in accordance with EN 12616 the water infiltration rate of a 20 ± 2 mm depth of the infill shall be ≥ 150 mm/h. 4.6.3.3 Resistance to weathering Following artificial weathered in accordance with EN 14836 Method 2 (9600±125 kJ/m2/340nm), the infill shall not have agglomerated or show a significant change in colour. 4.6.3.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) content When tested using the procedure described in AfPS GS 2019:01 PAK, published by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the sum of the eight PAHs listed below shall be ≤ 20.0 mg/kg: PAH CAS Registry No. PAH CAS Registry No. Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) 50-32-8 Benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbFA) 205-99-2 Benzo[e]pyrene (BeP) C 192-97-2 Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BjFA) 205-82-3 Benzo[a]anthracene (BaA) 56-55-3 Benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkFA) 207-08-9 Chrysen (CHR) 218-01-9 Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene (DBAhA) 53-70-3 Prior to chemical analysis to verify compliance, samples shall be prepared in accordance with Appendix A of EN 17409. Testing to demonstrate compliance with this requirement should be undertaken by an independent test laboratory accredited to ISO 17025 for this test. Notes: 1 Compliance with legal regulations (laws) shall always take precedence over FIH Standards. 2 For infills manufactured from end of life products (tyres, etc) compliance with this requirement will be depend on the polymer composition of the product and this may vary production- batch to production-batch. Therefore, testing to verify compliance with this requirement is also recommended when a field is initially tested. 99 20 4.7 Textile sports surfaces 4.7.1 Abrasion resistance When tested in accordance with EN 13672 but modified so that each wheel is acting under a load of 250 g, the maximum percentage weight loss after 2000 cycles shall be 2%. 4.7.2 Carpet strength When tested in accordance with EN ISO 13934-1 the tensile strength of the carpet shall be > 7.5 N/mm. 4.7.3 Joint Strength As detailed in clause 4.3.4 4.7.4 Dimensional Stability As detailed in clause 4.3.5 4.7.5 Toxicology and environmental properties As detailed in clause 4.4.1 4.7.6 Tensile Strength of pile fibres 4.7.6.1 Surfaces intended to form the field of play When tested in accordance with EN ISO 5079, the minimum tensile strength of at least 70% of fibres used to form the pile of the textile surface shall be 3N. 4.7.6.2 Surfaces intended to form line markings and perimeter run-offs When tested in accordance with EN ISO 5079, the minimum tensile strength of at least 70% of fibres used to form the pile of the textile surface shall be 2N. 4.7.7 Resistance of Pile Fibres to Ultraviolet Degradation 4.7.7.1 General As per clause 4.4.3. 4.7.7.2 Artificial weathering test method Fibres shall be artificially weathered in accordance with EN 14836 Method 1 (irradiation of 4896 ± 125 kJ/m2/340nm). 4.7.7.3 Pile fibres for surfaces intended to form the field of play Following artificial weathering, the strength of the pile yarn shall still be greater than 2.0N. Additionally, the loss in strength after artificial weathering shall be no greater than 35% of 100 21 the strength of the unaged yarn. 4.7.7.4 Pile fibres for surfaces intended to form line markings and perimeter run-offs Following artificial weathering, the strength of the pile yarn shall still be greater than 1.5N. Additionally, the loss in strength after artificial weathering shall be no greater than 50% of the strength of the unaged yarn. 5 Product assessment test methods 5.1 Test methods The following test methods shall be used to assess the performance of hockey turfs seeking FIH Approval: 5.1.1 Hockey ball rebound Tests shall be made in accordance with EN 12335 made using an acoustic timer and an FIH Approved Hockey Ball. When tested on concrete the ball shall have a rebound of 800 ± 50 mm. 5.1.2 Hockey ball roll Tests shall be made in accordance with EN 12334 using an FIH Approved Hockey Ball. Three tests shall be made in each direction and the mean calculated. For Global, National, Community and Gen 2 hockey turfs, two test specimens are required. The first shall be taken in the direction of manufacture (to simulate a ball rolling across a field). The second shall be taken at 90° to the direction of manufacture and be made from a series of carpet rolls joined together to form the test specimen (to simulate a ball rolling along a field). For 3G Multi-Sport hockey turfs only one test specimen, taken in the direction of manufacture, is required. The length of the test specimen shall be approximately 1m longer than the anticipated ball roll length. If this is not known, the length shall be 18m for all categories other than MS3, which should be 10m long. All test specimens shall be at least 1m wide. Tests shall be undertaken from either end of each test specimen and the following calculated: • overall mean ball roll (each direction and each test specimen); • consistency between mean result in each direction and the overall mean; • for Global category surfaces, consistency between overall mean results 15 minutes and 45 minutes after irrigation Note: If a hockey turf has been tested previously the results may be carried forward for reuse providing the free pile height is the same (±1mm). 101 22 5.1.3 Ball roll deviation Whilst undertaking ball roll tests in accordance with EN 12234 using an FIH Approved Hockey Ball place a graduated gate over the test specimen at the distance detailed in the table below, measured from the point at which the ball first meets the test specimen. The gate shall allow the ball to roll unimpeded underneath it. It shall be graduated in at least 1cm increments with 0cm being at its mid-point. Figure 1 Distance as detailed in the Table below Measurement distance from end of ball roll ramp Global National Community Gen 2 Multi- Sport 3G Multi-Sport 9.5 ± 0.01m 8.5 ± 0.01m 7.5 ± 0.01m 7.5 ± 0.01m Test not necessary As the ball rolls under the graduated gate record the deviation from the mid-point (0cm) of the centre-line of the ball From the three ball roll tests in each direction/test specimen calculate the mean deviation and report to 0.01m. 5.1.4 Shock Absorption and Vertical Deformation Shock Absorption and Vertical Deformation shall be measured in accordance with EN TS 16717. 5.1.5 Shoe – surface friction Shoe-Surface Friction shall be measured in accordance with EN 15301-1 using the dimpled test sole. On Gen 2 Multi-sports surfaces tests shall also be made with the smooth rubber test sole. The test specimen shall measure at least 1m x 1m. Tests shall be made in three locations each at least 0.3m apart and at least 0.25m from the edge of the test specimen. 5.1.6 Skin friction The value of Surface Friction shall be determined using the procedure specified in FIFA TM 08. Prior to test the surface shall be irrigated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and all three tests shall be made between 40 and 45 minutes after irrigation. 102 23 Note: If the synthetic skin is torn from the test foot during the test meaning a result cannot be obtained the result shall be expressed as being > 0.75 and classified as a failure. 5.1.7 Water Permeability Water permeability shall be measured in accordance with FIFA TM 24. Tests shall be made on the complete hockey turf (including any infill and shockpad) shall be at least 150mm/h. 5.2 Test conditions Hockey is played under a number of different conditions depending on the category of surface. Potentially all surfaces will be played on when wet due to rain. Therefore, all surfaces need to have acceptable performance under wet conditions. The FIH currently requires Category 1 and 2 fields to be irrigated before play to ensure acceptable performance. The amount of water required will depend on the particular hockey turf and this shall be determined by the hockey turf manufacturer and accredited test institute. To ensure uniform and adequate wetting the quantity of water shall be no less than 1l/m2 (1mm). Players expect consistent performance from Category 1 and 2 fields. As some properties change as a surface dries, it is important that this does not occur too quickly. Therefore, certain characteristics are measured 15 and 45 minutes after watering. If a Global Category hockey turf is to also be used on national or multi-sports fields without watering, the surface shall also be tested in dry conditions. Test conditions Hockey turf classification Global National Community Gen 2 Multi- sport 3G Multi- Sport Irrigated Wet Dry Laboratory tests and sample conditioning shall be undertaken at a controlled laboratory temperature of 23 ± 2ºC and relative humidity of 50 ± 20%RH. 5.3 Preparation of test specimens 5.3.1 General Test specimens of the size specified in the appropriate test method must be prepared in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and EN 12229. If the hockey turf carpet is intended to be bonded to a shockpad during field installation the test specimens for ball rebound, shock absorption, vertical deformation, rotational resistance, and water permeability shall be formed in the same way. The preparation of 103 24 these samples should be undertaken by the manufacturer prior to them being sent to the Test Institute. 5.3.2 Preparation of wet test specimens The test specimen shall be wetted by evenly applying a volume of water, using a hose fitted with a spray nozzle, that thoroughly soaks the specimen (if in doubt this should be at least equal to the volume of the test specimen). Tests shall commence 5 ± 1 minutes after the application of the water All tests shall be completed within 15 minutes of the application of water. If required, the wetting procedure shall be repeated to allow further testing. 5.3.3 Preparation of dry test specimens Dry tests shall be undertaken on test specimens that have not been subjected to any form of watering prior to test. 5.3.4 Preparation of irrigated test specimens The test specimen shall be mounted on a free draining sub-structure and irrigated using the procedure specified by the manufacturer. The quantity of water applied to the test specimen shall be specified in terms of millimetres’ depth or litres per metre squared. The water shall be uniformly applied to the test specimen. Following watering the test specimen shall be allowed to drain for the time specified for the property being measured (15 ± 1 or 45 ± 1 minutes), before testing begins. If required by the test method, the test specimen shall be moved onto a suitable rigid unyielding test platform prior to being tested. All tests shall be completed within 15 minutes of the tests commencing (i.e., all tests commencing 15 minutes after the application of water shall be completed within 30 minutes from the application of water). If required, the irrigation procedure shall be repeated on a new (dry) test specimen to allow further testing. 5.4 Effects of simulated wear 5.4.1 General Test specimens shall comprise the synthetic turf or textile surface, shockpad and any infill. They shall be subjected to simulated wear conditioning for the specified number of cycles on a Lisport simulated wear machine in accordance with EN 15306 and the conditioning roller specified below. The simulated wear conditioning shall be undertaken on a dry test specimen. Infill replacement during the conditioning shall be undertaken as specified in EN 15306. Following simulated wear conditioning, the test specimen shall be tested in the following order: 1. microscopic examination & photographs 2. ball rebound 3. shock absorption & vertical deformation 104 25 4. rotational resistance 5. Netball slip resistance (Community Gen 2 surfaces only) Note: When moving dressed or filled test specimens from the Lisport machine and undertaking the various performance tests and microscopic examinations, care shall be taken to minimise disturbing the infill and relieving any infill compaction that has occurred. For Global, National, Community and Gen 2 Multi-Sport hockey turfs the Lisport rollers shall be covered with a profiled rubber sheet made from vulcanised styrene butadiene rubber (SBR). The test sole shall have a wave profile on one face and comply with the following requirements: Thickness (mm) 2.5 ± 0.3 Hardness (Shore A) 90 ± 3 Wavelength (mm) 13.0 ± 0.5 Amplitude (mm) 2.0 ± 0.3 Profile height (mm) 0.6 ± 0.1 Note: The test sole is available from TQS Belgium BVBA, Hofveldstraat 13, 9688 Maarkedal, Belgium (reference Lisson test sole; EN 1963). The test specimen shall be subjected to 10,200 Lisport cycles. 3G Multi-Sport category MS3 hockey turfs shall be tested using the studded roller specified in accordance EN 15306. Test specimens shall be subjected to 20,200 Lisport cycles. 5.4.2 Photographic examination of pile yarns Before and after simulated wear conditioning a sample area measuring 150mm x 150mm in the centre of the Lisport test specimen shall be examined for signs of damage to the pile using a Dino-lite Edge Type AM4815ZT Digital Microscope. Using the microscope’s extended depth of field (EDOF) function and using 20x and 100x magnification, any splitting, cracking, tearing or other damage to the pile yarns shall be recorded and reported. This shall include an estimate of the percentage of the yarns affected. Photographs showing the test specimen before and after simulated wear conditioning shall be reported. The photographs below illustrate the types of photograph required. 105 26 Sample before simulated wear conditioning x 20 x 100 Sample after 10,200 cycles of simulated wear conditioning x 20 x 100 Notes: 1 Note: If the FIH considers a product to show very poor resistance to simulated use they reserve the right to not grant it FIH Approved Product status. 2 As experience is gained with this test, the FIH plan to introduce a classification of fibre wear and maximum limits of damage. At this initial stage, it is intended that by requiring all products to be tested and reported consumers will be able to compare the wear resistance of different hockey turf products. 5.4.3 Performance requirements after simulated wear conditioning As the size of the test specimens produced by the apparatus described in EN 15306 is smaller than the test specimens specified in EN 12235, EN TS 16717 and EN 15301-1, the test pieces used shall conform to the requirements given in EN 15306. No test shall be carried out within 50 mm of the edge of the test piece or within 50 mm of where another test has been carried out. Global category hockey turfs shall be irrigated in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements following the simulated wear conditioning and prior to the measurements of ball rebound, shock absorption & vertical deformation and rotational resistance. The tests shall be made 15 minutes after irrigation. 106 27 Netball slip resistance on Community Gen 2 hockey turfs shall be measured in dry and wet conditions. Use of this Standard Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, any party who makes use of any part of the Standard in the development of a hockey facility shall indemnify the International Hockey Federation (FIH), its servants, consultants or agents against all claims, proceedings, actions, damages, costs, expenses and any other liabilities for loss or damage to any property, or injury or death to any person that may be made against or incurred by the FIH arising out of or in connection with such use. Compliance with the requirements detailed in this Standard by a User does not of itself confer on that User immunity from their legal obligations but does constitute acceptance of the terms of this disclaimer by that User. FIH reserve the right to amend, update or delete sections of this Standard at any time, as they deem necessary. Any questions about this Standard should be addressed to facilities@fih.ch 107 28 FIH facilities guidance – helping you win This Standard is part of a series of facilities documents produced by the FIH. Other information that might assist you is available at www.fih.ch/qp. It includes: • Facilities Guidance - Outdoor Hockey Facilities • Facilities Guidance - GEN 2 multi-sports areas • Facilities Guidance - HOCKEY5s Courts • Facilities Guidance - Sports Lighting for Non-Televised Outdoor Hockey • Facilities Guidance - Sports Lighting for Televised Outdoor Hockey • Facilities Guidance - Hockey Field Irrigation • Facilities Guidance - Indoor Hockey • Hockey Turf and Field Standards – Part 1 FIH Approved Hockey Turfs • Hockey Turf and Field Standards – Part 2 - 11 a-side hockey fields • Hockey Turf and Field Standards – Part 3 – HOCKEY5s courts • Hockey Turf and Field Standards – Part 4 – Temporary Overlay Pitches (TOPS) • FIH Approved Field Equipment – Hockey Goals • FIH Approved Field Equipment – HOCKEY5s Rebound Boards • FIH Approved Field Equipment – Team Shelters • FIH Approved Field Equipment – Technical Officials Booths • FIH Approved Field Equipment – Indoor Hockey goals • FIH Approved Field Equipment – Indoor Hockey side-board 108 Rue du Valentin 61 1004 Lausanne Switzerland www.fih.ch 109 Appendix 4: Project Location Exhibit G G G ///////// ///////// / /// / /// / OH OH OH OH OH OH OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E W G W W W W W W W W W W E GA M E F A R M R O A D GNIDLIUB RECCOS ECITCARP NOITPROSBACITPESDNUOM METSYS ,ECITCARP RETAWMROTS SEIRES LIVIC EES ,ECITCARP RETAWMROTS SEIRES LIVIC EES ,ECITCARP RETAWMROTS SEIRES LIVIC EES NYSE G T R A N S M I S S I O N L I N E S 111 112 This page has been intentionally left blank. 113 Appendix 5: Stream Setback Exhibit 115 G G G G G G ST ST STORMWATER PRACTICE, SEE CIVIL SERIES 116 This page has been intentionally left blank. 117 Appendix 6: Project Lighting Plan - Technical Drawings This page has been intentionally left blank. 119 G G G G G G G G G G G OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST LIMIT OF W O R K F2 F4 0.00.00.10.1 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.15.49.716.526.639.854.366.075.882.184.682.581.580.079.577.877.278.079.782.885.185.585.486.888.483.1 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.42.33.86.411.519.730.242.557.972.082.186.586.385.183.982.379.776.675.976.678.381.384.786.787.187.888.287.480.267.151.036.624.415.18.64.93.01.91.10.70.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.72.74.47.613.021.131.244.060.675.485.089.088.987.486.082.578.776.074.675.076.879.583.887.489.388.989.288.182.169.152.837.726.116.79.95.83.52.11.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.20.40.71.11.83.05.18.413.921.531.244.460.475.085.389.691.489.686.382.478.275.474.174.475.978.882.587.490.592.191.088.881.469.053.338.326.517.710.86.53.92.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.11.93.25.49.214.522.032.245.760.875.885.290.492.190.785.982.178.775.574.274.676.078.883.287.191.194.794.089.882.570.154.439.927.518.411.77.14.22.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.22.03.45.79.514.822.632.946.260.874.182.688.690.889.086.082.478.976.274.574.276.479.883.787.891.693.693.388.381.369.955.541.128.619.012.27.54.42.71.60.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.22.03.55.89.714.922.933.046.560.873.081.787.289.888.286.482.378.876.374.674.576.880.183.988.291.492.892.587.680.869.455.841.329.119.112.47.64.62.71.60.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.22.03.45.79.514.822.632.946.260.874.282.788.790.989.186.082.478.976.274.574.376.479.883.787.891.693.793.488.481.469.955.441.128.619.012.27.54.42.61.60.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.11.93.25.49.114.522.032.145.660.775.885.390.592.190.785.982.178.775.574.174.676.078.883.287.191.194.793.989.882.670.154.439.927.518.411.77.14.22.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.20.40.71.11.83.05.08.413.921.531.244.460.475.085.389.691.489.686.482.478.275.474.174.575.978.982.587.590.591.990.988.781.368.953.338.326.517.710.86.53.92.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.62.74.47.513.021.131.244.060.675.485.089.088.787.485.982.578.776.074.675.176.979.583.887.589.388.889.088.182.269.252.837.826.116.79.85.83.52.11.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.42.33.76.411.419.630.142.557.871.781.986.486.284.983.982.279.776.776.076.778.481.484.886.787.087.988.287.480.067.051.036.624.415.08.64.93.01.81.10.70.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.15.49.616.426.539.654.265.975.782.084.582.481.479.979.577.977.278.079.782.985.185.485.386.888.482.975.563.947.932.720.812.57.14.12.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.52.54.48.014.123.035.049.362.671.775.979.679.378.378.579.678.477.478.380.383.585.183.983.685.182.280.272.858.942.328.417.710.46.03.32.01.20.70.40.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.11.93.56.711.819.930.944.259.771.574.575.777.377.478.479.578.577.377.680.083.385.284.082.781.780.178.469.152.336.824.514.98.84.82.61.50.90.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.42.85.59.817.429.343.457.371.475.676.177.676.476.878.078.777.677.980.282.982.482.082.380.879.177.765.650.635.722.012.67.34.02.11.10.60.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.61.12.55.08.816.533.844.956.069.976.375.377.877.377.178.279.077.677.479.982.782.081.982.178.877.476.063.952.042.321.811.76.83.71.80.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.12.55.08.715.832.242.354.269.479.480.983.181.180.581.081.279.378.981.384.584.684.785.381.879.975.963.952.744.122.411.97.03.91.91.10.70.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.71.01.62.95.69.115.225.738.153.172.888.294.194.288.685.283.882.980.880.482.585.787.088.892.691.887.881.766.352.137.822.512.97.74.42.41.71.10.70.40.30.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.40.61.11.72.43.66.110.015.824.938.156.078.293.3103.2102.795.890.085.682.079.479.381.685.690.894.498.8100.994.586.370.053.137.923.614.48.75.33.42.41.61.00.60.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.71.32.03.14.76.910.816.926.442.362.279.993.5104.3101.494.787.180.976.574.574.476.179.384.891.397.5104.098.686.672.656.539.024.715.29.36.24.22.81.81.10.60.40.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.81.32.23.45.27.711.217.627.744.561.175.283.588.788.984.676.670.266.665.365.766.868.772.579.989.091.888.980.871.856.640.324.715.49.96.84.63.01.91.20.70.40.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.40.71.32.13.24.97.110.215.523.937.452.064.667.366.167.167.361.956.754.154.254.955.255.658.163.968.469.167.869.465.449.734.321.714.09.26.34.22.81.81.10.60.40.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.40.61.11.72.53.85.68.112.218.227.538.548.150.748.147.947.445.943.441.842.242.342.642.943.846.347.346.848.252.550.038.826.417.311.47.55.13.32.21.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.11.72.53.85.78.411.917.624.631.334.533.831.832.031.830.930.530.931.431.631.430.931.330.629.930.934.232.325.317.612.18.35.43.52.31.50.90.60.40.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.61.01.52.23.35.07.010.214.118.521.220.720.320.321.021.321.422.022.322.422.021.419.918.417.517.618.317.214.110.37.25.03.32.11.40.90.60.40.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.50.81.21.82.63.75.57.69.811.111.512.012.213.013.714.815.215.615.515.414.412.410.29.08.58.68.06.85.33.82.71.81.20.70.50.30.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.71.01.42.02.93.94.85.66.16.36.97.58.89.710.410.510.610.19.17.76.24.54.03.83.53.02.41.81.30.90.60.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.21.62.12.52.83.13.33.64.55.46.26.77.06.96.45.74.83.72.82.11.81.61.41.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.70.91.21.31.41.61.82.12.73.33.84.14.34.23.93.52.92.31.81.31.00.90.70.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.70.80.80.91.01.31.61.92.32.42.62.52.42.11.81.41.10.90.70.60.50.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.50.50.60.81.01.11.31.51.51.51.41.21.10.90.70.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.80.80.90.90.80.80.70.60.50.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.40.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Calculation Summary Grid Name Calculation Metric Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Field Hockey Horizontal Illuminance Fc 81.86 97 74 1.11 1.32 Plot Date: 1/24/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) LEGEND SPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO 'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM' 70' MOUNTING HEIGHT SITE LIGHT POLE, LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE, 20' MOUNTING HEIGHT 11.8 ILLUMINATION LEVEL (FOOTCANDLE) PROJECT LIGHTING PLAN 1 1" = 20' 4020 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 01 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Description Catalog #Tag Mounting Height (ft) 5 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTION AR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLS EP1 20 8 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP2 20 1 AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLS EP3 20 4 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP4 20 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTION SITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. 4 TLC-LED-550 / TLC-LED-1500 F1-F4 70ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING 01/31/2025 01.31.2025 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 01 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 120 This page has been intentionally left blank. 121 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH E OH E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST GA M E F A R M R O A D PHASE 2 TEAM FACILITY 5,000 SF. PHASE 2 INDOOR TURF FACILITY 9,400 SF. ST O P LI M I T O F W O R K LIMIT OF WORK EP4 EP3 EP2 EP2 EP2 EP2 EP1 EP1 EP2 EP4 EP4 EP4 BUS PARKING BUS PARKING F1 F3 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.1 0.00.10.10.20.20.30.20.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.2 0.00.00.10.20.30.30.50.60.30.20.20.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.30.3 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.60.80.60.30.30.40.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.51.81.50.90.50.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.50.90.50.4 0.00.10.10.20.30.71.32.01.20.40.40.71.02.04.45.94.21.91.00.70.50.71.02.14.45.94.21.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.35.84.11.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.45.84.11.91.00.6 0.00.10.10.30.40.92.74.22.20.70.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.40.90.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.40.90.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.40.90.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.3 0.00.00.10.20.30.41.03.15.02.60.80.50.71.02.04.35.74.11.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.35.74.11.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.45.94.21.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.45.94.21.91.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.92.03.11.70.60.50.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.61.00.6 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.30.90.40.30.40.40.50.70.70.70.50.40.40.40.40.40.50.70.70.70.50.40.40.30.40.40.50.70.70.70.50.40.40.40.40.40.60.70.70.70.50.4 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.50.60.80.60.30.30.40.40.40.40.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.4 0.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.50.60.60.40.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.3 0.00.10.20.30.30.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.40.40.30.30.30.40.50.50.50.50.40.30.30.30.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.4 0.00.10.20.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.40.40.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.50.50.40.60.91.21.20.90.60.40.30.30.30.50.70.80.90.70.60.40.30.30.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.40.40.4 0.00.10.30.50.71.53.23.72.20.90.50.50.40.60.71.53.23.72.21.00.60.50.50.60.81.83.53.51.80.80.60.40.20.30.50.91.71.81.20.60.40.30.30.60.71.53.23.72.10.90.50.50.40.6 0.00.00.20.50.82.14.24.73.01.20.60.40.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.70.40.30.61.02.54.54.52.61.00.60.30.20.30.51.02.12.51.40.60.40.20.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.60.40.30.6 0.00.10.20.51.01.82.01.30.70.40.10.10.30.51.01.82.11.30.70.40.20.10.30.61.11.92.01.20.60.30.10.20.30.50.91.51.61.10.60.30.20.10.30.51.01.82.11.30.60.40.10.10.3 0.00.00.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.10.10.10.10.20.40.60.70.50.30.20.10.10.20.30.40.60.60.40.30.10.10.20.30.50.70.80.80.70.50.30.20.10.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.10.00.00.1 0.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.20.30.50.60.50.40.40.30.20.10.10.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.30.30.60.91.00.60.20.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.50.50.60.91.72.01.40.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.70.80.80.80.80.80.80.80.90.91.00.90.90.80.80.80.80.91.01.01.32.53.42.80.90.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.21.31.31.31.31.41.41.41.51.61.61.61.51.41.41.41.41.51.61.62.03.23.93.21.30.90.60.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.52.02.22.22.12.02.12.22.52.72.72.82.72.62.42.22.22.32.42.62.62.93.63.93.12.01.40.90.50.30.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.72.53.33.63.63.53.33.33.64.14.44.64.74.54.23.93.63.53.63.83.94.04.14.34.43.82.92.01.30.70.40.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.71.01.72.74.05.25.85.95.85.55.46.06.67.27.47.57.36.86.25.75.25.35.45.85.95.85.95.75.03.92.81.70.90.50.30.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.30.60.91.42.44.06.38.29.410.09.99.59.69.810.511.011.311.211.110.79.88.88.07.78.39.09.08.68.37.96.85.13.62.11.10.60.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.35.89.412.715.516.416.316.216.116.216.316.516.416.416.216.015.113.412.312.513.314.314.313.111.911.08.86.44.12.31.20.60.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.52.64.68.113.719.324.727.026.125.525.125.124.423.723.423.323.222.622.121.220.220.421.823.423.020.217.314.711.07.44.42.31.20.60.40.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.40.61.01.83.25.811.019.428.536.940.239.838.037.736.434.533.032.632.432.432.031.732.231.831.533.437.235.728.822.217.813.17.74.32.31.20.60.40.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.40.61.22.13.87.214.626.839.951.455.654.654.453.150.646.744.143.743.343.343.544.346.747.546.848.453.350.939.628.019.913.57.63.92.11.10.60.40.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.20.40.61.22.44.48.618.235.452.666.371.271.572.672.365.659.355.855.455.855.855.958.163.567.667.766.168.566.049.833.521.012.97.03.61.91.10.60.40.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.20.30.61.32.65.110.321.342.162.979.288.092.992.687.278.471.667.666.066.267.168.772.078.787.089.386.881.274.057.438.922.012.16.33.31.71.00.60.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.30.51.22.85.811.522.543.267.086.099.2106.7102.294.987.281.176.874.774.676.179.084.089.794.9101.098.590.177.262.241.323.112.26.03.01.50.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.20.41.12.96.211.622.340.463.285.498.5104.1101.694.589.185.081.879.379.281.485.089.592.596.298.895.490.578.661.841.823.011.95.92.81.30.70.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.31.23.36.312.323.238.257.177.590.793.792.186.984.083.182.580.580.182.285.085.887.090.390.088.585.374.358.940.122.211.25.72.71.10.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.41.43.46.914.030.441.855.370.679.580.181.579.779.580.480.879.178.681.084.083.983.784.080.879.377.267.856.144.022.010.75.52.81.10.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.71.84.17.815.633.044.556.069.775.974.877.076.576.577.778.777.377.279.782.481.681.481.478.277.076.165.053.242.721.611.06.03.11.40.60.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.32.55.19.317.028.943.157.171.075.075.777.376.176.677.978.677.577.880.182.882.481.882.180.678.777.565.750.835.721.912.37.03.71.91.00.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.93.46.611.619.830.844.259.671.374.375.777.277.378.379.578.477.277.679.983.385.283.982.681.680.178.269.252.536.824.414.88.74.72.51.50.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.52.54.48.014.123.135.049.462.671.676.179.779.478.278.479.678.377.478.480.283.485.183.983.785.182.380.372.859.142.428.517.810.45.93.32.01.20.70.40.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.15.49.716.526.639.854.366.075.882.184.682.581.580.079.577.877.278.079.782.885.185.585.486.888.483.175.663.948.032.820.912.67.24.12.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.42.33.86.411.519.730.242.557.972.082.186.586.385.183.982.379.776.675.976.678.381.384.786.787.187.888.287.480.267.151.036.624.415.18.64.93.01.91.10.70.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.72.74.47.613.021.131.244.060.675.485.089.088.987.486.082.578.776.074.675.076.879.583.887.489.388.989.288.182.169.152.837.726.116.79.95.83.52.11.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 89.686.382.478.275.474.174.475.978.882.587.490.592.191.088.881.469.053.338.326.517.710.86.53.92.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.10.10.0 PROJECT LIGHTING PLAN 2 Plot Date: 1/24/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) LEGEND SPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO 'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM' 70' MOUNTING HEIGHT SITE LIGHT POLE, LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE, 20' MOUNTING HEIGHT 11.8 ILLUMINATION LEVEL (FOOTCANDLE) MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 01 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 1" = 20' 4020 01/31/2025 01.31.2025 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Description Catalog #Tag Mounting Height (ft) 5 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTION AR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLS EP1 20 8 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP2 20 1 AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLS EP3 20 Calculation Summary Grid Name Calculation Metric Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Field Hockey Horizontal Illuminance Fc 81.86 97 74 1.11 1.32 4 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP4 20 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTION SITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. 4 TLC-LED-550 / TLC-LED-1500 F1-F4 70ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING 122 This page has been intentionally left blank. 123 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // // // // // // // /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // / / / / / / / / // // // // ///// OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDING EP2 EP1 EP1 EP1 EP2 EP2 0.00.00.00.0 0.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.20.10.10.10.10.00.10.10.10.10.0 0.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.20.20.10.00.0 0.60.50.30.30.20.10.10.30.30.20.10.0 1.50.90.50.40.20.10.20.50.60.40.10.0 4.11.91.00.60.30.10.41.11.30.60.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 7.23.01.30.90.30.20.92.52.20.80.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 4.21.91.00.60.30.21.13.02.20.80.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.60.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.0 1.61.00.60.40.30.20.71.71.80.70.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.51.12.42.81.40.60.30.20.10.10.20.10.10.0 0.70.50.40.30.20.20.40.80.90.60.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.40.71.52.42.41.80.80.40.20.20.20.30.30.10.0 0.40.40.40.30.30.20.30.50.60.40.20.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.30.40.50.81.11.10.90.50.30.20.20.30.50.40.20.00.0 0.40.40.30.30.30.30.40.50.50.40.30.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.10.10.10.51.00.90.40.10.0 0.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.40.30.30.30.30.40.40.50.40.40.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.61.82.01.00.20.0 0.40.40.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.40.40.40.50.81.11.21.00.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.72.03.01.50.20.0 0.50.40.60.71.53.23.72.21.00.60.50.40.60.71.53.23.72.20.90.50.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.71.92.11.00.20.0 0.40.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.60.40.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.70.40.20.20.20.20.30.20.20.20.20.61.01.00.40.10.0 0.10.10.30.51.01.82.01.30.60.40.10.10.30.51.01.82.01.30.70.40.30.30.30.30.40.40.30.30.30.20.40.50.50.20.00.0 0.00.00.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.10.00.00.10.20.30.60.60.40.30.20.20.30.40.60.80.80.70.50.30.30.30.30.30.10.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.30.50.61.22.32.51.60.80.50.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.60.82.04.24.92.91.10.60.40.10.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.40.71.52.73.12.10.90.50.20.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.30.50.80.90.60.30.20.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.20.30.40.30.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Description Catalog #Tag Mounting Height (ft) 5 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTION AR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLS EP1 20 8 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP2 20 1 AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLS EP3 20 Calculation Summary Grid Name Calculation Metric Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Field Hockey Horizontal Illuminance Fc 81.86 97 74 1.11 1.32 Plot Date: 1/24/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 4 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP4 20 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTION SITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) LEGEND SPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO 'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM' 70' MOUNTING HEIGHT SITE LIGHT POLE, LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE, 20' MOUNTING HEIGHT 11.8 ILLUMINATION LEVEL (FOOTCANDLE) PROJECT LIGHTING PLAN 3 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 1" = 20' 4020 4 TLC-LED-550 / TLC-LED-1500 F1-F4 70ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING 01/31/2025 01.31.2025 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 124 This page has been intentionally left blank. 125 Appendix 7: ECS Compliance Checklist and Memo for Restroom Building 127 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 1 of 7 Contents Page 1 – Overview, Building Information Compliance Checklists for Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path Page 2 – Commercial Buildings Page 3 – Residential Buildings Compliance Checklists for Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path Page 4 – Commercial Buildings Page 6 – Residential Buildings Overview The checklists contained in this document are intended to help applicant teams and municipal staff plan for and assess compliance with the Energy Code Supplement (ECS). Please attach any calculations or other materials needed to verify information entered in this document. Additional information can be found in ECS Section 601 Compliance Documentation. Only basic information is provided here; the full ECS document should be referred to for detailed requirements. In addition, the ECS Reference Manual is intended to help understand and use the ECS; it contains non-essential information such as background information and commentary. The Energy Code Supplement applies to new construction, additions, and major renovations as described in Section 202.1 Applicability.1 Section 202.2 Compliance provides additional compliance details for commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings, including additions and major renovations. Previously planned enhanced requirements to the ECS went into effect January 1, 2023. These changes are described in sections C404 and R504. Building Information To be completed by applicant. Property Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ This property is (check one box only, see definitions in ECS) ☐ Residential ☐ Commercial The following compliance path will be used (check one box only) ☐ Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path ☐ Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path 1 In the Town of Ithaca version of the Energy Code Supplement, all section numbers identified in this document are preceded by “144-.” 126 Game Farm Road,Ithaca,NY 14853 [Restroom Building] 128 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 2 of 7 PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE PATH/EASY PATH - COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Projects must earn at least 12 points. ECS document should be consulted for complete requirements. Applicant fills out "points proposed" column. Code Enforcement Officer fills out "points awarded" column. Cate- gory Improvement Code Section Points Available Points Proposed Points Awarded Summary of Requirements EE1 Heat pumps for space heating C402.2.1 4 - 6 4 points for air source heat pumps. 6 points for ground source heat pumps. EE2 Heat pumps for service water heating C402.2.2 2 2 points for water heating systems that use heat pumps. EE3 Commercial cooking electrification C402.2.3 6 6 points for electric cooking equipment in commercial kitchens. Prerequisite: no fossil fuel use in the building. AI1 Smaller building/room size C402.3.1 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for smaller room sizes. Available for Hotel and Residential portions only. AI2 Heating systems in heated space C402.3.2 1 1 point for installing heating systems in directly heated spaces. AI3 Efficient building shape C402.3.3 1 1 point if exterior surface area divided by directly heated floor area is less than the maximum allowed value. AI4 Right-lighting C402.3.4 1 1 point for reducing overlighting and implementing other lighting improvements. AI5 Modest window-to-wall ratio C402.3.5 1 1 point for overall window-to-wall ratio less than 20%. Individual spaces may exceed 20%. RE1 Renewable energy systems C402.4.1 1 - 6 Up to 6 points for on-site or off-site renewable energy systems. RE2 Biomass systems C402.4.2 3 3 points for biomass space heating systems. OP1 Development density C402.5.1 1 1 point for achieving sufficient development density on the building parcel.* OP2 Walkability C402.5.2 1 1 point if the building meets the walkability criteria.* OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces C402.5.3 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for installing electric vehicle parking spaces and related infrastructure.* OP4 Adaptive reuse C402.5.4 1 1 point for substantial re-purpose of existing building. OP5 Meet NY Stretch Code C402.5.5 1 1 point for complying with NYStretch Energy Code OP6 Custom energy improvement C402.5.6 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for reduction in energy use. * Note: A maximum of three points total may be earned for points OP1, OP2, and OP3 combined. EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION AFFORDABILITY IMPROVEMENTS RENEWABLE ENERGY OTHER POINTS TOTAL POINTS 129 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 3 of 7 PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE PATH/EASY PATH - RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Projects must earn at least 12 points. ECS document should be consulted for complete requirements. Applicant fills out "points proposed" column. Code Enforcement Officer fills out "points awarded" column. Cate- gory Improvement Code Section Points Available Points Proposed Points Awarded Summary of Requirements EE1 Heat pumps for space heating R502.2.1 6 - 10 6 points for air source heat pumps. 10 points for ground source heat pumps. EE2 Heat pumps for service water heating R502.2.2 2 2 points for water heating systems that use heat pumps. EE3 Commercial cooking electrification R502.2.3 6 6 points for electric cooking equipment in commercial kitchens. Prerequisite: no fossil fuel use in the building. EE4 Residential cooking and clothes drying electrification R502.2.4 2 2 point for electric stoves and ventless heat pump clothes dryers. Prerequisite: no fossil fuel use in the building. AI1 Smaller building/room size R502.3.1 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for smaller room sizes. Available for Hotel and Residential portions only. AI2 Heating systems in heated space R502.3.2 1 1 point for installing heating systems in directly heated spaces. AI3 Efficient building shape R502.3.3 1 1 point if exterior surface area divided by directly heated floor area is less than the maximum allowed value. AI5 Modest window-to-wall ratio R502.3.4 1 1 point for overall window-to-wall ratio less than 20% (individual spaces may exceed 20%). RE1 Renewable energy systems R502.4.1 1 - 6 Up to 6 points for on-site or off-site renewable energy systems. RE2 Biomass systems R502.4.2 5 5 points for biomass space heating systems. OP1 Development density R502.5.1 1 1 point for achieving sufficient development density on the building parcel.* OP2 Walkability R502.5.2 1 1 point if the building meets the walkability criteria.* OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces R502.5.3 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for installing electric vehicle parking spaces and related infrastructure.* OP4 Adaptive reuse R502.5.4 1 1 point for substantial re-purpose of existing building. OP5 Meet NY Stretch Code R502.5.5 2 2 points for complying with NYStretch Energy Code OP6 Custom energy improvement R502.5.6 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for reduction in energy use. * Note: A maximum of three points total may be earned for points OP1, OP2, and OP3 combined. EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION AFFORDABILITY IMPROVEMENTS RENEWABLE ENERGY OTHER POINTS TOTAL POINTS 130 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 4 of 7 PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE PATH/WHOLE BUILDING PATH - COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Buildings must comply using one of the performance-based options summarized below. Applicant: check boxes in left-hand column showing intended design, construction, and documentation requirements that will be met. Code Enforcement Officer: check boxes in right-hand column verifying completed requirements. C403.2 and C404.6.1 LEED-based and Energy Calculation-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of one of the following: ☐ ☐ LEED v4 for Building Design + Construction, 17 LEED points total in the Optimize Energy Performance credit and the Renewable Energy Production credit of the Energy and Atmosphere section AND the building shall earn seven points from the ECS Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path, not including AI4 Right-Lighting or OP5 Meet NYStretch Code. ☐ ☐ 80% savings relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 or 92% savings relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include either: ☐ ☐ Design approval by GBCI OR both of the following: ☐ ☐ Complete input and output reports of the energy model. ☐ ☐ Approval of the energy model by NYSERDA, U.S. Department of Energy, Energize NY, or another agency approved by the Code Enforcement Officer. Note: LEED certification is NOT required. C403.3 Passive House-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of one of the following: ☐ ☐ PHIUS+ Passive Building Standard from Passive House Institute US. ☐ ☐ Passive House Classic Standard from Passive House Institute. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include at least one of the following: ☐ ☐ Pre-certification letter from an Accredited Passive House Certifier. All documentation used to show achievement of the requirements. Note: Certification is not required for this option. ☐ ☐ Documentation of Passive House certification. 131 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 5 of 7 C403.4 and C404.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The building shall demonstrate a reduction in GHG emissions of not less than 80% as compared to the baseline building. GHG emissions reductions shall be shown through energy modeling that complies with Appendix G of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. ☐ ☐ All requirements of ECS provisions C403.4.1 through C403.4.6 and C404.6.2 must be satisfied. These provisions are too detailed to summarize here. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building are at least 80% less than the GHG emissions of the baseline building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. C403.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance for Additions May only be used for additions that are showing compliance together with the existing building. Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The addition and the existing building, together as a whole, shall be shown to have lower total GHG emissions than the original existing building. ☐ ☐ Current and proposed GHG emissions shall be calculated following the requirements of the GHG Emissions Calculation Method (C403.4). Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ An energy study of the existing building that includes energy use from at least 12 consecutive months of the most recent 24 months at the time of building permit application. ☐ ☐ An energy study that shows anticipated energy use for the new addition and modified existing building. ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model. ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building and addition together are less than the GHG emissions for the existing building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. 132 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 6 of 7 PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE PATH/WHOLE BUILDING PATH - RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Buildings must comply using one of the performance-based options summarized below. Applicant: check boxes in left-hand column showing intended design, construction, and documentation requirements that will be met. Code Enforcement Officer: check boxes in right-hand column verifying completed requirements. R503.2 and R504.6.1 Energy Rating Index-based Compliance May only be used for residential buildings of not more than three stories. Design and Construction Requirements ☐ ☐ The building shall comply with all requirements of Subsection R406 Energy Rating Index Compliance Alternative of the 2020 Energy Conservation Construction Code of NYS (ECCCNYS R406). Where the ECS requirements are more stringent than the requirements of ECCCNYS R406, ECS requirements shall prevail. In addition, the building shall meet the design requirements of one of the following: ☐ ☐ The rated design shall be shown to have an Energy Rating Index (ERI) less than or equal to 20 when compared to the ERI reference design OR ☐ ☐ The rated design shall be shown to have an Energy Rating Index (ERI) less than or equal to 40 when compared to the ERI reference design AND the building shall earn seven points from the ECS Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path, not including AI4 Right-Lighting or OP5 Meet NYStretch Code. Documentation Requirements ☐ ☐ Compliance documentation shall be submitted as detailed in ECCCNYS R406. R503.3 and R504.6.2 National Green Building Standard-based compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ Using the National Green Building Standard (NGBS), the building shall earn no less than 80 NGBS Energy Efficiency points. NGBS certification is not necessary. ☐ ☐ The building shall earn seven points from the ECS Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path, not including AI4 Right-Lighting or OP5 Meet NYStretch Code. Documentation Requirements ☐ ☐ The design professional or energy professional documenting compliance will provide a signed statement that the design meets the requirements of this subsection, and documentation showing compliance. R503.4 Passive House-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of one of the following. ☐ ☐ PHIUS+ Passive Building Standard from Passive House Institute US ☐ ☐ Passive House Classic Standard from Passive House Institute Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include at least one of the following: ☐ ☐ Pre-certification letter from an Accredited Passive House Certifier. All documentation used to show achievement of the requirements. Note: Certification is not required for this option. ☐ ☐ Documentation of Passive House certification. 133 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 7 of 7 R503.5 and R504.6.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The building shall demonstrate a reduction in GHG emissions of not less than 80% as compared to the baseline building. GHG emissions reductions shall be shown through energy modeling that complies with Appendix G of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (for residential buildings four stories and greater and all mixed-use buildings classified as residential) or RESNET-HERS (for residential buildings of not more than three stories). ☐ ☐ All requirements of ECS provisions R503.5.1 through R503.5.6 and R504.6.3 must be satisfied. These provisions are too detailed to summarize here. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building are at least 80% less than the GHG emissions of the baseline building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. R503.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance for Additions May only be used for additions that are showing compliance together with the existing building. Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The addition and the existing building, together as a whole, shall be shown to have lower total GHG emissions than the original existing building. ☐ ☐ Current and proposed GHG emissions shall be calculated following the requirements of the GHG Emissions Calculation Method (R503.5). Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ An energy study of the existing building that includes energy use from at least 12 consecutive months of the most recent 24 months at the time of building permit application. ☐ ☐ An energy study that shows anticipated energy use for the new addition and modified existing building. ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model, and ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building and addition together are less than the GHG emissions for the existing building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. 134 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME Memorandum Date: December 17, 2024 Job No.: R24-10426.001 To: Lee Robert, Sasaki From: Ellee Mallia, Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering Re: Cornell University – New Field Hockey Field – Restroom Building Base and Alternate, IECS Code Compliance Path Lee: Included below is a discussion of the recommended compliance path to meet the requirements of the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS) for the Restroom Building of the new Field Hockey Field on Game Farm Road. The IECS establishes a local energy code supplement with requirements above and beyond the state energy code. The requirements give priority to electrification, renewable energy, and affordability. Each project following the prescriptive compliance path/easy path must achieve 12 points from the C404.5 summary table, included as Attachment A. In Attachment A, the points that have been grayed out are not applicable for this building type/location. The points intended to be pursued for code compliance are highlighted in green. The applicable point sections are detailed below. EE1 - Heat Pumps for Space Heating C402.2.1.1 Only air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps shall be used for all space-heating needs, with exceptions for electric resistance heating as described in section 402.2.1.4. A heating system that uses only air source heat pumps or uses a combination of air source and ground source heat pumps (and electric resistance heating as allowed) shall earn four points. C402.2.1.4 To allow flexibility, electric resistance heat is allowed for a portion of space heating needs. Applicants shall submit documentation showing that at least one of the following conditions is met. 1) Stand-alone electric resistance heating (not associated with heat pumps) is used to heat 10% or less of the building’s heated floor area. 2) Stand-alone electric resistance heating (not associated with heat pumps) is used to meet 10% or less of the building’s projected annual space heating load. BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt mmeecchhaanniiccaall ddeessiiggnn ffoorr bbootthh tthhee bbaassee aanndd tthhee aalltteerrnnaattee ooppttiioonnss iinncclluuddeess hheeaatt ppuummppss aanndd wwiillll tthheerreeffoorree eeaarrnn 44 ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn EEEE11.. 135 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME AI2 - Heating Systems in Heated Places C402.3.2.1 All components of heating systems shall be installed inside space that meets all the following criteria: 1) Inside the BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE 2) DIRECTLY HEATED SPACE 3) LIVABLE SPACE, OCCUPIABLE SPACE or contiguous to LIVABLE SPACE or OCCUPIABLE SPACE 4) On a building level where at least 50% of the FLOOR AREA is DIRECTLY HEATED FLOOR AREA BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt mmeecchhaanniiccaall ddeessiiggnn llooccaatteess aallll ccoommppoonneennttss ooff tthhee hheeaattiinngg ssyysstteemmss wwiitthhiinn tthhee tthheerrmmaall eennvveellooppee aanndd wwiillll tthheerreeffoorree eeaarrnn 11 ppooiinntt uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII22 ffoorr bbootthh tthhee bbaassee ddeessiiggnn aanndd tthhee aalltteerrnnaattee ddeessiiggnn.. AI3 - Efficient Building Shape C402.3.3.1 The exterior surface area divided by the directly heated floor area shall be less than the maximum value provided in Table C402.3.3.1. Per Table C402.3.3.1, buildings with a directly heated floor area between 400-499 square feet must have an exterior surface area to directly heated floor area ratio of less than 3.17. RESTROOM BUILDING Directly heated floor area: 465 sf Exterior surface area: 465 + 2* (216 + 336) = 1,569 sf Ratio: 1,569 / 465 = 3.37 AAss tthhee rraattiioo ssuurrppaasssseess tthhee mmaaxxiimmuumm aalllloowweedd,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt ddooeess nnoott aacchhiieevvee tthhee 11 ppooiinntt aavvaaiillaabbllee uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII33.. Alternatively, per Table C402.3.3.1, buildings with a directly heated floor area between 1,500-1,599 square feet must have an exterior surface area to directly heated floor area ratio of less than 2.13. RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Directly heated floor area: 1,583 sf Exterior surface area: 1,583 + 194 * 12 = 3,911 sf Ratio: 3,911 / 1,583 = 2.47 AAss tthhee rraattiioo ssuurrppaasssseess tthhee mmaaxxiimmuumm aalllloowweedd,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt ddooeess nnoott aacchhiieevvee tthhee 11 ppooiinntt aavvaaiillaabbllee uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII33.. 136 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME AI4 - Right-Lighting C402.3.4.2 Lighting Power Allowance The total connected interior lighting power shall not be greater than the interior lighting power allowance. The total connected interior lighting power shall be calculated using the method described in the Energy Conservation Construction Code of NYS. The total interior lighting power allowance, in watts, shall be determined according to Table AA1 (Appendix A), for all areas of the building covered in this permit. The lighting power allowance (LPA) shall be determined by multiplying the floor area of each space times the lighting power density (LPD) value for the space type in Table AA1 that most closely represents the proposed use of the space, and then summing the lighting power allowances for all spaces to calculate the total interior lighting power allowance. Trade-offs among spaces are permitted. Construction documents shall include a table of space-by-space as-designed lighting power densities along with the lighting power allowances from Table AA1. RESTROOM BUILDING Design LPD: 172.8 W / 390 sf = 0.443 W/sf LPA: 0.485 W/sf LPD < LPA RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Design LPD: 567.5 W / 1,430 sf = 0.397 W/sf LPA: 0.411 W/sf LPD < LPA BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt lliigghhttiinngg ddeessiiggnn wwiillll eeaarrnn 11 ppooiinntt uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII44 ffoorr eeiitthheerr ddeessiiggnn ooppttiioonn aass tthhee ddeessiiggnneedd lliigghhttiinngg ppoowweerr ddeennssiittyy iiss bbeellooww tthhee lliigghhttiinngg ppoowweerr aalllloowwaannccee.. NNoottee tthhaatt tthhee aarreeaass uusseedd ttoo ccaallccuullaattee tthhee LLPPDDss iinn tthhiiss sseeccttiioonn aarree bbaasseedd oonn tthhee ssuumm ooff tthhee rroooomm aarreeaass,, eexxcclluuddiinngg tthhee iinntteerriioorr wwaallllss,, wwhheerreeaass tthhee llaarrggeerr aarreeaass uusseedd iinn tthhee ootthheerr sseeccttiioonnss iinncclluuddeedd tthhee ffuullll fflloooorr ppllaatteess,, iinncclluussiivvee ooff tthhee iinntteerriioorr wwaallllss.. A15 - Modest Window-to-Wall Ratio C402.3.5.1 The vertical fenestration area, not including opaque doors and opaque spandrel panels, shall be not greater than 20 percent of the gross above-grade wall area. RESTROOM BUILDING Vertical fenestration: 0 sf Exterior surface area: 1,568 sf 0 / 1,568 = 0% RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Vertical fenestration: 150 sf Exterior surface area: 3,911 sf 150 / 3,911 = 4% BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt aarrcchhiitteeccttuurraall ddeessiiggnn ffoorr bbootthh ddeessiiggnn ooppttiioonnss wwiillll eeaarrnn 11 ppooiinntt uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII55 dduuee ttoo aa wwiinnddooww--ttoo--wwaallll rraattiioo bbeellooww 2200%%.. 137 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME RE1 - Renewable Energy Systems C402.4.1.1 On-site and off-site renewable energy systems that meet the requirements of this section shall earn up to six points based on their annual electrical or thermal energy production. Multiple renewable energy systems may be used to earn points, but no more than six total points may be earned for any combination of renewable energy systems. Equation 4-2: Minimum Renewable Energy Production needed to earn each point = (2.4 kWh/ft2 x CA) where CA = Directly heated floor area of Commercial space (ft2) RESTROOM BUILDING Directly heated floor area: 465 sf 1 POINT: 1,116 kWh 2 POINTS: 2,232 kWh 3 POINTS: 3,348 kWh 4 POINTS: 4,464 kWh 55 PPOOIINNTTSS:: 55,,558800 kkWWhh 6 POINTS: 6,696 kWh TToo aacchhiieevvee tthhee rreeqquuiissiittee ttoottaall ooff 1122 ppooiinnttss,, 55 ppooiinnttss wwiillll nneeeedd ttoo bbee aacchhiieevveedd uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn RREE55.. TThheerreeffoorree,, 55,,558800 kkWWhh wwiillll nneeeedd ttoo bbee aallllooccaatteedd ffrroomm CCoorrnneellll''ss RReenneewwaabbllee EEnneerrggyy PPoorrttffoolliioo aannnnuuaallllyy.. RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Directly heated floor area: 1,583 sf 1 POINT: 3,799 kWh 2 POINTS: 7,598 kWh 3 POINTS: 11,398 kWh 4 POINTS: 15,197 kWh 55 PPOOIINNTTSS:: 1188,,999966 kkWWhh 6 POINTS: 22,795 kWh TToo aacchhiieevvee 1122 ppooiinnttss,, 55 ppooiinnttss wwiillll nneeeedd ttoo bbee aacchhiieevveedd uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn RREE55.. TThheerreeffoorree,, 1188,,999966 kkWWhh wwiillll nneeeedd ttoo bbee aallllooccaatteedd ffrroomm CCoorrnneellll''ss RReenneewwaabbllee EEnneerrggyy PPoorrttffoolliioo aannnnuuaallllyy.. Renewable energy can be allocated from Cornell's Renewable Energy Portfolio. 138 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME OP1 – Development Density C402.5.1.1 One point shall be earned if (CA) > (7 x Acreage), where: CA = the floor area of all Commercial space, measured in units of 1,000 square feet, on the entire parcel occupied by the building Acreage = the land area, measured in acres, of the entire parcel occupied by the building. C402.5.1.2 CA shall include all Commercial space on the parcel occupied by the building, including that in existing buildings. Acreage shall include all land area on the parcel occupied by the building. RESTROOM BUILDING CA = 465/1,000 = 0.465 Acreage = 2.0 0.465 < 7 x 2 RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) CA = 1,583 /1,000 = 1.583 Acreage = 2.0 1.583 < 7 x 2 TThhee rreeqquuiirreedd ddeennssiittyy hhaass nnoott bbeeeenn aacchhiieevveedd oonn ssiittee ffoorr eeiitthheerr ddeessiiggnn ooppttiioonn.. TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP11.. C402.5.2 OP2 Walkability One point may be earned according to the requirements below. This point shall be earned when the following condition is met, in addition to the other requirements in this section C402.5.2. 1) The building is within one quarter (0.25) mile of at least five of the Neighborhood Amenity Types listed in Table C402.5.2.1. a. No single Amenity Type shall be counted more than twice, even when more than two examples of the Amenity Type exist. For example, a building on Aurora Street’s “Restaurant Row” could count two restaurants maximum. b. At least two Amenity Categories shall be represented. c. The one quarter mile measurement(s) may be taken from any part(s) of the building. TThhee ssiittee ddooeess nnoott ffuullffiillll tthheessee rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss aanndd tthheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP22.. 139 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME OP3 - Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces C402.5.3.1 Required Number of EV Parking Spaces The number of required EV parking spaces shall be determined using Table C402.5.3.1(1), based on the number of Residential Dwelling Units (DU) and the area of Commercial space (CA). Up to two points may be earned for installing ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACE(s) and related infrastructure that meets the requirements of this section. RESTROOM BUILDING Directly heated floor area: 465 sf SC = 0.151 * (465/1,000) = 0.07 1 EV parking spot would result in 2 points. BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, EEVV ppaarrkkiinngg ssppaacceess aarree nnoott iinncclluuddeedd iinn tthhee pprroojjeecctt.. TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP33.. RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Directly heated floor area: 1,583 sf SC = 0.151 * (1,583/1,000) = 0.24 1 EV parking spot would result in 2 points. BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, EEVV ppaarrkkiinngg ssppaacceess aarree nnoott iinncclluuddeedd iinn tthhee pprroojjeecctt.. TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP33.. OP5 - Meet NY Stretch Code C402.5.5.1 The building shall comply with all requirements of the NYStretch Energy Code - 2020 Version 1.0. TThhee pprroojjeecctt hhaass nnoott bbeeeenn ddeessiiggnneedd ttoo mmeeeett ssttrreettcchh ccooddee aanndd tthheerreeffoorree,, wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP55.. 140 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME OP6 - Custom Energy Improvement C402.5.6.1 To earn one point, both of the following conditions must be met: - Reduce energy use by 2.4 kWh/SF/year or 8.2 kbtu/SF/year for all commercial HEATED FLOOR AREA in the building compared to a baseline building. RReeqquuiirreess eenneerrggyy mmooddeell ((nnoott iinn ssccooppee)).. C402.5.6.2 To earn two points, both of the following conditions must be met: - Reduce energy use by 4.8 kWh/SF/year or 16.4 kbtu/SF/year for all commercial HEATED FLOOR AREA in the building compared to a baseline building. RReeqquuiirreess eenneerrggyy mmooddeell ((nnoott iinn ssccooppee)).. RESTROOM BUILDING Directly heated floor area: 465 sf 11 PPooiinntt:: Reduction of 1,116 kWh/year compared to the baseline building 22 PPooiinnttss:: Reduction of 2,232 kWh/year compared to the baseline building RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Directly heated floor area: 1,583 sf 11 PPooiinntt:: Reduction of 3,800 kWh/year compared to the baseline building 22 PPooiinnttss:: Reduction of 7,600 kWh/year compared to the baseline building AAtt tthhiiss ttiimmee,, ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr ccaatteeggoorryy OOPP66 aarree nnoott bbeeiinngg ppuurrssuueedd.. SShhoouulldd aann eenneerrggyy mmooddeell bbee ccoommpplleetteedd ffoorr tthhiiss pprroojjeecctt,, iitt iiss nnoott gguuaarraanntteeeedd tthhaatt eeiitthheerr ooppttiioonn wwoouulldd eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss.. Summary Both design options are on track to achieve compliance with the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement when 5 points are achieved via the Renewable Energy credit. For the base design, 5,580 kWh will need to be allocated from Cornell's Renewable Energy Portfolio annually. For the alternate design, 18,996 kWh will need to be allocated from Cornell's Renewable Energy Portfolio annually. 141 Appendix 8: ECS Compliance Checklist and Memo for Press Box Building 143 Ithaca Energy Code Supplement Amendment 2 - City of Ithaca 35 C404.5 Changes in 2023 to Summary Table for Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path – Amendment 2, Effective February 1, 2023 4 POINTS 3 POINTS 5 POINTS 0 POINTS Attachment A Compliance Pathway Not Applicable 5 TOTAL: 12 POINTS 144 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 1 of 7 Contents Page 1 – Overview, Building Information Compliance Checklists for Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path Page 2 – Commercial Buildings Page 3 – Residential Buildings Compliance Checklists for Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path Page 4 – Commercial Buildings Page 6 – Residential Buildings Overview The checklists contained in this document are intended to help applicant teams and municipal staff plan for and assess compliance with the Energy Code Supplement (ECS). Please attach any calculations or other materials needed to verify information entered in this document. Additional information can be found in ECS Section 601 Compliance Documentation. Only basic information is provided here; the full ECS document should be referred to for detailed requirements. In addition, the ECS Reference Manual is intended to help understand and use the ECS; it contains non-essential information such as background information and commentary. The Energy Code Supplement applies to new construction, additions, and major renovations as described in Section 202.1 Applicability.1 Section 202.2 Compliance provides additional compliance details for commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings, including additions and major renovations. Previously planned enhanced requirements to the ECS went into effect January 1, 2023. These changes are described in sections C404 and R504. Building Information To be completed by applicant. Property Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ This property is (check one box only, see definitions in ECS) ☐ Residential ☐ Commercial The following compliance path will be used (check one box only) ☐ Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path ☐ Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path 1 In the Town of Ithaca version of the Energy Code Supplement, all section numbers identified in this document are preceded by “144-.” 126 Game Farm Road,Ithaca,NY 14853 [Press Box Building] 145 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 2 of 7 PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE PATH/EASY PATH - COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Projects must earn at least 12 points. ECS document should be consulted for complete requirements. Applicant fills out "points proposed" column. Code Enforcement Officer fills out "points awarded" column. Cate- gory Improvement Code Section Points Available Points Proposed Points Awarded Summary of Requirements EE1 Heat pumps for space heating C402.2.1 4 - 6 4 points for air source heat pumps. 6 points for ground source heat pumps. EE2 Heat pumps for service water heating C402.2.2 2 2 points for water heating systems that use heat pumps. EE3 Commercial cooking electrification C402.2.3 6 6 points for electric cooking equipment in commercial kitchens. Prerequisite: no fossil fuel use in the building. AI1 Smaller building/room size C402.3.1 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for smaller room sizes. Available for Hotel and Residential portions only. AI2 Heating systems in heated space C402.3.2 1 1 point for installing heating systems in directly heated spaces. AI3 Efficient building shape C402.3.3 1 1 point if exterior surface area divided by directly heated floor area is less than the maximum allowed value. AI4 Right-lighting C402.3.4 1 1 point for reducing overlighting and implementing other lighting improvements. AI5 Modest window-to-wall ratio C402.3.5 1 1 point for overall window-to-wall ratio less than 20%. Individual spaces may exceed 20%. RE1 Renewable energy systems C402.4.1 1 - 6 Up to 6 points for on-site or off-site renewable energy systems. RE2 Biomass systems C402.4.2 3 3 points for biomass space heating systems. OP1 Development density C402.5.1 1 1 point for achieving sufficient development density on the building parcel.* OP2 Walkability C402.5.2 1 1 point if the building meets the walkability criteria.* OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces C402.5.3 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for installing electric vehicle parking spaces and related infrastructure.* OP4 Adaptive reuse C402.5.4 1 1 point for substantial re-purpose of existing building. OP5 Meet NY Stretch Code C402.5.5 1 1 point for complying with NYStretch Energy Code OP6 Custom energy improvement C402.5.6 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for reduction in energy use. * Note: A maximum of three points total may be earned for points OP1, OP2, and OP3 combined. EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION AFFORDABILITY IMPROVEMENTS RENEWABLE ENERGY OTHER POINTS TOTAL POINTS 146 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 3 of 7 PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE PATH/EASY PATH - RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Projects must earn at least 12 points. ECS document should be consulted for complete requirements. Applicant fills out "points proposed" column. Code Enforcement Officer fills out "points awarded" column. Cate- gory Improvement Code Section Points Available Points Proposed Points Awarded Summary of Requirements EE1 Heat pumps for space heating R502.2.1 6 - 10 6 points for air source heat pumps. 10 points for ground source heat pumps. EE2 Heat pumps for service water heating R502.2.2 2 2 points for water heating systems that use heat pumps. EE3 Commercial cooking electrification R502.2.3 6 6 points for electric cooking equipment in commercial kitchens. Prerequisite: no fossil fuel use in the building. EE4 Residential cooking and clothes drying electrification R502.2.4 2 2 point for electric stoves and ventless heat pump clothes dryers. Prerequisite: no fossil fuel use in the building. AI1 Smaller building/room size R502.3.1 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for smaller room sizes. Available for Hotel and Residential portions only. AI2 Heating systems in heated space R502.3.2 1 1 point for installing heating systems in directly heated spaces. AI3 Efficient building shape R502.3.3 1 1 point if exterior surface area divided by directly heated floor area is less than the maximum allowed value. AI5 Modest window-to-wall ratio R502.3.4 1 1 point for overall window-to-wall ratio less than 20% (individual spaces may exceed 20%). RE1 Renewable energy systems R502.4.1 1 - 6 Up to 6 points for on-site or off-site renewable energy systems. RE2 Biomass systems R502.4.2 5 5 points for biomass space heating systems. OP1 Development density R502.5.1 1 1 point for achieving sufficient development density on the building parcel.* OP2 Walkability R502.5.2 1 1 point if the building meets the walkability criteria.* OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces R502.5.3 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for installing electric vehicle parking spaces and related infrastructure.* OP4 Adaptive reuse R502.5.4 1 1 point for substantial re-purpose of existing building. OP5 Meet NY Stretch Code R502.5.5 2 2 points for complying with NYStretch Energy Code OP6 Custom energy improvement R502.5.6 1 - 2 Up to 2 points for reduction in energy use. * Note: A maximum of three points total may be earned for points OP1, OP2, and OP3 combined. EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION AFFORDABILITY IMPROVEMENTS RENEWABLE ENERGY OTHER POINTS TOTAL POINTS 147 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 4 of 7 PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE PATH/WHOLE BUILDING PATH - COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Buildings must comply using one of the performance-based options summarized below. Applicant: check boxes in left-hand column showing intended design, construction, and documentation requirements that will be met. Code Enforcement Officer: check boxes in right-hand column verifying completed requirements. C403.2 and C404.6.1 LEED-based and Energy Calculation-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of one of the following: ☐ ☐ LEED v4 for Building Design + Construction, 17 LEED points total in the Optimize Energy Performance credit and the Renewable Energy Production credit of the Energy and Atmosphere section AND the building shall earn seven points from the ECS Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path, not including AI4 Right-Lighting or OP5 Meet NYStretch Code. ☐ ☐ 80% savings relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 or 92% savings relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include either: ☐ ☐ Design approval by GBCI OR both of the following: ☐ ☐ Complete input and output reports of the energy model. ☐ ☐ Approval of the energy model by NYSERDA, U.S. Department of Energy, Energize NY, or another agency approved by the Code Enforcement Officer. Note: LEED certification is NOT required. C403.3 Passive House-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of one of the following: ☐ ☐ PHIUS+ Passive Building Standard from Passive House Institute US. ☐ ☐ Passive House Classic Standard from Passive House Institute. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include at least one of the following: ☐ ☐ Pre-certification letter from an Accredited Passive House Certifier. All documentation used to show achievement of the requirements. Note: Certification is not required for this option. ☐ ☐ Documentation of Passive House certification. 148 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 5 of 7 C403.4 and C404.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The building shall demonstrate a reduction in GHG emissions of not less than 80% as compared to the baseline building. GHG emissions reductions shall be shown through energy modeling that complies with Appendix G of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. ☐ ☐ All requirements of ECS provisions C403.4.1 through C403.4.6 and C404.6.2 must be satisfied. These provisions are too detailed to summarize here. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building are at least 80% less than the GHG emissions of the baseline building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. C403.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance for Additions May only be used for additions that are showing compliance together with the existing building. Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The addition and the existing building, together as a whole, shall be shown to have lower total GHG emissions than the original existing building. ☐ ☐ Current and proposed GHG emissions shall be calculated following the requirements of the GHG Emissions Calculation Method (C403.4). Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ An energy study of the existing building that includes energy use from at least 12 consecutive months of the most recent 24 months at the time of building permit application. ☐ ☐ An energy study that shows anticipated energy use for the new addition and modified existing building. ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model. ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building and addition together are less than the GHG emissions for the existing building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. 149 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 6 of 7 PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE PATH/WHOLE BUILDING PATH - RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Buildings must comply using one of the performance-based options summarized below. Applicant: check boxes in left-hand column showing intended design, construction, and documentation requirements that will be met. Code Enforcement Officer: check boxes in right-hand column verifying completed requirements. R503.2 and R504.6.1 Energy Rating Index-based Compliance May only be used for residential buildings of not more than three stories. Design and Construction Requirements ☐ ☐ The building shall comply with all requirements of Subsection R406 Energy Rating Index Compliance Alternative of the 2020 Energy Conservation Construction Code of NYS (ECCCNYS R406). Where the ECS requirements are more stringent than the requirements of ECCCNYS R406, ECS requirements shall prevail. In addition, the building shall meet the design requirements of one of the following: ☐ ☐ The rated design shall be shown to have an Energy Rating Index (ERI) less than or equal to 20 when compared to the ERI reference design OR ☐ ☐ The rated design shall be shown to have an Energy Rating Index (ERI) less than or equal to 40 when compared to the ERI reference design AND the building shall earn seven points from the ECS Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path, not including AI4 Right-Lighting or OP5 Meet NYStretch Code. Documentation Requirements ☐ ☐ Compliance documentation shall be submitted as detailed in ECCCNYS R406. R503.3 and R504.6.2 National Green Building Standard-based compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ Using the National Green Building Standard (NGBS), the building shall earn no less than 80 NGBS Energy Efficiency points. NGBS certification is not necessary. ☐ ☐ The building shall earn seven points from the ECS Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path, not including AI4 Right-Lighting or OP5 Meet NYStretch Code. Documentation Requirements ☐ ☐ The design professional or energy professional documenting compliance will provide a signed statement that the design meets the requirements of this subsection, and documentation showing compliance. R503.4 Passive House-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of one of the following. ☐ ☐ PHIUS+ Passive Building Standard from Passive House Institute US ☐ ☐ Passive House Classic Standard from Passive House Institute Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include at least one of the following: ☐ ☐ Pre-certification letter from an Accredited Passive House Certifier. All documentation used to show achievement of the requirements. Note: Certification is not required for this option. ☐ ☐ Documentation of Passive House certification. 150 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT - COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 7 of 7 R503.5 and R504.6.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The building shall demonstrate a reduction in GHG emissions of not less than 80% as compared to the baseline building. GHG emissions reductions shall be shown through energy modeling that complies with Appendix G of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (for residential buildings four stories and greater and all mixed-use buildings classified as residential) or RESNET-HERS (for residential buildings of not more than three stories). ☐ ☐ All requirements of ECS provisions R503.5.1 through R503.5.6 and R504.6.3 must be satisfied. These provisions are too detailed to summarize here. Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building are at least 80% less than the GHG emissions of the baseline building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. R503.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance for Additions May only be used for additions that are showing compliance together with the existing building. Design and Construction Requirements Buildings shall meet the design requirements of all of the following: ☐ ☐ The addition and the existing building, together as a whole, shall be shown to have lower total GHG emissions than the original existing building. ☐ ☐ Current and proposed GHG emissions shall be calculated following the requirements of the GHG Emissions Calculation Method (R503.5). Documentation Requirements Documentation shall include all of the following: ☐ ☐ An energy study of the existing building that includes energy use from at least 12 consecutive months of the most recent 24 months at the time of building permit application. ☐ ☐ An energy study that shows anticipated energy use for the new addition and modified existing building. ☐ ☐ A report, signed and stamped by an accredited energy professional, showing the results of all calculations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs for the energy model, and ☐ ☐ A letter, signed and stamped by an accredited third-party energy professional, stating that proposed total GHG emissions for the building and addition together are less than the GHG emissions for the existing building. The City/Town reserves the right to require additional documentation and/or additional third-party review and analysis by a consultant selected by the City/Town, at the expense of the applicant. All such documentation shall be submitted, and fee shall be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit. 151 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME Memorandum Date: December 17, 2024 Job No.: R24-10426.001 To: Lee Robert, Sasaki From: Ellee Mallia, Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering Re: Cornell University – New Field Hockey Field – Press Box, IECS Code Compliance Path Lee: Included below is a discussion of the recommended compliance path to meet the requirements of the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS) for the Press Box at the new Field Hockey Field on Game Farm Road. The IECS establishes a local energy code supplement with requirements above and beyond the state energy code. The requirements give priority to electrification, renewable energy, and affordability. Each project following the prescriptive compliance path/easy path must achieve 12 points from the C404.5 summary table, included as Attachment A. In Attachment A, the points that have been grayed out are not applicable for this building type/location. The points intended to be pursued for code compliance are highlighted in green. The applicable point sections are detailed below. EE1 - Heat Pumps for Space Heating C402.2.1.1 Only air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps shall be used for all space-heating needs, with exceptions for electric resistance heating as described in section 402.2.1.4. A heating system that uses only air source heat pumps or uses a combination of air source and ground source heat pumps (and electric resistance heating as allowed) shall earn four points. C402.2.1.4 To allow flexibility, electric resistance heat is allowed for a portion of space heating needs. Applicants shall submit documentation showing that at least one of the following conditions is met. 1) Stand-alone electric resistance heating (not associated with heat pumps) is used to heat 10% or less of the building’s heated floor area. 2) Stand-alone electric resistance heating (not associated with heat pumps) is used to meet 10% or less of the building’s projected annual space heating load. BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt mmeecchhaanniiccaall ddeessiiggnn iinncclluuddeess hheeaatt ppuummppss aanndd wwiillll tthheerreeffoorree eeaarrnn 44 ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn EEEE11.. 152 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME AI2 - Heating Systems in Heated Places C402.3.2.1 All components of heating systems shall be installed inside space that meets all the following criteria: 1) Inside the BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE 2) DIRECTLY HEATED SPACE 3) LIVABLE SPACE, OCCUPIABLE SPACE or contiguous to LIVABLE SPACE or OCCUPIABLE SPACE 4) On a building level where at least 50% of the FLOOR AREA is DIRECTLY HEATED FLOOR AREA BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt mmeecchhaanniiccaall ddeessiiggnn llooccaatteess aallll ccoommppoonneennttss ooff tthhee hheeaattiinngg ssyysstteemmss wwiitthhiinn tthhee tthheerrmmaall eennvveellooppee aanndd wwiillll tthheerreeffoorree eeaarrnn 11 ppooiinntt uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII22.. AI3 - Efficient Building Shape C402.3.3.1 The exterior surface area divided by the directly heated floor area shall be less than the maximum value provided in Table C402.3.3.1. Per Table C402.3.3.1, buildings with a directly heated floor area between 400-499 square feet must have an exterior surface area to directly heated floor area ratio of less than 3.17. PRESS BOX Directly heated floor area: 400 sf Exterior surface area: 200 + 2* (195 + 494) = 1,578 sf Ratio: 1,578 / 400 = 3.95 3.95 > 3.17 AAss tthhee rraattiioo ssuurrppaasssseess tthhee mmaaxxiimmuumm aalllloowweedd,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt ddooeess nnoott aacchhiieevvee tthhee 11 ppooiinntt aavvaaiillaabbllee uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII33.. A14 - Right-Lighting C402.3.4.2 Lighting Power Allowance The total connected interior lighting power shall not be greater than the interior lighting power allowance. The total connected interior lighting power shall be calculated using the method described in the Energy Conservation Construction Code of NYS. The total interior lighting power allowance, in watts, shall be determined according to Table AA1 (Appendix A), for all areas of the building covered in this permit. The lighting power allowance shall be determined by multiplying the floor area of each space times the lighting power density (LPD) value for the space type in Table AA1 that most closely represents the proposed use of the space, and then summing the lighting power allowances for all spaces to calculate the total interior lighting power allowance. Trade-offs among spaces are permitted. 153 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME Construction documents shall include a table of space-by-space as-designed lighting power densities along with the lighting power allowances from Table AA1. PRESS BOX LPA: 0.62 W/sf (for a meeting room space type from Table AA1) TThhee pprreessss bbooxx iiss aa pprreeffaabbrriiccaatteedd ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn aanndd tthhee lliigghhttiinngg ppoowweerr ddeennssiittyy wwiillll bbee ccoooorrddiinnaatteedd nnoott ttoo ssuurrppaassss tthhee lliigghhttiinngg ppoowweerr aalllloowwaannccee.. TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhee bbuuiillddiinngg wwiillll bbee eelliiggiibbllee ttoo eeaarrnn 11 ppooiinntt uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII44.. A15 - Modest Window-to-Wall Ratio C402.3.5.1 The vertical fenestration area, not including opaque doors and opaque spandrel panels, shall be not greater than 20 percent of the gross above-grade wall area. PRESS BOX Vertical fenestration: 164 sf Above grade wall area: 1,378 sf 164 / 1,378 = 12% BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, tthhee ccuurrrreenntt aarrcchhiitteeccttuurraall ddeessiiggnn wwiillll eeaarrnn 11 ppooiinntt uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn AAII55 dduuee ttoo aa wwiinnddooww--ttoo--wwaallll rraattiioo bbeellooww 2200%%.. RE1 - Renewable Energy Systems C402.4.1.1 On-site and off-site renewable energy systems that meet the requirements of this section shall earn up to six points based on their annual electrical or thermal energy production. Multiple renewable energy systems may be used to earn points, but no more than six total points may be earned for any combination of renewable energy systems. Equation 4-2: Minimum Renewable Energy Production needed to earn each point = (2.4 kWh/ft2 x CA) where CA = Directly heated floor area of Commercial space (ft2) 154 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME PRESS BOX Directly heated floor area: 400 sf 1 POINT: 960 kWh 2 POINTS: 1,920 kWh 3 POINTS: 2,880 kWh 4 POINTS: 3,840 kWh 55 PPOOIINNTTSS:: 44,,880000 kkWWhh 6 POINTS: 5,760 kWh Renewable energy can be allocated from Cornell's Renewable Energy Portfolio. TToo aacchhiieevvee tthhee rreeqquuiissiittee ttoottaall ooff 1122 ppooiinnttss,, 55 ppooiinnttss wwiillll nneeeedd ttoo bbee aacchhiieevveedd uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn RREE55.. TThheerreeffoorree,, 44,,880000 kkWWhh wwiillll nneeeedd ttoo bbee aallllooccaatteedd ffrroomm CCoorrnneellll''ss RReenneewwaabbllee EEnneerrggyy PPoorrttffoolliioo aannnnuuaallllyy.. OP1 – Development Density C402.5.1.1 One point shall be earned if (CA) > (7 x Acreage), where: CA = the floor area of all Commercial space, measured in units of 1,000 square feet, on the entire parcel occupied by the building Acreage = the land area, measured in acres, of the entire parcel occupied by the building. C402.5.1.2 CA shall include all Commercial space on the parcel occupied by the building, including that in existing buildings. Acreage shall include all land area on the parcel occupied by the building. CA = 400/1,000 = 0.4 Acreage = 2.0 0.4 < 7 x 2 TThhee rreeqquuiirreedd ddeennssiittyy hhaass nnoott bbeeeenn aacchhiieevveedd oonn ssiittee.. TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP11.. 155 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME C402.5.2 OP2 Walkability One point may be earned according to the requirements below. This point shall be earned when the following condition is met, in addition to the other requirements in this section C402.5.2. 1) The building is within one quarter (0.25) mile of at least five of the Neighborhood Amenity Types listed in Table C402.5.2.1. a. No single Amenity Type shall be counted more than twice, even when more than two examples of the Amenity Type exist. For example, a building on Aurora Street’s “Restaurant Row” could count two restaurants maximum. b. At least two Amenity Categories shall be represented. c. The one quarter mile measurement(s) may be taken from any part(s) of the building. TThhee ssiittee ddooeess nnoott ffuullffiillll tthheessee rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss aanndd tthheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP22.. OP3 - Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces C402.5.3.1 Required Number of EV Parking Spaces The number of required EV parking spaces shall be determined using Table C402.5.3.1(1), based on the number of Residential Dwelling Units (DU) and the area of Commercial space (CA). Up to two points may be earned for installing ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACE(s) and related infrastructure that meets the requirements of this section. PRESS BOX Directly heated floor area: 400 sf SC = 0.151 * (400/1,000) = 0.06 1 EV parking spot would result in 2 points. BBaasseedd oonn tthhee ddeessiiggnn iinn AAddddeenndduumm ##11,, ddaatteedd DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188,, 22002244,, EEVV ppaarrkkiinngg ssppaacceess aarree nnoott iinncclluuddeedd iinn tthhee pprroojjeecctt.. TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhee pprroojjeecctt wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP33.. OP5 - Meet NY Stretch Code C402.5.5.1 The building shall comply with all requirements of the NYStretch Energy Code - 2020 Version 1.0. TThhee pprroojjeecctt hhaass nnoott bbeeeenn ddeessiiggnneedd ttoo mmeeeett ssttrreettcchh ccooddee aanndd tthheerreeffoorree,, wwiillll nnoott eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr sseeccttiioonn OOPP55.. 156 Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P.C. | www.rfsengineering.com Laconia, NH | Boston, MA | Portland, ME OP6 - Custom Energy Improvement C402.5.6.1 To earn one point, both of the following conditions must be met: - Reduce energy use by 2.4 kWh/SF/year or 8.2 kbtu/SF/year for all commercial HEATED FLOOR AREA in the building compared to a baseline building. RReeqquuiirreess eenneerrggyy mmooddeell ((nnoott iinn ssccooppee)).. C402.5.6.2 To earn two points, both of the following conditions must be met: - Reduce energy use by 4.8 kWh/SF/year or 16.4 kbtu/SF/year for all commercial HEATED FLOOR AREA in the building compared to a baseline building. RReeqquuiirreess eenneerrggyy mmooddeell ((nnoott iinn ssccooppee)).. PRESS BOX Directly heated floor area: 400 sf 11 PPooiinntt:: Reduction of 960 kWh/year compared to the baseline building 22 PPooiinnttss:: Reduction of 1,920 kWh/year compared to the baseline building AAtt tthhiiss ttiimmee,, ppooiinnttss uunnddeerr ccaatteeggoorryy OOPP66 aarree nnoott bbeeiinngg ppuurrssuueedd.. SShhoouulldd aann eenneerrggyy mmooddeell bbee ccoommpplleetteedd ffoorr tthhiiss pprroojjeecctt,, iitt iiss nnoott gguuaarraanntteeeedd tthhaatt tthhee ddeessiiggnn wwoouulldd eeaarrnn ppooiinnttss.. Summary The press box design is on track to achieve compliance with the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement when 5 points are achieved via the Renewable Energy credit. This will require 4,800 kWh to be allocated from Cornell's Renewable Energy Portfolio annually. 157 Ithaca Energy Code Supplement Amendment 2 - City of Ithaca 35 C404.5 Changes in 2023 to Summary Table for Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path – Amendment 2, Effective February 1, 2023 4 POINTS 3 POINTS 5 POINTS 0 POINTS Attachment A Compliance Pathway Not Applicable 5 TOTAL: 12 POINTS Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Supplemental Materials Submission Cornell University Ithaca, NY February 21, 2025 February 21, 2025 C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Director Randall, Attached please find additional materials regarding the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project for Cornell University. We are looking forward to discussing SEQR at your March 4 meeting. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Kimberly Van Leeuwen Director of Landscape Architecture Fisher Associates Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C. 1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 | Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400 | www.twm.la | www.fisherassoc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Overview/Site Plan 5 Review of Bibliography submitted by members of the Public 6 Updated Drawings – Corrections 9 Bibliography submitted by members of the Public, spreadsheet 11 Revised technical drawings (11x17, 24x36) L4-02 Field Grading & Drainage Plan L10-01 Field Details 5 PROJECT OVERVIEW Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed, NCAA-required synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. Figure: Phase I An additional building (phase two) for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation. The building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team. The clubhouse will include team locker rooms, offices, meeting rooms, a physical therapy/training room, a lounge, toilets, showers, and an indoor training space. The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The full buildout with Phase II building is visible on the title page. The proposed septic system, stormwater management system, and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate both phase one and phase two development. 6 REVIEW OF “BIBLIOGRAPHY” SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Some members of the public have voiced concerns about synthetic turf, and submitted material that they hope both the Planning Board and Cornell will consider in their decision making. The project team has reviewed the entire “bibliography” document mentioned by members of Zero Waste Ithaca as well as other references submitted to the planning board in letters (emails) from the general public. Specifically, we reviewed 338 references (as of February 14th, 2025) and determined that they could be sorted into six primary subject categories: • Crumb rubber • PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) • Microplastics • Sports injuries • Heat from turf • Miscellaneous The team identified which references were from a peer-reviewed source. Each reference could be attributed to one of seven media source classifications: • Peer-reviewed journal article • Government fact sheet/report • Non-peer-reviewed academic research and laboratory reports • News article, journalism, op-ed • Non-government organization (NGO) articles, submissions, and blogs • Commentary, letters, white papers and other submissions from the public, including social media • Other (which includes technical and expert reports, industry and university information, legal analysis, and consultant reports) The table below provides a summary of entries categorized as described above. As indicated in the table, 32% of the references are to peer-reviewed sources, 54% are to journalism and NGO and public submission sources, 7% are to government and non-peer reviewed research, and 7% are to other sources. We also noted that 59 of the 338 references were duplicate entries (redundant sources). 7 The Planning Board requested information on the credibility of reference material. Only 32% of the references are to peer-reviewed sources. Of that 32%, many of the sources are not applicable to this project, since they are about items that are not relevant to this project (such as crumb rubber and PFAS). Included with this submission is a spreadsheet itemizing each source in Zero Waste Ithaca’s document and letters submitted to the Planning Board. The spreadsheet notes their topic categories, their source, their media classification, if it was peer-reviewed, if the full publication is publicly available, their abstract/synopsis, and whether the source information is specific to synthetic turf. The intent of this analysis is to enable Planning Board members to sort through and evaluate the document and characterization of the underlying data more efficiently. As you know, the standard of practice for objectively evaluating scientific information is to use peer-reviewed sources. Therefore, our additional evaluation of the bibliography content focused on peer-reviewed sources. A summary of the scientific findings in the peer-reviewed studies is provided below. Crumb rubber 20 of the 89 peer-reviewed articles are about crumb rubber. The Field Hockey field will not use any infill material. Therefore, topics associated with crumb rubber are not applicable to the proposed synthetic turf fields. PFAS 13 of the 89 studies are about PFAS. The synthetic turf that will be used for the proposed fields will proactively comply with the New York Carpet Collection Program (NY Environmental Conservation Law Title 33, Section 27-3301 and 27-3315). That law requires that carpets (including synthetic turf) sold in New York State after December 31, 2026 not contain PFAS. The turf product that will be supplied for this project will comply with the law. Additionally, Cornell has committed to conducting 3rd-party testing of the carpet for PFAS prior to it leaving the manufacturer and being delivered to the project. Topics associated with PFAS are not applicable to the proposed project. Microplastics 31 of the 89 studies are about microplastics. The field design includes a proprietary stormwater filter practice that will remove microplastics to a size that is consistent with what is measurable, which will therefore remove detectable microplastics from stormwater runoff from the field. Topics associated with microplastics are not applicable to the proposed project. Heat from turf There are five peer-reviewed citations in this subject group. One study evaluates watering requirements to cool turf surfaces, three evaluate heat stress related to athletes playing on synthetic turf, and one evaluates effects of heat from synthetic turf on the climate. • Water to cool surfaces: Cornell does not use water to cool their synthetic turf fields; water will only be used on the field hockey field to prepare the field for play (regardless of outdoor or field surface temperature). • Cornell Athletics Sports Medicine staff work to prevent sports-related heat stress by monitoring heat and humidity using an app called Weather Sentry that provides “real-feel” temperature(s). Sports Medicine staff communicates early to all appropriate athletics staff members and student-athletes when the air temperature and relative humidity are reaching levels that need to be monitored to prevent heat illness. Sports medicine staff consult with Cornell University Emergency Management as needed regarding weather forecasts and conditions. 8 • Climate Impacts from heat: Golden (2021). This study employed a model of atmospheric transmittance of infrared wavelengths to project the energy absorbed by the atmosphere as a function of ground temperature. The study concluded that because artificial turf surfaces get hotter than natural turf surfaces, artificial turf fields contribute more to heating of the atmosphere than natural turf fields. The study, however, also notes that artificial turf fields contribute orders of magnitude less heating to the atmosphere than do asphalt, roofing, and other similar reflective surfaces, and that heating of the atmosphere due to reflective surfaces is much less than heating due to greenhouse gases. Miscellaneous There are 20 peer-reviewed sources in this subject category, including one pertaining to sports injuries, and only four of them are turf-specific articles. The remainder primarily evaluate plastics in general, global issues, mental health concerning urban greenspace (e.g., in cities), and natural turf maintenance. These are not applicable to the scope of a project involving the installation of a single synthetic turf field on a pre-existing grass field within a 105+ acre site consisting mostly of fallow fields, naturalized areas, and some athletics-related fields and buildings. Also, this site is further surrounded by an additional 300+ acres of open space to the north, east, and south. The four turf-specific articles are evaluated below. • Sanchez-Sotomayer, et al. (2022). This study investigates the effects of artificial grass replacement on bird diversity in urban parks in eastern Spain. The study concluded that parks with natural grass consistently supported higher species richness, gamma diversity, and bird abundance. Community composition differences were driven mainly by common ground-feeding birds, which were more abundant in natural grass parks. Artificial grass parks exhibited higher nestedness, indicating a subset of species from natural grass parks. The authors indicate that the findings suggest that replacing natural grass with artificial grass reduces avian biodiversity, posing a threat to bird conservation. It is important to consider context and scale of the proposed project. There are over a hundred acres of natural space immediately around the project site (as well as much more in the surrounding area, including lands used by Cornell for agricultural research and others owned by New York State), and the site is not a habitat for threatened or endangered species. • Gould et al. (2022) performed a critical review of 53 articles published between 1972 and 2020 to evaluate sports-injury rates between natural turf and synthetic turf playing surfaces. The review considered all sports, levels of competition, and turf types. No quantitative statistical analysis of injury rates between playing surfaces was performed. The study concluded that, qualitatively, overall injury rates between synthetic and natural turf were similar when considering newer generation synthetic turf, but when rates specific to foot and ankle injuries were evaluated, higher injury rates occurred on synthetic turf. The product selected for this project is designed to provide a safe and appropriate play surface as required by international standards. Cornell must and will adhere to its safety standards for athletic play on both natural and synthetic turf fields. • Siegel, et al. (2024). This study investigates the endocrine and cardiometabolic toxicity of artificial turf materials by using in vitro (i.e., ‘test tube’) evaluations of extracts of different artificial turf system components and infill materials. These findings showed that artificial turf materials, particularly those exposed to environmental weathering, increased bioactivity of endocrine and metabolic receptors. The authors concluded that their data demonstrate potential endocrine and cardiometabolic effects from artificial turf material extracts, warranting further investigation into potential exposures and human health effects. A companion study, by the U.S. EPA (2024), which is included under crumb rubber in the citation categorizations, has evaluated the potential effects of exposure to synthetic turf materials in athletes using 9 turf fields, and determined that any changes in metabolic responses were indistinguishable from changes that occurred to players using natural turf fields. • Bernat-Ponce, et al. (2020). This study examines the impact of remodeling that replaced natural substrates with artificial surfaces (such as pavement, concrete, and artificial grass) on House Sparrow populations in ten (10) urban parks in the Valencian Community of Spain. After remodeling, sparrow populations declined significantly in modified parks, while remaining stable in unaltered parks. The authors concluded that the study suggests that these changes reduce habitat suitability and food availability, negatively impacting House Sparrow populations and potentially other urban wildlife. We note that replacement of grass with pavement and concrete would be expected to reduce habitat. Additionally, it is important to consider the context and scale of the proposed project. There are over one hundred acres of natural space immediately around the project site (as well as much more in the surrounding area, including lands used by Cornell for agricultural research and others owned by New York State), and the site is not a habitat for threatened or endangered species. We acknowledge that the volume of material received about this project (from both our project team and the public) has been significant. We provide this information to support the Planning Board's desire for a thorough analysis of the submittals. As demonstrated by the credible sources previously submitted by Cornell, the University has made the most progressive choices available for this project (no crumb rubber, no PFAS, enhanced stormwater design, voluntary testing, etc.) and as such, the proposed project does not pose a likelihood of creating a significant adverse environmental impact. UPDATED DRAWINGS - CORRECTIONS With this submission we are providing corrected versions of two technical sheets that were included in our original October 3 submission package. Revision clouds have been drawn around areas of correction. On sheet L4-02 Field Grading & Drainage Plan, an incorrect elevation number of “873.74” was written – it has been revised to correctly read “973.74”. On sheet L10-01 Field Details, several small revisions were made including that exposed concrete is to have a “light broom finish” (FD-03, FD-02). Most importantly, the detail for Perimeter Field Drainage (FD-07) incorrectly had a note suggesting that the synthetic turf system would include infill. On the revised sheet, the detail for Perimeter Field Drainage (FD-09) has been corrected and does not include this note. As stated in all our other documents and submissions, the field hockey synthetic turf system will not include infill of any kind. G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 12" P A N E L D R A I N 1 2 " P A N E L D R A I N 1 2 " P A N E L D R A I N 20. 0 0 ' 3.0'W STONE TRENCH (HEIGHT VARIES), WITH 18" PERF. PIPE, TYP 12" P A N E L D R A I N 12"x18"x18" TEE CONNECTION PERF. HDPE INV: 969.07 12" PERF. HDPE INV: 971.07 2.0'W X 2.0'H STONE TRENCH, WITH 12" PERF. PIPE, TYP 12" PERF. HDPE INV: 971.07 2.0'W X 2.0'H STONE TRENCH, WITH 12" PERF. PIPE, TYP 12"x18" ELBOW CONNECTION PERF. HDPE INV: 970.67 12"x18" ELBOW CONNECTION PERF. HDPE INV: 970.67 12"x18"x18" TEE CONNECTION PERF. HDPE INV: 969.07 18 " P E R F H D P E P I P E S = 0 . 5 % TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN INV OUT: 971.65 6" HDPE PIPE, S=0.5% TRENCH DRAIN IN CONCRETE PAVING TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN INV OUT: 971.65 12" PERF HDPE PIPE S=0.5% 12" PERF HDPE PIPE S=2.0% 18 " P E R F . H D P E P I P E S = 0 . 5 % LI M I T O F W O R K STORMWATER PRACTICE, SEE CIVIL SERIES 1. 5 0 % 0. 0 0 % EL. 973.50 SEE L4-10 FOR FIELD GRADING AND DRAINAGE ENLARGEMENT 1.00% 0. 0 0 % 3. 0 0 % 7 . 0 0 % G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST FG 0.30% SG 0.50% FG 0.30% SG 0.50% 20.00 FG 973.80 FG 973.81 TOS: 973.68 TSG: 973.01 10.00 FG 0.30% FG 0.30% FG 973.81 TEL: 973.71 TOS: 973.62 TSG: 972.90 FG 973.50 FG 973.74FG 973.68FG 973.62FG 973.56 FG 973.74 FG 973.68 FG 973.62 FG 973.56 20.0020.0020.0020.00 20.0020.0020.0020.0020.00 FG 973.50 TOS: 973.37 TSG: 972.49 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 9 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 3 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 4 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 6 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 2 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 3 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 5 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 8 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 6 4 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 5 5 , T S G : 9 7 3 . 7 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 7 4 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 0 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 1 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 8 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 8 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 9 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 2 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 8 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 9 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 6 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 8 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 9 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 7 4 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 0 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 1 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 8 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 8 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 6 4 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 5 5 , T S G : 9 7 3 . 7 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 2 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 8 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 9 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 6 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 6 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 2 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 3 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 5 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 9 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 3 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 4 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 9 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 3 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 4 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 6 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 2 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 3 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 5 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 8 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 6 4 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 5 5 , T S G : 9 7 3 . 7 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 7 4 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 0 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 1 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 8 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 8 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 9 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 2 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 8 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 9 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 6 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 8 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 9 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 7 4 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 7 0 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 6 1 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 8 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 8 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 6 4 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 5 5 , T S G : 9 7 3 . 7 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 6 2 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 8 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 9 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 6 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 6 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 5 2 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 4 3 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 5 9 FG : 9 7 3 . 5 0 , T E L : 9 7 3 . 9 6 , T O S : 9 7 3 . 3 7 , T S G : 9 7 2 . 4 9 FG 973.50 FG 973.50 FG 973.81 TEL: 973.71 TOS: 973.62 TSG: 972.90 FG 973.36 FG 973.36 FG 973.41 FG 973.29 FG 973.29 FG 973.41 FG 973.41 FG 973.35 FG 973.50 FG 973.63 FG 973.58 FG 973.64 FFE 973.64 FG 973.64 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1. 5 0 % FFE 974.05 FG 973.63 FG 973.55 FG 973.63FG 973.55 TOS 974.05 BOR 973.55 FG 973.53 1.0%1.0% 1.0% TOS 974.01 BOS 973.55 FG 0.30% FG 0.30% FG 0.30% SG 0.50% FG 973.50 LI M I T O F W O R K STORMWATER PRACTICE, SEE CIVIL SERIES FIELD GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN L4-10 5 1 10.00 TOS BOS VERIFY IN FIELD SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SPOT ELEVATION FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TOP AND BOTTOM OF SLAB CONTOUR MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR VIF FFE TC BC TOP AND BOTTOM OF CURB HP LPS LOW POINT OF SWALE HIGH POINT CONTOUR/ELEVATION EXISTING GRADE BREAK RIM ELEVATIONRIM (5) AREA DRAIN, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS LP LOW POINT HPS HIGH POINT OF SWALE FINISHED / FIELD GRADEFG TOP OF ELASTIC LAYERTEL TOP OF STONETOS TOP OF SUBGRADETSG LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY LEGEND >>SWALE EXISTING AREA DRAIN (10.00)EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DESCRIPTION: FIELD DRAINAGE SYMBOL: TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN PANEL DRAIN HDPE PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE STONE TRENCH FD-09 TRENCH DRAIN IN CONCRETE PAVINGFD-06 1" = 20' FIELD HOCKEY FIELD GRADING FIELD HOCKEY FIELD DRAINAGE DRAINAGE NOTES: 1.REFER TO C-SERIES FOR SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND DOWNSTREAM CONNECTION OF MULTIPURPOSE FIELD DRAINAGE SYSTEM. GRADING NOTES: 1.PROPERY LINES, EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION AND TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC MAP CORNELL UNIVERSITY INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION CENTER, PREPARED BY TG MILLER, DATED APRIL 24, 2024. 2.REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY AND STORMWATER INFORMATION. UTILITIES AND MEP DRAWINGS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH FINISHED GRADES, AND ARCHITECT SHALL BE INFORMED IN WRITING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3.ALL GRADING SHALL BE REVIEWED WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO START OF WORK. 4.ALL WALKWAYS SHALL MAINTAIN A CROSS SLOPE OF NOT MORE THAN 2%, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. IF THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT ACHIEVE A SLOPE THAT MEETS THIS REQUIREMENTS, THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 5.ALL PROPOSED PAVEMENTS SHALL MEET THE LINE AND GRADE OF EXISTING ADJACENT PAVEMENT SURFACES. THE PAVING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 1/4" LOWER THAN THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AT ALL DOORWAYS. 6.ALL WALKWAYS SHALL MAINTAIN A LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF NOT MORE THAN 5% UNLESS EXPLICITLY NOTED OTHERWISE. IF THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT ACHIEVE A SLOPE THAT MEETS THIS REQUIREMENTS, THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 7.ALL PAVED AND PLANTED AREA SHALL SLOPE TO DRAIN AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 8.ALL PAVEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM PITCH OF 1%, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. Feet 0 20 40 Plot Date: 2/11/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\L4-02_FIELD DRAINAGE & GRADING-PERMIT.dwg Saved By: wsasser Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 PLAN UPDATES 02-12-251 1 FIELD DETAILS (FD TYPES) L10-01FD-01 1.SYNTHETIC TURF FIBER W/ SHOCK PAD 2.POROUS ASPHALT - 3" 3.TOP DRAINAGE STONE: 1" 4.DYNAMIC BASE DRAINAGE STONE: 7.5" - 9" DEPTH 5.PANEL DRAIN 6.GEOTEXTILE FABRIC A.FG: FINISHED GRADE (TOP OF SYNTHETIC TURF FIBER) B.TEL: TOP OF POROUS ASPHALT C.TOS: TOP OF DRAINAGE STONE D.TSG: TOP OF SUBGRADE E.SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD SYSTEM. LEGEND NOTES 1 3 4 5 6 2 SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM - FIELD HOCKEY NTS 1.1"W x 4"D CONCRETE NOTCH 2.2X8 PRESSURE TREATED WOOD NAILER 3.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM 4.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE CURB 5.4 #4 BAR HORIZONAL CONTINUOUS REINFORCING; 8" LAP 6.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTER 7.6" DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE 8.COMPACTED SUBGRADE 9.ADJACENT SURFACE, VARIES LEGEND 8 4 5 7 1 3 9 A.FORM CONCRETE WITH A 1" X 4" INSET "NOTCH". ATTACH PRESSURE TREATED 2X8 LUMBER TO EDGE OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO "NOTCH", DOWN 1/2" FROM THE TOP OF CONCRETE CURB. THE TURF RUNS OVER TOP OF THE LUMBER, AND IS MECHANICALLY SECURED TO THE LUMBER. B.TOP OF CONCRETE = TOP OF TURF = FINISHED GRADE C.PROVIDE SCORING JOINT EVERY 8' OC AND EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 24' OC. SEE FENCE POST DETAIL. D.EXPOSED CONCRETE TO HAVE A LIGHT BROOM FINISH. NOTES 14" 2. 0 0 ' ( 2 4 " ) 13" 2 6 SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB - 6'-0" FENCE 1" = 1'-0" FD-02 DRAIN CLEANUOUT - SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD 1" = 1'-0" TRENCH DRAIN IN CONCRETE PAVING 1"=1'-0" TRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM EXPANSION JOINT CONCRETE PAVING/CURB CIP CONCRETE COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE BLACK ADA PLASTIC GRATE UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE COMPACTED AGGREGATE6" HDPE OUTLET GRAVEL BEDDING ADS DRAINAGE BASIN SQUARE CAST IRON GRATE H-10 LOADING. ADA COMPLIANT SE E D R A I N A G E P L A N 12 " S U M P 6" DIAMETER NOTED IN PLAN RESTRICTOR PLATE WHERE REQUIRED AREA DRAIN @ SYNTHETIC LANDSCAPE TURF NTS 12" FILTER FABRIC OVERLAP 4" PERFORATED HDPE SLOPE: 0% #57 WASHED STONE7" #67 STONE @ SIDES AND TOP 18 " SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB 3" 7" 3" FRENCH DRAIN NTS FD-05FD-06 FD-07 FD-08 FLAGPOLE N.T.S NOTES CARE MUST BE EXERCISED IN SETTING TUBE PLUMB AND LEVEL IN FORMS AND IT MUST BE SECURED SO IT DOES NOT SHIFT WHEN POURING CONCRETE. FLAGPOLE SHALL NOT BE OVER 40 FT. FLASH COLLAR OR STOCK DESIGN BASE WATERPROOF MASTIC FINISH GRADE HARDWOOD WEDGES 3,000 PSI MIN. MIX CONCRETE PACKED DRY SAND (4)WELDED STEEL CENTERING WEDGES 16"X16"X3/16" WELDED STEEL BASE 8"X8"X3/16" WELDED STEEL SUPPORT 3/4" DIA X 3'-6" ST. LIGHTING GROUND SPIKE WITH NUT WELDED TO BASE 30" DIA. AT TOP 6" 1" 4' - 0 " F O U N D A T I O N T U B E 316 "3' - 6 " 12 " 30" DIA. AT BOTTOM FD-10 CAMERA POLE ("CP") HAND HOLE CL NOTE: 1.FINAL POLE BASE/ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION, FIXTURE MOUNTING HEIGHTS AND CONFIGURATION ON POLE TO BE VERIFIED THROUGH SHOP DRAWINGS. 2.FINAL CAMERA AIMING TO BE COORDINATED IN THE FIELD. 3.CAMERA CONNECTION TO POLE AND DRILL HOLE PATTERN T.B.D. 4.FOR POLE MOUNTED SPEAKERS SEE AUDIO VISUAL PACKAGE. 5.SPEAKER CONNECTION TO POLE AND DRILL HOLE PATTERN T.B.D. 6.PROVIDE MANUFACTURER'S FULL BASE PLATE COVER FOR LIGHT POLE BASE. FINISH AND COLOR TO MATCH LIGHT POLE. 7.INSTALL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR PER MANUFACTURER. 8.LIGHT POLE FINISH AND COLOR TO BE APPROVED BY ARCHITECT. FOUNDATION, SEE FD-11 VALMOUNT DS210 ROUND TAPERED STEEL POLE WITH POLE MOUNTED CAMERAS AND SPEAKERS. 23 . 5 0 ' B L E A C H E R S P E A K E R M O U N T I N G H E I G H T ( S E E A U D I O V I S U A L D R A W I N G S ) FULL BASE PLATE COVER GFCI RECEPTACLE PTZ CAMERA, TYP. 1" = 1'-0" VALMONT DS210 ROUND TAPERED STEEL LIGHT POLE. NOMINAL MOUNT HEIGHT (30'-0") POLE BASE OD (8.00") GFCI RECEPTACLE TWO (2) R.5 COMMUNITY BLEACHER SPEAKERS WITH BRACKET MOUNTED 23'-6" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE 30 . 0 0 ' ( P O L E H E I G H T ) 29 . 0 0 ' F I E L D S P E A K E R M O U N T I N G H E I G H T ( S E E A U D I O V I S U A L D R A W I N G S ) 26 . 0 0 ' C A M E R A M O U N T I N G H E I G H T ( S E E A U D I O V I S U A L D R A W I N G S ) (1) R.1 COMMUNITY FIELD SPEAKER WITH BRACKET MOUNTED 29'-0" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE FD-12 7' - 0 " 2'-0" 2" CLEAR COVER 3" M I N CL E A R C O V E R BASE PLATE & ANCHOR BOLTS BY MANUFACTURER CAMERA LIGHT POLE BY MANUFACTURER FINISH GRADE, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS #4@12" O.C. ROUND TIES, (4) @ 2" O.C. @ TOP. LAP ENDS 6" MIN & PROVIDE STD HOOKS #4@12" O.C. ROUND TIES, (4) @ 2" O.C. @ TOP 12-#6 VERT, EVENLY SPACED 12-#6 VERT, EVENLY SPACEDSECTION A-A AA CAMERA POLE "CP" FOUNDATIONFD-11 8. 5 " - 1 0 " 12" INV: VARIES 2.50' MI N . 2 . 0 0 ' EL: VARIES TSG: TOP OF SUBGRADE SYNTHETIC TURF FIBER WITH SHOCK PAD DRAINAGE STONE BED 12" PANEL DRAIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC COMPACTED SUBGRADE PERIMETER STONE TRENCH WITH EMBEDDED 12" PERFORATED HDPE PIPE, OR AS OTHERWISE NOTED FG: TOP OF FIBER ←SUBGRADE SLOPE 0.5% TOS: TOP OF STONE 0. 5 0 ' PERIMETER FIELD DRAINAGE 1 2" = 1'-0" POROUS ASPHALT SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB (WIDTH, DEPTH VARIES) FD-02 L10-01 FD-03 L10-01 FD-04 L10-01 1.50' 8" HDPE MAINLINE IRRIGATION PIPE, REFER TO I-SERIES FOR MORE DETAIL 2. 5 0 ' M I N . CO V E R FD-09 SPECTATOR SEATING - PLAN AND SECTIONS 1/2" = 1'-0" CROSS BRACING INDICATED BY 'X' MID-AISLE RAIL (1 @ 4'-4") 60" FRONT WALKWAY AI S L E CE N T E R L I N E OF B L E A C H E R NOTES: 1.MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE DELEGATED DRAWINGS FOR SEATING AND RAMP. 2.PROVIDE 5" CONCRETE SLAB TO SUPPORT SPECTATOR SEATING, RAMP, AND STAIR. 2.1.CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT TO BE WELDED WIRE MESH (4X4-W/D4XW/D4 OR 6X6-W/D7.4XW/D7.4) 2.2.CONCRETE DESIGN STRENGTH F'c=3000 PSI LOCAL READI-MIX DESIGN. 2.3.REINFORCING TO MEET ASTM A615 GRADE 60. FD-14 1.1"W x 4"D CONCRETE NOTCH 2.2X8 PRESSURE TREATED WOOD NAILER 3.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM 4.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE CURB 5.4 #4 BAR HORIZONAL CONTINUOUS REINFORCING; 8" LAP 6.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTER 7.6" DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE 8.COMPACTED SUBGRADE 9.ADJACENT SURFACE, VARIES LEGEND 8 4 5 7 1 39 A.FORM CONCRETE WITH A 1" X 4" INSET "NOTCH". ATTACH PRESSURE TREATED 2X8 LUMBER TO EDGE OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO "NOTCH", DOWN 1/2" FROM THE TOP OF CONCRETE CURB. THE TURF RUNS OVER TOP OF THE LUMBER, AND IS MECHANICALLY SECURED TO THE LUMBER. B.TOP OF CONCRETE = TOP OF TURF = FINISHED GRADE C.PROVIDE SCORING JOINT EVERY 8' OC AND EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 24' OC. SEE FENCE POST DETAIL. D.EXPOSED CONCRETE TO HAVE A LIGHT BROOM FINISH. NOTES 14" 1. 5 0 ' ( 1 8 " ) 13" 2 6 SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB - 42" FENCE OR NO FENCE 1" = 1'-0" FD-03 1 6'6' 2' 6 6 6 1 7 D 5 SECTION ELEVATION 1.FENCE POST 2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM 3.SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB 4.ADJACENT PLANTING OR PAVING (SEE MATERIALS AND GRADING PLANS) 5.DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE 6.TOP AND BOTTOM RAIL. 7.VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FABRIC 8.WINDSCREEN (PER PLANS AND SPECS) 9.12" HIGH CHAIN LINK PAD WITH RIGID BACKING 10.(4) #4 CONTINUOUS THROUGH CURB; 8" LAP 11.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTER LEGEND NOTES A.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FENCE MESH MATERIAL. B.FRONT OF FENCE POST TO ALIGN WITH FRONT OF NET POST. C.CORE FENCE POST INTO CONCRETE CURB EVERY 8' OC. PROVIDE SCORING JOINT IN CURBING AT EACH POST AND EXPANSION JOINT EVERY 3RD POST OR 24'. D.CHAIN LINK FABRIC AND WINDSCREEN ON FIELD SIDE OF FENCE. E.PAD SHOULD BE MOUNTED AT BOTTOM OF FENCE SET 1" ABOVE TOP OF CURB. REFER TO DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS. F.EXPOSED CONCRETE TO HAVE A LIGHT BROOM FINISH. 8 17" 2. 0 0 ' ( 2 4 " ) 3 10 5 2416" 10 1' - 9 " 11 9 SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB @ FIELD END LINES (6' FENCE AND/OR NET POST) 1" = 1'-0" FD-04 SCALE: 1"=1'-0" ASPHALT EDGE CONDITION @ FIELD SIDE LINES FIELD LEVEL 873''-6" PA-01 L8-01 9" FD-01 L10-01 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE FOUNDATION @ ASPHALT FD-01 L10-01 ALUMINUM ASPHALT EDGE RESTRAINT, BLACK COLOR WITH SPIRAL STEEL STAKE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE FD-03 L10-01 ASPHALT PAVEMENT - PEDESTRIAN SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB (42" FENCE) FD-13 PLAN UPDATES 02-12-251 1 1 1 1 1 1 Plot Date: 2/11/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\L10-01_FIELD DETAILS-PERMIT.dwg Saved By: wsasser Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 List No.Source Primary Subject Category Secondary Subject Category Tertiary Subject Category Media Classification Peer Rev (Y/N) Full Publication Available (Y/N)? Turf Specific?Published Abstract DOCUMENT SYNOPSIS + NOTES 1 Insistence that Cornell aims to “cover” Game Farm Road lands with synturf fields (No Link)Miscellaneous Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Public Commentary N N Y This erroneous statement has been restated on multiple occasions. Cornell has never proposed that future development at Game Farm Rd will be all synthetic turf fields. Presentation to the Planning Board in December 2024 clearly showed that a total of three potential turf fields may be anticipated at Game Farm Rd in the foreseeable future: the existing baseball field, the proposed field hockey field, and possibly the softball field. 2 Carman, Neil. Letter to The City of Ithaca, NY, Planning Board Members. June 25, 2024. (No Link) Miscellaneous Synthetic Turf Public commentary N N Y Non-peer reviewed source 3 City of Watertown, MA - Government. “Victory Field Turf is Closed Due to Excessive Heat.” June 20, 2024. (No Link) Heat from Turf Synthetic Turf Social media blog N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source; Included link: Victory Field Closing for Most of Summer to Replace Artificial Turf | Watertown News 3b Non-peer reviewed source; Included link: Victory Field Closing for Most of Summer to Replace Artificial Turf | Watertown News Heat from Turf Synthetic Turf Journal Article N Y Y Article about the synturf from 2011 being replaced in the year 2023 – this brief gap in field availability is typical of a maintenance replacement project timeline. Demolition and turf replacement requires a period of closure. 4 Suspicions around H&A (No Link, See Notes)Miscellaneous Corporate Ethics Corporate Conspiracy Public commentary N N N Non-peer reviewed source 4a Claims that H&A has ties to BP and Boeing, suggesting conflict of interest (No Link, See Notes) Miscellaneous Corporate Ethics Corporate Conspiracy Public commentary N N N Provides many links regarding lawsuits involving BP and Boeing (and other corporations)"; No specific citations given 4b Cites Tetra Tech as another firm with a notorious environmental record and as having been part of Honeywell (No Link, See Notes) Miscellaneous Corporate Ethics Corporate Conspiracy Public Commentary N N N According to Wikipedia, Tetra Tech was only owned by Honeywell for 6 years, from 1982-1988. Trying to connect all the issues Honeywell has been involved in with Tetra Tech. Claims Tetra Tech is involved in ongoing lawsuits, provides lots of links about the same issue (Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard testing and remediation). They all refer to three whistleblower cases. From the US Atty’s Office in the Northern District of California website "The claims asserted in the three complaints are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability." Claims H&A purposefully left out that synturf was rejected in Oak Bluffs, the project for which the TetraTech report was created. Whether or not the Town of Oak Bluffs decided to reject synturf has nothing to do with the verity of the TetraTech report. Notes that TetraTech has an office in Ithaca and was hired by the ICSD. This is an irrelevant coincidence. TetraTech has 30,000 employees and 550 offices worldwide, including 5 in NYS.; No specific citations given 5 Suspicions Towards Cornell (No Link, See Notes)Miscellaneous Corporate Ethics Corporate Conspiracy Public Commentary N N N Cites general downward trend of college enrollment and asserts that campus amenities should not be increased as a result, although Institutional Research and Planning Division reports that Cornell has experienced steady enrollment growth for past 20 years. Lab of O letter “notably omits any discussion of the detrimental effects of artificial turf on bird populations”. Link to study that is highly technical in terms of statistical analysis and refers to urban parks, stating “Our results highlight that the current trend of replacing natural grass with artificial grass in urban parks in several European countries, especially Mediterranean ones, can pose a threat to the conservation of urban avifauna and bird communities.” 6 McBride, Murry Brian. Letter to the City and Town of Ithaca Planning Board regarding Cornell’s Artificial Turf Projects, Jul 3, 2024. Sports Injuries Crumb Rubber PFAS + Microplastics Public Commentary N Y Y Cornell Emeritus Professor who specializes in soil science and chemistry. Cites many concerns about crumb rubber - irrelevant for field hockey project at Game Farm Road. McBride is suspicious of risk assessment modeling – highly complex and only as good as the validity of the date and assumptions entered into them. McBride is concerned about about surface temperatures, about production and “recycling” of synturf and associated carbon footprint, and about microplastics migrating offsite, being ingested by wildlife, into surface waters. McBride claims (without citations) that: most athletes when surveyed much prefer playing on natural grass fields for reasons related to risk of injury and comfort; many professional sports stadia are moving away from synturf toward natural grass; even stadia in climates colder than Ithaca have successfully maintained natural grass playing fields. None of this is true for NCAA Division I field hockey. McBride asserts there is disagreement at this time about the potential toxicity of polymeric PFAS, with chemical industry scientists claiming they are benign (see Korzeniowski et al., 2022, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 19, 326-354) and independent scientists stating that “the evidence … does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health” (Lohmann et al., 2020, Environmental Science and Technology, 54, 12820-12828), and that given uUncertainty about how these persistent chemicals behave in the environment and what effects they may have on human health, the Planning Board should adopt a precautionary approach and limit the use of these synthetic chemicals to the extent possible. 7 Watkins, Lisa, Susan McGrattan, Patrick J. Sullivan, and M. Todd Walter. "The Effect of Dams on River Transport of Microplastic Pollution." Science of The Total Environment 664 (2019): 834-840. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/abs/pii/S0048969719305078?via%3Dihub Microplastics Water Pollution Environmental Impact of Dams Journal Article Y N N Dams are known to trap pollutants such as metals and PCBs in the sediment that accumulates within their reservoirs. As more attention is paid to microplastics, an emerging contaminant in waterways worldwide, and how they move along rivers, whether microplastic particles also accumulate behind dams is an important question for informing estimates of global river inputs to oceans. In this study, we measured microplastic concentrations above, below, and within the reservoirs of six dams near Ithaca, NY USA. Samples were processed following the wet peroxide oxidation method and visual counting, followed by Raman Spectroscopy validation. We found that microplastic concentrations in sediment within reservoirs was significantly higher than in sediment above the dams (p = 0.005), and in water samples, concentrations within reservoirs was significantly lower (p = 0.02). Plastic fibers were the dominant plastic type, but in within-reservoir sediment samples, less abundant plastic types such as plastic fragments were found in higher proportions. These results show that the sediment collecting behind dams is one sink for microplastics in river systems at long timescales, indicating that accounting for dams may be important when modeling global riverine microplastic transport. There is one dam in Cascadilla Creek between the project site and Cayuga Lake. 8 Woelke, Dianne, MSN. Letter to The City of Ithaca, NY, Planning Board Members. June 25, 2024. (No Link Available) Microplastics PFAS Crumb Rubber Public Commentary Letter N N Y Letter containing many numbers, including equating the proposed synturf fields with 10 million plastic bags, claiming a certain amount of microplastic loss per year. No specific citations provided Chemicals of concern in turf: Phthalates; Latex; Polyvinyl chloride; Naptha; Siloxanes; Talc; Di/Isocyanates; Formaldehyde; Fungicides; Flame retardants; Coal fly ash; 1,2-cyclohexane dicarbonic acid; Dibutyltin; Ethylene glycol; Triclosan; Colorants; UV stabilizers; Anti-static treatments; polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE); bisphenols; and all PFAS/PFOS (especially polyvinylidene fluoride, PVDF) No specific citations provided Claims by industry to be able to manufacture synthetic turf without PFAS remain completely unsubstantiated and undemonstrated at any level. In the absence of any independent third-party verification, there is no basis for relying on industry claims, particularly given the universal presence of PFAS in all tests to date. All manufacturers should be able to provide independent third-party testing results using the most up to date methods for solids or testing showing less than one PPM (Part Per Million) of TOF (Total Organic Fluorine). Commercial laboratories can test for approximately 100 of the over 16,000 PFAS chemicals at the two ppt level. It should be noted that absence of proof is not proof of absence when only a small percentage of PFAS can be tested for. Lots of concerns about crumb rubber and other infills – irrelevant for GFR. Brings up Lake Tahoe – no information about synturf being a source of microplastic pollution Brings up Toronto study – artificial turf fibers accounted for 6% of total tons of plastic pollution but was primary source of microplastic pollution. Brings up Barcelona study - artificial turf fibers accounted for up to 15% of meso- and macroplastic abundance. 9 Zero Waste Ithaca. “The True Costs of Artificial Turf: Experts Discuss Cornell University’s New “PFAS-Free” Project” Webinar held on April 30, 2024. https://youtu.be/iqk8Ss- 8Bjk?si=fm4uSfUqo1L4V56G PFAS Cornell University Synthetic Turf Youtube Video N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 10 Zero Waste Ithaca, co-sponsored by Beyond Plastics and Plastic Pollution Coalition. Petition: Halt Cornell University’s Plan to Install Artificial Turfs. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/ceb22b8 b44b8892804799dbec9048d51a165cc81/?ha sh=49848ca89bf36f9d4cc636a15d0413c1 Microplastics Heat from Turf Chemical Exposure Public Commentary N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 11 Cornell University. "Cornell Engineering Systems Engineering: Corporate Partners." Cornell University. Accessed September 22, 2024. https://www.systemseng.cornell.edu/se/pro grams/meng-degree-distance- learning/corporate-partners Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry Informational Webpage from University N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 12 Cornell University. "ExxonMobil Foundation Gives $403K to Cornell." Cornell University, April 30, 2019. https://www.engineering.cornell.edu/news/ exxonmobil-foundation-gives-403k-cornell Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry University Website N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 13 Fossil Free Cornell. Dissociate Cornell: A Review of Cornell's Fossil Fuel Ties. Developed and researched by Fossil Free Cornell, September 18, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iPBmvy6v3 _5tmiPy1iXJhTNdyBXA0zLF/view Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 14 Hiltner, Sofia, Emily Eaton, Noel Healy, Andrew Scerri, Jennie C. Stephens, and Geoffrey Supran. "Fossil Fuel Industry Influence in Higher Education: A Review and a Research Agenda." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, first published September 5, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.904 Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry Academic Article Y Y N The evolution of fossil fuel industry tactics for obstructing climate action, from outright denial of climate change to more subtle techniques of delay, is under growing scrutiny. One key site of ongoing climate obstructionism identified by researchers, journalists, and advocates is higher education. Scholars have exhaustively documented how industry-sponsored academic research tends to bias scholarship in favor of tobacco, pharmaceutical, food, sugar, lead, and other industries, but the contemporary influence of fossil fuel interests on higher education has received relatively little academic attention. We report the first literature review of academic and civil society investigations into fossil fuel industry ties to higher education in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. We find that universiƟes are an established yet under researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry, and that universities' lack of transparency about their partnerships with this industry poses a challenge to empirical research. We propose a research agenda of topical and methodological directions for future analyses of the prevalence and consequences of fossil fuel industry–university partnerships, and responses to them. 15 Noor, Dharna. "Elite US Universities Rake in Millions from Big Oil Donations, Research Finds: Student-Led Analyses Raise Concerns of Conflict of Interest at Six Universities, Including Princeton, Columbia, and Cornell." The Guardian, September 19, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2024/sep/19/oil-donations- universities. Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry Investigative Journalism Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 16 Taft, Molly. "Research or Lobbying? New Documents Reveal What Fossil Fuel Companies Are Really Paying for at Top Universities." Drilled, April 30, 2024. https://drilled.media/news/hearingdocs- universities. Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry Investigative Journalism Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 17 Wu, Venus, “University Denies Conflict of Interest.” Cornell Daily Sun. February 15, 2010. https://cornellsun.com/2010/02/15/universit y-denies-conflict-of-interest/ Miscellaneous Corporate Influence on Cornell Fuel Industry Student Newspaper N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 19 Bø, S.M., Bohne, R.A. & Lohne, J. “Environmental Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024- 05689-3 Microplastics Crumb Rubber Weather Impacts - Leaching Journal Article Y Y y Artificial turfs represent a large environmental issue in terms of waste, microplastic pollution and leaching of chemicals. Artificial turfs are made of several components, the shock absorbing pad, backing, stabilizing infill, performance infill and artificial grass fibers. Common for these, except the stabilizing infill, is being made of plastic and chemicals being released to the environment. The purpose of this article is to investigate current research on the environmental impact of artificial turfs for football fields. This is done by presenting the state-of-the-art through a review of 40 articles and grey reports. Studies concerning the chemical content of rubber granules and microplastics lost to the environment represent most of the findings. The methods applied vary to a great extent, and more research is needed to further understand the environmental impact of artificial turfs. This study provides an overview of the previous work performed and highlights knowledge gaps and will be of help during further research on the environmental impacts of artificial turfs. 20 Celeiro, M., Armada, D., Ratola, N., Dagnac, T., de Boer, J., and Llompart, M. "Evaluation of Chemicals of Environmental Concern in Crumb Rubber and Water Leachates from Several Types of Synthetic Turf Football Pitches." Chemosphere 270 (May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020 .128610. Crumb Rubber PAHs Leaching Journal Article Y N y Nowadays concern exists about the safety for both football players and the environment of recycled tire rubber used as infill in synthetic turf football pitches. In this study 40 target compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), plasticizers, antioxidants and vulcanization agents were determined in 50 synthetic football pitches of diverse characteristics to estimate environmental risks. This is the first study of crumb rubber sport facilities in Portugal. Analyses were performed by ultrasound-assisted extraction followed by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UAE-GC-MS/MS). To evaluate the transfer of the target chemicals from the crumb rubber to the runoff water, water leachates collected from several football pitches were analyzed by solid-phase microextraction (SPME-GC-MS/MS). In addition, lab-scale runoff simulation experiments were performed to assess whether a persistent inflow of the target compounds from the football pitches into the runoff water could exist. Results revealed the presence of most of the target PAHs in crumb rubber at total concentrations up to 57 μg g−1, next to a high number of plasƟcizers and vulcanizaƟon agents. Runoff water collected from the football pitches contained up to 13 PAHs as well as other chemicals of environmental concern. In addition, continuous leaching of chemicals from the crumb rubber to the surrounding water was demonstrated. The transfer of target chemicals into the runoff water poses a potential risk for the aquatic environment. 21 Chartres, Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science & Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524 Microplastics Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y Y n Microplastics are ubiquitous environmental contaminants for which there are documented human exposures, but there is a paucity of research evaluating their impacts on human health. We conducted a rapid systematic review using the “Navigation Guide” systematic review method. We searched four databases in July 2022 and April 2024 with no restriction on the date. We included studies using predefined eligibility criteria that quantitatively examined the association of microplastic exposure with any health outcomes. We amended the eligibility criteria after screening studies and prioritized digestive, reproductive, and respiratory outcomes for further evaluation. We included three human observational studies examining reproductive (n = 2) and respiratory (n = 1) outcomes and 28 animal studies examining reproductive (n = 11), respiratory (n = 7), and digestive (n = 10) outcomes. For reproductive outcomes (sperm quality) and digestive outcomes (immunosuppresion) we rated overall body evidence as “high” quality and concluded microplastic exposure is “suspected” to adversely impact them. For reproductive outcomes (female follicles and reproductive hormones), digestive outcomes (gross or microanatomic colon/small intestine effects, alters cell proliferation and cell death, and chronic inflammation), and respiratory outcomes (pulmonary function, lung injury, chronic inflammation, and oxidative stress) we rated the overall body of evidence as “moderate” quality and concluded microplastic exposure is “suspected” to adversely impact them. We concluded that exposure to microplastics is “unclassifiable” for birth outcomes and gestational age in humans on the basis of the “low” and “very low” quality of the evidence. We concluded that microplastics are “suspected” to harm human reproductive, digestive, and respiratory health, with a suggested link to colon and lung cancer. Future research on microplastics should investigate additional health outcomes impacted by microplastic exposure and identify strategies to reduce exposure. 22 Cousins, I, Johansson, J, Salter, M et al. “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science Technology 56 (2022): 11172−9. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est .2c02765?download=true PFAS Journal Article Y Y N It is hypothesized that environmental contamination by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) defines a separate planetary boundary and that this boundary has been exceeded. This hypothesis is tested by comparing the levels of four selected perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (i.e., perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)) in various global environmental media (i.e., rainwater, soils, and surface waters) with recently proposed guideline levels. On the basis of the four PFAAs considered, it is concluded that (1) levels of PFOA and PFOS in rainwater often greatly exceed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisory levels and the sum of the aforementioned four PFAAs (Σ4 PFAS) in rainwater is often above Danish drinking water limit values also based on Σ4 PFAS; (2) levels of PFOS in rainwater are often above Environmental Quality Standard for Inland European Union Surface Water; and (3) atmospheric deposition also leads to global soils being ubiquitously contaminated and to be often above proposed Dutch guideline values. It is, therefore, concluded that the global spread of these four PFAAs in the atmosphere has led to the planetary boundary for chemical pollution being exceeded. Levels of PFAAs in atmospheric deposition are especially poorly reversible because of the high persistence of PFAAs and their ability to continuously cycle in the hydrosphere, including on sea spray aerosols emitted from the oceans. Because of the poor reversibility of environmental exposure to PFAS and their associated effects, it is vitally important that PFAS uses and emissions are rapidly restricted. 23 Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121 Microplastics Human Health Impacts Leaching Journal Article Y N n More than 16,000 chemicals are incorporated into plastics to impart properties such as color, flexibility, and durability. These chemicals may leach from plastics, resulting in widespread human exposure during everyday use. Two plastic-associated chemicals—bisphenol A (BPA) and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)—and a class of chemicals—brominated flame retardants [polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)]—are credibly linked to adverse health and cognitive impacts. BPA exposures are associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, DEHP exposure with increased all-cause mortality among persons 55 to 64 y old, and prenatal PBDE exposures in mothers with IQ losses in their children. We estimate BPA, DEHP, and PBDE exposures in 38 countries containing one-third of the world’s population. We find that in 2015, 5.4 million cases of IHD and 346,000 cases of stroke were associated with BPA exposure; that DEHP exposures were linked to approximately 164,000 deaths among 55-to-64 y olds; and that 11.7 million IQ points were lost due to maternal PBDE exposure. We estimate the costs of these health impacts to be $1.5 trillion 2015 purchasing power parity dollars. If exposures to BPA and DEHP in the United States had been at 2015 levels since 2003, 515,000 fewer deaths would have been attributed to BPA and DEHP between 2003 and 2015. If PBDE levels in mothers had been at 2015 levels since 2005, over 42 million IQ points would have been saved between 2005 and 2015. 24 De Haan, William P., Rocío Quintana, César Vilas, Andrés Cózar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. “The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments.” Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.12209 4 Microplastics Artificial Turf Fibers Weather Impacts - Leaching Journal Article Y Y Y Artificial turf (AT) is a surfacing material that simulates natural grass by using synthetic, mainly plastic, fibers in different shapes, sizes and properties. AT has spread beyond sports facilities and today shapes many urban landscapes, from private lawns to rooftops and public venues. Despite concerns regarding the impacts of AT, little is known about the release of AT fibers into natural environment. Here, for the first time, we specifically investigate the presence of AT fibers in river and ocean waters as major conduits and final destination of plastic debris transported by water runoff. Our sampling survey showed that, AT fibers – composed mainly of polyethylene and polypropylene – can constitute over 15% of the mesoplastics and macroplastics content, suggesting that AT fibers may contribute significantly to plastic pollution. Up to 20,000 fibers a day flowed down through the river, and up to 213,200 fibers per km2 were found floating on the sea surface of nearshore areas. AT, apart from impacting on urban biodiversity, urban runoff, heat island formation, and hazardous chemical leaching, is a major source of plastic pollution to natural aquatic environments. 25 Ginsberg, Gary, Brian Toal, and Tara Kurland. “Benzothiazole Toxicity Assessment in Support of Synthetic Turf Field Human Health Risk Assessment.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 74, no. 17 (2011): 1175–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2011.586 943 Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y N Y Synthetic turf fields cushioned with crumb rubber may be a source of chemical exposure to those playing on the fields. Benzothiazole (BZT) may volatilize from crumb rubber and result in inhalation exposure. Benzothiazole has been the primary rubber-related chemical found in synthetic turf studies. However, risks associated with BZT have not been thoroughly assessed, primarily because of gaps in the database. This assessment provides toxicity information for a human health risk assessment involving BZT detected at five fields in Connecticut. BZT exerts acute toxicity and is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer. In a genetic toxicity assay BZT was positive in Salmonella in the presence of metabolic activation. BZT metabolism involves ring- opening and formation of aromatic hydroxylamines, metabolites with mutagenic and carcinogenic potential. A structural analogue 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (2-MBZT) was more widely tested and so is used as a surrogate for some endpoints. 2-MBZT is a rodent carcinogen with rubber industry data supporting an association with human bladder cancer. The following BZT toxicity values were derived: (1) acute air target of 110 μg/m3 based upon a BZT RD50 study in mice relative to results for formaldehyde; (2) a chronic noncancer target of 18 μg/m3 based upon the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in a subchronic dietary study in rats, dose route extrapolation, and uncertainty factors that combine to 1000; (3) a cancer unit risk of 1.8E-07/μg-m3 based upon a published oral slope factor for 2-MBZT and dose-route extrapolation. While there are numerous uncertainties in the BZT toxicology database, this assessment enables BZT to be quantitatively assessed in risk assessments involving synthetic turf fields. However, this is only a screening-level assessment, and research that better defines BZT potency is needed. 26 Golden, Leslie M. "The Contribution of Artificial Turf to Global Warming." Sustainability and Climate Change 14, no. 6, December 14, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2021.0038 Heat from Turf Climate Impacts Journal Article Y N Y This article discusses how the substitution of artificial grass for natural grass contributes to global warming. An algebraic model of the atmospheric transmittance in the infrared wavelengths from 0 to 15 microns is used to modulate the Planck law, yielding both the energy absorbed by the atmosphere and that transmitted through the atmosphere as a function of the ground temperature. The calculation shows that the energy absorbed by the atmosphere increases more rapidly than the amount transmitted through the atmosphere with increasing ground temperature. In situ experiments demonstrate that artificial grass reaches significantly greater temperatures than those reached by natural grass under the same meteorological conditions. As a result, artificial grass creates an additional amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere. With the number of nationwide artificial grass installations, a typical result yields an additional energy deposited into the atmosphere during moderately warm summer days of 10 to 20 gigawatts. The annual nationwide cost savings to local governments by the substitution of artificial grass for natural grass is shown to be trivial. 27 Golijanin, Petar, Ryan James Whalen, Mark Cote, Tyler Joseph Zajac, and Matthew T. Provencher. “The Comparison of Injuries in National Football League Players (2016–2021) Based on the Playing Surface: Natural Grass versus Artificial Turf.” American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting. February 12, 2024 https://index.mirasmart.com/AAOS2024/PDF files/AAOS2024-010994.PDF Sports Injuries Research Presentation/ Webinar Summary N N Y This study analyzed NFL injuries (2016-2021) based on playing surface, comparing artificial turf (AT) and natural grass (GRASS). Results showed a higher injury rate on artificial turf, with notable increases in ankle (10.6%), hamstring (17.2%), ACL (14.6%), MCL (43.5%), and Achilles (24.0%) injuries. Slit-film artificial turf (AT-SLIT) was associated with even higher risks of ankle, hamstring, and ACL injuries compared to non-slit artificial turf (AT-NS). Findings suggest that artificial turf increases injury risks for NFL players, warranting further research into its impact on player careers. 28 Gomes, Filipa O., M. Rosário Rocha, Arminda Alves, and Nuno Ratola. "A Review of Potentially Harmful Chemicals in Crumb Rubber Used in Synthetic Football Pitches." Journal of Hazardous Materials 409 (May 5, 2021): 124998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.1249 98 Crumb Rubber Leaching Air Volitalization Journal Article Y Y Y Recycling end-of-life tires (ELTs) reduces waste and provides a low-cost source of energy and materials such as crumb rubber, used as infill in artificial turf football pitches. However, some concerns were raised and remain about its safety. The potentially toxic human exposure to chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals and others (volatile organic compounds (VOCs), plasticizers, antioxidants and additives) existing in ELTs (and in the resulting crumb rubber) is being studied, with no definitive conclusions. The literature existing so far suggests the possibility of their release from synthetic turf infill into the environment as water leachates and to the air surrounding the pitches, but there is the need of further research, also to assess the contribution of other materials present in synthetic turf. The database available comprised crumb rubber infill studies from pitches in 6 countries (USA, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Spain) and revealed a myriad of hazardous chemicals, with benzo[a]pyrene (n.d.–4.31 ± 3.95 mg/kg) and zinc (n.d.–14150 ± 1344 mg/kg) often exceeding the established limits. A dependence on indoor/outdoor conditions and the age of the source material was evaluated, often showing significative differences. From this standpoint, this review is intended to add knowledge about the presence of contaminants in this recycled material, aiming to ensure the safety of end-users and the environment. 29 Gould HP, Lostetter SJ, Samuelson ER, Guyton GP. “Lower Extremity Injury Rates on Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass Playing Surfaces: A Systematic Review.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine. May 20, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546521106956 2 Sports Injuries Journal Article Y N Y Background:No study has provided a comprehensive systematic review of sports injuries on artificial turf versus natural grass. Purpose:To comprehensively examine the risk of overall injuries and multiple types of lower extremity injuries across all sports, all levels of competition, and on both old-generation and new-generation artificial turf. Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All included articles compared overall injury rates or lower extremity (hip, knee, or foot and ankle) injury rates on artificial turf and natural grass. All sports, levels of competition, and turf types were included. Studies were excluded if they did not include overall injury rates or lower extremity injury rates. Because of the heterogeneity of the included studies, no attempt was made to aggregate risk ratios to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis. Results:A total of 53 articles published between 1972 and 2020 were identified for study inclusion. Most studies on new- generation turf (13/18 articles) found similar overall injury rates between playing surfaces. When individual anatomic injury locations were analyzed, the greatest proportion of articles reported a higher foot and ankle injury rate on artificial turf compared with natural grass, both with old-generation (3/4 articles) and new-generation (9/19 articles) turf. Similar knee and hip injury rates were reported between playing surfaces for soccer athletes on new-generation turf, but football players, particularly those at high levels of competition, were more likely to sustain a knee injury on artificial turf than on natural grass. Conclusion:The available body of literature suggests a higher rate of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf, both old-generation and new-generation turf, compared with natural grass. High-quality studies also suggest that the rates of knee injuries and hip injuries are similar between playing surfaces, although elite-level football athletes may be more predisposed to knee injuries on artificial turf compared with natural grass. Only a few articles in the literature reported a higher overall injury rate on natural grass compared with artificial turf, and all of these studies received financial support from the artificial turf industry. 30 Hua, Jing Martin Lundqvist, Shanti Naidu, Mikael T. Ekvall, Tommy Cedervall. “Environmental Risks of Breakdown Nanoplastics from Synthetic Football Fields.” Environmental Pollution. April, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.12365 2 Microplastics Leaching Journal Article Y Y Y The widespread use of synthetic turf in sports has raised health concerns due to potential risks from nanoplastic inhalation or ingestion. Our research focused on detecting nanoplastics in drainage water from a synthetic football field and evaluating the toxicity of these materials after mechanical fragmentation. We collected and analysed drainage water samples for polymer content and subjected high-density polyethylene (HDPE) straws and ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) granules used on synthetic football fields, to mechanical breakdown to create nanoplastics. The results indicated the presence of trace amounts of EPDM in the water samples. Furthermore, the toxicological assessment revealed that the broken-down nanoplastics and leachate from the surface of EPDM rubber granules exhibited high toxicity to Daphnia magna, while nanoplastics from the inner material exhibited no significant toxicity. The findings highlight the urgent need for future research to identify these specific toxic agents from the surface of EPDM granules. 31 Huang, Qian’en, Jianqun Wang, Jianping Wang, Dongmei Yu, Yuanbo Zhan, and Ze Liu. “Emerging Health Risks of Crumb Rubber: Inhalation of Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals via Saliva During Artificial Turf Activities.” Environmental Science & Technology 57, no. 50 (2023): 21005–21015. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03278 Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Inhalation Exposure Journal Article Y N Y Crumb rubber (CR) is a commonly used infill material in artificial turf worldwide. However, the potential health risk associated with exposure to CR containing environmentally persistent free radicals (EPFRs) remains under investigation. Herein, we observed the widespread presence of CR particles in the range of 2.8–51.4 μg/m3 and EPFRs exceeding 6 × 1015 spins/g in the ambient air surrounding artificial turf fields. Notably, the abundance of these particles tended to increase with the number of operating years of the playing fields. Furthermore, by analyzing saliva samples from 200 participants, we established for the first time that EPFR- carrying CR could be found in saliva specimens, suggesting the potential for inhaling them through the oral cavity and their exposure to the human body. After 40 min of exercise on the turf, we detected a substantial presence of EPFRs, reaching as high as (1.15 ± 1.00) × 1016 spins of EPFR per 10 mL of saliva. Moreover, the presence of EPFRs considerably increased the oxidative potential of CR, leading to the inactivation of Ca2+, redox reactions, and changes in spatial binding of the α-1,4-chain of salivary amylase to Ca2+, all of which could influence human saliva health. Our study provides insights into a new pathway of human exposure to CR with EPFRs in artificial turf infill, indicating an increased human health risk of CR exposure. 32 Jim, C.Y. "Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment." Landscape and Urban Planning 157, January 2017, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016. 09.012. Heat from Turf Human Health Impacts Heat Stress Journal Article Y N Y Artificial turf (AT) sports fields have increasingly replaced natural turf (NT). High AT material-cum-air temperature incurs heat- stress impacts on athletes, demanding better understanding of thermal regimes vis-à-vis weather conditions. Adjacent AT and NT sites in humid-tropical Hong Kong were studied. Four radiant-energy components (direct-solar, reflected-solar, sky-thermal, ground-thermal) and five temperature levels (150, 50 and 15 cm, turf-surface, substrate) were monitored in replicate, for three summer weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, overcast). Inter-site differences are attributed to lower AT albedo, admitting more shortwave and emitting more longwave radiant energy. Drastic decline in solar fluxes contrasts with terrestrial fluxes which remain intense. AT materials, with low specific heat and moisture and scanty evapotranspiration, induce fast warming and cooling with little time lag to synchronize with insolation rhythm. On sunny day, AT turf-surface, heated to 72.4 °C comparing with NT at 36.6 °C, dissipates heat by conduction and convection to near-ground air and by strong ground-thermal emission. Exceeding the heat-stress threshold most of the time, AT cools quickly from late afternoon for heat-safe use soon after sunset. On cloudy day, subdued AT heating allows earlier cooling in late afternoon. Both sites are heat-safe on overcast day. The findings can optimize game scheduling to prevent heat-related injuries. 33 Kanaan, Ahmed, Elena Sevostianova, Bernd Leinauer, and Igor Sevostianov. "Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 146, no. 10, October 2020: 04020032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943- 4774.0001506 Heat from Turf Climate Impacts Journal Article Y N Y Artificial turf with black infill material gained widespread use on athletic fields starting in the early 2000s. One argument made in the desert southwestern United States for replacing natural grass–based athletic fields with artificial turf surfaces is that water is not needed for irrigation. However, it has been shown that in arid and semiarid climate zones the surface temperature of the artificial turf fields can exceed 80°C during the summer, requiring irrigation and drainage systems to keep them cool enough for use. An experiment was conducted at New Mexico State University to evaluate the amount of water required to maintain surface temperatures comparable to those of natural turfgrass areas. A mathematical model was developed based on the heat balance equation to determine heat dissipation from artificial turf–based fields with comparison of the predicted values to experimental data. Overall, our model estimates were within 12% of the measured values. The model indicates that over a 24-h period, the amount of water (3.00 to 5.00 mm) required to maintain artificial turf at temperatures similar to irrigated natural turfgrass are comparable. 34 Kim JI, Kim BN, Lee YA, Shin CH, Hong YC, Dossing LD, Hilderbrandt G, Lim YH. “Association Between Early-Childhood Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and ADHD Symptoms: A Prospective Cohort Study.” Science of the Total Environment. April 4, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163 081 PFAS Human Health Impacts ADHD Journal Article Y Y Y There is evidence that exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. Previous studies have focused on prenatal exposure to PFAS, and only few studies have examined the associations of early-childhood exposure, especially at low exposure levels. This study explored the association between early- childhood exposure to PFAS and ADHD symptoms later in childhood. In 521 children, we measured the serum levels of six PFAS in peripheral blood at the ages of 2 and 4 years, including perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluornonanoicacid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The ADHD Rating Scale IV (ARS) was utilized to measure ADHD traits at 8 years of age. We explored the relationship between PFAS and ARS scores using Poisson regression models after adjusting for potential confounders. Levels of exposure to individual PFAS and the summed value were divided into quartiles to examine possible nonlinear relationships. All six PFAS exhibited inverted U-shaped curves. Children in the 2nd and 3rd quartile levels of each PFAS showed higher ARS scores than those in the1st quartile level. Below the 3rd quartile of the summed levels of six PFAS (ΣPFAS), a doubling of the ΣPFAS was associated with an 20.0 % (95 % CI: 9.5 %, 31.5 %) increase in ADHD scores. However, at the age of 4 years, none of the evaluated PFAS exhibited linear or nonlinear associations with the ARS scores. Thus, school-aged children may be vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of exposure to PFAS at age 2 that contribute to ADHD, particularly at low to mid-levels. 35 Kim S, Yang JY, Kim HH, Yeo IY, Shin DC, Lim YW. “Health Risk Assessment of Lead Ingestion Exposure by Particle Sizes in Crumb Rubber on Artificial Turf Considering Bioavailability.” Environmental Health and Toxicology. February 2, 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/resource s/citations/3278598/export/ Crumb Rubber Heavy Metal Exposure Lead Journal Article Y N Y Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of ingestion exposure of lead by particle sizes of crumb rubber in artificial turf filling material with consideration of bioavailability. Methods: This study estimated the ingestion exposure by particle sizes (more than 250 um or less than 250 um) focusing on recyclable ethylene propylene diene monomer crumb rubber being used as artificial turf filling. Analysis on crumb rubber was conducted using body ingestion exposure estimate method in which total content test method, acid extraction method and digestion extraction method are reflected. Bioavailability which is a calibrating factor was reflected in ingestion exposure estimate method and applied in exposure assessment and risk assessment. Two methods using acid extraction and digestion extraction concentration were compared and evaluated. Results: As a result of the ingestion exposure of crumb rubber material, the average lead exposure amount to the digestion extraction result among crumb rubber was calculated to be 1.56×10(-4) mg/kg-day for low grade elementary school students and 4.87×10(-5) mg/kg-day for middle and high school students in 250 um or less particle size, and that to the acid extraction result was higher than the digestion extraction result. Results of digestion extraction and acid extraction showed that the hazard quotient was estimated by about over 2 times more in particle size of lower than 250 um than in higher than 250 um. There was a case of an elementary school student in which the hazard quotient exceeded 0.1. Conclusions: Results of this study confirm that the exposure of lead ingestion and risk level increases as the particle size of crumb rubber gets smaller. Keywords: Artificial turf; Bioavailability; Crumb rubber; Exposure assessment; Lead. 36 Kole, Pieter Jan, Frank GAJ Van Belleghem, Jetse J. Stoorvogel, Ad MJ Ragas, and Ansje J. Löhr. “Tyre Granulate on the Loose; How Much Escapes the Turf? A Systematic Literature Review.” Science of the Total Environment (2023): 166221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166 22 Crumb Rubber Microplastics Journal Article Y Y Y Tyre granulate used as infill for artificial turf is hailed by some as a good example of reuse, while others see it as a baleful means to dispose of discarded tyres. Because the particles are applied loosely to the surface, they will inevitably disperse into the environment. The possible environmental and health impacts of the particles are a source of societal concern. In response to this, policies to limit particle losses are being developed at the European level. To make informed decisions, data on the quantity of tyre granulate released into the environment are required. So far, however, there are no systematic reviews on or estimates of these losses. The aim of the present study was to identify the various pathways through which infill leaves a football turf and, subsequently, to estimate the quantity of infill leaving the turf by each of these pathways. Data on the pathways including the associated volumes were collected in a systematic literature review following the PRISMA method. The quality of the evidence reported in the retrieved literature was assessed using the GRADE method. The resulting pathways and corresponding quantities were captured in a mass balance. This study estimates that, without mitigation measures, approximately 950 kg/year (min. 570 kg/year, max. 2280 kg/year) of infill leaves the surface of an average artificial football turf via known pathways. Clearing snow can result in an additional loss of 830 kg/year (min. 200 kg/year, max. 2760 kg/year) of infill material. To mitigate the dispersion of infill, one could focus on snow removal, brushing and granulate picked up by players. Mitigation measures for these pathways are well-established and relatively easy to implement and maintain. Although the amount of granulate picked up from the turf by players is relatively small, the measure will promote environmental awareness among the players. 37 Lauria, Mélanie Z., Ayman Naim, Merle Plassmann, Jenny Fäldt, Roxana Sühring, and Jonathan P. Benskin. “Widespread Occurrence of Non-Extractable Fluorine in Artificial Turfs from Stockholm, Sweden.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters. July 6, 2022. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00260 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett. 2c00260 PFAS Leaching Journal Article Y Y Y Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are frequently used in the production of rubber and plastic, but little is known about the identity, concentration, or prevalence of PFAS in these products. In this study, a representative sample of plastic- and rubber- containing artificial turf (AT) fields from Stockholm, Sweden, was subjected to total fluorine (TF), extractable organic fluorine (EOF), and target PFAS analysis. TF was observed in all 51 AT samples (ranges of 16–313, 12–310, and 24–661 μg of F/g in backing, filling, and blades, respectively), while EOF and target PFAS occurred in <42% of all samples (<200 and <1 ng of F/g, respectively). A subset of samples extracted with water confirmed the absence of fluoride. Moreover, application of the total oxidizable precursor assay revealed negligible perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA) formation across all three sample types, indicating that the fluorinated substances in AT are not low-molecular weight PFAA precursors. Collectively, these results point toward polymeric organofluorine (e.g., fluoroelastomer, polytetrafluoroethylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride), consistent with patent literature. The combination of poor extractability and recalcitrance toward advanced oxidation suggests that the fluorine in AT does not pose an imminent risk to users. However, concerns surrounding the production and end of life of AT, as well as the contribution of filling and blades to environmental microplastic contamination, remain. 38 Leonard, Jamie, Sujith Ravi, and Sanjay K. Mohanty. "Preferential Emission of Microplastics from Biosolid-Applied Agricultural Soils: Field Evidence and Theoretical Framework." Environmental Science & Technology Letters 11, no. 2 (2024): 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00850 Microplastics Inhalation Risks Journal Article Y N N Land application of wastewater biosolids on agricultural soils is suggested as a sustainable pathway to support the circular economy; however, this practice often enriches microplastics and associated contaminants in topsoil. Wind could transport these contaminated microplastics, thereby increasing their inhalation health risks. Analyzing wind-borne sediments collected from wind tunnel experiments on biosolid-applied agricultural fields, we show enrichment of microplastics in wind-blown sediments. We explain this preferential transport and enrichment of microplastics by using a theoretical framework. This framework reveals how the combined effects of the low density of microplastics and weakened wet-bonding interparticle forces between microplastics and soil particles lower their threshold velocity, the minimum wind velocity necessary for wind erosion to occur. Our calculations indicate that microplastics could be emitted at wind speeds lower than the characteristic threshold of background soil. Analyzing the windspeed distribution for 3 months of wind events over a bare soil surface, we showed that more than 84% of the wind events exceed the threshold velocity of microplastics of size 150 μm, while only 23% of the wind events exceed the threshold velocity of the background soil. Thus, current models for fugitive dust emissions may underestimate the microplastic emission potential of biosolid-amended soils. 39 Liu, Zhixin, C.Y. Jim, and P. Xu. "Playing on Natural or Artificial Turf Sports Field? Assessing Heat Stress of Children, Young Athletes, and Adults in Hong Kong." Sustainable Cities and Society 75, December 2021: 103271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103271 Heat from Turf Sports Injuries Heat Stress Journal Article Y N Y Exercising in an unusually hot environment may aggravate exertional heat illness. Turf material significantly affects the microenvironment and heat-stress sensation of sports-field users. However, the difference in human- biometeorological effects between different sports-field turf materials demands further investigation. This study compared artificial (AT) with natural turf (NT) fields, investigating three age groups (children, young athletes, and adults), two physical activities (playing soccer and walking), and three heat stress indicators (HI, Heat Index; WBGT, Wet Bulb Globe Thermometer; and COMFA, COMfort FormulA). The results showed heat-stress underestimation by HI and WBGT. In contrast, COMFA, incorporating comprehensive environmental and human physiological parameters, provided a more targeted and reliable heat-stress assessment. COMFA indicated a longer heat-stress duration exercising at AT than NT. Compared to NT, children suffered a 24% longer “Extreme danger” duration at AT in sunny daytime. The AT-NT difference in human-biometeorological effect was limited concerning human convection, evaporation, metabolic heat, and emitted longwave radiation, but was considerable in human absorbed radiation. AT had lower albedo than NT, hence field users absorbed more upward longwave radiation but less upward shortwave radiation, highlighting important control by the radiant environment. NT sports fields are recommended for a healthy outdoor thermal environment, especially for children. 40 Magnusson, Simon, and Josef Mácsik. “Analysis of Energy Use and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Metals and Organic Substances from Construction Materials Used for Artificial Turf.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017): 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03. 007 Crumb Rubber Climate Impacts Heavy Metal Exposure Journal Article Y N Y This study applied a life cycle analysis approach to identify significant posts for energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction, use and removal of an artificial turf field. A chemical analysis of infills was conducted to describe leachability of metals and organic substances. The infill types studied were recycled tires (RT), virgin thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), virgin ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) and recycled EPDM (R-EPDM) from cables and automotive mats. The result shows that energy use and GHG emissions of an artificial turf field significantly correlates with material choice, maintenance and management of removed turf. Energy use and GHG emissions for infills was highest for TPE followed by EPDM. In summary, use of recycled material as infill, reuse of soil and rock on site and reuse of removed turf and infill could reduce energy use and GHG emissions. Leachates from RT and R-EPDM contained detectable concentrations of zinc, which was relatively high from R- EPDM. Organic substances, harmful for aquatic environments and/or humans were detected in all leachates but in highest concentration from R-EPDM followed by EPDM. In the literature, risk assessments focused predominantly on RT while assessments of other infills was less extensive or was missing. The result in this article stressed the need to include all infill types in risk assessments. Previous environmental risk assessments based on field measurements concluded risks with infills to be small or minimal. However, since these assessments are few, this study suggested verification of those results by field measurements. 41 Murphy, Maire, Genoa R. Warner. “Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: Toxicity Studies, Challenges, and Future Directions.” Environmental Pollution. October 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.11984 1 Crumb Rubber PFAS Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y N Y Many communities around the country are undergoing contentious battles over the installation of artificial turf. Opponents are concerned about exposure to hazardous chemicals leaching from the crumb rubber cushioning fill made of recycled tires, the plastic carpet, and other synthetic components. Numerous studies have shown that chemicals identified in artificial turf, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are known carcinogens, neurotoxicants, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors. However, few studies have looked directly at health outcomes of exposure to these chemicals in the context of artificial turf. Ecotoxicology studies in invertebrates exposed to crumb rubber have identified risks to organisms whose habitats have been contaminated by artificial turf. Chicken eggs injected with crumb rubber leachate also showed impaired development and endocrine disruption. The only human epidemiology studies conducted related to artificial turf have been highly limited in design, focusing on cancer incidence. In addition, government agencies have begun their own risk assessment studies to aid community decisions. Additional studies in in vitro and in vivo translational models, ecotoxicological systems, and human epidemiology are strongly needed to consider exposure from both field use and runoff, components other than crumb rubber, sensitive windows of development, and additional physiological endpoints. Identification of potential health effects from exposures due to spending time at artificial turf fields and adjacent environments that may be contaminated by runoff will aid in risk assessment and community decision making on the use of artificial turf. 42 Negev, Maya, Zohar Barnett-Itzhaki, Tamar Berman, Shay Reicher, Naor Cohen, Ruti Ardi, Yaniv Shammai, Tamar Zohar, and Miriam L. Diamond. “Hazardous Chemicals in Outdoor and Indoor Surfaces: Artificial Turf and Laminate Flooring.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 32, no. 3 (2022): 392–399. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370- 021-00396-4 Crumb Rubber Heavy Metal Exposure PAHs Journal Article Y N Y Background: Synthetic materials, increasingly used for indoor and outdoor surfaces including homes and playgrounds, may contain toxic chemicals. Infants have a higher potential of exposure to chemicals in these materials, which may pose a risk to their health. Objective: To understand potential risks related to outdoor surface coverings, based on a review of the literature and regulations, and to assess levels of hazardous chemicals in surface coverings in Israel. Methods: We reviewed the literature and regulations on artificial turf. We tested 46 samples of surfaces for trace metals in synthetic playground surfaces; trace metals, phthalates, and di(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DEHT) in synthetic grass, and phthalates, DEHT and formaldehyde in laminate flooring. Results: Twelve studies reporting high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and varying levels of trace metals in synthetic playground surfaces were identified, as well as five international regulations on lead with maximum acceptable concentrations in the range 40–500 mg/kg. Surface tests showed that 20 out of 30 samples of synthetic playground surfaces exceeded relevant standards for trace metals, of which five had cadmium levels ≥30 mg/kg and four had chromium levels ≥510 mg/kg. In synthetic grass, three out of eight samples exceeded relevant standards, with lead levels ≥1200 mg/kg. In Laminate flooring (n = 8) formaldehyde levels were in the range of 0.7–1.2 mg/m2 formaldehyde, and five samples contained ~5% DEHT. Significance: The literature on chemicals in surfaces is limited, but indicates some exceedance of regulatory limits. Trace metals in synthetic playground surfaces and synthetic grass, not regulated in Israel, exceeded relevant international standards in 72% of samples. Laminate flooring, regulated for formaldehyde, did not exceed the 3.5 mg/m2 standard, but contained DEHT, a replacement for ortho-substituted phthalates. The results of this preliminary study show that flooring surfaces may be a source of children’s exposure to toxic chemicals 43 Park, Byung-Geon, Cheoljae Lee, Young-Jun Kim, Jinhyoung Park, Hyeok Kim, Young Jung, Jong Soo Ko, Sang-Woo Kim, Ju-Hyuck Lee, Hanchul Cho. “Toxic Micro/Nano Particles Removal in Water via Triboelectric Nanogenerator.” Nano Energy, 2022; 100: 107433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2022.1074 33 Microplastics Microplastics Heavy Metals Journal Article Y N N Herein, a new strategy for micro/nanoparticles removal in water using a triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) is demonstrated. Removal process based on electrophoretic force can extract particles from water by its zeta potential due to the electric fields generated by the TENG, in other words, higher performance TENG removes more particles. High-performance TENG based on a three-dimensional porous-pyramid polydimethylsiloxane shows a power output nearly three times higher than that of a flat film- based TENG. With the proposed TENG, the removal rate is 21.4%, which is 5.6 times higher than that for the flat TENG (3.8%). By measuring the coverage area of the particles attached to the electrode, it was found that the removal of particles was significantly affected by the output voltage and operation time of the TENG. A TENG-driven self-powered electrophoretic system that removes sub-micron nanoparticles of polystyrene, CdSe/CdZnS, ZnO, and SiO2 is successfully demonstrated. 44 Peaslee, Graham and Heather D. Whitehead. “Occurrences of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Plastic Products from Fluorinated Polymer Processing Aids.” 2024. PFAS Research Presentation/ Webinar Summary N N Y - 45 Redundant Source - Listed Above 46 Royer, Sarah-Jeanne, Sara Ferrón, Samuel T. Wilson, and David M. Karl. "Production of Methane and Ethylene from Plastic in the Environment." PLOS ONE 13, no. 8 (2018): e0200574. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.02005 74 Miscellaneous Plastics Climate Impacts Journal Article Y Y N Mass production of plastics started nearly 70 years ago and the production rate is expected to double over the next two decades. While serving many applications because of their durability, stability and low cost, plastics have deleterious effects on the environment. Plastic is known to release a variety of chemicals during degradation, which has a negative impact on biota. Here, we show that the most commonly used plastics produce two greenhouse gases, methane and ethylene, when exposed to ambient solar radiation. Polyethylene, which is the most produced and discarded synthetic polymer globally, is the most prolific emitter of both gases. We demonstrate that the production of trace gases from virgin low-density polyethylene increase with time, with rates at the end of a 212-day incubation of 5.8 nmol g-1 d-1 of methane, 14.5 nmol g-1 d-1 of ethylene, 3.9 nmol g-1 d-1 of ethane and 9.7 nmol g-1 d-1 of propylene. Environmentally aged plastics incubated in water for at least 152 days also produced hydrocarbon gases. In addition, low-density polyethylene emits these gases when incubated in air at rates ~2 times and ~76 times higher than when incubated in water for methane and ethylene, respectively. Our results show that plastics represent a heretofore unrecognized source of climate-relevant trace gases that are expected to increase as more plastic is produced and accumulated in the environment. 47 Sánchez-Sotomayor D, Martín-Higuera A, Gil- Delgado JA, Gálvez Á, Bernat-Ponce E. “Artificial Grass in Parks as a Potential New Threat for Urban Bird Communities.” Bird Conservation International. Cambridge University Press, July 26, 2022. doi:10.1017/S0959270922000119 Miscellaneous Urban Ecology Biodiversity Journal Article Y Y Y Green areas are key habitats for urban avifauna. Urban parks stand out from other anthropic habitats especially in providing trophic resources for many bird species. Consequently, modifications of these green zones can imply major changes in urban biodiversity. Potential pernicious urban remodelling is taking place in parks of eastern Spain because natural grass is being replaced with artificial grass to save water and to avoid management. This study aimed to determine whether remodelled parks with artificial grass harbour lower avian diversity (alpha, beta and gamma diversity) than traditional parks with natural grass. We surveyed 21 parks with artificial grass and 24 parks with natural grass in 18 towns of the Valencia Region in autumn 2020. In each park, we carried out 5-minute and 25-m radius point counts for determining bird species and their abundance. The effects of park area and grass type on alpha diversity (species richness, Shannon diversity index, Pielou’s Evenness and total abundance) were tested by means of GLMs. Differences in beta diversity and its components (nestedness and turnover) were also analyzed with the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index. Gamma diversity was assessed by means of species accumulation curves. Finally, differences in community composition were tested by PERMANOVA and SIMPER tests. The parks with natural grass always harboured higher gamma diversity, species richness and abundance. Turnover was higher in parks with natural grass, whereas nestedness was higher in artificial grass parks. Differences in community composition were due mainly to abundance differences in common ground-feeding birds. We highlight that the trend of replacing natural by artificial grass in urban parks has harmful effects on urban bird communities and is a threat to bird conservation. Although artificial grass might save water, the effects on urban biodiversity should be carefully evaluated. 48 Siegel, Kyle R., Brooklynn R. Murray, Jeff Gearhart, and Christopher D. Kassotis. "In Vitro Endocrine and Cardiometabolic Toxicity Associated with Artificial Turf Materials." Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. September 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 Miscellaneous Human Health Impacts Cardiometabolic Effects Journal Article Y Y Y Artificial turf, a consumer product growing in usage in the United States, contains diverse chemicals, some of which are endocrine disruptive. Endocrine effects from turf material extracts have been primarily limited to one component, crumb rubber, of these multi-material products. We present in vitro bioactivities from non-weathered and weathered turf sample extracts, including multiple turf components. All weathered samples were collected from real-world turf fields. Non-weathered versus weathered differentially affected the androgen (AR), estrogen (ER), glucocorticoid (GR), and thyroid receptors (TR) in reporter bioassays. While weathered extracts more efficaciously activated peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPARγ), this did not translate to greater in vitro adipogenic potential. All turf extracts activated the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR). High AhR-efficacy extracts induced modest rat cardiomyoblast toxicity in an AhR-dependent manner. Our data demonstrate potential endocrine and cardiometabolic effects from artificial turf material extracts, warranting further investigation into potential exposures and human health effects. 49 Stoett, Peter, Vitória M. Scrich, Carla I. Elliff, Mariana M. Andrade, Natalia de M. Grilli, Alexander Turra, “Global Plastic Pollution, Sustainable Development, and Plastic Justice, World Development.” World Development. December 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106 756 Miscellaneous Microplastics Environmental Justice Journal Article Y Y N This review article examines the current state of plastic waste and pollution, in particular in the form of marine litter, as it affects the goal of sustainable development and is affected by global North-South dynamics. The rise in plastic waste has had a deleterious effect on local populations and ecosystems, and remains a problem with numerous governance challenges, posing constraints to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This crisis is analyzed under the lens of global North- South dynamics, as the consequences for different nations differ in regard to their capacity to cope with waste, and other inequality issues. China’s decision to stop serving as the world’s central recycling location has pushed plastic waste exports into other Asian countries, and COVID-19 responses have utilized large quantities of plastic products. However, localized initiatives that involve non-governmental actors are making some headway in countries such as Brazil. This review article introduces the problem, examines extant literature linking plastic pollution with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, offers a brief Brazilian case study of a coordinated response, outlines key research gaps and needs, and articulates the concept of plastic justice as a progressive normative design and framework for further analysis. 50 Silva, Ana L.P., Joana C. Prata, Armando C. Duarte, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares, Damià Barceló, Teresa Rocha-Santos. “Microplastics in Landfill Leachates: The Need for Reconnaissance Studies and Remediation Technologies.” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100072 Microplastics Landfill Leachate Journal Article Y Y N Although landfills represent repositories for cumulative loading of plastic waste derived from households and industrial sectors, often seen as sinks, the contribution of these structures and their leachates as potential sources of microplastics to natural environments remains poorly covered. Microplastics discharged from these sites may pose greater risks to human and environmental health by adsorbed toxic and persistent hazardous chemicals. As reviewed here, landfill leachates present microplastic concentrations of 0–291 particles L−1, highly variable depending on landfill condiƟons and methodologies adopted, while treatment of leachates can reduce these concentrations in 1–2 orders of magnitude. Nonetheless, knowledge is still scarce on the factors influencing the release of microplastics from landfills, and technology must be developed to mitigate this source of microplastics, which poses a significant challenge but is needed in order to preserve a good environmental status. 51 Simpson, Thomas J., and Robert A. Francis. “Artificial Lawns Exhibit Increased Runoff and Decreased Water Retention Compared to Living Lawns Following Controlled Rainfall Experiments.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021): 127232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127232 Microplastics Hydrological Impacts Runoff Journal Article Y N Y Artificial lawns are an increasingly popular alternative to their living counterparts, but their environmental impacts are undocumented. The hydrological impacts of artificial (synthetic polymer) grass were investigated in comparison to living grass in a series of controlled rainfall experiments, representing daily short rainfall events of different volumes (750 mL, 1000 mL, 1250 mL). Two varieties of artificial grass with varying pile height (short vs long) were compared with a living grass control. Infiltration was measured as drainage (total, initial and delayed) and retention. Significant differences in runoff were observed across all treatments, demonstrating that both types of artificial grass displayed greater volumes and proportion of runoff than living grass, and that long artificial grass had significantly greater runoff than short artificial grass. Living grass was also significantly better at retaining water and delaying drainage compared to both artificial grasses, while retention performance varied between short and long artificial grass. Other aspects of drainage were more complicated, with short grass installations generally draining fastest. Plastic thatch and grass fibres were also shed from the artificial grass installations during the experiments and were carried in the runoff. Further experimentation is required to explore the wider implications of such hydrological responses, but the potential impacts on runoff in particular should be considered when replacing living lawns with their artificial counterparts. 52 Tarafdar, Abhrajyoti, Min-Ju Oh, Quynh Nguyen-Phuong, and Jung-Hwan Kwon. “Profiling and Potential Cancer Risk Assessment on Children Exposed to PAHs in Playground Dust/Soil: A Comparative Study on Poured Rubber Surfaced and Classical Soil Playgrounds in Seoul.” Environmental Geochemistry and Health. May 27, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-019-00334-2 Crumb Rubber PAHs Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y N Y Children can get affected by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) while they interact with play area soil/rubber surfacing and exposed to PAHs by dermal contact, inhalation and hand-to-mouth activity. A comparative study has been conducted on PAHs profiling and probable cancer risk of children from PAHs present in uncovered playground surface soil and poured rubber surfaced playground dust. Surface soil and dust samples have been collected from 14 different children parks around the Korea University campus, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Concentrations of 16 PAHs in the soils/dust were found to be in a range of 2.82–57.93 μg g−1. Profiling of the PAHs from the playground soils/dust reveals 3-ring PAHs are dominating with 79.9% of total PAHs content, on an average. The diagnostic ratio analysis confirms that vehicular exhaust and fossil fuel burning are likely the main sources of high molecular weight carcinogenic PAHs, whereas low molecular weight PAHs have pyrogenic origin. The probabilistic health risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulations for the estimation of the 95% cancer risk exposed to the PAHs from the surfaced playgrounds shows a little higher value than the USEPA safety standard (1.3 × 10−5). SensiƟvity analysis revealed exposure duration and relative skin adherence factor for soil as the most influential parameters of the assessment. Noticeably, cancer risk is approximately 10 times higher in poured rubber surfaced playgrounds than in uncovered soil playgrounds. 53 Vyrlas, Panagiotis, Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos. “Surface Temperature Experiences and Irrigation Effects on Artificial Turf.” WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development. May 22, 2024. DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20. https://wseas.com/journals/ead/2024/a4051 15-007(2024).pdf Heat from Turf Heat Stress Sports Injuries Journal Article Y Y Y Artificial turf has gained widespread use in sporting fields as it is considered a water-saving and maintenance-free alternative to natural turfgrass. However, the high surface temperatures that occur during the day are a potentially important unfavorable feature of artificial turfgrass. The objective of this study was to establish the temperatures experienced on an artificial turf surface and to evaluate the effect of irrigation on artificial turf surface temperature. Data was collected over five surfaces across a sports facility on the campus of the University of Thessaly in Larissa, Greece. Results showed surface temperatures on artificial turf (AT) as significantly higher than running track (RT), asphalt (AS), bare soil (BS), and natural grass (NG), with maximum surface temperatures of 72oC. Solar radiation accounted for most of the variation in surface temperature of the artificial turf (r2=0.92) as opposed to air temperature (r2=0.38), and relative humidity (r2=0.50). To lower surface temperature, four irrigation regimes were used (1x60 min, 1x30 min, 2x15 min, and 3x5 min water application). Irrigation reduced the surface temperature by as much as 30°C compared to the unirrigated surface, but these low temperatures were maintained for 90 to 120 minutes long. The most effective cooling effect occurred when water was applied in a 3-cycle, 5-minute duration, where the irrigated surface temperature remained below the unirrigated surface throughout the time after the first watering. 54 Wagner, M., L. Monclús, H. P. H. Arp, K. J. Groh, M. E. Løseth, J. Muncke, Z. Wang, R. Wolf, and L. Zimmermann. "State of the Science on Plastic Chemicals: Identifying and Addressing Chemicals and Polymers of Concern." Zenodo, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10701706 Microplastics PFAS Human Health Impacts NGO Article N Y N This report synthesizes the current scientific understanding of plastic chemicals, including hazardous properties and their presence in various polymers. It highlights concerns about harmful chemicals in plastics, including microplastics and persistent pollutants such as PFAS. The report aims to make scientific data more accessible for policymakers to develop regulations that mitigate risks to public health and the environment. By centralizing fragmented information, it provides a resource for addressing chemical hazards in plastic materials. 55 Watterson, Watterson. “Crumb Rubber in Sports Pitches in Scotland and the Science/Policy Interface: Can Continued Use be Justified?” 2024. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35010.1888 2 Crumb Rubber Microplastics PFAS Technical Report N Y Y This report evaluates the environmental and health risks associated with crumb rubber infill used in artificial turf sports pitches in Scotland. It presents evidence that crumb rubber contains hazardous chemicals, including PAHs, PFAS, endocrine disruptors, and microplastics, which pose risks to human health and the environment. The report highlights outdated regulatory frameworks and calls for a ban on crumb rubber, aligning with the European Union's decision to phase out its use by 2031. It also discusses alternative materials, such as coir and cork, and the need for policy shifts toward sustainable sports surfaces. The report criticizes the reliance on industry-led risk assessments and advocates for a precautionary, hazard-based approach to regulation. 56 Winz, Robyn, Lee L. Yu, Li-Piin Sung, YuYe J. Tong, and Dejun Chen. “Assessing Children’s Potential Exposures to Harmful Metals in Tire Crumb Rubber by Accelerated Photodegradation Weathering.” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (2023): 13877. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38574-z Crumb Rubber Heavy Metal Exposure Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y Y Y Whether a tire crumb rubber (TCR) playground would expose children to potentially harmful chemicals such as heavy metals is an open question. The released metals available for pickup on the surface of TCR tiles was studied by accelerated 2-year aging of the TCRs in the NIST-SPHERE (National Institute of Standards and Technology Simulated Photodegradation via High Energy Radiant Exposure). The dermal contact was mimicked by a method of composite surface wiping from US Environmental Protection Agency throughout the weathering process. The surface release of ten most concerned harmful metals (Be, Cr, Cu, As, Se, Cd, Sb, Ba, Tl, Pb) was monitored through the course of aging. The cumulative release of Cu, As, Tl, and Sb reached potentially harmful levels at various times within 3 years, although only Cr was found at a harmful level on the surface of the tiles. Taking the cleansing effect of precipitation or periodic cleansing with rain into account, TCR playgrounds may still be safe for use. 57 Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Microplastics Plastics Urban Emissions Journal Article Y N Y A global agreement on plastic should have quantitative reduction targets for the emissions of plastic pollution and regular measurements to track success. Here, we present a framework for measuring plastic emissions, akin to greenhouse gas emissions, and demonstrate its utility by calculating a baseline measurement for the City of Toronto in Ontario, Canada. We identify relevant sources of plastic pollution in the city, calculate emissions for each source by multiplying activity data by emission factors for each source, and sum the emissions to obtain the total annual emissions of plastic pollution generated. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we estimate that 3,531 to 3,852 tonnes (T) of plastic pollution were emitted from Toronto in 2020. Littering is the largest source overall (3,099 T), and artificial turf is the largest source of microplastic (237 T). Quantifying source emissions can inform the most effective mitigation strategies to achieve reduction targets. We recommend this framework be scaled up and replicated in cities, states, provinces, and countries around the world to inform global reduction targets and measure progress toward reducing plastic pollution. 58 Zuccaro, Philip, James Licato, Emily A. Davidson, David C. Thompson, and Vasilis Vasiliou. “Assessing Extraction-Analysis Methodology to Detect Fluorotelomer Alcohols (FTOH), a Class of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), in Artificial Turf Fibers and Crumb Rubber Infill." Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 7 (2023): 100280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2022.100280 PFAS Crumb Rubber Journal Article Y Y Y Background: Despite widespread global use of artificial turf fields, there is a paucity of research assessing the presence of potentially harmful chemicals within the field components. Objective: This pilot study aimed to assess the capacity of an adapted extraction-analysis method to identify and quantitate FTOHs, a class of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in artificial turf fiber and crumb rubber infill samples. Methods: FTOHs in artificial turf fibers and crumb rubber infill were extracted using 80:20 methanol:methyl tert-butyl ether, reconstituted in methanol, and analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) operated in scanning ion mode (SIM). Results: 8:2 FTOH was detected in artificial turf fiber and crumb rubber infill samples at concentrations of 1.0 and 0.71 ng/μL, respectively. This translates to 300ng 8:2 FTOH/g artificial turf fiber and 110ng 8:2 FTOH/g crumb rubber. By contrast, 4:2 FTOH and 6:2 FTOH were not found to be present in detectable levels. Conclusion: Our extraction method with subsequent GC-MS analysis proved useful in detecting FTOHs in artificial turf field samples. 8:2 FTOH may be present in artificial turf fibers and crumb rubber infill. This pilot investigation supports the need for further research into the presence of this class of PFAS in artificial turf field components. 59 Zuccaro, Philip, David C. Thompson, Jacob de Boer, Andrew Watterson, Qiong Wang, Song Tang, Xiaoming Shi, Maria Llompart, Nuno Ratola, and Vasilis Vasiliou. “Artificial Turf and Crumb Rubber Infill: An International Policy Review Concerning the Current State of Regulations.” Environmental Challenges 9 (2022): 100620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100620 Crumb Rubber PFAS Microplastics Journal Article Y Y Y Background: Although artificial turf fields are utilized widely around the world, sufficient research has not yet been conducted to assess the potential human and environmental health risks posed by the chemicals contained in the fields’ fibers, backing, and often-used crumb rubber infill. Consequently, there is wide variation in governmental policies. Objective: Review the notable policies concerning artificial turf and crumb rubber infill in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, China, Qatar, and the Global Stockholm Convention of the United Nations. Methods: Information was collected that included published papers, technical and policy reports, and grey literature. These were then analyzed by a collaborative group familiar with the environmental policies in their respective countries to extract the pertinent legislative or regulatory information. The group members were primarily identified through their involvement in publications pertinent to artificial turf and crumb rubber infill health research and included environmental health professors, active researchers, and governmental agency officials. Most information on direct policies was taken directly from reports provided to the public by various governmental agencies responsible for their countries’ regulations, often available within the respective agency's online archives. Results: There are significant differences in the regulatory approaches adopted by the investigated countries with regards to artificial turf and its crumb rubber infill. Some regions, such as the European Union, have taken substantial steps to limit the fields’ chemical components to which the public and environment are exposed. Other regions and countries have done far less to address the issue. Most policies relate directly to (i) the fields themselves, (ii) the microplastic components of crumb rubber infill, or (iii) the concentrations of harmful polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and heavy metals. Conclusion: While nearly every country acknowledges the potential health risks posed by heavy metals, microplastics, PAHs, and PFAS chemicals, very few have actually implemented artificial turf and crumb rubber infill regulations and/or established adequate surveillance measures to protect those regularly exposed to the fields. 60 Clapp, Richard W. DSc, MPH, and David R. Brown, Sc.D. “Re: Investigation of Reported Cancer among Soccer Players in Washington State.” March 9, 2017. https://drive.google.com/file/d/194BxQ8gaL 0_noQWJYpyYBj5ww2-FhNFU/view. Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks Expert Report N This letter provides a critical analysis of the Washington State Department of Health’s (DOH) 2017 report investigating cancer cases among soccer players with artificial turf exposure. The authors argue that the study’s methodology is flawed, particularly in its use of an incomplete case list, an invalid observed-to- expected ratio calculation, and an overly broad age range for comparison. They emphasize that the DOH did not properly account for exposure duration, latency periods, or the potential increased risk among goalkeepers, who experience more direct contact with artificial turf and crumb rubber infill. The letter asserts that the report’s conclusions misrepresent the study’s findings and create a false impression that artificial turf exposure has been ruled out as a cancer risk. The authors call for a properly designed population-based case-control study to assess potential links between artificial turf and cancer, arguing that the DOH’s statements were irresponsible given the study’s limitations. 61 Howie, Stephen. “Does Playing Soccer on Artificial Turf Increase Cancer Risk, Especially in Kids?” KUOW, NPR Network. February 8, 2024. https://www.kuow.org/stories/does- playing-soccer-on-artificial-turf-increase- cancer-riskespecially-in-kids Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks News Article N N Y Unavailable 62 Kim, Hana. “State Dept. of Health Says Crumb Rubber Poses No Significant Risk to Public; Critics Call Findings Irresponsible.” FOX 13 Seattle. January 19, 2017. https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/state- dept-of-health-says-crumb-rubber-poses-no- significant-risk-to-public-critics-call-findings- irresponsible Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks News Article N Y Y This article reports on the Washington State Department of Health’s (DOH) conclusion that soccer players are not developing cancer at higher rates than the general population despite concerns about crumb rubber exposure. The DOH based its findings on an investigation of a list compiled by University of Washington soccer coach Amy Griffin, who documented over 50 soccer players diagnosed with cancer, half of whom were goalkeepers. Critics, including affected parents and scientists, argue that the study was flawed because it relied on incomplete data and did not seek to establish the total number of soccer players with cancer. DOH officials acknowledge the study’s limitations but stand by their conclusion that crumb rubber does not appear to expose players to harmful levels of chemicals. However, they admit that the safety of crumb rubber has not been definitively established and that they did not conduct physical testing of the material. Critics call the DOH’s findings irresponsible, arguing that they provide a false sense of security while questions about exposure and risk remain unanswered. Meanwhile, federal agencies such as the EPA and CDC are continuing to investigate crumb rubber’s safety. 63 Perkins, Tom. “Athletes Likely to Have Higher Levels of PFAS After Play on Artificial Turf - Study.” The Guardian. March 15, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ 2024/mar/15/athletes-higher-pfas-levels- artificial-turf PFAS Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks News Article N Y Y A study found increased PFAS levels on athletes' skin after playing on artificial turf, raising health concerns. PFAS, linked to cancer and other diseases, can be absorbed through skin, inhaled, or ingested. Some athletes blame turf for illnesses, and bans have been proposed, though a California ban was vetoed. The issue remains controversial as research continues. 64 Bennett, Kyla. "Response to Questions - Portsmouth, New Hampshire Synthetic Turf Field Installation." Letter to Kimberly Henry, City Planner, City of Los Angeles. July 11, 2023. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ZQayc15_ pUBkKXkhyh2ZxfNTtH7p7CY/view?usp=drive sdk PFAS Microplastics Crumb Rubber NGO Letter N Y Y Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) criticizes the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Harvard-Westlake River Park Project, arguing it misrepresents PFAS risks in artificial turf. PEER disputes claims that PFAS exposure is primarily from drinking water, citing EPA data that show multiple exposure pathways. The organization also challenges the FEIR’s dismissal of inhalation and dermal absorption risks, questioning the validity of its PFAS testing and pointing out that all tested artificial turf brands have contained PFAS. Additionally, PEER refutes claims that PFAS do not leach from artificial turf and challenges misleading statements about artificial turf recycling and microplastics pollution. The report also dismisses health risks from crumb rubber, despite studies linking it to carcinogens. PEER argues the FEIR fails to fulfill its duty under CEQA to properly inform decision-makers and the public, advocating for natural grass as a safer alternative. 65 Redundant Source - Listed Above 66 Collaborative for Health & Environment. “Environmental Health Impacts of Synthetic Turf and Safer Alternatives.” January 27, 2022. https://www.healthandenvironment.org/che- webinars/96595 PFAS Crumb Rubber Microplastics Research Presentation/ Webinar Summary N Y Y This research presentation by experts from TURI and other institutions highlighted concerns about artificial turf’s environmental and human health impacts. Topics covered included the presence of PFAS, PAHs, heavy metals, microplastics, and 6PPD-quinone in synthetic turf and infill materials like crumb rubber. Researchers discussed heat-related illnesses, skin infections, and exposure risks, particularly for children. The presentation also examined how artificial turf contributes to urban pollution, including stormwater contamination and chemical leaching. Natural grass fields were presented as a safer alternative, with an emphasis on community-level solutions for reducing exposure to hazardous materials in synthetic turf. 67 Redundant Source - Listed Above 68 Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121 Microplastics Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors Journal Article Y N N More than 16,000 chemicals are incorporated into plastics to impart properties such as color, flexibility, and durability. These chemicals may leach from plastics, resulting in widespread human exposure during everyday use. Two plastic-associated chemicals—bisphenol A (BPA) and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)—and a class of chemicals—brominated flame retardants [polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)]—are credibly linked to adverse health and cognitive impacts. BPA exposures are associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, DEHP exposure with increased all-cause mortality among persons 55 to 64 y old, and prenatal PBDE exposures in mothers with IQ losses in their children. We estimate BPA, DEHP, and PBDE exposures in 38 countries containing one-third of the world’s population. We find that in 2015, 5.4 million cases of IHD and 346,000 cases of stroke were associated with BPA exposure; that DEHP exposures were linked to approximately 164,000 deaths among 55-to-64 y olds; and that 11.7 million IQ points were lost due to maternal PBDE exposure. We estimate the costs of these health impacts to be $1.5 trillion 2015 purchasing power parity dollars. If exposures to BPA and DEHP in the United States had been at 2015 levels since 2003, 515,000 fewer deaths would have been attributed to BPA and DEHP between 2003 and 2015. If PBDE levels in mothers had been at 2015 levels since 2005, over 42 million IQ points would have been saved between 2005 and 2015. 69 Ecology Center. “Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ Infest Artificial Turf.” October 10, 2019. https://www.ecocenter.org/toxic-forever- chemicals-infest-artificial-turf PFAS Crumb Rubber NGO Article N Y Y Artificial turf contains PFAS, persistent chemicals linked to cancer and environmental pollution. Studies have detected PFAS in both the synthetic grass fibers and backing materials, with levels reaching hundreds of parts per trillion (ppt). These chemicals can leach into water sources, compounding concerns over the health risks of artificial turf. Additionally, the crumb rubber infill—made from recycled tires—contains heavy metals and other toxic substances. The widespread use of synthetic turf, with thousands of fields installed annually, raises alarms over long-term environmental contamination and public health risks. 70 EHN Curators. “PFAS Found on Children’s Skin After Playing on Turf Fields.” Environmental Health News. August 26, 2024. https://thenationaldesk.com/news/spotlight- on-america/toxic-forever-chemicals-detected- on-kids-skin-after-playing-on-turf-fields- health-concerns-pfas PFAS Crumb Rubber NGO Blog N Y Y A new study by PEER found that children playing on artificial turf fields have detectable PFAS ("forever chemicals") on their skin after play, raising concerns about exposure through dermal absorption, inhalation, and ingestion. The study showed PFAS levels increased on three out of four players after games on synthetic fields, while no similar increases were observed on natural grass fields. Some states, including Colorado and Maine, have enacted PFAS bans in artificial turf, but the EPA has not studied PFAS presence in turf despite growing concerns. Researchers and advocates are urging federal action to regulate PFAS in artificial turf to protect children’s health. 71 Fořt, Jan, Klára Kobetičová, Martin Böhm, Jan Podlesný, Veronika Jelínková, Martina Vachtlová, Filip Bureš, and Robert Černý. “Environmental Consequences of Rubber Crumb Application: Soil and Water Pollution.” Polymers 14, no. 7 (2022): 1416. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071416 Crumb Rubber PAHs Heavy Metals Journal Article Y Y Y End-of-life tires are utilized for various purposes, including sports pitches and playground surfaces. However, several substances used at the manufacture of tires can be a source of concerns related to human health or environment’s adverse effects. In this context, it is necessary to map whether this approach has the desired effect in a broader relation. While the negative effects on human health were investigated thoroughly and legislation is currently being revisited, the impact on aquatic or soil organisms has not been sufficiently studied. The present study deals with the exposure of freshwater and soil organisms to rubber crumb using the analysis of heavy metal and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations. The obtained results refer to substantial concerns related to freshwater contamination specifically, since the increased concentrations of zinc (7 mg·L−1) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (58 mg·kg−1) inhibit the growth of freshwater organisms, Desmodesmus subspicatus, and Lemna minor in particular. The performed test with soil organisms points to substantial concerns associated with the mortality of earthworms as well. The acquired knowledge can be perceived as a roadmap to a consistent approach in the implementation of the circular economy, which brings with it a number of so far insufficiently described problems. 72 Gaber, Nadia, Lisa Bero, and Tracey J. Woodruff. “The Devil They Knew: Chemical Documents Analysis of Industry Influence on PFAS Science.” Annals of Global Health 89, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4013 PFAS Journal Article Y Y N Background: Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely-used chemicals that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in humans and animals, becoming an increasing cause for global concern. While PFAS have been commercially produced since the 1940s, their toxicity was not publicly established until the late 1990s. The objective of this paper is to evaluate industry documents on PFAS and compare them to the public health literature in order to understand this consequential delay. Methods: We reviewed a collection of previously secret industry documents archived at the UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library, examining whether and how strategies of corporate manipulation of science were used by manufacturers of PFAS. Using well-established methods of document analysis, we developed deductive codes to assess industry influence on the conduct and publication of research. We also conducted a literature review using standard search strategies to establish when scientific information on the health effects of PFAS became public. Results: Our review of industry documents shows that companies knew PFAS was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested” by 1970, forty years before the public health community. Further, the industry used several strategies that have been shown common to tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries to influence science. 73 Gambacorta, David and Laker, Barbara. “City Officials Believed a New South Philly Turf Field was PFAS-Free. Not True, Experts Say.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 23, 2024. https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphi a/philadelphia-pfas-artificial-turf-field- murphy-recreation-20240223 PFAS News Article N N Y Source no longer available 74 Gearhardt, Jefferey, Director of Research, The Ecology Center, Ann Arbor, MI. Letter to Portsmouth, NH City Council and Director of Finance and Administration. 1 Jun 2020. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2020/06/june1_portsmouthpfas.pdf PFAS NGO Letter N Y Y A researcher warns Portsmouth City Council about PFAS in artificial turf, emphasizing that all nine tested turf fiber samples contained fluorine, a PFAS indicator. A Portsmouth field sample had 79 ppm fluorine, suggesting PFAS presence. The letter critiques manufacturers’ reliance on limited water-testing methods (EPA 537.1) and urges requiring total organic fluorine tests to confirm PFAS-free claims. It recommends certified third-party labs and stresses transparency in testing for public safety. 75 Redundant Source - Listed Above 76 Li, Nan, Yun Liu, George D. Papandonatos, Antonia M. Calafat, Charles B. Eaton, Karl T. Kelsey, Kim M. Cecil et al. “Gestational and Childhood Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Cardiometabolic Risk at Age 12 Years.” Environment International 147 (2021): 106344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.10634 4 PFAS Human Health Impacts Cardiometabolic Effects Journal Article Y Y N Background: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may adversely influence cardiometabolic risk. However, few studies have examined if the timing of early life PFAS exposure modifies their relation to cardiometabolic risk. We examined the influence of gestational and childhood PFAS exposure on adolescents’ cardiometabolic risk. Methods: We quantified concentrations of four PFAS (perfluorooctanoate [PFOA], perfluorooctane sulfonate [PFOS], perfluorononanoate [PFNA], and perfluorohexane sulfonate [PFHxS]) in sera collected during pregnancy, at birth, and at ages 3, 8, and 12 years from 221 mother–child pairs in the HOME Study (enrolled 2003–06, Cincinnati, Ohio). We measured cardiometabolic risk factors using physical examinations, fasting serum biomarkers, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans at age 12 years. Cardiometabolic risk summary scores were calculated by summing age- and sex-standardized z-scores for individual cardiometabolic risk factors. We used multiple informant models to estimate covariate-adjusted associations of serum PFAS concentrations (log2-transformed) at each visit with cardiometabolic risk scores and their individual components, and tested for differences in associations across visits. Results: The associations of serum PFOA concentrations with cardiometabolic risk scores differed across visits (P for heterogeneity = 0.03). Gestational and cord serum PFOA concentrations were positively associated with cardiometabolic risk scores (βs and 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]: gestational 0.8 [0.0, 1.6]; cord 0.9 [-0.1, 1.9] per interquartile range increase). These positive associations were primarily driven by homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance index (β = 0.3 [0.1, 0.5]) and adiponectin to leptin ratio (β = -0.5 [- 1.0, 0.0]). Other individual cardiometabolic risk factors associated with gestational PFOA included insulin and waist circumference. Gestational and cord PFHxS were also associated with higher cardiometabolic risk scores (βs: gestational 0.9 [0.2, 1.6]; cord 0.9 [0.1, 1.7]). In this cohort of children with higher gestational PFOA exposure, fetal exposure to PFOA and PFHxS was associated with unfavorable cardiometabolic risk in adolescence. 77 Huang, Qian’en, Jianqun Wang, Jianping Wang, Dongmei Yu, Yuanbo Zhan, and Ze Liu. “Emerging Health Risks of Crumb Rubber: Inhalation of Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals via Saliva During Artificial Turf Activities.” Environmental Science & Technology 57, no. 50 (2023): 21005–21015. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03278 Crumb Rubber Inhalation Risks Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals Journal Article Y N Y Crumb rubber (CR) is a commonly used infill material in artificial turf worldwide. However, the potential health risk associated with exposure to CR containing environmentally persistent free radicals (EPFRs) remains under investigation. Herein, we observed the widespread presence of CR particles in the range of 2.8–51.4 μg/m3 and EPFRs exceeding 6 × 1015 spins/g in the ambient air surrounding artificial turf fields. Notably, the abundance of these particles tended to increase with the number of operating years of the playing fields. Furthermore, by analyzing saliva samples from 200 participants, we established for the first time that EPFR- carrying CR could be found in saliva specimens, suggesting the potential for inhaling them through the oral cavity and their exposure to the human body. After 40 min of exercise on the turf, we detected a substantial presence of EPFRs, reaching as high as (1.15 ± 1.00) × 1016 spins of EPFR per 10 mL of saliva. Moreover, the presence of EPFRs considerably increased the oxidative potential of CR, leading to the inactivation of Ca2+, redox reactions, and changes in spatial binding of the α-1,4-chain of salivary amylase to Ca2+, all of which could influence human saliva health. Our study provides insights into a new pathway of human exposure to CR with EPFRs in artificial turf infill, indicating an increased human health risk of CR exposure. 78 Kristen Melo. Email to Mayor Eachern, City of Portsmouth, NH Regarding Additional PFAS Testing of FieldTurf Vertex, Schmidt Shock Pad and SafeShell infill installed June 2021. July 5, 2022. https://nontoxicdovernh.wordpress.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/07/wraft-pfas- portsmouthletter-5july2022.pdf PFAS NGO Letter N Y Y Kristen Mello, a representative of Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves, wrote to Portsmouth officials highlighting PFAS contamination in artificial turf field components. Independent testing confirmed the presence of known and unidentified PFAS in turf carpet, foam padding, and infill, with compounds that can leach into water. The letter raises concerns about exposure risks, including ingestion, inhalation, and environmental contamination. Mello urges city officials to take action to limit PFAS pollution and hold contractors accountable for ensuring PFAS-free materials, emphasizing potential financial and ecological consequences. 79 Kristen Mello. Follow-up to 11/17/21 PFAS- Field Work Session. Email communication to Mayor Becksted, Council Member, City Manager, City Attorney. November 21, 2021. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13kTZ rbFrLulPcMF38pjR25tB3- 2mbs_qcnirJmYyT5U/edit PFAS Leaching PVDF Public Commentary N Y N Kristen Mello, representing Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves (WRAFT), wrote to Portsmouth city officials following a November 17, 2021, work session on PFAS in artificial turf. She referenced a 2021 review on the solubility and stability of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), highlighting its degradation risks. The letter outlines concerns about HF (hydrofluoric acid) release during recycling, degradation under alkaline conditions, and UV exposure accelerating PFAS leaching into stormwater. Mello urges officials to consider these environmental and health risks when assessing artificial turf installations and testing methodologies. 80 Messmer, Mindi F., Jeffrey Salloway, Nawar Shara, Ben Locwin, Megan W. Harvey, and Nora Traviss. “Risk of Cancer in a Community Exposed to Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances.” Environmental Health Insights 16 (2022): 11786302221076707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178630222107670 7 PFAS Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks Journal Article Y Y N Background: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) emissions from a plastic coating industrial source in southern New Hampshire (NH) have contaminated at least 65 square miles of drinking water. Prior research indicates that high levels of PFAS are associated with adverse health outcomes, including an increased risk of cancer. Reports show that residents of the exposed community have mean blood serum levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) more than 2 times greater than the US average, with higher levels of PFOS and PFHxS as well. A 2018 report concluded that cancer incidence in Merrimack does not exceed NH’s state- wide rate, but prior reporting may be biased by inclusion of Merrimack cases in the state average. Methods: This ecological study compared Merrimack’s risk for 24 cancer types (2005–2014) and all-cause cancers to US national rates and rates in demographically similar, unexposed New England towns. Four comparator towns with no documented PFAS exposure were selected. Unadjusted logistic regression estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Merrimack residents had significantly higher risks of thyroid cancer (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.12-1.93 bladder cancer (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.17-1.81), esophageal cancer (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.1-2.65), and mesothelioma (RR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.09-5.34), compared to national averages. Our work also suggests that Merrimack residents experienced a significantly higher risk of thyroid cancer (RR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.19- 2.39), and prostate cancer (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.15, 1.6) compared with similarly exposed New England communities. Our results indicate that residents of Merrimack may also have a significantly lower risk of some site-specific cancers compared to national averages, including lower risk of prostate cancer (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.5-0.66), female breast cancer (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.68), ovarian cancer (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.84) and cervical cancer (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.69). Conclusion:Merrimack residents experienced a significantly higher risk of at least 4 types of cancer over 10 years between 2005 and 2014. Merrimack is a community with documented PFAS contamination of drinking water in public and private water sources. Results indicate that further research is warranted to elucidate if southern NH residents experience increased risk for various types of cancer due to exposure to PFAS contamination. 81 Mohammed, Atef MF, Inas A. Saleh, and Nasser M. Abdel-Latif. “Hazard Assessment Study on Organic Compounds and Heavy Metals from Using Artificial Turf.” Heliyon 9, no. 4 (2023). https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405- 8440(23)02135-7.pdf Crumb Rubber PAHs + VOC's Cancer Risks Journal Article Y Y Y Introduction: Artificial turf or synthetic grass releases hazardous substances such as heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the concentration levels of hazardous substances that are emitted from artificial turf as a result of sunlight effect; and to assess the expected exposure risks to such emitted substances during various activities. The current study aimed to evaluate the concentration levels of hazardous substances that are emitted from artificial turf as a result of the effect of sunlight. And to assess the expected risks of exposure to these substances emitted during the various activities. Study design: VOCs emitted from artificial turf samples were monitored and collected in the ambient air of three football fields, the ambient air around a piece of new artificial turf that has not yet been used on playing fields, but has been exposed to sunlight within one year and in the indoor air around a piece of new artificial turf. Which has not yet been used on the playgrounds and was placed at room temperature and away from sunlight. Results: The current study shows that average afternoon morning VOCs levels were 277, 333, 405, and 509 mg/m3 in winter, autumn, spring and summer, respectively. The most predominant PAHs compounds present in the samples were compounds with 3-rings and 4-rings. The average daily intake (ADI) for three exposure routes (ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact) was calculated for different age categories (3–6, 7–15, 16–18, 19–22, 23–55, and 56–70 year). Non-Carcinogenic exposure risk as hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI) were detected. Conclusion: All HI values were <1, indicating that there is no potential adverse health effects occur as a result of a chemical exposure. Total carcinogenic risk (R) values for the different age categories were higher than 1E-04 for three football artificial grass fields, which indicated a high cancer risk development probability. HI and R probability increased in the age group of 7–15 year > 3–6 years. 82 Redundant Source - Listed Above 83 Oh, Jiwon, Deborah H. Bennett, Antonia M. Calafat, Daniel Tancredi, Dorcas L. Roa, Rebecca J. Schmidt, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, and Hyeong-Moo Shin. “Prenatal Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Association with Autism Spectrum Disorder in the MARBLES Study.” Environment International 147 (2021): 106328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.10632 8 PFAS Human Health Impacts Autism Journal Article Y Y N Background: Prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may adversely affect child brain development, but epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. This study examined whether prenatal PFAS exposure is associated with increased autism spectrum disorder (ASD) risk. Methods: Participants were 173 mother–child pairs from MARBLES (Markers of Autism Risk in Babies – Learning Early Signs), a high-risk ASD cohort. At age 3, children were clinically confirmed for ASD (n = 57) or typical development (TD, n = 116). Nine PFAS were quantified in maternal serum collected during pregnancy. We analyzed associations of ASD with individual PFAS and the first principal component (PC-1), representing combined PFAS effects. Results: Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorononanoate (PFNA) were positively associated with ASD risk (per 2-fold increase: RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.90-1.61 [PFOA]; RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.91-1.69 [PFNA]), while perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) showed a negative association (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77, 1.01) with ASD risk. When examining associations of ASD with untransformed PFAS concentrations, PFOA, PFNA, and PC-1 were associated with increased ASD risk (per nanogram per milliliter increase: RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.65; RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.85; RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.25, respectively), while the RR of PFHxS moved toward the null. Conclusion : From this high- risk ASD cohort, we observed increased risk of ASD in children exposed to PFOA and PFNA. Further studies should be conducted in the general population because this population may have a larger fraction of cases resulting from genetic sources. 84 Peaslee, Graham, Ph.D. “Dr. Graham Peaslee Addresses Portsmouth, NH Council.” June 16, 2020. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=27850 73858389781 PFAS Video on Social Media N Y - - 85 Peaslee, Graham and Heather D. Whitehead. “Occurrences of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Plastic Products from Fluorinated Polymer Processing Aids.” 2024. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1oi wPKNrHCJd6- VzcFPKTNyCrjjmiwJeh/edit?usp=sharing&oui d=106106732686023309618&rtpof=true&sd =true PFAS Runoff Runoff Institutional Publication N Y Y Back of envelope calculation of PFAS contamination due to grass turf runoff 86 Ragnarsdóttir, Oddný , Mohamed Abou- Elwafa Abdallah, and Stuart Harrad. “Dermal Bioavailability of Perfluoroalkyl Substances Using in Vitro 3D Human Skin Equivalent Models,” Environment International. June, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.10877 2 PFAS Human Health Impacts Dermal Absorption Journal Article Y Y N Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been identified in various products that come in contact with human skin, ranging from school uniforms to personal care products. Despite this, knowledge on human dermal uptake of PFAS is lacking. Thus, the human dermal absorption of 17 PFAS was assessed, for the first time, using in vitro 3D-human skin equivalent models exposed to 500 ng/cm2 PFAS dissolved in methanol over 24–36 h. The distribution of target PFAS is presented, based on three fractions: absorbed, un-absorbed, and retained within skin tissue (absorbable dose). Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) had the highest absorbed fraction, 58.9 % and 48.7 % respectively, with the absorbed fraction decreasing with increasing carbon chain length of the studied perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) and perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs) (r = 0.97, p = 0.004). Interestingly, while longer chain PFAS (Cn ≥ 9) were not directly absorbed, a large fraction of the exposure dose was detected within the skin tissue at the end of the exposure. This was most apparent for perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) and perfluorononane sulfonate (PFNS) for which 66.5 % and 68.3 % of the exposure dose was found within the skin tissue, while neither compound was detected in the absorbed fraction. For compounds with a carbon chain length > 11, the fraction found within the skin tissue, decreases with increasing chain length. Physicochemical properties played a role in dermal permeation of PFAS, with a clear inverse correlation between logKOW and absorbed fraction for both PFCAs (r = - 0.97; p ≤ 0.001) and PFSAs (r = -0.99; p ≤ 0.001). Steady-state flux (JSS) and permeation coefficients (Papp) were determined for target compounds with significant permeation after 36 h exposure (C5-C8 PFCAs and C4-C7 PFSAs). In general, both the flux and permeation coefficient decreased with increasing chain length. 87 Rudiman, M, LaRossa, S. Response to Questions, Synthetic Turf Installation, Portsmouth, NH. Weston and Sampson Email Communication to S Woodward and P Rice, City of Portsmouth, NH with Response from Manufacturer FieldTurf (a Tarkett Company) Regarding Claims of PFAS Free Synthetic Turf. November 5, 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gh1yicHX MAjyGYhc1fi5P1OjCQQCxP9/view?usp=drive sdk PFAS Consulatant Report/Letter N Y Y Graphical abstract Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. responded to questions from Diana Carpinone regarding PFAS presence in the synthetic turf field installed in Portsmouth, NH. FieldTurf acknowledged that its product should not have been labeled “fluorine free,” but no new statement was requested since this claim was not part of the city’s specifications. The company stated it could only test for regulated compounds and known substances, confirming that PTFE and PVDF are used in common products such as drinking water systems and food handling materials. Fluorine occurs naturally in the environment, so no statement was made about its origin. Laboratory reports included Method Detection Limits and Reporting Limits for PFAS compounds, with testing conducted using EPA Method 537.1 (modified). The analyzed sample came from the same lot as the installed turf and was new at the time of testing. 88 Rice, Peter (Director of Public Works, City of Portsmouth, NH). Updated Information Regarding Manufacturing Process and New Athletic Field. December 6, 2021. https://nontoxicdovernh.wordpress.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/12/portsmouth-pvdf- polymer-memo-12-6-2021-.pdf PFAS Public Health PVDF Municipal Government Memorandum N Y Y The City of Portsmouth’s Department of Public Works issued a memorandum addressing concerns over the synthetic turf field’s potential PFAS content. The manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) confirmed the presence of PVDF-HFP, a polymeric PFAS, in the additive used in the turf material. City officials stated that PVDF-HFP is not one of the "PFAS of Concern" and cited studies indicating its biocompatibility. The memorandum outlines a proposal for additional PFAS testing, including three advanced analytical methods at a cost of $18,800, with funding drawn from remaining project funds initially intended for lighting installation. The manufacturer is not expected to cover testing costs, as the product met contractual specifications at the time of installation. 89 Rickard, Brittany P., Imran Rizvi, and Suzanne E. Fenton. "Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Female Reproductive Outcomes: PFAS Elimination, Endocrine- Mediated Effects, and Disease.” Toxicology 465 (2022): 153031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.153031 PFAS Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors Journal Article Y Y N Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are widespread environmental contaminants frequently detected in drinking water supplies worldwide that have been linked to a variety of adverse reproductive health outcomes in women. Compared to men, reproductive health effects in women are generally understudied while global trends in female reproduction rates are declining. Many factors may contribute to the observed decline in female reproduction, one of which is environmental contaminant exposure. PFAS have been used in home, food storage, personal care and industrial products for decades. Despite the phase-out of some legacy PFAS due to their environmental persistence and adverse health effects, alternative, short-chain and legacy PFAS mixtures will continue to pollute water and air and adversely influence women’s health. Studies have shown that both long- and short-chain PFAS disrupt normal reproductive function in women through altering hormone secretion, menstrual cyclicity, and fertility. Here, we summarize the role of a variety of PFAS and PFAS mixtures in female reproductive tract dysfunction and disease. Since these chemicals may affect reproductive tissues directly or indirectly through endocrine disruption, the role of PFAS in breast, thyroid, and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis function are also discussed as the interplay between these tissues may be critical in understanding the long-term reproductive health effects of PFAS in women. A major research gap is the need for mechanism of action data – the targets for PFAS in the female reproductive and endocrine systems are not evident, but the effects are many. Given the global decline in female fecundity and the ability of PFAS to negatively impact female reproductive health, further studies are needed to examine effects on endocrine target tissues involved in the onset of reproductive disorders of women. 90 Redundant Source - Listed Above 91 Tabuchi, Hiroko. “Lawyers to Plastics Makers: Prepare for ‘Astronomical’ PFAS Lawsuits.” New York Times. May 28, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/clima te/pfas-forever-chemicals-industry- lawsuits.html PFAS Litigation News Article N Behind Paywall N - 92 Thomas, Liji. “ADHD Symptoms Linked to Early Childhood Exposure to Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.” News Medical Life Sciences. March 28, 2023. https://www.news- medical.net/news/20230328/ADHD- symptoms-linked-to-early-childhood- exposure-to-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.aspx PFAS Human Health Impacts ADHD News Article N Y N News article based on journal article linked previously in bibliography: Kim, J. et al. (2023) "Association between early-childhood exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and ADHD symptoms: A prospective cohort study", Science of The Total Environment, p. 163081. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163081. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972301700X 93 Toxic Use Reduction Institute. “Per- and Poly- fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Artificial Turf Carpet.” February 2020. https://www.turi.org/publications/per-and- poly-fluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-in-artificial- turf-carpet-2/ PFAS Human Health Impacts Regulatory Concerns NGO Article N Y Y The fact sheet examines the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in artificial turf carpets, discussing their environmental persistence and potential human exposure risks. It references third-party testing that detected PFAS in turf materials and highlights challenges in measuring these chemicals due to their widespread presence and low concentration effects. The report underscores the need for further research, regulatory scrutiny, and alternatives to PFAS-containing turf products. 94 Toxic Use Reduction Institute. “Playground Surfacing: Choosing Safer Materials for Children’s Health and the Environment.” December 2018. https://www.uml.edu/docs/Playground_surf acing_report_Dec2023_tcm18-377890.pdf Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts NGO Article N Y Y This report evaluates various playground surfacing materials, focusing on their potential health and environmental risks. Crumb rubber, commonly used in playgrounds, is identified as a source of chemical exposure, including endocrine-disrupting compounds and carcinogens. The report highlights concerns related to inhalation, dermal absorption, and environmental contamination from materials like recycled rubber and synthetic turf. It advocates for the use of safer, non-toxic alternatives to minimize risks to children and surrounding ecosystems. 95 University of Birmingham. “New Study Confirms Forever Chemicals are Absorbed Through Human Skin.” Phys.Org. June 24, 2024. https://phys.org/news/2024-06- chemicals-absorbed-human-skin.amp PFAS Human Health Impacts Dermal Absorption Journal Article Y Y Y 96 Brown, Erina, Anna MacDonald, Steve Allen, Deonie Allen. “The Potential for a Plastic Recycling Facility to Release Microplastic Pollution and Possible Filtration Remediation Effectiveness.” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.10030 9 Microplastics Regulatory Oversight Journal Article Y Y N With current plastic production and the growing problem of global plastic pollution, an increase and improvement in plastic recycling is needed. There is limited knowledge or assessment of microplastic pollution from point sources such as plastic recycling facilities globally. This pilot study investigates microplastic pollution from a mixed plastics recycling facility in the UK to advance current quantitative understanding of microplastic (MP) pollution release from a plastic recycling facility to receiving waters. Raw recycling wash water were estimate to contain microplastic counts between 5.97 106 – 1.12 × 108 MP m−3 (following fluorescence microscopy analysis). The microplastic pollution mitigation (filtration installed) was found to remove the majority of microplastics >5µm, with high removal efficiencies for microplastics >40µm. Microplastics <5µm were generally not removed by the filtration and subsequently discharged, with 59-1184 tonnes potentially discharged annually. It is recommended that additional filtration to remove the smaller microplastics prior to wash discharge is incorporated in the wash water management. Evidence of microplastic wash water pollution suggest it may be important to integrate microplastics into water quality regulations. Further studies should be conducted to increase knowledge of microplastic pollution from plastic recycling processes. 97 Chand, Rupa, Lucian Iordachescu, Frida Bäckbom, Angelica Andreasson, Cecilia Bertholds, Emelie Pollack, Marziye Molazadeh, Claudia Lorenz, Asbjørn Haaning Nielsen, and Jes Vollertsen. "Treating Wastewater for Microplastics to a Level on Par with Nearby Marine Waters." Water Research 256 (June 1, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.12164 7 Microplastics Waste Water Treatment Journal Article Y Y N Retention of microplastics (MPs) at the third largest wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Sweden was investigated. The plant is one of the most modern and advanced of its kind, with rapid sand filter for tertiary treatment in combination with mechanical, biological, and chemical treatment. It achieved a significantly high treatment efficiency, which brought the MP concentration in its discharge on par with concentrations measured in marine waters of the same region. This novel data shows that properly designed modern WWTPs can reduce the MP content of sewage down to background levels measured in the receiving aquatic environment. Opposite to current understanding of the retention of MP by WWTPs, a modern and well-designed WWTP does not have to be a significant point source for MP. MPs were quantified at all major treatment steps, including digester inlet and outlet sludge. MPs sized 10–500 µm were analyzed by a focal plane array based micro-Fourier transform infrared (FPA-µFTIR) microscopy, a hyperspectral imaging technique, while MPs above 500 µm were analyzed by Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. Mass was estimated from the hyperspectral images for MPs <500 µm and from microscope images >500 µm. The overall treatment efficiency was in terms of MP counts 99.98 %, with a daily input of 6.42 × 1010 and output of 1.04 × 107 particles. The mass removal efficiency was 99.99 %. The mechanical part of the treatment, the pre- treatment, and primary stages, reduced both the MP counts and mass by approximately 71 %. The combined biological treatment, secondary settling, and final polishing with rapid sand filtration removed nearly all the remaining 29 %. MPs became successively smaller as they passed the different treatment steps. The digester inlet received 1.04 × 1011 MPs daily, while it discharged 9.96 × 1010 MPs, causing a small but not significant decrease in MP counts, with a corresponding MP mass reduction of 9.56 %. 98 Redundant Source - Listed Above 99 Pearce, Graeme. "PVDF Membranes and PFAS: What Impact of the EU’s REACH Legislation?" The MBR Site, May 24, 2023. Updated January 20, 2024. Accessed October 10, 2024. https://www.thembrsite.com/blog/pvdf- membranes-and-pfas-whats-the-difference PFAS PVDF Industry Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed 100 Silva, Ana L.P., Joana C. Prata, Armando C. Duarte, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares, Damià Barceló, Teresa Rocha-Santos. “Microplastics in Landfill Leachates: The Need for Reconnaissance Studies and Remediation Technologies.” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100072 Microplastics Landfill Leachate Remediation Technology Journal Article Y Y N Although landfills represent repositories for cumulative loading of plastic waste derived from households and industrial sectors, often seen as sinks, the contribution of these structures and their leachates as potential sources of microplastics to natural environments remains poorly covered. Microplastics discharged from these sites may pose greater risks to human and environmental health by adsorbed toxic and persistent hazardous chemicals. As reviewed here, landfill leachates present microplastic concentrations of 0–291 particles L−1, highly variable depending on landfill condiƟons and methodologies adopted, while treatment of leachates can reduce these concentrations in 1–2 orders of magnitude. Nonetheless, knowledge is still scarce on the factors influencing the release of microplastics from landfills, and technology must be developed to mitigate this source of microplastics, which poses a significant challenge but is needed in order to preserve a good environmental status. 101 Redundant Source - Listed Above 102 Zhang, Xiaoran, Yinrui Wang, Junfeng Liu, Yucheng Jiang, Yiran Tian, and Ziyang Zhang. "Distribution and Health Risk Assessment of Some Trace Elements in Runoff from Different Types of Athletic Fields." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, first published March 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5587057 Crumb Rubber Heavy Metals Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y Y Y Environmental risk of heavy metals and metalloids in athletic fields has raised people’s attention in the recent years. Seven trace elements, including metals and metalloids, were detected in the runoff of five typical athletic fields in the university campus under three rainfall events. Except for Cr, the total concentrations of Zn, Pb, Cu, Mn, Cd, and As in artificial turf runoff are the highest among five athletic fields, followed by that of plastic runway. The concentration and first flush effect of trace elements are followed in the order of 1st > 2nd > 3rd rainfall events. The strongest correlations between metals and metalloids were observed in the tennis court runoff, while the artificial turf shows the least. The release of trace elements could be directly from the surface materials and particles on the athletic field and influenced by the comprehensive factors including surface materials, rainfall events, and pollutant characters. Pollution risk assessment shows that the pollution extent of the five types of athletic field is at least “moderate” and follows the order of artificial turf > basketball court > plastic runway > badminton court > tennis court. Pb shows the highest pollution level, while Cr shows the highest healthy risk. The results can provide a theoretical basis for runoff pollution control and safety use of athletic fields. 103 Abad López, Angela Patricia, Jorge Trilleras, Victoria A. Arana, Luz Stella Garcia-Alzate, and Carlos David Grande-Tovar. "Atmospheric Microplastics: Exposure, Toxicity, and Detrimental Health Effects." RSC Advances 13 (March 2023): 7468-7489. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA07098G Microplastics Air Emissions Inhalation Exposure Journal Article Y N N Microplastics (MPs) are micro-particulate pollutants present in all environments whose ubiquity leads humans to unavoidable exposure. Due to low density, MPs also accumulate in the atmosphere, where they are easily transported worldwide and come into direct contact with the human body by inhalation or ingestion, causing detrimental health effects. This literature review presents the sources of atmospheric MPs pollution, transport routes, physicochemical characteristics, and environmental interactions. The document also explains the implications for human health and analyzes the risk of exposure based on the potential toxicity and the concentration in the atmosphere. MPs' toxicity lies in their physical characteristics, chemical composition, environmental interactions, and degree of aging. The abundance and concentration of these microparticles are associated with nearby production sources and their displacement in the atmosphere. The above elements are presented in an integrated way to facilitate a better understanding of the associated risk. The investigation results encourage the development of future research that delves into the health implications of exposure to airborne MPs and raises awareness of the risks of current plastic pollution to promote the establishment of relevant mitigation policies and procedures. 104 Aini, Sofi Azilan, Achmad Syafiuddin, and Grace-Anne Bent. "The Presence of Microplastics in Air Environment and Their Potential Impacts on Health." Environmental and Toxicology Management 2, no. 1 (2022): 31-39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3 60292351_presence_of_microplastics_in_air _environment_and_their_potential_impacts_ on_health Microplastics Air Emissions Toxicology Journal Article Y Y N There have been many literature reviews on the presence of MPs in water, but study on the presence of MPs in the air and literature reviews on it have not been done much. study on MPs pollution needs to be collected and summarized into one literature review so that this information is easy to find and not scattered. The results found 16 research articles discussed the findings of MPs in ambient air. The 16 research articles found MPs pollution in each location with different levels, the form of MPs in the air that they found the most was fiber because the fiber was lighter in size compared to other MPs shape like fragment, film, or granule. fiber small surface area and thin shape similar like a thread make it easy to be carried by the wind in the air. it turns out that there are 3 main pathways of how MPs enter the human body. the first is by respiration because MPs have been proven to pollute the air human breath, and this supported by a recent study that found MPs in human lungs, a total of 39 MPs were identified within 11 of the 13 human lung tissue samples. the second way is through consumption, because humans consume a lot of seafood that lives in the sea that is contaminated with MPs. MPs are also found in bottled drinking water, fruit, milk, honey, almost all food and beverages consumed polluted by MPs. 105 Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Breathing Plastic: The Health Impacts of Invisible Plastics in the Air. March 2023. https://www.ciel.org/reports/airborne- microplastics-briefing/ Microplastics Air Emissions Human Health Impacts NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed 106 Donald, Carey E., Richard P. Scott, Glenn Wilson, Peter D. Hoffman, and Kim A. Anderson. “Artificial Turf: Chemical Flux and Development of Silicone Wristband Partitioning Coefficients.” Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 12 (2019): 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00680-1 Crumb Rubber Air Emissions PAHs Journal Article Y Y Y This work uses passive samplers to identify PAHs and OPAHs not previously associated with artificial turf, and to provide the first quantitative measure of in situ flux of semi-volatile contaminants on artificial turf fields. Both air (1.5-m height) and turf air (immediately above turf surface) were sampled using two sampling materials: low-density polyethylene and silicone. Utilizing a broad targeted screen, we assess both artificial turf and samples of crumb rubber for over 1530 chemicals including pesticides, phthalates, and personal care products. We report the presence of 25 chemicals that have not yet been reported in artificial turf literature, including some with known human effects. The samplers were also quantitatively analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons yielding gas-phase concentrations at breathing height and surface level—the first such report on an artificial turf outdoor field. Turf pore-air and air chemicals were highly correlated at all sites, and particularly at the recently installed indoor site. Flux of chemicals between air and turf surface appear to follow field age although more research is needed to confirm this trend. The thermal extraction process and silicone passive samplers used are suitable for larger-scale environmental sampling campaigns that aim for less solvent and sample processing. By co-deploying silicone passive samplers and conventional low- density polyethylene, partitioning coefficients are derived that can be used for future silicone passive air sampling environmental assessment. This study provides an initial demonstration that passive samplers can be used to quantify volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals from artificial turf. 107 Redundant Source - Listed Above 108 Redundant Source - Listed Above 109 Mehmood, Tariq, and Licheng Peng. "Polyethylene Scaffold Net and Synthetic Grass Fragmentation: A Source of Microplastics in the Atmosphere?" Journal of Hazardous Materials 429 (May 2022): 128391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.1283 91 Microplastics Air Emissions Journal Article Y N Y Microplastics (MPs) implications in the atmosphere are of current global concern. Currently, there is a growing interest regarding source appointment, fate, level of toxicity, and exposure intensity of ambient air MPs. Recent data suggest that polyethylene (PE) dominates ambient MPs in China's megacities. Albeit understanding of PE sources is limited and restricted to typical sources polluting terrestrial and marine environments. However, the air is a distinct environmental component and may have some separate pollution sources as well as the relative contribution of different sources could also contrast in different environments. Urbanization and fast construction activity resulting from increased economic growth in these places might be a potential source of ambient PE. Recently, the use of scaffold netting on construction sites and synthetic grass as land covering sheets has been on the rise. Generally, these PE items are often inferior and composed of recycled material, making them more prone to degradation. Also, because these items were continually exposed to open air, there is a considerable risk of fragmentation and atmospheric mixing. Therefore, unchecked and excessive usage of these materials can be risky. Here, PE's physical and chemical characteristics, transport and health risks in urban air are discussed here. 110 Redundant Source - Listed Above 111 Non-Toxic Dover, Non-Toxic Portsmouth. Public Records Request Confirms PFAS in Synthetic Turf: Turf Fiber Report Release. Non-Toxic Dover (Dover, New Hampshire). October 18, 2019. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2020/03/turf-fiber-test-results-sprint-turf- 1.pdf PFAS Laboratory Report N Y Y This document presents test results on synthetic turf fibers from Sprinturf, analyzing their composition and potential environmental concerns. The findings indicate that the fibers contain various plastic-based materials, which may degrade over time and contribute to microplastic pollution. The report suggests that synthetic turf fibers could be a source of environmental contamination, particularly as they break down into smaller fragments and disperse into surrounding ecosystems. The analysis provides insights into the chemical composition of turf materials and raises concerns about their long-term impact on human health and the environment. 112 Non-Toxic Dover, Non-Toxic Portsmouth. Public Records Request Confirms PFAS in Synthetic Turf: Turf Backing Report Release. Non-Toxic Dover (Dover, New Hampshire). November 12, 2019. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2020/03/turf-backing-test-results-sprint- turf.pdf PFAS Laboratory Report N Y Y This document presents test results on synthetic turf fibers from Sprinturf, analyzing their composition and potential environmental concerns. The findings indicate that the fibers contain various plastic-based materials, which may degrade over time and contribute to microplastic pollution. The report suggests that synthetic turf fibers could be a source of environmental contamination, particularly as they break down into smaller fragments and disperse into surrounding ecosystems. The analysis provides insights into the chemical composition of turf materials and raises concerns about their long-term impact on human health and the environment. 113 Berghaus, E. Declaration for FieldTurf/Tarkett Sports Regarding the Manufacturing of Artificial Turf Filaments. Letter sent to City of Portsmouth, NH. October 22, 2019. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2020/03/met-pfas-statement-fieldturf-1.pdf PFAS Manufacturer Statement N Y Y This document is a statement from FieldTurf regarding the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their artificial turf products. The statement addresses concerns raised about PFAS in synthetic turf materials and claims that their products either do not contain detectable levels of PFAS or meet safety standards. It highlights the testing methods used to detect PFAS and reassures that the materials comply with regulatory guidelines. 114 Gearhardt, Jefferey, Director of Research, The Ecology Center, Ann Arbor, MI. Letter to Portsmouth, NH City Council and Director of Finance and Administration. 1 Jun 2020. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2020/06/june1_portsmouthpfas.pdf PFAS Runoff NGO Letter N Y Y The report highlights testing results from Portsmouth, focusing on the presence of PFAS in runoff and water sources near artificial turf installations. It raises concerns about the long-term environmental persistence of PFAS, their potential to leach into groundwater, and the associated health risks. The findings emphasize the need for more stringent regulations and further investigation into synthetic turf as a source of PFAS contamination. 115 Galbraith Laboratories. PFAS results. 11 year old FieldTurf Duraspine Playing Field, Portsmouth, NH (Final item only; other items tested were other consumer products). February 21, 2022. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2020/06/totalflabreport120355.pdf PFAS Laboratory Report N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 116 Galbraith Laboratories. PFAS results. FieldTurf Vertex with Schmidt shock pad and Safeshell (walnut) infill. June 2021 Installation. July 23, 2021. https://nontoxicdovernh.files.wordpress.com /2021/09/pfas-testing-721-galbraith-cc- samples.pdf PFAS Laboratory Report N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 117 Redundant Source - Listed Above 118 Bennett, Kyla. "Response to Questions - Portsmouth, New Hampshire Synthetic Turf Field Installation." Letter to Kimberly Henry, City Planner, City of Los Angeles. July 11, 2023. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ZQayc15_ pUBkKXkhyh2ZxfNTtH7p7CY/view?usp=drive sdk PFAS Microplastics Crumb Rubber Public Commentary N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 119 FieldTurf. Warranty and Certification, “Free of PFAS, PFOS, Fluorine.” April 7, 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/15eNMZ4T0 KuNGIzVzErHQ-u- _lA8084XU/view?usp=drivesdk PFAS Manufacturer Statement N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 120 Mello, Kristin. Follow-up to 11/17/21 PFAS- Field Work Session. Email communication to Mayor Becksted, Council Member, City Manager, City Attorney. Nov 21, 2021. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13kTZ rbFrLulPcMF38pjR25tB3- 2mbs_qcnirJmYyT5U/edit PFAS Leaching Public Commentary N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 121 Whipple, John (NHDES MtBE Remediation Bureau). Portsmouth - Sagamore Creek Surface Water Sampling, DES #202111042, Project #40379, Project Type EMCONFUND. December 3, 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GMM5IEW _6NuP4rNfRoy0U0ujprnjOK57/view?usp=driv esdk PFAS Runoff Surface Water Contamination Government Report N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 122 Redundant Source - Listed Above 123 Redundant Source - Listed Above 124 Redundant Source - Listed Above 125 Redundant Source - Listed Above 126 Campen, Matthew, Alexander Nihart, Marcus Garcia, Rui Liu, Marian Olewine, Eliseo Castillo, Barry Bleske, Justin Scott, Tamara Howard, Jorge Gonzalez-Estrella, Natalie Adolphi, Daniel Gallego, and Eliane El Hayek. "Bioaccumulation of Microplastics in Decedent Human Brains Assessed by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry." Preprint. National Institutes of Health. 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11 100893/ Microplastics Human Health Impacts Toxicology Journal Article Awaiting Peer Review Y N This study investigates the accumulation of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in human organs, particularly the brain, liver, and kidneys. Using pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS), researchers analyzed autopsy samples from 2016 and 2024, revealing a significant increase in MNP concentrations over time. The study found that the brain exhibited the highest levels of MNP accumulation, with polyethylene being the most predominant polymer. Transmission electron microscopy confirmed the nanoscale nature of the particles, showing aged and fragmented plastic remnants. These findings suggest that MNPs selectively accumulate in the human brain and raise concerns about their potential neurotoxic effects, as well as broader implications for human health due to rising environmental plastic pollution. 127 Redundant Source - Listed Above 128 Redundant Source - Listed Above 129 Redundant Source - Listed Above 130 Ducroquet, Simon, Shannon Osaka. “The Plastics We Breathe.” The Washington Post. June 10, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/interactive/2024/microplastics- air-human-body-organs-spread/ Microplastics Human Health Impacts Toxicology News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 131 EHN Curators. "Microplastics Found in Brain Tissue in New Study." Environmental Health News, September 18, 2024. https://www.ehn.org/microplastics-found-in- brain-tissue-in-new-study-2669221476.html Microplastics Human Health Impacts Neurotoxicity News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 132 Englart, John. Literature Review on Environmental and Health Impacts of Synthetic Turf. Melbourne Polytechnic, April 2021. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28126.5664 6 Microplastics Crumb Rubber PFAS Academic Article Y Y Y The conversion of a grass oval to synthetic turf at Hosken Reserve, Coburg North, is about a failure intransparency and consultation with the local community, and poorly framed triple bottom line decisionmaking by Moreland Council. There are questions about the integrity of the triple bottom line decisionmaking embracing the social, environmental and economic impacts, costs and benefits, that was used inthe process in the past decade for this site. And there are questions how triple bottom line decisionmaking and weighting of factors will be applied for the current process. This literature review providesnumerous reasons why conversion of a natural grass oval and open space to a fenced synthetic soccerpitch should not take place. It finds that there are two primary reasons against synthetic turf at HoskenReserve, and that either reason is significant in itself for the primary project not to go ahead. These twoessential reasons are - synthetic turf carbon footprint (up to 1500 CO2e tonnes) in total life cyclegreenhouse gas emissions, and synthetic turf increasing waste to landfill contributing to toxic leachatespollution and microplastics pollution. On both these grounds conversion of a shared use natural grassoval to synthetic turf would appear to conflict with existing Council policy and frameworks related toclimate change and the climate emergency, and Council’s zero waste to landfill by 2030 target. On thetriple bottom line factors we found the social factors weighed up with some positive and some negative,the environmental factors were mostly against, and the economics didn’t stack up, even after factoring in2 to 1 equivalence usage factor for synthetic turf. This review investigated peer reviewed science, greyliterature and relevant policy documents to ascertain the following issues with synthetic turf:1. Derived from fossil fuel petrochemical industry2. Produces greenhouse gas emissions during manufacturing and as it degrades3. Increases landfill at end of life4. Produces micro-plastic pollution as synthetic turf breaks down5. Increases urban heat island effect on local residents.6. Replaces natural grass which allows soil organic carbon sequestration, provides oxygen7. Reduces soil biota, grass seeds and insects with a trophic impact on local biodiversity primarilybirdlife.8. Compacts the soil increasing stormwater runoff9. Toxic Chemical leachates from rubber infill pollute waterways10. Results in increased lower extremity injuries in elite players11. Long term human health impacts uncertain, but vertebrate model confirms toxicity to humanhealth of rubber infill leachates12. Enhances infection transmission risk. Encourages a microbial community structure primarilydefined by anthropic contamination.13. Appears to improve water conservation, but the situation is far more complex when life-cycleassessment and irrigation to reduce heat for playability is taken into account14. Other issues: increased fire risk, increase in traffic, parking on quiet residential street. 133 Gewin, Virginia. “Tracking Tire Plastics - and Chemicals - From Road to Plate” Civil Eats, July 16, 2024. https://civileats.com/2024/07/16/tracking- tire-plastics-and-chemicals-from-road-to- plate/ Microplastics News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 134 Redundant Source - Listed Above 135 Gore, Andrea C., Michele A. La Merrill, Heather Patisaul, and Robert M. Sargis. “Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Threats to Human Health: Pesticides, Plastics, Forever Chemicals, and Beyond.” Endocrine Society. February 2024. https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documen ts/edc_report-2024-final-compressed.pdf PFAS Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 136 Jin, Haibo, Tan Ma, Xiaoxuan Sha, Zhenyu Liu, Yuan Zhou, Xiannan Meng, Yabing Chen, Xiaodong Han, and Jie Ding. "Polystyrene Microplastics Induced Male Reproductive Toxicity in Mice." Journal of Hazardous Materials 401 (January 5, 2021): 123430. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/abs/pii/S0304389420314199 Microplastics Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors Journal Article Y N N Microplastics (MPs) have become hazardous materials, which have aroused widespread concern about their potential toxicity. However, the effects of MPs on reproductive systems in mammals are still ambiguous. In this study, the toxic effects of polystyrene MPs (PS-MPs) in male reproduction of mice were investigated. The results indicated that after exposure for 24 h, 4 μm and 10 μm PS-MPs accumulated in the testis of mice. Meanwhile, 0.5 μm, 4 μm, and 10 μm PS-MPs could enter into three kinds of testicular cells in vitro. In addition, sperm quality and testosterone level of mice were declined after exposure to 0.5 μm, 4 μm, and 10 μm PS-MPs for 28 days. H&E staining showed that spermatogenic cells abscissed and arranged disorderly, and multinucleated gonocytes occurred in the seminiferous tubule. Moreover, PS-MPs induced testicular inflammation and the disruption of blood-testis barrier. In summary, this study demonstrated that PS-MPs induced male reproductive dysfunctions in mice, which provided new insights into the toxicity of MPs in mammals. 137 Redundant Source - Listed Above 138 Khalid, Noreen, Muhammad Aqeel, and Ali Noman. "Microplastics Could Be a Threat to Plants in Terrestrial Systems Directly or Indirectly." Environmental Pollution 267 (December 2020): 115653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.11565 3 Microplastics Agricultural Impacts Soil Contamination Journal Article Y N N Microplastics (MPs) are an emerging threat to ecosystem functioning and biota. The major sources of MPs are terrestrial and agricultural lands. But their fate, concentration in the terrestrial environment, and effects on soil and biota are poorly understood. There is a growing body of concern about the adverse effects of MPs on soil-dwelling organisms such as microbes in mycorrhizae and earthworms that mediate essential ecosystem services. Environmental concentrations and effects of MPs are considered to increase with increasing trend of its global production. MPs in the soil could directly impact plants through blocking the seed pore, limiting the uptake of water and nutrient through roots, aggregation, and accumulation in the root, shoot, and leaves. However, MPs can also indirectly impact plants by affecting soil physicochemical characteristics, soil-dwelling microbes, and fauna. An affected soil could impact plant community structure and perhaps primary production. In this article, we have assessed the potential direct and indirect impacts of MPs on plants. We have discussed both the positive and negative impacts of MPs on plants in terrestrial systems based on currently available limited literature on this topic and our hypothetical understandings. We have summarized the most current progress in this regard highlighting the future directions on microplastic research in terrestrial systems. 139 Lee, Chiang-Wen, Lee-Fen Hsu, I.-Lin Wu, et al. "Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics Impairs Hippocampus-Dependent Learning and Memory in Mice." Journal of Hazardous Materials 430 (May 15, 2022): 128431. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/pii/S0304389422002199 Microplastics Human Health Impacts Neurotoxicity Journal Article Y Y N Microplastics (MPs) pollution has become a serious environmental issue worldwide, but its potential effects on health remain unknown. The administration of polystyrene MPs (PS-MPs) to mice for eight weeks impaired learning and memory behavior. PS- MPs were detected in the brain especially in the hippocampus of these mice. Concurrently, the hippocampus had decreased levels of immediate-early genes, aberrantly enhanced synaptic glutamate AMPA receptors, and elevated neuroinflammation, all of which are critical for synaptic plasticity and memory. Interestingly, ablation of the vagus nerve, a modulator of the gut-brain axis, improved the memory function of PS-MPs mice. These results indicate that exposure to PS-MPs in mice alters the expression of neuronal activity-dependent genes and synaptic proteins, and increases neuroinflammation in the hippocampus, subsequently causing behavioral changes through the vagus nerve-dependent pathway. Our findings shed light on the adverse impacts of PS- MPs on the brain and hippocampal learning and memory. 140 McGrath, Teresa, Rebecca Stamm, Veena Singla, and Bethanie Carney Almroth. Buildings’ Hidden Plastic Problem: Policy Brief and Recommendations. Habitable, November 2024. https://habitablefuture.org/resources/constr uctions-hidden-plastic-problem-policy-brief- and-recommendations/ Microplastics Environmental Justice NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 141 Redundant Source - Listed Above 142 Kozlove, Max. “Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death.” Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke- and-death/ Microplastics Human Health Impacts Cardiometabolic Effects Journal Letter Y Y N 143 Redundant Source - Listed Above 144 Levine, Hagai, Niels Jørgensen, Anderson Martino-Andrade, Jaime Mendiola, Dan Weksler-Derri, Maya Jolles, Rachel Pinotti, and Shanna H. Swan. “Temporal Trends in Sperm Count: A Systematic Review and Meta- Regression Analysis of Samples Collected Globally in the 20th and 21st Centuries." Human Reproduction Update 29, no. 2 (2023): 157–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmac035 Miscellaneous Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors Journal Article Y Y N BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported declines in semen quality and other markers of male reproductive health. Our previous meta-analysis reported a significant decrease in sperm concentration (SC) and total sperm count (TSC) among men from North America–Europe–Australia (NEA) based on studies published during 1981–2013. At that time, there were too few studies with data from South/Central America–Asia–Africa (SAA) to reliably estimate trends among men from these continents. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to examine trends in sperm count among men from all continents. The broader implications of a global decline in sperm count, the knowledge gaps left unfilled by our prior analysis and the controversies surrounding this issue warranted an up-to-date meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies of human SC and TSC published during 2014–2019. After review of 2936 abstracts and 868 full articles, 44 estimates of SC and TSC from 38 studies met the protocol criteria. Data were extracted on semen parameters (SC, TSC, semen volume), collection year and covariates. Combining these new data with data from our previous meta-analysis, the current meta-analysis includes results from 223 studies, yielding 288 estimates based on semen samples collected 1973–2018. Slopes of SC and TSC were estimated as functions of sample collection year using simple linear regression as well as weighted meta- regression. The latter models were adjusted for predetermined covariates and examined for modification by fertility status (unselected by fertility versus fertile), and by two groups of continents: NEA and SAA. These analyses were repeated for data collected post-2000. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine assumptions, including linearity. OUTCOMES: Overall, SC declined appreciably between 1973 and 2018 (slope in the simple linear model: –0.87 million/ml/year, 95% CI: –0.89 to –0.86; P < 0.001). In an adjusted meta-regression model, which included two interaction terms [time × fertility group (P = 0.012) and time × continents (P = 0.058)], declines were seen among unselected men from NEA (–1.27; –1.78 to –0.77; P < 0.001) and unselected men from SAA (–0.65; –1.29 to –0.01; P = 0.045) and fertile men from NEA (–0.50; –1.00 to –0.01; P = 0.046). Among unselected men from all continents, the mean SC declined by 51.6% between 1973 and 2018 (–1.17: –1.66 to –0.68; P < 0.001). The slope for SC among unselected men was steeper in a model restricted to post-2000 data (–1.73: –3.23 to –0.24; P = 0.024) and the percent decline per year doubled, increasing from 1.16% post-1972 to 2.64% post-2000. Results were similar for TSC, with a 62.3% overall decline among unselected men (–4.70 million/year; –6.56 to –2.83; P < 0.001) in the adjusted meta-regression model. All results changed only minimally in multiple sensitivity analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This analysis is the first to report a decline in sperm count among unselected men from South/Central America–Asia–Africa, in contrast to our previous meta- analysis that was underpowered to examine those continents. Furthermore, data suggest that this world-wide decline is continuing in the 21st century at an accelerated pace. Research on the causes of this continuing decline and actions to prevent further disruption of male reproductive health are urgently needed. 145 Main, Douglas. “Microplastics are infiltrating brain tissue, studies show: ‘There’s nowhere left untouched.’” Guardian. August 21, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ article/2024/aug/21/microplastics-brain- pollution- health?CMP=fb_gu&ai=#Echobox=17242560 11 Microplastics Neurotoxicity NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 146 Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555 Microplastics Environmental Policy Public Health Journal Article Y Y Y Microplastics (MP) are plastic particles less than 5 mm in size. There are two categories of MP: primary and secondary. Primary or microscopic-sized MP are intentionally produced material. Fragmentation of large plastic debris through physical, chemical, and oxidative processes creates secondary MP, the most abundant type in the environment. Microplastic pollution has become a global environmental problem due to their abundance, poor biodegradability, toxicological properties, and negative impact on aquatic and terrestrial organisms including humans. Plastic debris enters the aquatic environment via direct dumping or uncontrolled land-based sources. While plastic debris slowly degrades into MP, wastewater and stormwater outlets discharge a large amount of MP directly into water bodies. Additionally, stormwater carries MP from sources such as tire wear, artificial turf, fertilizers, and land-applied biosolids. To protect the environment and human health, the entry of MP into the environment must be reduced or eliminated. Source control is one of the best methods available. The existing and growing abundance of MP in the environment requires the use of multiple strategies to combat pollution. These strategies include reducing the usage, public outreach to eliminate littering, reevaluation and use of new wastewater treatment and sludge disposal methods, regulations on macro and MP sources, and a wide implementation of appropriate stormwater management practices such as filtration, bioretention, and wetlands. 147 Redundant Source - Listed Above 148 Osaka, Shannon. "What We Just Found Out About the Possible Tie Between Microplastics and Cancer: The New Research Gathers Evidence That Microplastics Are Already Causing Health Problems." The Washington Post, December 18, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2024/12/18/microplastics- colon-cancer-link-study/ Microplastics Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 149 Project TENDR. “Protecting the Developing Brains of Children from the Harmful Effects of Plastics and Toxic Chemicals in Plastics.” April 2024. https://projecttendr.thearc.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/04/Project- TENDR_Plastics-Briefing-Paper_April- 2024.pdf. Microplastics Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 150 Sankaran, Vishwam. “Massive New Study Uncovers Over 4,000 Toxic Chemicals in Plastic.” Independent. March 15, 2024. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc e/plastic-toxic-chemicals-health-effects- b2513082.html Microplastics Toxicology News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 151 Sankaran, Vishwam. “Drinking from Plastic Bottles Can Raise Type 2 Diabetes Risk, Study Warns.” Independent. June 25, 2024. https://www.independent.co.uk/life- style/health-and-families/plastic-bottles- microplastics-diabetes-risk-b2568246.html Microplastics Human Health Impacts Endocrine Disruptors News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 152 Redundant Source - Listed Above 153 Redundant Source - Listed Above 154 Redundant Source - Listed Above 155 Redundant Source - Listed Above 156 Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Microplastics Air Emissions Journal Article Y N Y A global agreement on plastic should have quantitative reduction targets for the emissions of plastic pollution and regular measurements to track success. Here, we present a framework for measuring plastic emissions, akin to greenhouse gas emissions, and demonstrate its utility by calculating a baseline measurement for the City of Toronto in Ontario, Canada. We identify relevant sources of plastic pollution in the city, calculate emissions for each source by multiplying activity data by emission factors for each source, and sum the emissions to obtain the total annual emissions of plastic pollution generated. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we estimate that 3,531 to 3,852 tonnes (T) of plastic pollution were emitted from Toronto in 2020. Littering is the largest source overall (3,099 T), and artificial turf is the largest source of microplastic (237 T). Quantifying source emissions can inform the most effective mitigation strategies to achieve reduction targets. We recommend this framework be scaled up and replicated in cities, states, provinces, and countries around the world to inform global reduction targets and measure progress toward reducing plastic pollution. 157 Barton, J, Rogerson, M. “The Importance of Greenspace for Mental Health.” BJPsych International. November 1, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5663018/ Miscellaneous Mental Health Green Space Journal Article Y Y N There is an urgent global need for accessible and cost-effective pro-mental health infrastructure. Public green spaces were officially designated in the 19th century, informed by a belief that they might provide health benefits. We outline modern research evidence that greenspace can play a pivotal role in population-level mental health. 158 Butler, Megan. “Panel Asked to Hold Georgia’s ‘Carpet Capital’ Liable for Contaminated Drinking Water.” Courthouse News Service. September 13, 2022. https://www.courthousenews.com/panel- asked-to-hold-georgias-carpet-capital-liable- forcontaminated-drinking-water/ Miscellaneous News Article N N N Source no longer available 159 Beyond Plastics. “Environmental Justice: How and Why Plastic Threatens Environmental Justice.” https://www.beyondplastics.org/fact- sheets/environmental-justice Microplastics Environmental Justice NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 160 Bruggers, James. “Who Said Recycling Was Green? It Makes Microplastics by the Ton.” Inside Climate News. May 16, 2023. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/160520 23/recycling-plastic-microplastics-waste/ Microplastics Waste Management News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 161 Lakhani, Nina. “Millions of Americans Lack Access to Quality Parks, Report Reveals Low- income Households and People of Color in Cities Are Least Likely to Live Near Decent Green Spaces.” The Guardian. May 20, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ 2020/may/20/park-inequality-access- coronavirus-wellbeing Miscellaneous Mental Health Green Space News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 162 Devon C. Payne-Sturges, Tanya Khemet Taiwo, Kristie Ellickson, Haley Mullen, Nedelina Tchangalova, Laura Anderko, Aimin Chen, and Maureen Swanson. “Disparities in Toxic Chemical Exposures and Associated Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review and Systematic Evidence Map of the Epidemiological Literature” Environmental Health Perspectives. July 29, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11750 Miscellaneous Air Emissions Heavy Metals Journal Article Y Y N Background: Children are routinely exposed to chemicals known or suspected of harming brain development. Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks (Project TENDR), an alliance of >50 scientists, health professionals, and advocates, works to protect children from toxic chemicals, especially those disproportionately affecting children from low-income and marginalized families. Objective: This scoping review maps existing literature on disparities in neurodevelopmental outcomes among U.S. children historically exposed to seven exemplar neurotoxicants: air pollution (AP), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), organophosphate pesticides (OPs), phthalates (Phth), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Methods: Systematic literature searches for these chemicals, using the Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome (PECO) framework, were conducted through 18 November 2022 across PubMed, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), GreenFILE (EBSCO), and Web of Science. Studies were examined for their conceptualization of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic indicators; data on exposure and outcome disparities; and evidence of effect modification by race/ethnicity. Results: A total of 212 studies met search criteria, resulting in 218 investigations being reviewed. AP and Pb were the most commonly studied exposures. The most frequently identified neurodevelopmental outcomes were cognitive and behavioral/psychological. Seventy-four studies (34%) investigated interactions or effect. 163 Dong, Yuping, Helin Liu, and Tianming Zheng. 2021. "The Impacts of Green Space Structure on Asthma in Toronto, Canada" Medical Sciences Forum 4, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ECERPH-3-09123 Miscellaneous Air Emissions Green Space Journal Article Y Y N A series of studies have proved that green space can influence air pollution, which is the main risk factor for asthma. In addition, the biodiversity hypothesis suggests use of green space can contribute to increasing human commensal microbiota on the skin, which makes it possible to enhance immunity to allergic atopy. Given that, the co-effects of green space might jointly influence asthma. However, existing studies mainly focus on one or part of the pathway between them, and most of them shed light on the influence of greenness or trees on asthma. Green space structure, capable to influence both air pollution and microbial diversity, is also probably a significant factor to influence asthma. Regarding this, this study takes Toronto as the case to explore two potential mechanisms that shape the impact of green space structure on asthma. Additionally, tree diversity that might moderate this impact was also examined in this study. By regression analysis, it is found that the impact of green space structure on the prevalence of asthma by reducing air pollution was not evident. Moreover, green space structure has no significant contribution to the prevalence of asthma, but when moderated by tree diversity, it has the potential to reduce the prevalence of male asthmatics, and such moderation effect only works on male asthmatics. Except for that, several covariates selected in this study were also found to correlate with the prevalence of asthma. In particular, the relationship between household income and the prevalence of asthma is only significant among female asthmatics. 164 Englart, John. “Natural Grass or Synthetic Turf? What are the Total Life Cycle Emission Profiles.” Climate Action Merri-Bek. February 28, 2021. https://climateactionmoreland.org/2021/02/ 28/natural-grass-or-synthetic-turf-what-are- the-total-life-cycle-emission-profiles/ Miscellaneous Climate Impacts Carbon News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 165 GAIA. “Environmental Justice Principles for Fast Action on Waste and Methane.” 2024. https://www.no-burn.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/03/environmental- justice-principles-EN-single-pages.pdf Miscellaneous Environmental Justice News Article N N N Article no longer available at source. 166 Lannaman, Mark. “City of Calhoun Sued over PFAS in Drinking Water.” Saporta Report. April 3, 2024. https://saportareport.com/city- of-calhoun-sued-over-pfas-in-drinking-water. PFAS Litigation Drinking Water News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 167 Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “‘Forever Fields’: How Pennsylvania Became a Dumping Ground for Discarded Artificial Turf.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. December 13, 2023. https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvani a/artificial-turf-pfas-rematch-pennsylvania- dumping-ground-20231213.html PFAS Waste Management News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 168 Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “‘Risky Play: A Stew of Toxic Chemicals Lurks in Artificial Turf. Some Experts Worry They Could be Linked to Cancer in Young Athletes.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 20, 2024. https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvani a/inq2/pfas-artificial-turf-cancer-athletes- pennsylvania-nj-20240220.html#loaded PFAS Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 169 Redundant Source - Listed Above 170 Mathes, Carter. Letter to Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver Requesting Her Support to Keep Columbian Park a Green Space. Rise Up East Orange [NJ], Building a Stronger Chocolate City. September 15, 2021. https://eastorangenj.wordpress.com Crumb Rubber PFAS Heat From Turf Public Submission N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 171 NRCD. “New NRDC ‘Chemical Recycling’ Analysis: Process is Harmful, Misleading, Not Solving Plastic Pollution.” March 7, 2022. https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/new- nrdc-chemical-recycling-analysis-process- harmful-misleading-not-solving-plastic. Microplastics News Article N N N Article no longer available at source. 172 Phillips, Anna. “Texans Sued Exxon over Pollution 13 Years Ago. A Big Decision Now Looms.” The Washington Post. March 16, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2023/03/15/exxon-pollution- lawsuit-baytown-texas// Miscellaneous Litigation Air Emissions News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 173 Redundant Source - Listed Above 174 Weir, Kirsten. “Nurtured by Nature.” American Psychological Association. April 1, 2020. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/04/nurt ured-nature Miscellaneous Mental Health Green Space News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 175 Wertheim, Jon. “With Hotter Temperatures Come More Football Deaths: And Black High School Players are Disproportionately Affected.” Sports Illustrated. October 7, 2022. https://www.si.com/high- school/2022/10/07/football-climate-change- daily-cover Heat from Turf Sports Injuries News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 176 Younan D, Tuvblad C, Li L, Wu J, Lurmann F, Franklin M, Berhane K, McConnell R, Wu AH, Baker LA, Chen JC. “Environmental Determinants of Aggression in Adolescents: Role of Urban Neighborhood Greenspace.” Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. July 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.002. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27343886/ Miscellaneous Mental Health Green Space Journal Article Y Y N Objective: Neighborhood greenspace improves mental health in urban populations, but its neurobehavioral benefits in adolescents remain unclear. This study examined the association between residential greenspace and aggressive behaviors in urban-dwelling adolescents. Method: Participants (n = 1,287) from the Risk Factors for Antisocial Behavior Study, a multi-ethnic cohort of twins/triplets born 1990–1995 in Southern California, were assessed between 2000–2012 (ages 9–18 years) using the parent-reported Child Behavior Checklist. Residential greenspace was measured using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from satellite imagery, aggregated over various spatiotemporal scales. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated the effects of greenspace on aggression, adjusting for within-family/individual correlations and confounders. Results: Both short-term (1–6 months) and long-term (1–3 years) greenspace exposure within 1,000 meters of residences were linked to reduced aggression. Increasing NDVI by ~0.12, a range typical in urban areas, corresponded to 2–2.5 years of behavioral maturation. Associations remained robust after accounting for sociodemographics, neighborhood quality, and temperature. Conclusion: Findings suggest that neighborhood greenspace helps reduce aggression in urban adolescents. Community-based interventions should explore greenspace as a strategy for mitigating aggressive behaviors in urban settings. 177 Beyond Plastics. “New Reports Reveals that U.S. Plastics Recycling Rate Has Fallen to 5%- 6%.” May 4, 2022. https://www.beyondplastics.org/press- releases/the-real-truth-about-plastics- recycling Miscellaneous Waste Management Plastics Recycling NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 178 Beyond Plastics. “The Real Truth About the U.S. Plastics Recycling Rate.” May 2022. https://www.beyondplastics.org/publications /us-plastics-recycling-rate Miscellaneous Waste Management NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 179 Beyond Plastics. “Report: Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception.” October 2023. https://www.beyondplastics.org/publications /chemical-recycling Microplastics Waste Management Plastics Recycling NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 180 Redundant Source - Listed Above 181 Brock, Joe, Valerie Volcovici, and John Geddie. “The Recycling Myth: Big Oil’s Solution for Plastic Waste Littered with Failure.” Reuters Investigates, July 29, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/speci al-report/environment-plastic-oil-recycling/ Microplastics Waste Management Plastics Recycling Investigative Journalism Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 182 Carmona, Eric, Elisa Rojo-Nieto, Christoph D. Rummel, Martin Krauss, Kristian Syberg, Tiffany M. Ramos, Sara Brosche, Thomas Backhaus, and Bethanie Carney Almroth. “A Dataset of Organic Pollutants Identified and Quantified in Recycled Polyethylene Pellets.” Data in Brief 51 (2023): 109740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109740 Microplastics Recycled Plastics Journal Article Y Y N Plastics are produced with a staggering array of chemical compounds, with many being known to possess hazardous properties, and others lacking comprehensive hazard data. Furthermore, non-intentionally added substances can contaminate plastics at various stages of their lifecycle, resulting in recycled materials containing an unknown number of chemical compounds at unknown concentrations. While some national and regional regulations exist for permissible concentrations of hazardous chemicals in specific plastic products, less than 1 % of plastics chemicals are subject to international regulation [1]. There are currently no policies mandating transparent reporting of chemicals throughout the plastics value chain or comprehensive monitoring of chemicals in recycled materials. The dataset presented here provides the chemical analysis of 28 samples of recycled High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pellets obtained from various regions of the Global South, along with a reference sample of virgin HDPE. The analysis comprises both Target and Non-Targeted Screening approaches, employing Liquid Chromatography-High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (LC- HRMS) and Gas Chromatography-High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (GC-HRMS). In total, 491 organic compounds were detected and quantified, with an additional 170 compounds tentatively annotated. These compounds span various classes, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, plastic additives. The results highlight the prevalence of certain chemicals, such as N-ethyl-o-Toluesulfonamide, commonly used in HDPE processing, found in high concentrations. The paper provides a dataset advancing knowledge of the complex chemical composition associated with recycled plastics. 183 ExxonMobil. “ExxonMobil Starts Large Operations at Large-Scaled Advanced Recycling Facility.” December 14, 2022. https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/ne ws-releases/2022/1214_exxonmobil-starts- operations-at-large-scale-advanced-recycling- facility Microplastics Recycled Plastics Regulatory Trends Corporate Press Release N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 184 Geueke B, Phelps DW, Parkinson LV, Muncke J. Hazardous Chemicals in Recycled and Reusable Plastic Food Packaging. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. May 22, 2023. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ca mbridge-prisms-plastics/article/hazardous- chemicals-in-recycled-and-reusable-plastic- food- packaging/BBDE514AAFE9F1ABB3D677927B 343342 Microplastics Recycled Plastics Food Safety Journal Article Y Y N In the battle against plastic pollution, many efforts are being undertaken to reduce, reuse and recycle plastics. If tackled in the right way, these efforts have the potential to contribute to reducing plastic waste and plastic’s spread in the environment. However, reusing and recycling plastics can also lead to unintended negative impacts because hazardous chemicals, like endocrine disrupters and carcinogens, can be released during reuse and accumulate during recycling. In this way, plastic reuse and recycling become vectors for spreading chemicals of concern. This is especially concerning when plastics are reused for food packaging, or when food packaging is made with recycled plastics. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that care is taken to avoid hazardous chemicals in plastic food contact materials (FCMs) and to ensure that plastic packaging that is reused or made with recycled content is safe for human health and the environment. The data presented in this review are obtained from the Database on Migrating and Extractable Food Contact Chemicals (FCCmigex), which is based on over 800 scientific publications on plastic FCMs. We provide systematic evidence for migrating and extractable food contact chemicals (FCCs) in plastic polymers that are typically reused, such as polyamide (PA), melamine resin, polycarbonate and polypropylene, or that contain recycled content, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET). A total of 1332 entries in the FCCmigex database refer to the detection of 509 FCCs in repeat- use FCMs made of plastic, and 853 FCCs are found in recycled PET, of which 57.6% have been detected only once. Here, we compile information on the origin, function and hazards of FCCs that have been frequently detected, such as melamine, 2,4-di-tert- butylphenol, 2,6-di-tert-butylbenzoquinone, caprolactam and PA oligomers and highlight key knowledge gaps that are relevant for the assessment of chemical safety. 185 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “5 Things Plastic Polluters Don’t Want You to Know about Chemical Recycling.” 2021. https://www.no-burn.org/resources/5-things- plastic-polluters-dont-want-you-to-know- about-chemical-recycling/ Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Industry Deception News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 186 Greenpeace. “Circular Claims Fall Flat: Comprehensive U.S. Survey of Plastics Recyclability.” February 18, 2020. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/r eport-circular-claims-fall-flat/ Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastics Recycling NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 187 Greenpeace. “New Greenpeace Report Calls Out Toxic Hazards of Recycled Plastic as Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations Resume in Paris.” May 24, 2023. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new- greenpeace-report-calls-out-toxic-hazards-of- recycled-plastic-as-global-plastics-treaty- negotiations-resume-in-paris/ Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastics Recycling News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 188 Hahladakis, John N., Costas A. Velis, Roland Weber, Eleni Tacovidou, Phil Purnell. “An Overview of Chemical Additives Present in Plastics: Migration, Release, Fate and Environmental Impact During Their Use, Disposal and Recycling.” Journal of Hazardous Materials. February 15, 2018. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/pii/S030438941730763X?via%3Dihub Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastics Additives Journal Article Y Y N Over the last 60 years plastics production has increased manifold, owing to their inexpensive, multipurpose, durable and lightweight nature. These characteristics have raised the demand for plastic materials that will continue to grow over the coming years. However, with increased plastic materials production, comes increased plastic material wastage creating a number of challenges, as well as opportunities to the waste management industry. The present overview highlights the waste management and pollution challenges, emphasising on the various chemical substances (known as “additives”) contained in all plastic products for enhancing polymer properties and prolonging their life. Despite how useful these additives are in the functionality of polymer products, their potential to contaminate soil, air, water and food is widely documented in literature and described herein. These additives can potentially migrate and undesirably lead to human exposure via e.g. food contact materials, such as packaging. They can, also, be released from plastics during the various recycling and recovery processes and from the products produced from recyclates. Thus, sound recycling has to be performed in such a way as to ensure that emission of substances of high concern and contamination of recycled products is avoided, ensuring environmental and human health protection, at all times. 189 Hahn, Jennifer. “Recycled Plastics Often Contain More Toxic Chemicals Says Greenpeace.” DeZeen. May 26, 2023. https://www.dezeen.com/2023/05/26/recycl ed-plastics-greenpeace-report/ Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastics Recycling News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 190 Kaufman, Leslie. “The Warehouses of Plastic Behind TerraCycle’s Recycling Dream.” Bloomberg. October 27, 2022. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022- terracycle-tom-szaky/ Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastics Recycling Investigative Journalism Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 191 Redundant Source - Listed Above 192 Liu, Megan, Sicco H. Brandsma, and Erika Schreder. “From E-Waste to Living Space: Flame Retardants Contaminating Household Items Add to Concern About Plastic Recycling.” Chemosphere 365 (2024): 143319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024 .143319 Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Flame Retardants Journal Article Y N N Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) are commonly used in electric and electronic products in high concentrations to prevent or retard fire. Health concerns related to flame retardants (FRs) include carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity. Globally, a lack of transparency related to chemicals in products and limited restrictions on use of FRs in electronics have led to widespread use and dissemination of harmful FRs. Despite the lack of transparency and restrictions, plastics from electronics are often recycled and can be incorporated in household items that do not require flame retardancy, resulting in potentially high and unnecessary exposure. This study sought to determine whether black plastic household products sold on the U.S. market contained emerging and phased- out FRs and whether polymer type was predictive of contamination. A total of 203 products were screened for bromine (Br), and products containing >50 ppm Br were analyzed for BFRs, OPFRs, and plastic polymers (e.g. acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, high impact polystyrene, polypropylene). FRs were found in 85% of analyzed products, with total FR concentrations ranging up to 22,800 mg/kg. FRs detected include the restricted compound deca-BDE, which was used widely in electronics casings, as well as its replacements decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) and 2,4,6-Tris(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)-1,3,5-triazine (TBPP-TAZ) along with associated compound 2,4,6-tribromophenol (2,4,6-TBP), recently detected in breast milk. Plastic typically used in electronics (styrene-based) contained significantly higher levels of ∑FRs than plastics less typically used for electronics (polypropylene and nylon). Estimation of exposure to BDE-209 from contaminated kitchen utensils indicated users would have a median intake of 34,700 ng/day, exceeding estimates for intake from dust and diet. The detection of FRs in collected household products indicates that recycling, without the necessary transparency and restrictions to ensure safety, is resulting in unexpected exposure to toxic flame retardants in household items. 193 Metzger, Luke. “Exxon Calls It a Recycling Collaboration. But It’s Not Real Recycling.” Environment Texas. May 9, 2024. https://environmentamerica.org/texas/articl es/exxon-calls-it-a-recycling-collaboration- but-its-not-real-recycling/ Miscellaneous Chemical Recycling Air Emissions News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 194 McVeigh, Karen. “Recycling Can Release Huge Quantities of Microplastics, Study Finds.” The Guardian, May 23, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ 2023/may/23/recycling-can-release-huge- quantities-of-microplastics-study-finds Microplastics Recycled Plastics Waste Water News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 195 NL Times. “Large Fire at Brabant Artificial Turf Company.” October 12, 2018. https://nltimes.nl/2018/10/12/large-fire- brabant-artificial-turf-company Miscellaneous Industrial Accidents Turf Recycling News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 196 Noor, Dharna. “Shell Quietly Backs Away from Pledge to Increase ‘Advanced Recycling’ of Plastics.” The Guardian. July 17, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/business/artic le/2024/jul/17/shell-recycling-plastic-pledge Miscellaneous Waste Management Plastics Recycling News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 197 Noor, Dharna. "California Sues ExxonMobil Over Alleged Role in Plastic Pollution Crisis." The Guardian, September 23, 2024. California sues ExxonMobil over alleged role in plastic pollution crisis | California | The Guardian Miscellaneous Litigation Plastics Recycling News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 198 Philips, Anna. “Toxic Air Explosions: Inside the Bitter Battle between Texas Residents and Exxon: Residents of Baytown Sued Exxon 13 Years Ago to Reduce Pollution that Wafts into Their Neighborhoods. A Key Legal Decision Looms, and the Case Could Have National Implications.” The Washington Post. March 16, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2023/03/15/exxon-pollution- lawsuit-baytown-texas/ Miscellaneous Litigation Air Emissions News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 199 Plastic Pollution Coalition. “What Really Happens to Your Plastic ‘Recycling.’” May 16, 2022. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/bl og/2022/5/16/what-really-happens-to-your- plastic-recycling Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Environmental Impact NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 200 Plastic Pollution Coalition. ““Advanced Recycling” is Not a Solution to Plastic Pollution.” August 31, 2022. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/bl og/2022/8/31/advanced-recycling-truths Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastics Recycling NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 201 Plastic Pollution Coalition. “PPC Webinar | Greenwashing 2.0: Debunking Recycling Myths.” June 5, 2024. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/ev ent/ppc-webinar-060524 Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Plastic Pollution NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 202 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Complaint of Deceptive and Unfair Advertising of Artificial Turf. Filed with Federal Trade Commission, February 28, 2022. https://peer.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/03/3_7_22-Filed-FTC- Complaint-2.28.22.pdf Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Greenwashing Legal Complaint N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 203 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “False Artificial Turf Recycling Claims Ripped.” March 7, 2022. https://peer.org/false-artificial-turf-recycling- claims-ripped/. PFAS Artificial Turf Greenwashing NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 204 Song, Lisa. “Selling a Mirage: The Delusion of Advanced Plastic Recycling Using Pyrolysis.” ProPublica. June 20, 2024. https://www.propublica.org/article/delusion- advanced-chemical-plastic-recycling-pyrolysis Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Pyrolysis News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 205 Zero Waste Europe. “Still Fifty Years to Commercially Scale Pyrolysis Technologies, New Paper Finds.” November 21, 2024. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/press- release/still-fifty-years-to-commercially-scale- pyrolysis-technologies-new-paper-finds/ Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics Pyrolysis NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 206 Bernat-Ponce, Edgar, José A. Gil-Delgado, and Germán M. López-Iborra. "Replacement of Semi-Natural Cover with Artificial Substrates in Urban Parks Causes a Decline of House Sparrows Passer Domesticus in Mediterranean Towns." Urban Ecosystems 23, no. 3 (2020): 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00931- w Miscellaneous Urban Biodiversity Journal Article Y Y Y Many European towns and cities have undergone reurbanisation processes in recent decades. However, their effects on urban biodiversity have been poorly studied. Currently urbanisation processes include park remodelling, which involves the replacement of semi-natural substrates (natural grass, bare soil) with artificial ones (pavement, concrete, areas for dogs, artificial grass). Our aim was to explore, for the first time, the effects of park remodelling on the trends and abundance of a declining urban exploiter, the House Sparrow. An abundance index of House Sparrows was obtained in 32 urban parks of four towns in the Valencian Community (Spain) in four summers (2015–2018). Of the studied parks, 10 were remodelled during the study period. Before remodelling, the trends and abundance of House Sparrows in both groups of parks were similar and stable on average, which suggest no bias between both park groups. However, House Sparrow abundance was significantly reduced in parks affected by remodelling works while in those non-remodelled it remained stable. Park remodelling might be linked to a reduction in both habitat suitability and availability of trophic resources, which could harm urban House Sparrows populations and possibly other species as well. Therefore, new park policies and urban planning measures are urgently needed to preserve urban House Sparrows. 207 Díaz, Sandra, Josef Settele, Eduardo Brondizio, H. T. Ngo, et al. "Pervasive Human- Driven Decline of Life on Earth Points to the Need for Transformative Change." Science 366, no. 6471 (2019): eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 Miscellaneous Biodiversity Ecosystem Degredation Journal Article Y N N The human impact on life on Earth has increased sharply since the 1970s, driven by the demands of a growing population with rising average per capita income. Nature is currently supplying more materials than ever before, but this has come at the high cost of unprecedented global declines in the extent and integrity of ecosystems, distinctness of local ecological communities, abundance and number of wild species, and the number of local domesticated varieties. Such changes reduce vital benefits that people receive from nature and threaten the quality of life of future generations. Both the benefits of an expanding economy and the costs of reducing nature’s benefits are unequally distributed. The fabric of life on which we all depend—nature and its contributions to people—is unravelling rapidly. Despite the severity of the threats and lack of enough progress in tackling them to date, opportunities exist to change future trajectories through transformative action. Such action must begin immediately, however, and address the root economic, social, and technological causes of nature’s deterioration. 208 Gaston, Kevin J., and Alejandro Sánchez de Miguel. "Environmental Impacts of Artificial Light at Night." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47 (2022): 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-112420-014438 Miscellaneous Biodiversity Light Pollution Journal Article Y Y N The nighttime is undergoing unprecedented change across much of the world, with natural light cycles altered by the introduction of artificial light emissions. Here we review the extent and dynamics of artificial light at night (ALAN), the benefits that ALAN provides, the environmental costs ALAN creates, approaches to mitigating these negative effects, and how costs are likely to change in the future. We particularly highlight the consequences of the increasingly widespread use of light-emitting diode (LED) technology for new lighting installations and to retrofit pre-existing ones. Although this has been characterized as a technological lighting revolution, it also constitutes a revolution in the environmental costs and impacts of ALAN, particularly because the LEDs commonly used for outdoor lighting have significant emissions at the blue wavelengths to which many biological responses are particularly sensitive. It is clear that a very different approach to the use of artificial lighting is required. 209 Redundant Source - Listed Above 210 Pochron, S., J. Nikakis, K. Illuzzi, A. Baatz, L. Demirciyan, A. Dhillon, T. Gaylor, A. Manganaro, N. Maritato, M. Moawad, R. Singh, C. Tucker, and D. Vaughan. "Exposure to Aged Crumb Rubber Reduces Survival Time during a Stress Test in Earthworms (Eisenia fetida)." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25, no. 12 (2018): 11376–11383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1433-4 Crumb Rubber Heavy Metal Exposure Ecotoxicity Journal Article Y N Y Solid waste management struggles with the sustainable disposal of used tires. One solution involves shredding used tires into crumb rubber and using the material as infill for artificial turf. However, crumb rubber contains hydrocarbons, organic compounds, and heavy metals, and it travels into the environment. Earthworms living in soil contaminated with virgin crumb rubber gained 14% less body weight than did earthworms living in uncontaminated soil, but the impact of aged crumb rubber on the earthworms is unknown. Since many athletic fields contain aged crumb rubber, we compared the body weight, survivorship, and longevity in heat and light stress for earthworms living in clean topsoil to those living in topsoil contaminated with aged crumb rubber. We also characterized levels of metals, nutrients, and micronutrients of both soil treatments and compared those to published values for soil contaminated with virgin crumb rubber. Consistent with earlier research, we found that contaminated soil did not inhibit microbial respiration rates. Aged crumb rubber, like new crumb rubber, had high levels of zinc. However, while exposure to aged crumb rubber did not reduce earthworm body weight as did exposure to new crumb rubber, exposure to aged crumb rubber reduced earthworm survival time during a stress test by a statistically significant 38 min (16.2%) relative to the survival time for worms that had lived in clean soil. Aged crumb rubber and new crumb rubber appear to pose similar toxic risks to earthworms. This study suggests an environmental cost associated with the current tire-recycling solution. 211 Redundant Source - Listed Above 212 Tokunaga, Yurika, Hiroshi Okochi, Yuto Tani, Yasuhiro Niida, Toshio Tachibana, Kazuo Saigawa, Kinya Katayama, Sachiko Moriguchi, Takuya Kato, and Shin-ichi Hayama. "Airborne Microplastics Detected in the Lungs of Wild Birds in Japan." Chemosphere 321 (April 2023): 138032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023 .138032 Microplastics Air Emissions Wildlife Health Journal Article Y Y N Microplastics (MPs) have been found in a wide range of animal species including humans. The detection of MPs in human lungs suggests that humans inhale airborne microplastics (AMPs). Although birds respire more efficiently than mammals and are therefore more susceptible to air pollution, little is known about their inhalation exposure to MPs. In this study, we analyzed samples isolated from the lungs of several species of wild birds in Japan by attenuated total reflection (ATR) imaging method of micro-Fourier transform infrared (μFTIR) spectroscopy to clear whether AMPs can be inhaled and accumulate within the lungs of wild birds. To isolate MPs from lung samples of rock doves (Columba livia), black kites (Milvus migrans), and barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) euthanized for pest control, digestion and density separation were performed. After each sample collected on an alumina filter was measured by ATR imaging method using μFTIR spectroscopy, the physical and chemical characteristics of the detected MPs were evaluated. Six MPs were detected in 3 of 22 lung samples. Polypropylene and polyethylene were found in rock doves and ethylene vinyl acetate was found in a barn swallow. Most MPs were fragments of 28.0–70.5 μm. Our results demonstrated that in addition to dietary sources, some wild birds are exposed to MPs by inhalation, and these MPs reach the lungs. 213 City of Los Angeles Council, Energy and Environment Committee. “Motion.” https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2024/24- 0602_misc_5-24-24.pdf PFAS Microplastics Crumb Rubber Government Motion N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 214 Houghton, Sam. “Health Board Bans Artificial Playing Fields: The Ban in Oak Bluffs Stops Short of Restricting the High School from Building a Track.” MV Times. Martha’s Vineyard, MA. April 23, 2024. https://www.mvtimes.com/2024/04/23/heal th-board-bans-artificial-playing-fields/ PFAS Water Quality Public Health Policy News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 215 Mertes, Chris. “Council Rejects Athletic Field Rezoning: District Urged to Refine Plan, Leave Out Fake Turf.” Middleton-Cross Plains Times- Tribune. Wisconsin. May 16, 2024. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1 fZo890UHGNVDHJJFyEwmD-iYK-74QqKx Miscellaneous Atheltic Turf News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 216 MOS Editorial Team. "The Netherlands to Phase Out Artificial Turf over Health and Environmental Concerns." Ministry of Sport, October 26, 2023. https://ministryofsport.com/the-netherlands- to-phase-out-artificial-turf-over-health-and- environmental-concerns/ Crumb Rubber Sports Injuries Microplastics News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 217 Municipality of Princeton. “Princeton Environmental Commission’s Artificial Turf - Not A Sound Financial, Environmental, or Just Investment.” December, 2021. https://www.princetonnj.gov/DocumentCent er/View/9205/Princeton-Environmental- Commission-Artificial-Turf-Report-Dec-2021- PDF Crumb Rubber Microplastics Heat From Turf Municipal Government Report N Y Y The Princeton Environmental Commission's December 2021 report evaluates the proposal to install artificial turf in Princeton's municipal parks, particularly Hilltop Park. The report opposes the installation, citing higher construction and maintenance costs compared to natural grass fields, potential health risks from toxic materials in synthetic turf, environmental concerns such as microplastics entering the food chain, increased greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-based materials, and the heat island effect caused by artificial surfaces. The Commission also highlights the social impact on adjacent low-income and minority communities, noting that replacing natural grass with artificial turf could limit general recreational space. Based on these findings, the Commission recommends against installing artificial turf on municipal lands. 218 Sharp, Julie. “LA Council Committee Moves Synthetic Grass Ban Proposal Forward.” CBS News. Los Angeles, CA. June 28, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/ la-council-committee-moves-synthetic-grass- ban-proposal-forward/ PFAS Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 219 Schmelzer, Elise. “Under Colorado’s New Water-Saving Law, Here’s Where Grass Will Be Banned Starting in 2026.” The Denver Post. March 18, 2024. https://www.denverpost.com/2024/03/18/c olorado-grass-turf-ban-2026-water- conservation-law/ Miscellaneous Environmental Policy Water Conservation News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 220 Perkins, Tom. “Boston Bans Artificial Turf in Parks Due to Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals.’” The Guardian. September 30, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ 2022/sep/30/boston-bans-artificial-turf-toxic- forever-chemicals-pfas PFAS Environmental Policy News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 221 Town of Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, Office of the Planning Board. “Notice of Decision May 4, 2022 RE: Special Permit Athletic Track and Synthetic Turf Field, Martha’s Vineyard High School.” https://mvrhs.org/wp- content/uploads/2023/10/OB-Planning- Board-Special-Permit-Decision.pdf PFAS Environmental Policy Municipal Government Report N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 222 “List of States and Municipalities That Have Either Banned or Are Working on the Ban of Artificial Turfs.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PA CX-1vROI- LGEDiUZx8TW_E5VhdcQ1PTn98arQUQCi6MC OvKxnyrh- 9Hc0jhPsYsfgocPJ6UCV_pJ0CnuSgd/pub Miscellaneous Environmental Policy Google Doc List N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 223 Redundant Source - Listed Above 224 Redundant Source - Listed Above 225 MultiDistrict Litigation/Class Action Suit Filed Against FieldTurf USA (A Tarkett Company); New Jersey Federal Court. Litig., No. 3:17-md- 2779. October 20, 2017. https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl Miscellaneous Litigation Class Action Lawsuit Legal Complaint N - - This is the login page to access electronic court records, sufficient link/source was not given 226 Porter, Jeff. “Another PFAS Clean Water Act Citizen Suit and There May be Thousands More of These Fish in the Barrel.” Mondaq. January 11, 2024. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/wat er/1412400/another-pfas-clean-water-act- citizen-suitand-there-may-be-thousands- more-of-these-fish-in-the-barrel PFAS Litigation Legal Analysis Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 227 Steinmetz, Jennifer and Lucy Richman. “Turf wars: The Courtroom Battle Over Artificial Turf Safety May be Closer Than We Think.” Reuters. July 5, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry /turf-wars-courtroom-battle-over-artificial- turf-safety-may-be-closer-than-we-2023-07- 05/ Sports Injuries Litigation PFAS Legal Analysis Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 228 Redundant Source - Listed Above 229 Gambacorta, David and Laker, Barbara. “City Officials Believed a New South Philly Turf Field was PFAS-Free. Not True, Experts Say.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 23, 2024. https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphi a/philadelphia-pfas-artificial-turf-field- murphy-recreation-20240223 PFAS Environmental Policy News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 230 Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “Eight Takeaways from The Inquirer’s Yearlong Investigation into ‘Forever Chemicals.’” The Philadelphia Inquirer. March 12, 2024. https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphi a/artificial-turf-pfas-phillies-vet-soccer- cancer-20240312.html PFAS Sports Injuries Cancer Risks Investigative Journalism Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 231 Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “‘Field of Dread’: Six Former Phillies Died from the Same Brain Cancer. We Tested the Vet’s Turf and Found Dangerous Chemicals.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. March 7, 2023. https://www.inquirer.com/news/inq2/astrot urf-vet-artificial-turf-pfas-forever-chemicals- glioblastoma-cancer-phillies-1980- 20230307.html PFAS Human Health Impacts Cancer Risks Investigative Journalism Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 232 Redundant Source - Listed Above 233 Redundant Source - Listed Above 234 Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “‘A Tangled Timeline: Artificial Turf Was Once Touted as a ‘Magic Carpet.’ But Some Scientists are Sounding the Alarm Because It Typically Contains ‘Forever Chemicals.’” March 7, 2023. https://www.inquirer.com/news/inq2/astrot urf-vet-stadium-artificial-turf-monsanto- history-phillies-stadium-forever-chemicals- pfas-20230307.html PFAS Environmental Impact Monsanto Investigative Journalism Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 235 Allen, Jeffrey, and Shane Perry. “Letter: Nantucket Fire Union Decries Proposed Turf Fields over PFAS Concerns.” Nantucket Current. February 9, 2022. https://n- magazine-archive.com/letter-nantucket-fire- union-decries-proposed-turf-fields/ PFAS Environmental Impact News/Opinion Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 236 Balash, Dana. “East Liverpool’s Football Field under Water.” WFMJ. April 4, 2024. https://www.wfmj.com/story/50641939/east- liverpools-football-field-under-water Miscellaneous Water Management News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 237 “Dover High School Football Field Stormwater Calculation.” https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ncsa/pages /544/attachments/original/1709579114/Dov er_High_School_Football_Field_Stormwater_ Calculation.pdf?1709579114 Miscellaneous Runoff Stormwater Consultant Report/Letter N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 238 Cole, Jeff. “FDR Park’s New $250M Development Continues after Judge Dismisses Opposing Lawsuit.” FOX 29 Philadelphia. May 2, 2024. https://www.fox29.com/news/fdr-parks-new- 250m-development-continues-after-judge- dismisses-opposing-lawsuit Miscellaneous Litigation Stormwater News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 239 Cronin, Colleen. “State Officials Warn Burrillville About Installing Turf Field Following PFAS Contamination in North Smithfield.” EcoRI News. August 21, 2024. https://ecori.org/state-officials-warn- burrillville-about-installing-turf-field- following-pfas-contamination-in-north- smithfield/ PFAS Environmental Policy News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 240 Fair Warning. “Fields of Waste: Artificial Turf Becomes Mounting Disposal Mess.” December 21, 2019. Maryland Matters. https://www.marylandmatters.org/2019/12/ 21/fields-of-waste-artificial-turf-becomes- mounting-disposal-mess/ Miscellaneous Turf Disposal Environmental Hazards Investigative Journalism Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 241 Freiberg, Adam. “Exploring Major USC Athletics Renovations.” Daily Trojan. April 4, 2024. https://dailytrojan.com/2024/04/04/explorin g-major-usc-athletics-renovations/ Miscellaneous Sports Facilities Upgrades Natural Grass Fields News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 242 Lerner, Sharon. “How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe.” ProPublica. May 20, 2024. https://www.propublica.org/article/3m- forever-chemicals-pfas-pfos-inside-story PFAS Corporate Ethics Investigative Journalism Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 243 Lundstrom, Marjie & Wolf, Eli. “Artificial Turf, Touted as Recycling Fix for Millions of Scrap Tires, Becomes Mounting Disposal Mess.” Salon. December 21, 2019. https://www.salon.com/2019/12/21/artificia l-turf-touted-as-recycling-fix-for-millions-of- scrap-tires-becomes-mounting-disposal- mess_partner/ Miscellaneous Turf Disposal Environmental Hazards Investigative Journalism Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 244 NBC Bay Area. Disposal of School’s Artificial Turf Field Highlights Growing Environmental Concerns. Published December 31, 2024. https://youtu.be/cPYLL5Pabk0?si=AEGeM_f9 RJMgDtfy Miscellaneous Turf Environmental Impacts Youtube Video N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 245 Redundant Source - Listed Above 246 Rodgers, Bethany. “Turf Recycler Hit with Environmental Violations as It Works to Open PA Plant.” PhillyBurbs. March 20, 2023. https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/en vironment/2023/03/20/pa-officials-say-turf- recycler-is-violating-environmental- laws/69995371007/ Miscellaneous Environmental Policy News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 247 Redundant Source - Listed Above 248 Redundant Source - Listed Above 249 Redundant Source - Listed Above 250 Stokstad, Erik. “Common Tire Chemical Implicated in Mysterious Deaths of At-Risk Salmon.” Science. December 3, 2020. https://www.science.org/content/article/co mmon-tire-chemical-implicated-mysterious- deaths-risk-salmon Miscellaneous 6PPD-quinone News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 251 University of Birmingham. “New Study Confirms Forever Chemicals are Absorbed Through Human Skin.” Phys.Org. June 24, 2024. https://phys.org/news/2024-06- chemicals-absorbed-human-skin.amp PFAS Environmental Health News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 252 Bennett, Kyla. “Artificial Turf: A Plague on Earth.” PEER. November 13, 2023. https://peer.org/commentary-artificial-turf-a- plague-on-the-earth/ Microplastics Environmental Impact NGO Blog N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 253 Charles River Watershed Association. “Artificial Turf: A Threat to Our Watershed.” 2024. https://www.crwa.org/artificial-turf Microplastics PFAS Watershed Impacts NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 254 Community for Natural Play Surfaces. “Re: Choose Natural Turf for FUHSD Schools or Comply with CEQA.” February 27, 2024. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PA CX-1vQC57CdX3Kv5- 1sUkqNx57dTjkLAfFbzsmHoOEt-rAl- kj8N5rGnuNUlKrCF9PQBQ/pub PFAS NGO Letter N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 255 Conway, Diana, and Dianne Woelke. “CalRecycle Tire Crumb Market Comments.” January 25, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aF7nHR8BK NbDnOw1pNto_5el_wGQlu_7/view?usp=driv e_link Crumb Rubber Microplastics PFAS Public Commentary N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 256 Conway, Diana, and Dianne Woelke. “MND Draft Review, Marina High School Multi-Use Playing Field.” January 31, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_- KLSFW35tXLGxUmpcGKZAZnfc8tjk7u/view?u sp=drive_link PFAS Microplastics Heat From Turf Public Commentary N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 257 EarthJustice and Sierra Club. “Incineration is Not a Safe Disposal Method of PFAS.” 2022. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownl oadDocument?pubId=&eodoc=true&docume ntID=251195 PFAS Incineration Waste Disposal Methods NGO Blog N Y N Link to this is broken - available by download only 258 Edmar Chemical Company. “What You Should Know about Synthetic Turf Maintenance.” https://www.edmarchem.com/wp- content/uploads/2023/06/TurfStat-Pro- FAQ.pdf Sports Injuries Synthetic Turf Maintenance MRSA Industry Blog N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 259 There is no 259, it's a note about 258. 260 Environment & Human Health. “Synthetic Turf: Industry’s Claims Versus the Science.” 2017. https://www.ehhi.org/NewTurf_Final.pdf Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Toxicology NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 261 EHHI. “Artificial Turf: Exposures to Ground- Up Rubber Tired.” 2007. https://www.ehhi.org/turf_report07.pdf Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Toxicology NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 262 EHHI. “Synthetic Turf: Industry’s Claim versus the Science.” 2017. https://www.ehhi.org/NewTurf_Final.pdf Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Carcinogens NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 263 Fichtenbaum, Heidi. “The Princeton Environmental Commission’s Artificial Turf: Not a Sound Financial, Environmental, or Just Investment.” Municipality of Princeton. December 2021. https://www.princetonnj.gov/DocumentCent er/View/9205/Princeton-Environmental- Commission-Artificial-Turf-Report-Dec-2021- PDF-?bidId= Crumb Rubber Microplastics Heat From Turf Municipal Government Report N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 264 Green, Laura C. Ph.D., D.A.B.T. “Risks to Public Health from Chemicals Found in Brock Infill and in Soil at Playing Field.” January 12, 2021. https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/defaul t/files/docs/Laura%20Green%20Health%20Ri sk%20Assessment_Brockfill%20and%20MV% 20Soils_Jan%2012_2021.pdf Crumb Rubber HHRA Consultant Report/Letter N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 265 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “Position Statement on the Use of Artificial Turf Surfaces.” November 30, 2023. https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/position- statement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf- surfaces/ PFAS Crumb Rubber Runoff Institutional Publication N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 266 Myrick, Sonia. “Synthetic Sports Fields and the Heat Island Effect.” National Recreation and Park Association. May 8, 2019. https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation- magazine/2019/may/synthetic-sports-fields- and-the-heat-island-effect/ Heat from Turf Sports Injuries Heat Exhaustion Magazine Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 267 New York State Department of Health. “Information about Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields.” https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/o utdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb- rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm Crumb Rubber Public Health Environmental Impact Government Fact Sheet N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 268 Persellin, Ketura. “New Studies Show PFAS in Artificial Grass Blades and Backing.” Environmental Working Group. October 29, 2019. https://www.ewg.org/news- insights/news/new-studies-show-pfas- artificial-grass-blades-and-backing PFAS Environmental Impact Public Health NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 269 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). “EPA Fumbles Artificial Turf Science.” August 6, 2019. https://peer.org/epa-fumbles-artificial-turf- science/ Crumb Rubber Environmental Impact Public Health NGO Blog N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 270 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). “Artificial Turf Fact Sheet.” 2022. https://peer.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022- 10-05-at-10.55.03-AM.png Miscellaneous NGO Blog N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 271 Sierra Club Maryland Chapter. “Synthetic Turf Resources.” 2022. https://www.sierraclub.org/maryland/synthe tic-turf-resources Crumb Rubber Environmental Impact NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 272 Sierra Club Maryland Chapter. “Say NO to Plastic Fields and Rubber Playgrounds.” 2021. https://www.sierraclub.org/maryland/synthe tic-turf Crumb Rubber PFAS Heat From Turf NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 273 Shalat, Stuart. “Why Artificial Turf May Truly Be Bad for Kids.” The Conversation. March 5, 2017. https://theconversation.com/why- artificial-turf-may-truly-be-bad-for-kids- 72044/ Crumb Rubber PFAS Public Health News/Opinion Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 274 Woelke, Dianne. “Greenwashing: Mineral and Plant Based Infills for Synthetic Turf Systems.” April 28, 2000. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H6I2 8zSIjN080vXjwTHH5CHlFj1kIfFC/edit?usp=sha ring&ouid=106106732686023309618&rtpof= true&sd=true Crumb Rubber Microplastics Greenwashing Public white paper N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 275 Woelke, Dianne, Diana Carpinone, Suzanne Hume, Ronald Askeland, and Nancy Okada. (Safe Healthy Playing Fields). “University of California Santa Barbara Notice of Impending Development No. UCS-NOID-0002-23 (Baseball Stadium Turf).” September 8, 2023. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mavB4- DNVOEgYE-XaCthWJ8wT9oyb3Um/view Crumb Rubber Microplastics PFAS NGO Submission N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 276 Woelke, Dianne. (Safe Healthy Playing Fields). “FUHSD Bibliography.” February 27, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X0Yc43_9K RwLhcoGO9PmMU1Wol6lMxDq/view?usp=d rive_link PFAS Crumb Rubber Microplastics NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 277 Zero Waste Ithaca. “List of National Organizations Opposed to Synthetic Turf.” June 29, 2024. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10t SDiWbySWogzvZ_szllA9cMnnOyR9qlRKcqIAn yX8Q/edit?usp=sharing Miscellaneous Lists NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 278 Bumbaca, Chris. “‘It’s Not Rocket Science’: NFL Turf Debate Rages On Although 92% of Players Prefer Grass.” USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/ super-bowl/2024/02/07/grass-or-turf-nfl- players-overwhelmingly-pick-one-over-the- other/72515239007/ Sports Injuries News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 279 Chappell, Bill. “Soccer Players End Lawsuit over Artificial Turf at Women’s World Cup.” January 21, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2015/01/21/378896641/soccer-players- end-lawsuit-over-artificial-turf-at-women-s- world-cup Sports Injuries Heat from Turf News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 280 Gever, John. “Turf War: Study Backs Natural Grass as Less Injurious than Artificial Surface.” MedPage Today. February 13, 2024. https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingco verage/aaos/108707 Sports Injuries Injury Rates News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 281 Redundant Source - Listed Above 282 Redundant Source - Listed Above 283 Johnson, Carla K. “What Does the Science Say about the Grass vs. Turf Debate in Sports?” Associated Press. October 9, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/nfl-aaron- rodgers-achilles-grass-artificial-turf- 79212f5443cd2a0d30fe8c9d981b13c0 Sports Injuries News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 284 PEER. “Test Results for Preliminary Study: PFOS on Hands of Soccer Players and Coaches on Artificial Turf vs. Grass.” March 6, 2024. https://peer.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/03/3_6_2024-Dermal- absorption-PFAS-AT.pdf PFAS Dermal Absorption NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 285 Perkins, Tom. “Artificial Turf Potentially Linked to Cancer Deaths of Six Phillies Ball Players.” The Guardian. March 10, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/ mar/10/phillies-ball-players-cancer-artifical- turf?CMP=share Sports Injuries Artificial Turf Safety Cancer Risks News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 286 Redundant Source - Listed Above 287 Proctor, Stephen. “New Study Finds Concerning Link between Artificial Turf and Potential Health Threats to Athletes: 'It Just Boggles My Mind.'” Yahoo! News. March 29, 2024. https://www.yahoo.com/news/study- finds-concerning-between-artificial- 033000063.html PFAS Human Health Impacts Environmental Impacts News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 288 Seifert, Kevin. "NFLPA: New Injury Data Shows Grass 'Significantly Safer' than Turf." ESPN, April 20, 2023. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36243 906/nflpa-new-injury-data-shows-grass- significantly-safer-turf Sports Injuries Sports Journalism N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 289 Silverman, Alex. “FIFA Requires Stadiums to Play the Field, Install Natural Grass for Games.” November 6, 2023. Sports Business Journal. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Arti cles/2023/11/06/america-stadiums-side Miscellaneous Sports Stadiums Sports Journalism N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 290 Rodrigue, Jourdan, and Daniel Popper. “Field of Nightmares: Inside the NFL, Player Divide over Playing Surfaces.” The Athletic. January 11, 2023. https://theathletic.com/4074335/2023/01/1 1/nfl-turf-fields-injuries/ Sports Injuries News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 291 Redundant Source - Listed Above 292 Tretter, JC. “Only Natural Grass Can Level the NFL’s Playing Field.” NFL Players Association. 2020. https://nflpa.com/posts/only-natural- grass-can-level-the-nfls-playing-field Sports Injuries Artificial Turf Safety Sports Journalism N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 293 Tretter, JC. “Why the NFL’s Approach to Field Surfaces is Uneven.” NFL Players Association, April 2023. https://nflpa.com/posts/nfl- approach-field-surface-uneven Sports Injuries Artificial Turf Safety Sports Journalism N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 294 Redundant Source - Listed Above 295 Woelke, Dianne. “Synthetic Turf Injuries.”March, 2021. https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/defaul t/files/docs/Dianne%20Woelke%20letter%20 3-18-21.pdf Sports Injuries Artificial Turf Safety Public white paper N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 296 Redundant Source - Listed Above 297 Beyond Pesticides. “Cost Comparison: Organic vs. Chemical Land Management.” Winter 2019–2020. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/m edia/documents/documents/Cost%20Compa rison.pdf Miscellaneous Turf Maintenance Cost Analysis NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 298 Beyond Pesticides. “Synthetic Turf Fields, Forever Chemicals and the Safer Alternative: Organic Grass.” March 27, 2024. https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/ 2024/03/synthetic-turf-fields-forever- chemicals-and-the-safer-alternative-organic- grass/ PFAS Artificial Turf Safety Environmental Health NGO Blog N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 299 Bosomworth, Karyn, Alexei Trundle, and Darryn McEvoy. “Responding to the Urban Heat Island: A Policy and Institutional Analysis. Final Report.” Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research, October 2013. ISBN: 978-0-7340-4891-5. https://www.vcccar.org/sites/default/files/p ublications/UHI%20policy%20and%20insititu tional%20analysis%20final%20report.pdf Heat from Turf Policy Urban Heat Island Effect NGO Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 300 Redundant Source - Listed Above 301 Cornell University Sports Field Management. “Synthetic Turf: Is Adding A Synthetic Field the Answer?” https://safesportsfields.cals.cornell.edu/synt hetic-turf/ Miscellaneous Synthetic Turf Composition Informational Webpage from University N Y Y Note from bibliography: Cornell University's own cost analysis, available on their website, illustrates that artificial turf is significantly more expensive to maintain compared to natural grass. 302 Redundant Source - Listed Above 303 Redundant Source - Listed Above 304 Redundant Source - Listed Above 305 Government of the District of Columbia ANC (Advisory Neighborhood Commission) 3/4G Single Member District 02. “Cultivating Natural Grass Playing Fields: Listening to the Experts Panelist Presentations and Community Discussion.” YouTube Video. May 30, 2024. https://youtu.be/E3FEO7vmuCE?si=HTBUpN DSZSrne4IX Miscellaneous Youtube Video N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 306 Henry, Kaleb. “Nebraska Football to Replace FieldTurf with Natural Grass Inside Memorial Stadium.” Sports Illustrated. July 13, 2024. https://www.si.com/college/nebraska/recrui ting/nebraska-football-recruiting-4-star-cb- picks-huskers-over-utah-tcu-matt-rhule-big- ten Miscellaneous College Football Recruiting Sports Journalism N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 307 Redundant Source - Listed Above 308 Redundant Source - Listed Above 309 The Lawn Institute. “Carbon Sequestration.” https://www.thelawninstitute.org/environm ental-benefits/carbon-sequestration/ Miscellaneous Carbon Sequestration NGO Blog N Y N Non-peer reviewed source 310 Leslie, Madeline. “The Potential of Turfgrass to Sequester Carbon and Offset Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” University of Minnesota. https://turf.umn.edu/news/potential- turfgrass-sequester-carbon-and-offset- greenhouse-gas-emissions. Miscellaneous Carbon Sequestration Turf Maintenance /Management Informational Webpage from University N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 311 Lindblom, Jeffrey. “Portland Turf Fields Closed Due to Danger from Heat Wave.” Fox 12, Oregon. July 10, 2024. https://www.kptv.com/2024/07/10/portland- turf-fields-closed-due-danger-heat-wave/ Heat from Turf News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 312 Redundant Source - Listed Above 313 Redundant Source - Listed Above 314 McNitt, A. S., D. M. Petrunak, and T. J. Serensits. "Temperature Amelioration of Synthetic Turf Surfaces Through Irrigation." ISHS Acta Horticulturae 783: II International Conference on Turfgrass Science and Management for Sports Fields, 2008. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.78 3.59 Heat from Turf Artificial Turf Safety Sports Injuries Research Presentation/ Webinar Summary N Y Y Researchers have found that the surface temperatures of synthetic turf are significantly higher than natural turfgrass surfaces when exposed to sunlight. Reports indicate the surface temperatures of traditional synthetic turf can be as much as 35-60°C higher than natural turfgrass surface temperatures. Surface temperatures of infill synthetic turf systems have been reported to be as high as 93°C on a day when air temperatures were 37°C. Researchers have concluded that the heat transfer from the surface to the sole of an athlete's foot is significant enough to contribute to greater physiological stress that may result in serious heat related health problems. The objective of this study was to evaluate various methods of reducing the surface temperature of synthetic turf surfaces. Various irrigation and tarping regimes were used in an effort to reduce surface temperature. Infill was also amended with calcined clay in an effort to increase the water holding capacity and potential evaporative cooling of the infill media. Many of the regimes tested were initially very successful in lowering surface temperature to that of natural turfgrass; however, these low temperatures could not be maintained for periods of time equal to the length of standard sporting events, although synthetic turf surfaces receiving irrigation did measure lower in surface temperature after 3 hr compared to unirrigated synthetic turf surfaces. This study examines the elevated surface temperatures of synthetic turf, which can be 35–60°C hotter than natural grass, reaching up to 93°C under high-temperature conditions. The researchers assessed various methods to reduce these extreme temperatures, including irrigation, tarping, and modifying infill materials with calcined clay to enhance evaporative cooling. While initial cooling strategies successfully reduced surface temperatures to levels comparable to natural turf, they were not effective for the entire duration of typical sporting events. However, irrigated synthetic turf surfaces remained cooler than non- irrigated ones after three hours, indicating that periodic watering may help mitigate heat-related risks for athletes. 315 Osborne, Charles, Doug Wood. “A Cost Comparison of Conventional (Chemical) Turf Management and Natural (Organic) Turf Management for School Athletic Fields: A Report Presented by Grassroots Environmental Education, a Non-Profit Organization.” March, 2010. https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/uplo ads/7/0/8/2/7082006/turfcomparisonreport. pdf Miscellaneous Cost Analysis Turf Maintenance /Management NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 316 Safe Healthy Playing Fields Inc. “Costs: Grass vs. Synthetic Turf.” https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/co st-grass-vs-synthetic-turf Miscellaneous Cost Analysis Turf Maintenance /Management NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source 317 Redundant Source - Listed Above LPB-1 Lundstrom, Marjie, Eli Wolfe, and FairWarning. The Dangerous Pileup of Artificial Turf Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source LPB-2 Soltanighias, Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou- Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.12513 3. PFAS Environmental Journal Article Y Y N Our study investigates the chronic toxicity of PFAS and microplastics on the sentinel species Daphnia, a species central to aquatic foodwebs and an ecotoxicology model. We examined the effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and polyethylene terephthalate microplastics (PET) both individually and in mixtures on Daphnia ecological endpoints. Unlike conventional studies, we used two Daphnia genotypes with distinct histories of chemical exposure. This approach revealed that PFAS and microplastics cause developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity and reduced somatic growth, with historical exposure to environmental pollution reducing tolerance to these persistent chemicals due to cumulative fitness costs. We also observed that the combined effect of the persistent chemicals analysed was 59% additive and 41% synergistic, whereas no antagonistic interactions were observed. The genotype-specific responses observed highlight the complex interplay between genetic background and pollutant exposure, emphasizing the importance of incorporating multiple genotypes in environmental risk assessments to more accurately predict the ecological impact of chemical pollutants. Persistent chemicals from industrial processes, particularly perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have become pervasive in the environment due to their persistence, long half-lives, and bioaccumulative properties. Used globally for their thermal resistance and repellence to water and oil, PFAS have led to widespread environmental contamination. These compounds pose significant health risks with exposure through food, water, and dermal contact. Aquatic wildlife is particularly vulnerable as water bodies act as major transport and transformation mediums for PFAS. Their co-occurrence with microplastics may intensify the impact on aquatic species by influencing PFAS sorption and transport. Despite progress in understanding the occurrence and fate of PFAS and microplastics in aquatic ecosystems, the toxicity of PFAS mixtures and their co-occurrence with other high-concern compounds remains poorly understood, especially over organisms’ life cycles. LPB-3 Zhai, X., X.-H. Zhang, Min Yu. Microbial colonization and degradation of marine microplastics in the plastisphere: A review. Frontiers Microbiology. 16 February 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1127308 Microplastics Environmental Journal Article Y Y N Marine microplastic pollution is a growing problem for ecotoxicology that needs to be resolved. In particular, microplastics may be carriers of “dangerous hitchhikers,” pathogenic microorganisms, i.e., Vibrio . Microplastics are colonized by bacteria, fungi, viruses, archaea, algae and protozoans, resulting in the biofilm referred to as the “plastisphere.” The microbial community composition of the plastisphere differs significantly from those of surrounding environments. Early dominant pioneer communities of the plastisphere belong to primary producers, including diatoms, cyanobacteria, green algae and bacterial members of the Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria . With time, the plastisphere mature, and the diversity of microbial communities increases quickly to include more abundant Bacteroidetes and Alphaproteobacteria than natural biofilms. Factors driving the plastisphere composition include environmental conditions and polymers, with the former having a much larger influence on the microbial community composition than polymers. Microorganisms of the plastisphere may play key roles in degradation of plastic in the oceans. Up to now, many bacterial species, especially Bacillus and Pseudomonas as well as some polyethylene degrading biocatalysts, have been shown to be capable of degrading microplastics. However, more relevant enzymes and metabolisms need to be identified. Here, we elucidate the potential roles of quorum sensing on the plastic research for the first time. Quorum sensing may well become a new research area to understand the plastisphere and promote microplastics degradation in the ocean. LPB-4 Heisler, J., P.M. Gilbert, J.M. Burkholder, et al. "Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Scientific Consensus." Harmful Algae, vol. 8, no. 1, December 2008, pp. 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2008.08.006. Miscellaneous Environmental Journal Article Y N In January 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a “roundtable discussion” to develop a consensus on the relationship between eutrophication and harmful algal blooms (HABs), specifically targeting those relationships for which management actions may be appropriate. Academic, federal, and state agency representatives were in attendance. The following seven statements were unanimously adopted by attendees based on review and analysis of current as well as pertinent previous data: (1) Degraded water quality from increased nutrient pollution promotes the development and persistence of many HABs and is one of the reasons for their expansion in the U.S. and other nations; (2) The composition–not just the total quantity–of the nutrient pool impacts HABs; (3) High-biomass blooms must have exogenous nutrients to be sustained; (4) Both chronic and episodic nutrient delivery promote HAB development; (5) Recently developed tools and techniques are already improving the detection of some HABs, and emerging technologies are rapidly advancing toward operational status for the prediction of HABs and their toxins; (6) Experimental studies are critical to further the understanding about the role of nutrients in HABs expression, and will strengthen prediction and mitigation of HABs; and (7) Management of nutrient inputs to the watershed can lead to significant reduction in HABs. LPB-5 Mehta, Karan. Guest Opinion: Intentional PFAS herbicide injection into Cayuga Lake. September 5, 2024. Ithaca.com PFAS Environmental News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source LPB-6 Dougherty, Matt. Appellate Court Allows Challenge Against Permit Allowing Discharge of PFAS into Cayuga Lake. Ithaca Times. July 24, 2024. PFAS Environmental News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source LPB-7 Li, Changchao, Jian Liu, et al. What harmful microbes are lurking in the world's 7 billion tonnes of plastic waste? October 1, 2024. Nature.com. Miscellaneous Plastics Magazine N N N Non-peer reviewed source LPB-8 Sun T, Wang W, Chan Z. 2024. How do cool- season turfgrasses respond to high temperature: progress and challenges. Grass Research 4: e010 doi: 10.48130/grares-0024- 0008 Miscellaneous Turf Maintenance Journal Article Y N N The utilization of cool-season turfgrasses is widespread in urban greening, ecological restoration, and sports fields. The primary limiting factor affecting its growth and application is considered to be high temperature stress. Under heat stress condition, a range of physiological and morphological traits will be modulated in cool-season turfgrasses, resulting in a deterioration of lawn quality and subsequently impacting the ornamental and functional value of lawns. In this review, we summarize physiological and morphological changes in cool-season turfgrasses caused by high temperature stress. The research progress in molecular characterization of high temperature regulatory networks was further summarized. Approaches for improving cool-season turfgrasses thermotolerance were proposed. We further put forward challenges and perspectives of research on heat tolerance of cool-season turfgrasses, aiming to provide references for the research on characterization of heat tolerance mechanism and breeding heat tolerant cold-season turfgrass. LPB-9 Huang, B. (2004). Recent advances in drought and heat stress physiology of turfgrass - A review. Acta Hortic. 661, 185-192. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.661.23 Miscellaneous Turf Maintenance Journal Article Y N N Drought and heat stresses are major factors limiting the growth of turfgrasses. Both stresses will continue to be the primer concern in turfgrass management, as water is becoming increasingly limited for irrigation and temperature increases with global warming. Researchers in the last decade have advanced the understanding of the mechanisms of how turfgrass adapt to drought and heat stress and how to maintain high quality turf with limited water resources. It has been identified that among various mechanisms, osmotic adjustment and induction of dehydrin proteins may confer drought tolerance, while abscisic acid may contribute to drought avoidance by the induction of stomatal closure in turfgrass. Alternation of carbohydrate and antioxidant metabolism, induction of heat shock proteins, and cytokinin synthesis are involved in protecting cool-season turfgrasses from heat stress injuries. LPB- 10 Silvia Casabianca, Samuela Capellacci, et al. Plastic-associated harmful microalgal assemblages in marine environment, Environmental Pollution, Volume 244, 2019, Pages 617-626, ISSN 0269-7491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.11 0. Microplastics Environmental Impact Journal Article Y N N Plastic debris carry fouling a variety of class-size organisms, among them harmful microorganisms that potentially play a role in the dispersal of allochthonous species and toxic compounds with ecological impacts on the marine environment and human health. We analyzed samples of marine plastics floating at the sea surface using a molecular qPCR assay to quantify the attached microalgal taxa, in particular, harmful species. Diatoms were the most abundant group of plastic colonizers with maximum abundance of 8.2 × 104 cells cm−2 of plasƟcs, the maximum abundance of dinoflagellates amounted to 1.1 × 103 cells cm−2 of plastics. The most abundant harmful microalgal taxon was the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia spp., including at least 12 toxic species, and the dinoflagellate Ostreopsis cf. ovata with 6606 and 259 cells cm−2, respecƟvely. The abundance of other harmful microalgal species including the toxic allochthonous dinoflagellate Alexandrium pacificum ranged from 1 to 73 cells cm−2. In the present study, a direct relationship between the abundance of harmful algal species colonizing the plastic substrates and their toxin production was found. The levels of potential toxins on plastic samples ranged from 101 to 102  ng cm−2, considering the various toxin families produced by the colonized harmful microalgal species. We also measured the rate of adhesion by several target microalgal species. It ranged from 1.8 to 0.3 day−1 demonstraƟng the capacity of plasƟc substrate colonizing rapidly by microalgae. The present study reports the first estimates of molecular quantification of microorganisms including toxin producing species that can colonize plastics. Such findings provide important insights for improving the monitoring practice of plastics and illustrate how the epi-plastic community can exacerbate the harmful effects of plastics by dispersal, acting as an alien and toxic species carrier and potentially being ingested through the marine trophic web. LPB- 11 Huang, B. (2008). MECHANISMS AND STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DROUGHT RESISTANCE IN TURFGRASS . Acta Hortic. 783, 221-228. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.22 Miscellaneous Turf Maintenance Journal Article Y N N Drought stress is one of the most detrimental factors limiting turfgrass growth. There exists large variability in drought resistance among turfgrass species and cultivars. Understanding genetic variations in drought resistance among turfgrasses is important for selecting turfgrasses adapt to water-limiting environments. Turfgrasses have developed three major drought-resistance strategies in their adaptation to drought stress, including drought tolerance, drought avoidance, and drought escape. These strategies are genetically controlled by various physiological and biochemical characteristics. Deep rooting is a critical factor for turfgrass to maintain cellular hydration by avoiding water deficit. Osmotic adjustment is important for plants to tolerate drought stress when water deficit develops in plants. These traits could be selected through breeding, and also can be modified by culture practices. Understanding drought-resistance traits will facilitate the development of drought-resistance turfgrasses and efficient management practices for areas with limited water resources. LPB- 12 U.S. EPA, CDC. Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan. Vol I, Final Report Part 2 - Exposure Characterization. April 16, 2024. Crumb Rubber Human Health Impacts Government Report Y Y Y In a follow-up study to the USEPA (2019) evaluation of the concentrations and bioavailability fo chemicals in crumb rubber, EPA performed biomonitoring studies of athletes using synthetic turf and natural turf fields. Blood and urine samples were collected pre- and post-field use and were analyzed for metals (blood) and PAH metabolites (urine). EPA drew the following conclusions from the study: Concentrations of metals in blood samples were similar to those in the general population and were not elevated after use of fields with crumb rubber infill. No differences in PAH metabolites in urine samples were identified between users of synthetic turf and natural turf fields with crumb rubber infill LPB- 13 Russo, Carlo, Giulio M. Cappelletto, Giuseppe M. Nicoletti. The product environmental footprint approach to compare the environmental performances of artificial and natural turf. May 5, 2022 Crumb Rubber Sustainability Journal Article Y Y Y The aim of this paper is to test, for the first time, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) approach in a comparative analysis of the environmental performance of a soccer field for 11 players made with natural turf and one made with artificial turf with used tyres as infill material. At the same way, for the first time, Data Quality Rating (DQR) was purposed as instrument for comparing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) focused on the two football playgrounds. Along the life cycle, the construction phases of the field, its use and its maintenance were considered. While, as for the End-of-Life, the Circular Footprint Formula was adopted for evaluating the avoided impacts of material disposing. LPB- 14 Politico. E&E News. 'Our community has been deceived': Turf wars mount over PFAS PFAS Human Health Impacts News Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source LPB- 15 Lohmann et al. (2020) Are fluoropolymers really of low concern for human and environmental health and separate from other PFAS? Environmental Science & Technology, 54(20), 12820-12828. PFAS Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y Y N Fluoropolymers are a group of polymers within the class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the evidence regarding the environmental and human health impacts of fluoropolymers throughout their life cycle(s). Production of some fluoropolymers is intimately linked to the use and emissions of legacy and novel PFAS as polymer processing aids. There are serious concerns regarding the toxicity and adverse effects of fluorinated processing aids on humans and the environment. A variety of other PFAS, including monomers and oligomers, are emitted during the production, processing, use, and end-of-life treatment of fluoropolymers. There are further concerns regarding the safe disposal of fluoropolymers and their associated products and articles at the end of their life cycle. While recycling and reuse of fluoropolymers is performed on some industrial waste, there are only limited options for their recycling from consumer articles. The evidence reviewed in this analysis does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health. Given fluoropolymers’ extreme persistence; emissions associated with their production, use, and disposal; and a high likelihood for human exposure to PFAS, their production and uses should be curtailed except in cases of essential uses. LPB- 16 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2023). Technical Memorandum: PFAS in artificial turf. PFAS Environmental Government Report N Y Y PFAS released in the plastic manufacturing process through wastewater discharges and stack emissions have been one of the largest sources to the environment, having an impact on both humans and natural resources. Due to the limited studies investigating the specific issue of leaching from AT, it is not entirely possible to assess levels of PFAS that may enter the environment during the relatively short use as an artificial turf product. The release of PFAS during the manufacturing of this material together with the release of PFAS during the decomposition in a landfill (or when discarded on a lot not far from the original use location, as occurred in the Massachusetts scenario) should also be considered. Although there is some advocacy for recycling this material at end-of-life, there are currently no known facilities that will perform this process for artificial turf (Horsley Witten, 2020). LPB- 17 The Guardian. Thousands of toxins from food packaging found in humans - research Miscellaneous Human Health Impacts News Article N Y N Non-peer reviewed source LPB- 18 Bennett, Kyla, Kirsten Stade. Artificial Turf's Big Lie: Old Fields Not Recycled Miscellaneous Recycled Plastics NGO Article N Y Y Non-peer reviewed source LPB- 19 Salthammer, Tunga. Microplastics and their Additives in the Indoor Environment Microplastics Human Health Impacts Journal Article Y Y N Analyses of air and house dust have shown that pollution of the indoor environment with microplastics could pose a fundamental hygienic problem. Indoor microplastics can result from abrasion, microplastic beads are frequently added to household products and microplastic granules can be found in artificial turf for sports activities and in synthetic admixtures in equestrian hall litter. In this context, the question arose as to what extent particulate emissions of thermoplastic materials from 3D printing should be at least partially classified as microplastics or nanoplastics. The discussion about textiles as a possible source of indoor microplastics has also been intensified. This Minireview gives an overview of the current exposure of residents to microplastics. Trends can be identified from the results and preventive measures can be derived if necessary. It is recommended that microplastics and their additives be given greater consideration in indoor environmental surveys in the future. G G G G G G G G G G G OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH T G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST LIMIT O F W O R K F2 F4 0.00.00.10.1 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.15.49.716.526.639.854.366.075.882.184.682.581.580.079.577.877.278.079.782.885.185.585.486.888.483.1 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.42.33.86.411.519.730.242.557.972.082.186.586.385.183.982.379.776.675.976.678.381.384.786.787.187.888.287.480.267.151.036.624.415.18.64.93.01.91.10.70.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.72.74.47.613.021.131.244.060.675.485.089.088.987.486.082.578.776.074.675.076.879.583.887.489.388.989.288.182.169.152.837.726.116.79.95.83.52.11.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.20.40.71.11.83.05.18.413.921.531.244.460.475.085.389.691.489.686.382.478.275.474.174.475.978.882.587.490.592.191.088.881.469.053.338.326.517.710.86.53.92.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.11.93.25.49.214.522.032.245.760.875.885.290.492.190.785.982.178.775.574.274.676.078.883.287.191.194.794.089.882.570.154.439.927.518.411.77.14.22.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.22.03.45.79.514.822.632.946.260.874.182.688.690.889.086.082.478.976.274.574.276.479.883.787.891.693.693.388.381.369.955.541.128.619.012.27.54.42.71.60.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.22.03.55.89.714.922.933.046.560.873.081.787.289.888.286.482.378.876.374.674.576.880.183.988.291.492.892.587.680.869.455.841.329.119.112.47.64.62.71.60.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.22.03.45.79.514.822.632.946.260.874.282.788.790.989.186.082.478.976.274.574.376.479.883.787.891.693.793.488.481.469.955.441.128.619.012.27.54.42.61.60.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.11.93.25.49.114.522.032.145.660.775.885.390.592.190.785.982.178.775.574.174.676.078.883.287.191.194.793.989.882.670.154.439.927.518.411.77.14.22.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.20.40.71.11.83.05.08.413.921.531.244.460.475.085.389.691.489.686.482.478.275.474.174.575.978.982.587.590.591.990.988.781.368.953.338.326.517.710.86.53.92.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.62.74.47.513.021.131.244.060.675.485.089.088.787.485.982.578.776.074.675.176.979.583.887.589.388.889.088.182.269.252.837.826.116.79.85.83.52.11.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.42.33.76.411.419.630.142.557.871.781.986.486.284.983.982.279.776.776.076.778.481.484.886.787.087.988.287.480.067.051.036.624.415.08.64.93.01.81.10.70.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.15.49.616.426.539.654.265.975.782.084.582.481.479.979.577.977.278.079.782.985.185.485.386.888.482.975.563.947.932.720.812.57.14.12.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.52.54.48.014.123.035.049.362.671.775.979.679.378.378.579.678.477.478.380.383.585.183.983.685.182.280.272.858.942.328.417.710.46.03.32.01.20.70.40.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.11.93.56.711.819.930.944.259.771.574.575.777.377.478.479.578.577.377.680.083.385.284.082.781.780.178.469.152.336.824.514.98.84.82.61.50.90.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.42.85.59.817.429.343.457.371.475.676.177.676.476.878.078.777.677.980.282.982.482.082.380.879.177.765.650.635.722.012.67.34.02.11.10.60.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.61.12.55.08.816.533.844.956.069.976.375.377.877.377.178.279.077.677.479.982.782.081.982.178.877.476.063.952.042.321.811.76.83.71.80.90.60.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.12.55.08.715.832.242.354.269.479.480.983.181.180.581.081.279.378.981.384.584.684.785.381.879.975.963.952.744.122.411.97.03.91.91.10.70.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.71.01.62.95.69.115.225.738.153.172.888.294.194.288.685.283.882.980.880.482.585.787.088.892.691.887.881.766.352.137.822.512.97.74.42.41.71.10.70.40.30.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.40.61.11.72.43.66.110.015.824.938.156.078.293.3103.2102.795.890.085.682.079.479.381.685.690.894.498.8100.994.586.370.053.137.923.614.48.75.33.42.41.61.00.60.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.71.32.03.14.76.910.816.926.442.362.279.993.5104.3101.494.787.180.976.574.574.476.179.384.891.397.5104.098.686.672.656.539.024.715.29.36.24.22.81.81.10.60.40.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.81.32.23.45.27.711.217.627.744.561.175.283.588.788.984.676.670.266.665.365.766.868.772.579.989.091.888.980.871.856.640.324.715.49.96.84.63.01.91.20.70.40.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.40.71.32.13.24.97.110.215.523.937.452.064.667.366.167.167.361.956.754.154.254.955.255.658.163.968.469.167.869.465.449.734.321.714.09.26.34.22.81.81.10.60.40.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.40.61.11.72.53.85.68.112.218.227.538.548.150.748.147.947.445.943.441.842.242.342.642.943.846.347.346.848.252.550.038.826.417.311.47.55.13.32.21.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.11.72.53.85.78.411.917.624.631.334.533.831.832.031.830.930.530.931.431.631.430.931.330.629.930.934.232.325.317.612.18.35.43.52.31.50.90.60.40.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.61.01.52.23.35.07.010.214.118.521.220.720.320.321.021.321.422.022.322.422.021.419.918.417.517.618.317.214.110.37.25.03.32.11.40.90.60.40.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.50.81.21.82.63.75.57.69.811.111.512.012.213.013.714.815.215.615.515.414.412.410.29.08.58.68.06.85.33.82.71.81.20.70.50.30.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.71.01.42.02.93.94.85.66.16.36.97.58.89.710.410.510.610.19.17.76.24.54.03.83.53.02.41.81.30.90.60.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.21.62.12.52.83.13.33.64.55.46.26.77.06.96.45.74.83.72.82.11.81.61.41.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.70.91.21.31.41.61.82.12.73.33.84.14.34.23.93.52.92.31.81.31.00.90.70.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.70.80.80.91.01.31.61.92.32.42.62.52.42.11.81.41.10.90.70.60.50.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.50.50.60.81.01.11.31.51.51.51.41.21.10.90.70.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.80.80.90.90.80.80.70.60.50.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.40.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Calculation Summary Grid Name Calculation Metric Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Field Hockey Horizontal Illuminance Fc 81.86 97 74 1.11 1.32 Plot Date: 1/24/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) LEGEND SPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO 'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM' 70' MOUNTING HEIGHT SITE LIGHT POLE, LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE, 20' MOUNTING HEIGHT 11.8 ILLUMINATION LEVEL (FOOTCANDLE) PROJECT LIGHTING PLAN 1 L6-01 1" = 20' 4020 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 01 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Description Catalog #Tag Mounting Height (ft) 5 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTION AR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLS EP1 20 8 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP2 20 1 AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLS EP3 20 4 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP4 20 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTION SITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. 4 TLC-LED-550 / TLC-LED-1500 F1-F4 70ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING 01/31/2025 01.31.2025 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 01 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH E OH E E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST GA M E F A R M R O A D PHASE 2 TEAM FACILITY 5,000 SF. PHASE 2 INDOOR TURF FACILITY 9,400 SF. S T O P LI M I T O F W O R K LIMIT OF WORK EP4 EP3 EP2 EP2 EP2 EP2 EP1 EP1 EP2 EP4 EP4 EP4 BUS PARKING BUS PARKING F1 F3 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.1 0.00.10.10.20.20.30.20.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.2 0.00.00.10.20.30.30.50.60.30.20.20.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.40.50.60.70.60.50.30.3 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.60.80.60.30.30.40.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.51.81.50.90.50.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.50.90.50.4 0.00.10.10.20.30.71.32.01.20.40.40.71.02.04.45.94.21.91.00.70.50.71.02.14.45.94.21.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.35.84.11.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.45.84.11.91.00.6 0.00.10.10.30.40.92.74.22.20.70.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.40.90.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.40.90.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.40.90.50.91.43.37.59.87.23.01.3 0.00.00.10.20.30.41.03.15.02.60.80.50.71.02.04.35.74.11.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.35.74.11.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.45.94.21.91.00.70.50.71.02.04.45.94.21.91.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.92.03.11.70.60.50.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.51.00.60.50.40.50.61.01.61.81.61.00.6 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.30.90.40.30.40.40.50.70.70.70.50.40.40.40.40.40.50.70.70.70.50.40.40.30.40.40.50.70.70.70.50.40.40.40.40.40.60.70.70.70.50.4 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.50.60.80.60.30.30.40.40.40.40.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.4 0.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.50.60.60.40.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.3 0.00.10.20.30.30.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.40.40.30.30.30.40.50.50.50.50.40.30.30.30.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.4 0.00.10.20.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.40.40.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.50.50.40.60.91.21.20.90.60.40.30.30.30.50.70.80.90.70.60.40.30.30.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.40.40.4 0.00.10.30.50.71.53.23.72.20.90.50.50.40.60.71.53.23.72.21.00.60.50.50.60.81.83.53.51.80.80.60.40.20.30.50.91.71.81.20.60.40.30.30.60.71.53.23.72.10.90.50.50.40.6 0.00.00.20.50.82.14.24.73.01.20.60.40.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.70.40.30.61.02.54.54.52.61.00.60.30.20.30.51.02.12.51.40.60.40.20.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.60.40.30.6 0.00.10.20.51.01.82.01.30.70.40.10.10.30.51.01.82.11.30.70.40.20.10.30.61.11.92.01.20.60.30.10.20.30.50.91.51.61.10.60.30.20.10.30.51.01.82.11.30.60.40.10.10.3 0.00.00.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.10.10.10.10.20.40.60.70.50.30.20.10.10.20.30.40.60.60.40.30.10.10.20.30.50.70.80.80.70.50.30.20.10.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.10.00.00.1 0.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.20.30.50.60.50.40.40.30.20.10.10.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.30.30.60.91.00.60.20.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.50.50.60.91.72.01.40.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.70.80.80.80.80.80.80.80.90.91.00.90.90.80.80.80.80.91.01.01.32.53.42.80.90.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.21.31.31.31.31.41.41.41.51.61.61.61.51.41.41.41.41.51.61.62.03.23.93.21.30.90.60.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.52.02.22.22.12.02.12.22.52.72.72.82.72.62.42.22.22.32.42.62.62.93.63.93.12.01.40.90.50.30.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.72.53.33.63.63.53.33.33.64.14.44.64.74.54.23.93.63.53.63.83.94.04.14.34.43.82.92.01.30.70.40.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.71.01.72.74.05.25.85.95.85.55.46.06.67.27.47.57.36.86.25.75.25.35.45.85.95.85.95.75.03.92.81.70.90.50.30.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.30.60.91.42.44.06.38.29.410.09.99.59.69.810.511.011.311.211.110.79.88.88.07.78.39.09.08.68.37.96.85.13.62.11.10.60.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.35.89.412.715.516.416.316.216.116.216.316.516.416.416.216.015.113.412.312.513.314.314.313.111.911.08.86.44.12.31.20.60.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.52.64.68.113.719.324.727.026.125.525.125.124.423.723.423.323.222.622.121.220.220.421.823.423.020.217.314.711.07.44.42.31.20.60.40.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.20.40.61.01.83.25.811.019.428.536.940.239.838.037.736.434.533.032.632.432.432.031.732.231.831.533.437.235.728.822.217.813.17.74.32.31.20.60.40.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.40.61.22.13.87.214.626.839.951.455.654.654.453.150.646.744.143.743.343.343.544.346.747.546.848.453.350.939.628.019.913.57.63.92.11.10.60.40.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.20.40.61.22.44.48.618.235.452.666.371.271.572.672.365.659.355.855.455.855.855.958.163.567.667.766.168.566.049.833.521.012.97.03.61.91.10.60.40.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.20.30.61.32.65.110.321.342.162.979.288.092.992.687.278.471.667.666.066.267.168.772.078.787.089.386.881.274.057.438.922.012.16.33.31.71.00.60.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.30.51.22.85.811.522.543.267.086.099.2106.7102.294.987.281.176.874.774.676.179.084.089.794.9101.098.590.177.262.241.323.112.26.03.01.50.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.20.41.12.96.211.622.340.463.285.498.5104.1101.694.589.185.081.879.379.281.485.089.592.596.298.895.490.578.661.841.823.011.95.92.81.30.70.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.31.23.36.312.323.238.257.177.590.793.792.186.984.083.182.580.580.182.285.085.887.090.390.088.585.374.358.940.122.211.25.72.71.10.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.41.43.46.914.030.441.855.370.679.580.181.579.779.580.480.879.178.681.084.083.983.784.080.879.377.267.856.144.022.010.75.52.81.10.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.71.84.17.815.633.044.556.069.775.974.877.076.576.577.778.777.377.279.782.481.681.481.478.277.076.165.053.242.721.611.06.03.11.40.60.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.32.55.19.317.028.943.157.171.075.075.777.376.176.677.978.677.577.880.182.882.481.882.180.678.777.565.750.835.721.912.37.03.71.91.00.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.93.46.611.619.830.844.259.671.374.375.777.277.378.379.578.477.277.679.983.385.283.982.681.680.178.269.252.536.824.414.88.74.72.51.50.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.52.54.48.014.123.135.049.462.671.676.179.779.478.278.479.678.377.478.480.283.485.183.983.785.182.380.372.859.142.428.517.810.45.93.32.01.20.70.40.30.20.10.10.00.0 0.00.10.10.20.30.40.71.21.93.15.49.716.526.639.854.366.075.882.184.682.581.580.079.577.877.278.079.782.885.185.585.486.888.483.175.663.948.032.820.912.67.24.12.51.50.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.42.33.86.411.519.730.242.557.972.082.186.586.385.183.982.379.776.675.976.678.381.384.786.787.187.888.287.480.267.151.036.624.415.18.64.93.01.91.10.70.40.30.20.10.10.0 0.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.72.74.47.613.021.131.244.060.675.485.089.088.987.486.082.578.776.074.675.076.879.583.887.489.388.989.288.182.169.152.837.726.116.79.95.83.52.11.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.0 89.686.382.478.275.474.174.475.978.882.587.490.592.191.088.881.469.053.338.326.517.710.86.53.92.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.0 0.10.10.0 PROJECT LIGHTING PLAN 2 L6-02 Plot Date: 1/24/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) LEGEND SPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO 'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM' 70' MOUNTING HEIGHT SITE LIGHT POLE, LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE, 20' MOUNTING HEIGHT 11.8 ILLUMINATION LEVEL (FOOTCANDLE) MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 01 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 1" = 20' 4020 01/31/2025 01.31.2025 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Description Catalog #Tag Mounting Height (ft) 5 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTION AR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLS EP1 20 8 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP2 20 1 AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLS EP3 20 Calculation Summary Grid Name Calculation Metric Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Field Hockey Horizontal Illuminance Fc 81.86 97 74 1.11 1.32 4 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP4 20 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTION SITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. 4 TLC-LED-550 / TLC-LED-1500 F1-F4 70ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E T E E S S ST ST S T ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDING EP2 EP1 EP1 EP1 EP2 EP2 0.00.00.00.0 0.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.20.10.10.10.10.00.10.10.10.10.0 0.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.20.20.10.00.0 0.60.50.30.30.20.10.10.30.30.20.10.0 1.50.90.50.40.20.10.20.50.60.40.10.0 4.11.91.00.60.30.10.41.11.30.60.10.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.0 7.23.01.30.90.30.20.92.52.20.80.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 4.21.91.00.60.30.21.13.02.20.80.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.60.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.0 1.61.00.60.40.30.20.71.71.80.70.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.51.12.42.81.40.60.30.20.10.10.20.10.10.0 0.70.50.40.30.20.20.40.80.90.60.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.40.71.52.42.41.80.80.40.20.20.20.30.30.10.0 0.40.40.40.30.30.20.30.50.60.40.20.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.30.40.50.81.11.10.90.50.30.20.20.30.50.40.20.00.0 0.40.40.30.30.30.30.40.50.50.40.30.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.10.10.10.51.00.90.40.10.0 0.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.40.30.30.30.30.40.40.50.40.40.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.61.82.01.00.20.0 0.40.40.40.50.81.21.21.00.60.40.40.40.40.50.81.11.21.00.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.72.03.01.50.20.0 0.50.40.60.71.53.23.72.21.00.60.50.40.60.71.53.23.72.20.90.50.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.71.92.11.00.20.0 0.40.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.60.40.30.60.82.14.24.73.01.20.70.40.20.20.20.20.30.20.20.20.20.61.01.00.40.10.0 0.10.10.30.51.01.82.01.30.60.40.10.10.30.51.01.82.01.30.70.40.30.30.30.30.40.40.30.30.30.20.40.50.50.20.00.0 0.00.00.10.20.30.60.60.40.20.10.00.00.10.20.30.60.60.40.30.20.20.30.40.60.80.80.70.50.30.30.30.30.30.10.0 0.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.30.50.61.22.32.51.60.80.50.40.20.20.10.10.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.60.82.04.24.92.91.10.60.40.10.10.10.10.0 0.00.00.10.40.71.52.73.12.10.90.50.20.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.10.30.50.80.90.60.30.20.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.20.30.40.30.10.10.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Description Catalog #Tag Mounting Height (ft) 5 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTION AR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLS EP1 20 8 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP2 20 1 AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLS EP3 20 Calculation Summary Grid Name Calculation Metric Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Field Hockey Horizontal Illuminance Fc 81.86 97 74 1.11 1.32 Plot Date: 1/24/2025 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:11.25.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13800 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 11/25/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com Feet 60300 4 AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLS EP4 20 SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTION SITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LIMIT OF WORK (LOW) LEGEND SPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO 'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM' 70' MOUNTING HEIGHT SITE LIGHT POLE, LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE, 20' MOUNTING HEIGHT 11.8 ILLUMINATION LEVEL (FOOTCANDLE) PROJECT LIGHTING PLAN 3 L6-03 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 1" = 20' 4020 4 TLC-LED-550 / TLC-LED-1500 F1-F4 70ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING 01/31/2025 01.31.2025 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 0 3 February 22nd, 2025 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I strongly support the approval for the Cornell University Field Hockey (CUFH) field and associated structures on Game Farm Road. As a former CUFH player and captain, and as a proud alumna of Cornell University and the stellar women’s field hockey and lacrosse programs, I request that you thoughtfully consider the key facts, merits of the approval request, and implications of the decision and timeline. Facts: The facts are clear, namely that: • This project has been requested following the required process for a CUFH field and associated structures on Game Farm Road. • The new field material to be used is NOT manufactured with PFAS, and there is a lack of evidence of environmental harm in this case. • Cornell is proactively addressing PFAS and recycling concerns by adhering to the New York State (NYS) law ahead of its effective date of December 31, 2026. • Non-fact-based efforts to derail the approval would cause significant disruption not only in the team’s 2025 practice and game location, but in the ability to recruit and retain student athletes. • This facility will also benefit a much wider group of players than just those at Cornell. Accounting for opponents, FH camps, club and recreational use we expect over 1,000 people to benefit from the field annually. Strong Community Partnership: Cornell and Ithaca have a long history of community partnership, creating a welcoming and supportive town for its citizens and students alike. As noted in the April 9th, 2024 fingerlakes.com article, “Cornell’s commitment to the community extends beyond economic factors, with numerous volunteer initiatives and support for local governments and nonprofit organizations, including a $7 million contribution to various entities”. Additional examples of economic impact from the Cornell University Economic Impact & Entrepreneurship 2023 data include: • $77M - Construction spending in Tompkins County and adjacent counties (by location of prime contractor) • $4.9M - Property taxes generated (school taxes $3.2 million, municipal taxes $1.7 million). Taxes paid on Cornell-related properties rank second in Tompkins County. • $28.5M - Capital raised in 2023 by the companies of Rev: Ithaca Startup Works, founded by Cornell (with Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College). Rev companies created 47 new jobs in 2023. • $3.9M - Capital raised by Cornell’s Center for Life Science Ventures’ Ithaca-based clients in 2023. These companies created 8 new local jobs in 2023, for a total of 31 local jobs. • $8.7M - Capital raised by Cornell’s Praxis Center for Venture Development Ithaca based clients in 2023. These companies provide 27 local jobs. Supporting Cornell’s goal of providing critically needed fields and structures for the CUFH team is yet another example of fueling and growing this foundational community/college partnership. Team Personal Impact: As I’m surmising you have heard from other current and former players, playing a sport goes well beyond the skill and dedication developed in playing the sport itself. Life lessons such as teamwork, leadership, grit, empathy, the will to win and succeed, the character to lose and congratulate your opponent, the understanding that hard work and focus leads to success in one form or another, the ability to rally a team and also console that team in defeat or heartache, the strength to never give up, and so many more. These lessons become part of our DNA and something we carry and grow throughout our lives. Many of my fondest memories and strongest lifelong friendships were forged playing sports at Cornell and in the wonderful town of Ithaca. It irks me beyond description to think that the opportunity to experience these impactful lessons would be denied to our current and future field hockey players, and, on the contrary, they would be left with a lasting negative impression of their experience at Cornell and in Ithaca. With all the facts in-hand, with a reasonable request to the town having followed the appropriate processes, you have the power to ensure that does not happen. You have the ability to not only approve the project, but the ability to positively influence the lives of these players and so many others who are looking to you for your leadership and example of executing appropriate town government action and continued support of its colleges as a vibrant community partner. Equity: Beyond these points, another equally, if not more important factor is promoting and ensuring equity for women at Cornell as a reflection of Ithaca. Ithaca is known for pro-actively and staunchly supporting and leading equity driven initiatives so that all its population feel valued and are treated equally. As noted in the town’s mission statement, “We promote quality of life, equity, and safety of all Town of Ithaca residents through planning, innovation, and continual adaptation to change.” Supporting this request would be yet another example of the town’s firm stance that equity matters and is visibly and continuously supported. Thank you for your consideration of the points made here, as well as other information you are receiving. We are trusting in you to make a sound, factually supported, impactful decision to approve the Game Farm Road project. The CUFH team, and many in the Cornell and Ithaca communities and beyond are relying on you as thoughtful and exemplary community leaders to make this happen. Sincerely, Ellen Grant Piccioli Cornell University ‘86 February 23, 2025 Town of Ithaca Planning Board c/o: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning: cjrandall@townithacany.gov and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner: cbalestra@townithacany.gov Ithaca, NY RE: Support for the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field – request to issue a negative environmental declaration Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I grew up on our family’s farm in Ohio. Our family didn’t have much, but I studied hard and was a standout high school football player. Cornell’s athletic program provided me an opportunity to attend a world-renowned university and receive a college education. At Cornell I played four years of varsity football, made lifelong friendships, met my wife (a standout Cornell field hockey player), and graduated with a Biological and Environmental Engineering degree. For these reasons I consider Cornell and the surrounding Ithaca area one of the very special places in the world. Professionally, I have pursued a career in environmental remediation and restoration. My career includes 23 years and counting with Arcadis, a global design and consultancy company that works in 70 countries and generates $3.6 billion in annual revenue. Arcadis is dedicated to improving quality of life and is considered a global per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) expert. At Arcadis I have managed over $200 million in environmental remediation and restoration projects for the United States Army and Air Force. These projects include stormwater management and the investigation, remediation, and disposal of PFAS impacted media. Collectively, the world has learned that PFAS and microplastics are present all around us and are part of our everyday environment. Our society and industry are learning more about these emerging problems each day. Governments, private industries, and institutions, including Cornell, can only navigate these unknown times using the best science and technology that is available to them today. Cornell’s Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field proposal includes science-based design, testing, and future commitments to limit environmental impacts. From an environmental standpoint this project represents a small step toward reducing PFAS and microplastics in our environment. Specifically: ● The proposed water-based turf is a non-PFAS turf and will be tested before leaving the manufacturer to ensure it complies. This testing is a step that not all private manufacturers of our everyday goods are yet implementing. ● The proposed water-based turf field will replace a similar type of turf field. The likelihood that this older turf field contained PFAS is certainly feasible, meaning Cornell is taking steps to reduce the over presence of PFAS in the community. ● The proposed turf is specific to, and required for, the game of field hockey. It has no infill whatsoever. Infilled turf has its own environmental challenges that require management and is not relevant to this project ● The proposed facility will have its own contained water filtration system to remove microplastics to the smallest size particle currently detectable. ● The proposed facility, with non-PFAS turf and a state-of-the-art stormwater management system poses a much lesser environmental impact than that of a basic grass field which requires herbicides/pesticides application, maintenance and mowing with carbon emitting equipment, fertilizer application, and possible erosion and sediment runoff. I support the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field and request the Board to issue a negative environmental declaration. I professionally support this project because the proposal Cornell has put forth represents a state-of-the-art facility, ensuring an infill free, non-PFAS playing surface documented by state of art analytical PFAS testing; and a filtration system designed to catch the smallest size particle detectable. Not only is this proposal addressing possible environmental impacts with the very best technology and science available today, but it also includes a commitment to mechanically recycle the new turf at the end of its life. I personally support this project so that other young adults may have the opportunities for education that I did. The opportunity to attend Cornell via the athletics program was life changing. Please vote to issue a negative environmental declaration, such that this project may move forward immediately and meet the needs of current and future student athletes, with no adverse impact to the environment. Regards, Tom Crone Cornell Class of 2001 Town of Ithaca Planning Board c/o C.J. Randall, Director of Planning and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, My name is Mark McNally, and I am writing to you along with my wife Nannette. We are parents of Jane, a junior matriculating at Cornell University and a three year member of the field hockey team at CU. We are writing to express strong support for the proposed Cornell Field Hockey Facility on Game Farm Road. This facility is crucial for providing a permanent, high-quality field that will greatly enhance student- athlete development and success. Cornell Field Hockey has long needed a dedicated space not just to compete but to grow, ensuring that student-athletes have equal access to first-rate training and competition facilities. The new field will also contribute to fostering community engagement and inspiring young athletes in the area. No project moves along without issues, and we certainly understand the town’s need to fully understand the impact a new field and facility may make on the local environment. We feel Cornell has shown great responsibility by proactively addressing environmental concerns, particularly related to PFAS, by adhering to New York State’s upcoming regulations ahead of schedule. The thorough environmental analysis has shown no significant adverse impacts, demonstrating Cornell’s commitment to sustainability and community well-being. We respectfully request that the Town Planning Board issue a negative environmental declaration for this project, allowing it to advance to the next steps. This will allow the project to move in the timeliest fashion that it can at this point. This decision will help provide our student-athletes as well as our community with a much-needed facility while assuring the environmental integrity of our area. Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to balancing community development with environmental stewardship. We appreciate your thoughtful review and consideration of this important project. Sincerely, Mark & Nannette McNally New Rochelle, New York From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Jen Poplyk cjrandall@townithacany.gov cbalestra@townithacany.gov Cornell field hockey field 2/23/2025 4:51:04 PM Dear Members of the Planning Board, My name is Jen Poplyk, and I am the proud mother of a rising Junior on the Cornell Field Hockey Team. While I may not have the professional experience that some other parents may possess, I bring an athletic perspective as a golf professional focused on teaching and promoting the game, especially to girls, teens and women. Watching my daughter wear the Big Red jersey with pride has been a powerful reminder of the incredible strength and resilience of these young women. I admire how they passionately stand up for their beliefs and the sport they love, and it is a perspective that deeply resonates with me as a mother and an advocate for women in athletics. On February 18th, I attended on zoom the Planning Board meeting where several members of our group voiced their opinions during the open floor segment. During this meeting, we also heard from representatives of Zero Waste Ithaca, who commented on the need for a more detailed environmental review concerning the new field at GFR. It is my understanding that the proposed new field will not pose environmental risks and that it aligns with all regulations set forth by New York State. Cornell University has consistently demonstrated its commitment to environmental stewardship, and I trust that the impacts of this new facility have been thoroughly evaluated. I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for all the hard work the Planning Board has undertaken and continues to do. Your dedication to the community and its development does not go unnoticed. As a parent of a Cornell Field Hockey player, I respectfully urge you to issue a negative environmental declaration regarding the new field project at GFR. In my humble opinion, the world presents numerous challenges for females today. I firmly believe that participation in sports and athletics plays a crucial role in cultivating strong, independent, and resilient women. Supporting the development of the new field is a step towards empowering our young athletes and fostering an environment where they can thrive. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jen Poplyk February 23, 2025 Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, My name is Lisa Kolongowski Pacheco and I graduated from Cornell in 1987. During my time at Cornell, I played varsity field hockey for four years and I am a proud member of the Red Key Society. I have many cherished memories of my time at Cornell, and particularly the life lessons I gained from my field hockey experience and the lasting friendships I built along the way. I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the continued work on the new field hockey field at the proposed site on Game Farm Road. This project represents a critical investment in the university and community's sporting infrastructure, and aligns with environmental and social responsibility. The plans for the proposed field utilize an existing playing surface and they offer the ability to transform an underused facility into a comprehensive sporting hub. This development not only supports the continued growth of the field hockey program, but will also benefit others as an ideal facility for field hockey camps and recreational users. The investment will foster a thriving sporting community, encouraging broader participation and supporting the development of future athletes. I understand there have been concerns regarding artificial turf, PFAS, microplastic shedding, and water contamination. However, it is crucial to note: ●The proposed water-based turf is essential for competitive field hockey, as required by the International Hockey Federation (FIH) and NCAA rules. ●The research cited in opposition largely concerns turf with infill, which does not apply to this proposal. The proposed turf contains no infill. ●Cornell is proactive in environmental stewardship, adhering to the NY statute requiring non-PFAS turf ahead of its 2026 implementation. The turf will be tested to ensure compliance. ●The water filtration system will effectively remove microplastics, addressing concerns about contamination. ●The proposed turf will be mechanically recycled at the end of its life, reflecting advances in recycling processes and facilities. In conclusion, I strongly support the continued development of the new field hockey field at Cornell University. This project represents a thoughtful, responsible investment in the program’s future, balancing environmental considerations with the needs of Cornell athletes and the broader sporting community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Kolongowski Pacheco Class of 1987 "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study." - Ezra Cornell, 1868 February 23, 2024 Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Town of Ithaca Planning Board, My name is Mary-Beth DeLaney – Hahn and I am a 1989 Graduate of Cornell University. I was a member of the Women’s Field Hockey and Lacrosse teams while at Cornell. The experience that I had was very positive and provided me the opportunity to play both sports and to gain valuable life lessons. I have remained connected with the team and the university for over 3 decades based upon my personal experience with the sports programs and the university. We are working with the team to create a world class facility for the women on the team. We understand that the board has taken a hard look at the issues and has enough information to determine a response. With that comes considerations of others and for the environmental factors that need to be reviewed. The group working on the project is taking into consideration these environmental topics and the new turf meets the most recent state laws refiecting environmental objectives. We believe that the evidence presented demonstrates no signiflcant risks posed that would trigger additional environmental analysis. The proposed facility is a key component for the women’s experience at Cornell to have a permanent high quality fleld. The student athletes dedicate many hours a week for both sports and academics and is a major reason why they come to the university and will have future team members join the program. We thank you for your time and consideration of this project. Sincerely, Mary-Beth DeLaney – Hahn Cornell Class of 1989 1 February 23, 2025 Town of Ithaca Planning Board c/o: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning: cjrandall@townithacany.gov and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner: cbalestra@townithacany.gov Ithaca, NY Subject: Support for the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field – request to vote for a negative environmental declaration Dear Honorable Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am a Cornell University graduate, class of 1986, and I played field hockey at Cornell for four years, and lacrosse for three. My husband and I own a family home and 100-acre certified sustainable tree farm in New York State and we visit friends and attend games in Ithaca each year. With the foundation of my Cornell degree in Design and Environmental Analysis and an advanced degree in public health policy, I have served in leadership roles in the fields of strategic real estate strategy + children and family holistic health. The health and well- being of our children (spanning physical, emotional and mental health realms), and the equitable provision of environments and policies that support our youth and their caregivers, is of utmost importance to me. I’ve dedicated my personal actions and my career roles to protecting children’s health and reducing disease burden within our country. To this end: ● I supported schools and out-of-school time providers by ensuring the systems, policies and practices in those settings are the healthiest possible to allow our most vulnerable children and their families to thrive. ● I engaged with some of the world’s largest food and beverage companies to demand and achieve transformation of their food product ingredients and formulation, packaging, and marketing practices. ● My passion for preserving our planet is visible in all I do, including: driving an electric vehicle, installing solar energy within my home, repurposing all textiles from my closets, transitioning to plastic-free in my bathroom (i.e. sustainable paper-wrapped shampoo bars rather than plastic bottles), purchasing local non-processed foods and those with petroleum-free packaging, and limiting personal and household care products to those without harmful toxins and non-petrol content and packaging. While in 2022 we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Title IV, which has significantly contributed to the well-being of women, there is continued work to do to achieve complete equity. This field hockey field and related facilities to be constructed by Cornell are part of the long, hard- fought arc of providing equitable opportunities for women in athletics at the collegiate level. We know that women who play team sports generally do better academically, assume more leadership roles, have better mental and physical health outcomes, and possess better social, problem-solving and resiliency skills – all in support of succeeding in careers and leading fulfilling lives. I have witnessed this for myself and my two adult nieces who also chose to play field hockey and lacrosse in high school and college. 2 Playing field hockey at Cornell supplemented my academics in ways I could not have fully understood or predicted at the time: I learned and practiced teamwork and continue to use those collaboration skills daily; I honed time management and organizational skills which were essential to my successful career and now allow me to be a present and effective caregiver for my aging parents. As Cornell field hockey alumnae, we rely upon the compassion, lifetime friendships, and camaraderie of this outstanding group of humans to support our ups and downs in life and contribute to our overall well-being. When I learned that the new highly-anticipated Game Farm Road field hockey field was in jeopardy due to opposition related to potential adverse environmental impacts, I jumped in to research the facts. After reading and thoroughly understanding: a) Cornell’s application for this project, including the details about potential environmental concerns related to all the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) categories of review, and b) the public documents from prior Planning Board meetings, and asking very many questions, I was relieved to discover that the turf field specified for this project is going to be one of the most environmentally sustainable turf fields available on the market. While I have been removed from the sport for a number of years, it was not difficult to understand the current state of field hockey internationally, within the NCAA, and at local levels across the US – and that added to my knowledge from continual involvement and support of the field hockey team and its playing surface here at Cornell since my graduation. This new turf field: ● Is NOT manufactured with PFAS. ● Is NOT filled with any crumb, rubber or otherwise. ● Has a water filtration system that WILL remove detectable microplastics that land on the field from many sources, including rainwater. I respect that your role as members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is a challenging one – and for this project you have rightfully taken a hard look at the impacts. I understand that your present task is to review the applicant’s and the public’s submitted information with the responsibility to balance the social, economic, and health benefits of THIS project with potential adverse environmental impacts. I ask you to vote for a negative environmental declaration based on no clear scientific evidence showing significant adverse environmental impact within the variety of categories required by the SEQR process. Further study of the issues related to this particular synthetic non-PFAS, non-fill, watered turf will not uncover additional peer-reviewed scientific data to show otherwise in the typical 6-9 months time frame needed for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but will have a negative impact on the players. The current and future scholar-athletes and many others within our communities who will benefit from this project deserve your ongoing reasoned decision-making. Thank you very much for your service, Anne Ferree Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project February 23, 2025 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, As a Cornell alumna of the field hockey program, a parent of 2 former Cornell student athletes, and a former high school field hockey coach, I am writing in support of the proposed field hockey field & facility. The proposed facility will create a permanent, appropriate quality field for the Cornell Field Hockey student athletes. This field and proposed surface is critical to the program and most importantly, to the student athlete experience. From my experience as a high school coach, the appropriate field surface for hockey is critical to the team’s participation in Division 1. College athletics provides student athletes an unparalleled experience to learn and grow while striving for excellence in a collaborative team setting. As the mother of two female student athletes, Cornell's plan helps address equal access for women in sports. As my nonprofit leader daughter states: “Cornell sports taught me how to work with others towards a common goal–lessons that can’t be taught in the classroom. Cornell sports prepared me to go out into the world and make a difference.” As a resident of Central New York who cares deeply about the regional environment we work, live and play in, I am pleased to see Cornell’s commitment to decrease PFAS by building a turf field that does not have PFAS or crumb fill. I respectfully ask the Ithaca TPB to issue a negative environmental declaration and allow this important project to move forward. Thank you for your work and consideration. Sincerely, Christine Hall O’Neil challoneil@gmail.com February 23, 2025 RE: Support for the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field & Request to vote to issue a negative environmental declaration Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am an alumna of Cornell University, where I played field hockey for 4 years and was one of the captains of our senior team. I also volunteered in Ithaca, spending time at the Greater Ithaca Area Activities Center, and I was a guide for Wilderness Reflections as well. Some of my fondest memories at Cornell are connected with the field hockey team, and the women I played with are some of my closest friends today - many of us are in contact daily. I also met my husband at Cornell, who played football. He and I both played on the Schoelkopf turf, and my sophomore year our team was bussed to Syracuse during the upgrade to that field. That was a difficult preseason and start to the school year, spending hours on a bus to practice on a field suitable for field hockey. I hope that the current team doesn’t have to endure similar strife, especially since they have worked so hard to be a nationally ranked program. Furthermore, the important team and leadership experiences my teammates and I gained as field hockey student-athletes contributed to our success as well-rounded individuals who strive to make our communities better. I would like to see future generations of Cornell field hockey players also benefit from such experiences. The current team members are academically strong, and they along with future generations may be the ones to tackle society’s complex problems such as microplastics and PFAS contamination. I have been very impressed with these well-educated young women, and know that they will continue to inspire future generations. Thank you for your consideration of the Game Farm Road field hockey project. Since learning of the challenges in this process, I have become more involved in understanding the issues at hand and feel strongly that this project should continue without a negative environmental declaration. Having served on many Boards and Commissions over my professional career, I appreciate the due diligence and hard look that you all are undertaking and empathize with your commitment and time dedicated to improving your community. We have a small farm in Maryland, and I assist farmers and farmers markets across the country in providing food access to low-income federal benefits program participants. My husband is a subject matter expert in PFAS, and through his work as an environmental engineer has cleaned up environmentally degraded sites across the country. We have 2 children, who we are raising to be environmentally conscious. We have an electric vehicle, and do everything we can to shorten our food miles, compost, and do our part to improve our community here. Some of my environmental awareness actually began in Ithaca, as I learned of the many sustainable efforts of the town and the community upon my arrival as a freshman. After reviewing the materials related to this project and listening to the recent planning board meeting, I believe all of the requirements are met for the Board to vote on a negative environmental declaration, and that Cornell has addressed the relevant environmental concerns. Specifically, the proposed new field does not have crumb rubber, is non-PFAS, and will include a filtration system to remove any microplastics. While I respect the need to balance the social, environmental and health concerns related to this project, there have been no evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies put forth that indicate the significant risks that would meet the requirements to trigger additional environmental analysis. I therefore respectfully request that you vote to issue a negative environmental declaration, thus allowing this project to move forward. Sincerely, Amy Crone Cornell Class of 2001 From: To: Subject: Sent: Annabel Cheveley cjrandall@townithacany.gov; cbalestra@townithaca.gov; Game Farm Road Proposal 2/24/2025 9:23:33 AM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am a sophomore at Cornell University and a proud member of the Cornell Field Hockey team. I am English and, having completed my schooling there, decided to pursue my dream of studying and playing field hockey in the USA. I was extremely fortunate to be offered a place at a few great US schools, but quickly decided that Cornell was the place I wanted to study. I was attracted to Cornell for a number of reasons: Cornell is a world leading academic institution with a stellar reputation, offering a first class education and access to highly attractive career opportunities; Having played field hockey since the age of 5, it was important to me to join a school with a best in class field hockey program, a strong team culture and first rate athletic facilities. The field hockey program at Cornell, which is hugely well organized, professional and ambitious, met all these criteria. And this was of paramount importance to me as my attending Cornell has involved major financial investment by my family, long periods away from them in another continent and also my stepping off the England international pathway to join a great program at an amazing school. And field hockey, which gives me so many benefits and values, was at the very heart of my decision to come to Cornell. I was also drawn to the beautiful location of Cornell in Ithaca. As soon as I visited and explored the town, the lake and the surrounding areas, I knew I wanted spend 4 years in this stunning town. I am therefore extremely concerned and saddened about the current situation which has the potential to lead to the team having no viable playing surface for the remainder of my career at Cornell. Field hockey and the Cornell program are at the very heart of my daily life and my decision to study in the US, at Cornell. And I would therefore strongly request that the application for the new field hockey field be supported by the Ithaca Planning Board. There is clearly a concerted environmental campaign against PFAS and artificial turf in Ithaca which does not seem able to distinguish clearly between different types of turf. There has been no scientific evidence provided of environmental harm caused by unfilled turf, and this turf will have no PFAS. I also find it puzzling that campaigners are focusing so closely on PFAS in turfs, especially given that the field hockey turf will be non-PFAS, but do not address the much wider issue of PFAS in everyday products, or in projects such as the recent redevelopment proposed for a gas station and convenience store, which has the potential for heavy metal contamination issues as well as issues such as PFAS. It is difficult not to feel that the field hockey proposal is being singled out for attention because it is connected with Cornell, rather than because it represents a genuine environmental risk. Cornell seeks to be a partner with the Town of Ithaca, and this field will be another opportunity for the community to use an excellent new facility that the University has built and that can be used through most of Ithaca’s varying seasons. Thank you for your time in considering my letter. Annabel Cheveley From: To: Subject: Sent: Olivia Weir cjrandall@townithacany.gov; cbalestra@townithacany.gov; Game Farm Road proposal 2/23/2025 5:17:57 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, My name is Olivia Weir, and I am a junior transfer on the Women's Field Hockey Team. I grew up in South Africa and fell in love with the sport at 11 years old. I chose to transfer to Cornell because I was drawn to the supportive coaching staff, the competitive Field Hockey program, as well as the world-class academics. Cornell stood out to me among other schools because I loved the balance between competing at a high Division I level and being able to pursue my academic endeavors. Being a part of this team has completely transformed my collegiate experience for the better. Although I have only been at Cornell for a semester, I consider this team my second family. Day in and day out, we push each other to be better and create an environment that is supportive, gritty and encouraging. I can’t imagine what my experience would look like without this team. I do not want to unnecessarily add to the large number of letters you have received, but feel that I had to respond to some of the comments made in the most recent planning board meeting. There is the suggestion that as players we are in some way ignorant of “risks” we are taking with our health, and that those campaigning only do so because they are on ‘our side’. This is most definitely not the case: we are expected as students to analyse source material and scientific studies objectively and do our own research to determine that they are credible and without bias. I have looked at the “evidence” cited for health risks, none of which relate to the type of artificial grass we play on. It all relates to artificial grass with rubber crumb infill. I do not need someone who has clearly not understood the science to speak for me and wanted to make sure that my views are heard. Thank you for taking the time to consider the evidence thoroughly. Olivia Weir Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project February 23, 2025 To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I am a Cornell Field Hockey and Lacrosse Alum from the Class of 1988. I cannot say enough about the importance of supporting our female student athletes at an institution the level of Cornell University and Division 1 sports. The many benefits of playing team sports have long been documented—from the importance of establishing healthy eating and exercise habits early in life, to learning how to balance one’s time, to developing the skills necessary for cooperation and teamwork. The fun I had on the team are some of my greatest college memories! The physical, emotional, and social benefits of sports are compelling ones for a students’ (“male and female”) overall well-being. Coming from years of playing without any team specific locker rooms or coaching rooms at all, and Title IX slowly getting implemented around the country, 2025 is beyond time for Division 1 girls sports to get the facilities they deserve in order to stay competitive and thriving. The decision to convert a field used by soccer into an NCAA recommended hockey turf field with clubhouse facilities, not only makes good sense, but is deserving of a nationally ranked team. Such success is only possible when a team feels supported by its school facilities, the athletes feel respected and able to compete at the Division 1 level, and coaches can attract and recruit continued talent. The school must stay competitive. I appreciate the importance of a balanced and evidence-based approach to this by the Planning Board and my understanding is that significant time has been committed to due diligence by the project team. It seems important to separate the larger, more confusing environmental concerns from the specifics of this case. My understanding is that the research on the new NCAA field hockey turf does not indicate clear scientific evidence showing any significant adverse environmental impact on any of the variety of categories required by the SEQR Process. And not to mention the fact that Cornell is following the NY Statute requiring non-PFAS turfs to be built, significantly ahead of the implementation time of Dec 2026. As a former student athlete at a rigorous school like Cornell, I feel strongly that the benefits of supporting development of women’s sports, and greatly improving facilities for what is currently a thriving successful Division 1 program, should be balanced against any environmental impact that has yet to be proven by installing this non-PFAS turf. The 53-year-old legacy of the Cornell Field Hockey Program will not be feasible without the competitive NCAA approved non-fill type of turf. As a long-time contributor to Cornell Women’s Sports because of the fond memories I have of playing sports in college, I hope you allow this project to move forward so students may continue on their expected paths. Sincerely, Jocelyn Yocum DiChiara ‘88 Catherine Kelly Mulgrew 32 North Grange Road Bearsden Glasgow G61 3AF Scotland Crkelly28@gmail.com +44 7956091757 February 25, 2025 RE: Support for the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field & Request to vote to issue a negative environmental declaration Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am a proud alumna of Cornell University from the class of 2001 and even prouder that I was a four-year member of the Cornell Field Hockey team playing all four years for the Big Red. Despite now living an ocean away in the United Kingdom, I remain in close touch with the University, the team, and fellow graduates. In addition to an inspiring education, some of my most cherished memories of my collegiate experience involve my time as a member of the field hockey team. That time was so much more than just an athletic journey —it was a profound lesson in life, personal growth, and teamwork. It taught me discipline, work ethic, and communication - as well as adaptability, strategic thinking, resilience, and mental toughness along with leadership and accountability. So many critical attributes for life well beyond college. I have cemented lifelong friendships with my teammates and fellow alumni, and they are a community of powerful, strong, smart women that I am humbled to be a part of. Ultimately, my time in Division 1 field hockey was about more than just competition —it was about growth. I learned to celebrate victories humbly, learn from my failures, and continuously strive for improvement. The experiences, friendships, and lessons I g ained have had a lasting impact on my character and perspective on life. I am keen that this tradition continues so that future generations of Cornell field hockey players benefit from these same experiences and life lessons. To do this, they need a space of their own and a field to play on where these lessons can take place. Today’s team is full of clever, ambitious women keen to gain the knowledge and benefits of their University education so they can head out into the world to help solve whatever challenges and issues face their corner of the world. They are a group worth assisting and I am eager to support them in their development of the Game Farm Road field. Since learning of the challenges in the process with the Game Farm Road field hockey project, I have become more involved in understanding the issues at hand and feel strongly that this project should continue without a negative environmental declaration. After reviewing the materials related to this project and the recent planning board meeting notes, I believe all of the requirements are met for the Board to vote on a negative environmental declaration. It is clear to me that Cornell has addressed the rel evant environmental concerns. Specifically, the proposed new field does not have crumb rubber, is non-PFAS, and will include a filtration system to remove any microplastics. Catherine Kelly Mulgrew 32 North Grange Road Bearsden Glasgow G61 3AF Scotland Crkelly28@gmail.com +44 7956091757 While I understand and can appreciate the need to balance the social, environmental, and health concerns related to this project, there has been no clear evidence put forth that indicates the significant risks that would meet the requirements to trigger ad ditional environmental analysis. I strongly encourage you to vote to issue a negative environmental declaration , thus allowing this project to move forward. Please feel free to get in touch with me should it be useful. Sincerely yours, Catherine Kelly Mulgrew Cornell Class of 2001 February 21, 2025 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: I am writing in support of the Cornell Women’s Field Hockey proposed new field and facility on Game Farm Road. As a Cornell alum who had the great privilege to play field hockey at Cornell, I understand how important a competitive field and facility is for the program, the student athletes, and the community as a whole. I also fully appreciate that we must take care to plan and build new facilities in an environmentally sound way. Having survived many Ithaca winters trudging up to practice, I know how important a weather resistant surface is to extend the outdoor play season. Not only is it best for our competitive student athletes, it also provides activity spaces for the broader group of students and community members to be outdoors throughout inclement weather, which is so very important for health and wellness. Regardless of the weather, an artificial turf field is required for the field hockey team to continue to compete in Division 1. No teams play on grass, as the sport has evolved such that artificial turf is a necessity. I believe the work done on the development of the new no-infill turf field has taken well into consideration all appropriate, current environmental guidelines as well as a plan for the future management of the field to meet environmental requirements as they are developed going forward. I hope this well-researched and planned project is able to move forward for the benefit of all. It can serve as a good example for how we can move forward while always improving (and reducing) our environmental impact. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kate Jones Kate Jones Cornell Class of 1986 Cornell Varsity Field Hockey 1982-1984 Cornell Varsity Lacrosse 1982-1986 Sara Sanders Ruch and Stephanie Sanders Warne, Class of 2011 sara.sandersk@gmail.com, stephlorrainesanders@gmail.com 607-349-8613, 607-349-8611 February 23, 2025 C.J. Randall, Director of Planning cjrandall@townithacany.gov Christine Balestra, Senior Planner cbalestra@townithacany.gov Subject: Support from Former Cornell and Local Athletes for the Proposed Field Hockey Field at Game Farm Road Dear C.J. Randall and Christine Balestra, As twin sisters who were former Cornell field hockey players (Class of 2011) and local athletes (who grew up in Endwell, NY, a short drive away) we are writing to express our support for Cornell University’s proposal to construct a new artificial turf field hockey field at the Game Farm Road athletic complex. We both played on the previous Marsha Dodson Field from our sophomore year until our graduation in 2011, and we firmly believe that a dedicated field for field hockey is essential to the program's continued success and the development of student-athletes. Our connection to Cornell field hockey extends even further back to our high school years. As local players, we were fortunate to be part of the USAFH Futures Olympic Pathway Field Hockey program (now called Nexus) that utilized the University's field for ongoing practices. In addition, we attended the Cornell Summer Sports School camps held at Cornell. Having access to such high-quality turf facilities during our formative years was a significant benefit and played a role in our development as athletes, as until that point we had primarily played on grass fields. It also instilled in us a deep appreciation for the importance of providing young athletes with the resources and facilities they need to excel. This mirrors Cornell's expectation that the new field will benefit over 1,000 people annually, including not only Cornell athletes, but also opponents, campers, club and recreational players, of which we fit into multiple of those categories. During our time as students at Cornell, having access to a field dedicated to field hockey, while still being in close proximity to our classes and other campus activities, was an invaluable asset. When we were being recruited by different colleges, the presence of a dedicated artificial turf field hockey field was an important determining factor in our decision to attend Cornell. We were attracted to the University's commitment to providing its field hockey student-athletes with the resources and facilities necessary to succeed both on and off the field. We appreciate that you have taken a hard look at the issues surrounding this proposal and have gathered sufficient information to make a well-reasoned decision, requiring a careful balance of social, environmental, and health considerations. We believe that Cornell has taken significant care to minimize the environmental impact of this project, and we are confident that the new turf field aligns with the most recent state environmental regulations ahead of becoming law. We also know how much of an impact the Cornell Facilities had on our field hockey development both while there and as local athletes prior to attending. We believe that the proposed field hockey field at Game Farm Road will not only benefit current and future Cornell field hockey players but will also benefit many other athletes within the wider community as it did us. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Sara Sanders Ruch and Stephanie Sanders Warne From: To: Subject: Sent: **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Claudia L Casavecchia cbalestra@townithacany.gov; cjrandall@townithacany.gov; Support for the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project 2/24/2025 2:33:58 AM February 23, 2025 To the members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: I am writing as a previous Cornell Field Hockey player [class of ‘85], Cornell Field Hockey manager and JV assistant coach [1985-89], and current USA Masters O-60 Field Hockey player. The Cornell field hockey program over the past 7 years, under the incredible leadership of Coach Andy Smith, has achieved National attention and was ranked 17th in 2023. I have returned to Cornell for several alumni games and was excited to play with recent graduates, including Caroline Ramsey, a USA National Team member, and current players. I also attended the Title IX 50th Anniversary event at Cornell and learned how far women’s sports at Cornell had progressed through the efforts of coaches, players and university administrators from years before I attended Cornell, and those that have come after me. Competing for the USA Masters Team over the past 2 years, I have been able to practice on many Division I turf fields, as well as, playing in Amsterdam at the Grand Masters Tournament and most recently in Auckland, New Zealand at the World Cup. The quality of these water-based turfs allowed the game to be played at its highest level. They also use technology to reduce any PFAS run- off by using a new turf style, like GFR, with a high-quality filtration system, to collect any particles that could impact the environment. The International Hockey Federation continues to advocate for environmentally safe surfaces, which Cornell University is committed to providing for the local community and the field hockey program. Cornell University’s scholar athletes have a deep commitment to both their academic focus along with their chosen sports. As an athlete at Cornell, one learns time management along with leadership skills. Being able to balance the hours of training, traveling and playing while maintaining a high GPA in one’s major is a feat that the current Cornell field hockey players have been able to accomplish. These student athletes, being able to manage the rigors of academic challenges while also being committed to their sport, enter the world having a higher likelihood of success with the skills they learned in balancing education with athletics. As a supporter of the Cornell Field Hockey program, I am asking you to look at the efforts of Cornell University and the Field Hockey program and fairly evaluate their proposal to create the necessary facility for these student- athletes. The new facility to be built on Game Farm Road will continue to bring Cornell to the forefront of the Ivy League and Division 1 competitors. The University has reviewed the materials and field runoff design to safeguard not only the environment but also the players’ health. I believe that your review of the details of the proposed water-based turf plan that you have received to date will dismiss concerns that you have for environmental review. Your approval is critical to allowing these young student athletes to compete on campus with the support of their family and fans. I appreciate your time and commitment to the Town of Ithaca and know that you have gathered information needed to approve this new facility for Cornell University’s Field Hockey Program. Respectfully, Claudia L. Casavecchia, DVM CALS '85, NYSCVM '89 USA Masters O-60 #11 Letter in support of the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field To the Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing this letter in enthusiastic support of the development of a Cornell Field Hockey clubhouse and field hockey-specific, watered turf field on Game Farm Road. I am an alumna of Cornell University from 1982 to 1986 (Bachelor of Arts) where I played goalie for the Cornell University field hockey team all four years. After graduation, I worked in a research lab at Cornell University Medical College in Manhattan for two years, then I attended University of Connecticut Medical School and then trained in Geriatrics and Cardiology and obtained a PhD in Clinical Investigation, all at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute where I was on the faculty. For the last 14 years, I have been a Medical Officer at the National Institute on Aging at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, MD. I attribute my successful career in medicine, largely to many of the skills I learned as a member of the Cornell field hockey team. Team sports offer an often underappreciated development of interpersonal and team skills in addition to strategies for organization and time management. In my case, an injury to my knee during my sophomore year of field hockey season, and my subsequent interactions with our team physical therapist, cemented my interest in becoming a physician. During my senior year, our field hockey team raised funds to support a tremendous opportunity to train and play throughout Holland for two weeks at the end of my senior year. Traveling internationally at that age, and playing in a country where field hockey is the national sport, was an experience rich with growth in cultural awareness, maturity, and responsibility. As a result of the time we invested in field hockey, the highs and lows of playing a competitive sport, the adventures of traveling (to games and internationally), and the challenges of juggling our education with a high-level collegiate sport, led to strong friendships with my teammates. These close personal relationships that I made playing Cornell Field Hockey for 4 years have endured time, distance, and life changes. Indeed, I remain in close touch with many of my Cornell field hockey teammates, which is how I heard of the potential issues raised to the Town Planning Board regarding the exciting new development for the Cornell field hockey team on Game Farm Road. As an example of how strong these relationships are with my teammates, when I had to undergo several surgeries for a chronic medical condition over the last several years, they bolstered my spirits with unwavering support, including flying from various locations around the US to help take care of me. As I’ve spent my career in science, I am fairly well-versed in environmental toxins, including PFAS and the accumulation of microplastics. I certainly understand the potential concern of these factors on the environment. I would not be supporting any project if I felt that these were truly agents, if mitigated as proposed by Cornell University, that pose a significant adverse environmental impact, especially within an area I hold so dearly as Ithaca, New York. It appears that the water filtration system that Cornell has proposed will be the best available in removing detectable microplastics from the water source, and the type of artificial turf that will be used does not contain PFAS or rubber crumb infill. I find the proposed non-PFAS artificial turf with its lack of infill and filtered water system to have no significant adverse impact on the environment and fully endorse it. During my time at Cornell, although Title IX was established, we still endured practice and playing conditions that did not mirror the male athletes. As such, we practiced on a grass field that was uneven and full of divots. Although we were able to practice on Schoellkopf Field, we typically were scheduled to practice in the off hours, including what we referred to as the “graveyard shift”, which was from 9pm to 11pm at night. There were no specific facilities for us to shower or change our clothes in, or have team meetings. Having a specific area clubhouse where the team can store their books and personal items while practicing, can shower, meet, study and change would be a significant boost to the team’s unity and morale. Such a hub would also accommodate teams who are visiting for camps, tournaments or playing games from the region. As field hockey was my passion throughout high school, I can’t imagine not having a program at a place such as Cornell University. Yet, in order for Cornell to continue to be competitive in Ivy League and Division 1 athletics, the standard artificial turf is a field hockey-specific turf, as proposed. This will replace a currently under-utilized soccer field, so there would be no additional real estate that would need to be developed. Moreover, this proposed field hockey specific hub would serve as a training facility and/or for tournament games for local and regional field hockey programs as it would be the only International Field Hockey Association approved facility within a 50-mile radius. This would define Cornell as a leader in the sport and would continue to attract young women to team sports through early school to beyond college. This proposal has my highest support, and I hope you will consider the benefits that I have outlined to maintain field hockey at Cornell, which can only be done with an upgraded facility such as proposed. Cornell has taken steps to mitigate the potential environmental concerns that have been raised sufficiently in my scientific opinion, and I hope to enjoy this facility as a continued supporter of Cornell Field hockey. With regards, Susan Zieman, MD, PhD Brett P. Fors Frank and Robert Laughlin Professor Baker Laboratory Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Tel: 1(607)-254-1487 brettfors@cornell.edu February 23, 2025 Dear Ithaca City Planning and Development Board, I write to support Cornell University’s proposal to install a synthetic turf field on Game Farm Road. I am Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Cornell University. My research and expertise encompass sustainable polymers, polymer synthesis, and polymer recycling. Based on this expertise, I can provide a unique perspective on concerns that have been raised about the installation of a synthetic turf field on campus. In this letter, I will briefly give my expert opinion on several of these concerns. To summarize the key points I will address below, the proposed turf field is PFAS-free, does not pose a significant risk of microplastic pollution, and is recyclable. Additionally, a turf field would be beneficial over a natural grass field by reducing water use and eliminating the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which can all be environmentally problematic. Taking all of this into account, I strongly believe that the use of a turf field is the best option. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are one concern that has been raised about the use of synthetic turf fields. PFAS is a class of chemical compounds that have seen widespread use across many applications and, recently, have been shown to negatively impact the environment and human health. Many previously manufactured turf fields contain PFAS. However, Cornell has chosen a synthetic turf, Greenfields TX Pro Plus, that is PFAS-free. This eliminates concerns of PFAS release into the environment and exposure to athletes. It also complies with New York State Law that requires carpets (this includes turf) to be PFAS-free. In my opinion, we should be mindful of PFAS use as a society and work to eliminate it, which is exactly what Cornell has done by choosing a PFAS-free option. The release of microplastics into the environment is a second concern that the town should be mindful of when considering a turf field. Recent studies have shown that microplastics have become more prevalent in the environment; while the impact of these microplastics on the environment and health is not well understood, we should work to mitigate their release. Studies have shown that crumb rubber infill used in synthetic turf can lead to the release of microplastics into the environment. To circumvent this issue, Cornell has chosen a synthetic turf that does not contain any infill, eliminating the major source of microplastics. Cornell will also install a filtration system that would remove any minor source of microplastics that could potentially come from the polyethylene grass blades. Additionally, by choosing an infill-free turf, Cornell has also eliminated other environmental and health concerns that can arise from the use of crumb rubber, which can contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and phthalates. In my opinion, the risk of microplastic pollution from the proposed turf is incredibly low. To put this into perspective, driving a car poses a much higher risk to the environment through the shedding of microplastics from tires. A compelling argument for the use of turf fields is their recyclability. Cornell has a plan to recycle the turf at its end-of-life and has already identified recycling facilities. Importantly, the polyethylene blades used in Greenfields TX Pro Plus are completely recyclable. Additionally, the crumb rubber infill used in most turf fields is not recyclable; however, since Cornell has chosen an infill-free turf, they eliminate this non-recyclable component of the field. Overall, the Greenfields TX Pro Plus is a sustainable, recyclable turf option. Overall, I strongly believe that Cornell has put forward a sustainable and environmentally responsible proposal for their turf field on Game Farm Road. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Sincerely, Brett P. Fors Frank and Robert Laughlin Professor Chemistry and Chemical Biology Cornell University brettfors@cornell.edu 607-254-1487 From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: CJ Randall Town Of Ithaca Planning Chris Balestra Fw: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project 2/24/2025 8:39:57 AM FYI From: Elsa Dempsey <elsa.dempsey58@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 1:35 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: cbalestra@tonithacany.gov <cbalestra@tonithacany.gov> Subject: Fwd: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Had to resend for email id fix. Thx, Elsa ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Elsa Dempsey <elsa.dempsey58@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 1:07 PM Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project To: <cjrandall@townithacany.com>, <cbalestra@tonithacany.gov> Hello Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am Elsa Dempsey, Cornell BSEE '86 and field hockey team member for 3 of my 4 years at Cornell, and a mom to two grown women. I am writing to you to share my experience of the critical importance competitive sports provides women during the college years and to urge approval of the plan to continue the program. College sports is a critical character formation opportunity when young women learn to commit to top performance for themselves and their team as a representative of their institution. This is highly impactful in preparation for taking on challenging roles as adults, helping them prepare for competitive work environments and even challenging public service roles. Commitment to high performance and teamwork in service to different industries or public service is what Cornell is preparing these young women for and so we as alumni who have had opportunity to live these benefits are committed to helping ensure Cornell's next generation of women have that same development opportunity. My advocacy stems not just from my own experience but also seeing how much intercollegiate sports have impacted the growth of my own two daughters as they learned how preparation, teamwork, strategy, and leadership create results. The reality is that to be a viable program for Cornell athletes, the field hockey program must comply with NCAA requirements for a playing field. To demonstrate commitment to these students and their environment, Cornell is planning to provide the most environmentally friendly field surface available which aligns with NY State's future standards. Fortunately, these plans do not include any of the rubber crumb infill component in the product that has caused concern in older turf surfaces may have had in the past . It will protect local waters by filtering out any detectable microplastics and the facility will also provide a clubhouse where athletes will shower and leave shoes with any residue particles from the turf. This new facility provides a great opportunity for Cornell women to continue to participate in a growing and competitive sports program in the Town of Ithaca. This is of critical importance to demonstrate to young women that they matter and deserve equal access to opportunities to compete. This will become a permanent facility available not only to Cornell program participants but to many other developing athletes through ongoing training camp programs. I understand the critical role the Town Planning Board undertakes in reviewing this proposal. Also an important consideration are the needs of these Cornell students for the upcoming fall season and viability of the program overall. These students need the environmentally sustainable solution proposed by Cornell. Based on the detailed information you have received, I ask that you issue a negative declaration to enable the program to plan for the future. Cornell has developed an excellent plan to support its student athletes while protecting the Town of Ithaca environment with the best available technology while adhering to requirements dictated by NCAA for competitive play. Thank you for your support in enabling the continuation of this excellent program for Cornell women. Sincerely, Elsa Dempsey Field Hockey 1982-5, Lacrosse 1982-4 Cornell BSEE '86 To: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Christine Balestra, Senior Planner From: Kent Scriber Date: February 20, 2025 Re: Cornell University Field Hockey Proposal I was recently made aware of a proposal for a new regulation fleld hockey facility. Due to construction at it’s current site the current fleld is unavailable for future use. As a life-long Ithaca resident I wanted to share my strong support for this proposal. I am a retired Professor/Athletic Trainer from Ithaca College (employed there for 43+ years) and a former intercollegiate athlete. I am keenly aware of the importance of supporting intercollegiate athletics for many reasons. Student- Athlete participants gain far more from being a part of a team than the competition with other intercollegiate teams. I have seen personal and professional development of team members for several decades through my work experience. These alumni typically have become some of an institution’s strongest supporters/donors over the years. I am quite certain that college and university athletics overall has a positive impact on the surrounding community. My direct experience with Cornell Field Hockey has been minimal. However, as the program director for our (Ithaca College) Athletic Training education program for many years, we developed a close working relationship with Cornell Athletics. Since the late 1970s our Athletic Training majors have worked with Cornell Sports Medicine professionals gaining clinical experience with various Cornell teams. I’ve always viewed this as an integral part of their education. Several, after gaining their professional credentials, have been or are currently employed at Cornell University. Typically, the Field Hockey team and working with the Sports Medicine professional staff members has been one of the important assignments for our students. It is my understanding that if the new proposal is not approved, continuation the program could be somewhat in jeopardy. Clearly, this would be an undesirable outcome for many reasons. Not the least of which may be non-compliance with Title IX (equal opportunities for female athletes) requirements. I feel if this project is not approved it would be a major setback for Cornell, it’s alumni, and local fans who support intercollegiate athletics. I do understand that there are always concerns regarding the “environment” when an artiflcial turf fleld is to be installed. However, although an important consideration, this should not deter moving forward with this important project. Field construction speciflcs must meet standards to be approved and the new turf would meet the most recent state laws refiecting environmental objectives. Cornell University, Ithaca College, and Ithaca High School all have had on campus turf flelds built and utilized for years. To my knowledge none have ever created environmental issues that have resulted in any harm to the local community. Overall, it’s my opinion that the beneflts of approving this project far outweigh any potential negative considerations. Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective regarding this project proposal and good luck with your upcoming discussions and deliberations. From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: CJ Randall Christina.Kaeding@t-online.de Town Of Ithaca Planning Re: Cornell Field Hockey Game Farm Road 2/21/2025 2:43:11 PM Received, and will be distributed to members of the Planning Board. Thanks, C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov From: Christina.Kaeding@t-online.de <Christina.Kaeding@t-online.de> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:45 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Subject: Cornell Field Hockey Game Farm Road **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Ms Randall, dear members of the Planning Board, our daughter is a freshman at Cornell University and a member of the field hockey team. She decided to join the team after much deliberation because of the warm welcome she received from coaches and team members during a visit. She made the long journey from Germany and left her local Bundesliga team (the highest division in Germany), partly because Ithaca and the beautiful scenery appealed to her. Of course, the excellent academic and athletic reputation of the university was also an important factor. Now she and we as parents are extremely shocked at the prospect that she may no longer be able to play her beloved sport during her studies. She knew that a new field hockey pitch and associated facilities were to be built on Game Farm Road. Now everything seems to be on the back burner! We understand that there are concerns from environmentalists. Let me briefly explain how the field hockey club in Potsdam, where our daughter started playing hockey, came to have a new hockey pitch. In Germany, and also in Potsdam, great importance is attached to environmental protection in many areas. Projects often cannot be realised without the approval of usually very strict nature conservation authorities. Nevertheless, two modern, unfilled artificial turf pitches were built in Potsdam in the immediate vicinity of a drinking water conservation area (700m away from a waterworks). Why was this possible? As at the Olympic Games in Tokyo and Paris, pitches were built by Polytan. This company uses among other things organic materials from sugar cane processing. Almost only organic polyethylene compounds are used. Water consumption has been significantly reduced. Abrasion during use is also significantly lower than with conventional old artificial turf pitches. The pitches are significantly more durable than normal artificial turf pitches, meaning that in terms of environmental compatibility, these modern surfaces are also more environmentally friendly than natural grass pitches, which consume a lot of water, need to be fertilised, require pesticides and need to be renewed more quickly. For this reasons, the construction of the pitches from Polytan in Potsdam was made possible. Of course we cannot tell if Polytan meets the non-PFAS and other requirements of New York state, but it is an example of how artificial turf can be installed and reflect environmental concerns. Field hockey is also only played on unfilled artificial turf pitches in Division I in the USA (to which Cornell belongs). Should the Cornell University team be forced to play on a grass field, it would be the certain end of the field hockey programme at Cornell. Decades of tradition and the work of many coaches and players to bring the university to its current level would be undone. Those were just a few thoughts from concerned parents. We thank you for your understanding and hope for a positive outcome to your review of the matter. Best regards Christina Käding und Frank Treiber Potsdam, Germany From: To: Subject: Sent: Blake Madison Wilks cjrandall@townithacany.gov; cbalestra@townithacany.gov; Game Farm Road Proposal 2/24/2025 11:59:43 AM Dear Town of Ithaca Planning board, I am a student at Cornell, and my journey with field hockey spans over ten years, including at least eight years playing at the club level. I chose Cornell because of its exceptional academics, highly competitive field hockey team, and the unique culture that sets it apart. What truly stands out about Cornell's field hockey program is its incredible team dynamic and the unwavering commitment to excellence that aligns with my dedication to developing my skills and competing at the highest level. Field hockey isn’t just a sport for me—it’s a fundamental part of my life at Cornell, shaping both my academic path and personal growth. We all have a responsibility to be more aware of the environment and make environmentally sustainable decisions, to the extent that I am taking a class on environmental conservation this semester. However, I have seen nothing in the submitted evidence to suggest that the Game Farm Road turf is not environmentally sustainable. There are studies from Sweden and Switzerland that show when artificial turf in sports facilities is viewed in a life cycle assessment context, unfilled turf can be more than or as environmentally sustainable as natural grass. As you have seen from Cornell’s submissions, the field hockey turf is unfilled. Thank you for your diligence and objectivity in considering the field hockey proposal. Blake Wilks From: To: Subject: Sent: Jo Broderick cjrandall@townithacany.gov; cbalestra@townithacany.gov; Game Farm Road Proposal 2/24/2025 12:35:05 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I have spent my career in the UK working with government at the local and national level and engaging with stakeholders on a wide range of complex policy issues. I recognise the very significant challenges faced when trying to balance competing factors and interests in decision-making, and the additional responsibilities that working as part of a volunteer committee brings. Comments at recent planning board meetings have me concerned that some people may misunderstand the role of planning in relation to wider societal concerns. It seems to me that some people that have been part of the discussion are putting forward a narrative that a negative declaration in some way would represent a lack of concern for the environment, which it does not. Our individual environmental concerns - and credentials - are entirely separate from the planning process. Each of us has personal concerns for environmental sustainability, and we all have a sense of how that should be delivered in our own lives, and in our wider society. The lack of action at national and international levels in areas such as the proliferation of plastics, global warming, and the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels are issues that, whilst we can take individual action to address, require a systemic collective societal effort for significant change to be made. We all take what steps we can, and advocate for society to be more environmentally aware and act collectively to make positive change. The planning process recognises the likelihood of, and actively encourages, community engagement. In order to do so, it is specifically constructed to manage formal consideration of concerns, providing a framework for effective scrutiny in a way that is fair and consistent, with attention to the specifics of each proposal. It provides guardrails to ensure that a hard look is taken at actual evidence to indicate a potential risk of serious harm, which can then be investigated further. It is not intended, as seemed to be implied in public comments at the last meeting, to engender environmental research because it does not currently exist, nor to commission speculative additional analysis when there is already sufficient evidence to make a decision. The planning process is designed specifically not to be a “fishing expedition” for possible environmental issues. If that were to happen, most planning applications would be drawn out for an interminably long time based on a hypothetical notion of potential risk, which is clearly not beneficial to anyone. The SEQR guidance recognises that some harms are inevitable and that the role of planning boards is to equally balance environmental with social and economic needs, and to investigate further only when there is a risk of significant adverse change. In the case of the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Project, the evidence before you is sufficient to vote for a negative environmental declaration: Cornell University has met or exceeded the standards for environmental sustainability and provided scientific research to support its plans, while no credible scientific evidence has been put forward to demonstrate environmental harm. I trust that the volume of material in front of you, and wider societal concerns over the environment which do not relate to this proposal, do not blur the clear path to a negative declaration. Thank you for all the work you do in a challenging and complex role. Jo Broderick Cornell FH parent From: To: Subject: Sent: **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Delaney Rae Keegan cjrandall@townithacany.gov; cbalestra@townithacany.gov; Game Farm Road proposal 2/24/2025 12:18:05 PM Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board My name is Delaney Keegan and I am a freshman on the Cornell FH team. My mom is a Cornell alum which played a big part in why I chose this program. My mom loved this school and I can understand why. I chose Cornell because the university and program were the best fit for me, and since being here I have found best friends within the team and athlete community at the university. Playing FH is such a fundamental part of our day to day lives here, we train for 20 hours a week in season and I see my teammates everyday of the week. It isn't just the playing that makes such a difference it is the people, we as a team spend so much time together that it makes it hard to not see us as a family, having issues with our field threatens the tight group we have now. There has been a lot of discussion about the artificial turf itself and there is clearly a strength of feeling about it. However, all of the evidence I have read doesn’t relate to the turf that field hockey needs or would be installing. There is a lot of reference to PFAS when the university has made clear that it will be using non-PFAS turf. So many of the references cited are for turf with infill, which our turf also doesn’t have. From what I have read, a lot of the health concerns – which are not supported by scientific studies – also relate to turf with infill. Based on the facts, and the submitted evidence, I can see nothing to support the argument that the proposed field at Game Farm Road represents a significant environmental risk. Thank you for your hard work in reviewing this proposal thoroughly. Delaney Keegan February 25, 2025 Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Project & SEQR Process Considerations Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Project and to urge the Planning Board to issue a negative environmental declaration under the SEQR process. By way of background, I grew up in Germany, where environmental consciousness is deeply embedded in the culture. In my household, we have always prioritized sustainability, driving fuel-efficient compact cars and opting for biking whenever possible. I also grew up playing field hockey, a sport that has remained a significant part of my life. Today, I still compete in Masters-level field hockey, representing Team USA in world cups, and I contribute to the sport as a coach in the Olympic Development Pathway (Nexus) and as a high school and club game official. My daughter, a student-athlete on the Cornell Field Hockey team, is preparing for her senior season, and I have witnessed firsthand the importance of having access to high-quality, regulation-compliant playing facilities. Professionally, I am a strategy management consultant, advising C-suite executives on complex, consequential decisions such as whether or not to acquire another company. My experience in evaluating competing claims with rigor and analytical discipline informs my approach to this debate. I strongly believe that discussions about environmental impact must be rooted in facts and should balance competing priorities through careful analysis. In my professional experience navigating complex issues with competing stakeholder interests, I prioritize focusing on the most relevant and fact-based concerns, taking issues off the table that are not relevant to the discussion. In this case, several issues raised regarding environmental and health impacts do not align with the specific realities of this project. The proposed turf field: ● Reflects the global trend in field hockey, where high-level competition universally takes place on non-filled artificial turf, as grass is not a viable option for Division I play. Those who still advocate for it do not understand the needs of the field hockey community. ● Does not use infill, eliminating concerns about ingestion of or skin contact with synthetic (mostly rubber) particles. ● Complies with upcoming state regulations banning PFAS, ensuring it meets the highest environmental safety standards. ● Incorporates a water filtration system that removes detectable microplastics, addressing runoff concerns. ● Uses water for playability, which also maintains a consistent surface temperature. Watering the field reduces friction between the ball and the turf, as well as between players' sticks and the surface, ensuring smoother and faster gameplay. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of field hockey at the Division I level, where precision and speed are key aspects of competition. 1 ● Is consistent with international standards, aligning with best practices followed in environmentally progressive nations such as the Netherlands and Germany, both leading nations in field hockey. ● Additionally, arguments suggesting that the Planning Board should set an unprecedented level of environmental review by issuing a positive SEQR declaration for this project, while arguments are not brought forth opposing the approval of other projects, raise concerns about selective targeted scrutiny by the advocacy group. Examples of projects not opposed by Zero Waste Ithaca include a gas station and fast-food redevelopment a mere mile away, which introduces its own environmental concerns, including PFAS and heavy metals in building materials, petroleum leaks, and contamination risks associated with underground storage tanks. Is the Zero Waste Ithaca campaign as much about targeting Cornell itself as it is about the issues? Additionally, I play Masters field hockey myself as it is truly a sport for all ages and have many friends who play with pride in age groups up to Over-70 in competitions internationally. They and I have played on artificial turf for decades, and I don’t know anyone across the player, coach, and umpire communities—hundreds of people—who has experienced negative health implications from field hockey-specific turf. While this is not a scientifically rigorous data point, it is a significant anecdotal indicator that such concerns may be overstated. The argument for requiring a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), which has been mentioned in some letters to the Planning Board, hinges on whether there is a reasonable expectation of significant cumulative environmental impacts from multiple related projects. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's SEQR process (https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/seqr/stepping-through-process), a GEIS is appropriate when a project is part of a larger, long-term plan that could have wide-ranging environmental effects. In the case of the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Project, opponents now seem to be suggesting that it should be evaluated within the context of a long-term master plan. However, Cornell University confirmed in the Planning Board meeting on December 17, 2024 that no such master plan exists. While the 2015 master planning concept showed the potential development of more sports fields, this is no longer feasible due to the presence of power transmission lines that require a 225-foot exclusion zone, significantly reducing the density of future development. Additionally, burying these power lines underground would be “astronomically” expensive, estimated at $20 million, with no certainty of approval from the utility company. From discussions with the university administration as field hockey parents, we know that Cornell has historically relied on a combination of university funds and philanthropy to finance athletic projects, meaning that each project must secure independent funding before proceeding. Indeed, this is reflected in the projected “in the next five years” timeline for phasing of the Field Hockey project. Given these constraints, the university cannot realistically commit to a multi-year expansion plan. Without a concrete, multi-phase development strategy and secured funding, requiring a GEIS would be impractical, speculative, and not in accordance with the NYS SEQR guidance. As outlined in the SEQR process, environmental reviews should be based on 2 known, defined projects rather than hypothetical future scenarios. Thus, a positive SEQR declaration and a GEIS are not justified in this case. I appreciate that having a fact-based discourse about any project is a key requirement of the SEQR process. That requires mutual respect and an understanding of the perspective of those with opposing views. I have reviewed in great detail the sources cited by Zero Waste Ithaca, including approximately 60 duplicate entries, and analyzed them on their merits. In doing so, with the support of more qualified parents, I came to the conclusion that none of the 89 peer-reviewed scientific studies supports the hypothesis that watered field-hockey specific turf harms the environment or humans. I would like to ask if Zero Waste Ithaca’s approach actually seeks to balance in any way, as SEQR requires, environmental with social and economic needs? I ask this because the scenario they advocate ignores the needs of the Cornell field hockey team and the broader field hockey community despite a clear lack of evidence of potential harm, creating a scenario where they may never have a replacement field. Furthermore, while I cannot predict the future or definitively state that no scientific studies might prove a link between this type of artificial turf and environmental or health concerns at some distant point in the future, this raises an important question: Is it appropriate public policy to deny over 1,000 people annually—including student-athletes, opposing teams, camp participants, and local club and recreational teams—the ability to pursue their athletic dreams, their chosen lifestyle, or their hobby, based solely on an unsubstantiated concern? The absence of evidence is not evidence of harm, and policy decisions should be based on rigorously established scientific findings rather than speculative worries. The SEQR process mandates a determination based on available information in a specific 20-day time window; an EIS follows where that information identifies that there is a risk of significant harm and investigates that risk in more detail. What is being proposed by opponents of the project seeks to use the EIS to artificially extend the window for provision of information, rather than investigating an identified risk as it should, in order to arbitrarily lengthen the time frame and create delay. The Cornell University Field Hockey Program plays a vital role in the athletic and academic community, providing opportunities for student-athletes to excel at the highest levels. The proposed field will ensure that these athletes have the necessary facilities to train and compete while also benefiting the broader community through camps and club usage. I urge the Planning Board to consider the facts before you now and to issue a negative environmental declaration, allowing this important project to move forward without unnecessary delay. It would be a shame for these young women to be subjected to a lengthy environmental review which would be unlikely to bring forward any relevant additional scientifically rigorous peer-reviewed studies on which to base a better decision than today, leaving us to reconvene in 6-9 months facing the same ruling as now. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Marian Mueller 3 From: To: Subject: Sent: Chris Balestra Town Of Ithaca Planning FW: Game Farm Road 2/25/2025 9:47:21 AM Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacany.gov From: Kristen O Ramsey <koramsey@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:04 AM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: Game Farm Road **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Ms. Balestra, As the Senior Planner on the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, we are writing in strong support of the Cornell Field Hockey Game Farm Road Proposal and in equally strong opposition to any additional environmental analysis suggested by Zero Waste Ithaca. We are extremely involved in the Cornell Field Hockey Program, its players and coaches as parents who have had 2 daughters play on the Cornell Field Hockey Team for the past 6 years. Our older daughter Caroline Ramsey played on the Cornell Field Hockey Team from 2019-2023. Because of her ability to practice and play on Cornell’s previous water- based field hockey specific sports field, Caroline has ascended to the Senior National Team proudly representing team USA. Recognizing that the current situation where the Cornell Field Hockey Team is potentially without a field for the Fall 2025 is no fault of the Ithaca Town Planning Board, we are respectively requesting that you strongly consider approval of this plan without any additional environmental studies. Kristen served as a board member for the Harding Land Trust in Harding, New Jersey for 6 years. Additionally, we are involved in the Open Space Institute and have a home in the Beaverkill Valley that is located within the Catskills State Park. Land and water preservation and stewardship are very important to us. The water-based turf field the NCAA Division I requires its participants to play on does not pose a threat to the adjacent land or waterways or to the players. There is no crumb rubber or PFAS on this type of turf field. In fact, this field with a water filtration system could be considered cleaner and more environmentally sound than grass fields as grass playing fields require continuous applications of pesticides and herbicides that run off into nearby waterways. Please look at the science or lack thereof from groups like Zero Waste Ithaca as you consider your ruling on this proposal. In addition, please consider the practical consequences if the board choses to proceed with this environmental study. The Cornell Field Hockey Team which was ranked in the top 20 in 2023 will not be able to practice or play within 50 miles of Ithaca for the unforeseen future should a ruling in favor of a positive SEQR declaration occur. This would result in many players quitting the team and others choosing not to come to Cornell in the future which would severely negatively impact this program. These student athletes take their studies as seriously as their sports and devote many hours to each every week. Traveling to Syracuse to play is not a viable option. Cornell University is working diligently to utilize environmentally responsible engineering when planning this project. We believe that the evidence that they have thoughtfully and diligently provided demonstrates that there is no significant risk that would warrant further environmental analysis. Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful consideration, Kristen and Patrick Ramsey 1 Summary of my letter • As a pediatrician, pediatric subspecialist, child health researcher and mother of a Cornell fleld hockey student-athlete, I explain the key approaches to interpreting the scientific evidence: hypothesis testing, peer review, and association versus causation, to aid the Planning Board in drawing their own conclusions. • I present a brief review of the evidence: There is no evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to support the hypothesis that the proposed field hockey turf would be harmful to human health or the environment. • I present examples to highlight the faulty logic underlying the idea that to be environmentally conscious, one needs to reject the proposed fleld hockey turf. • The philosophical issue of the balance between development and the environment is fascinating but beyond the scope of the question of the fleld hockey turf in front of the Planning Board to decide. • Microplastics are ubiquitous in consumer products and the environment . There is zero scientific evidence that the field hockey turf will contribute to the Earth’s microplastics problems in any measurable manner, and the conundrum of the ubiquity of microplastics on Earth is not in front of the Planning Board to solve. • A Positive Declaration would significantly endanger the 53-year Cornell Division I Varsity Field Hockey Program. The NCAA and FIH (international fleld hockey federation) require the proposed type of fleld hockey turf, but one does not currently exist at Cornell, in Ithaca, or anywhere within a 50 mile radius, leading to a domino effect with a severe impact on the fall 2025 (and possibly fall 2026 and beyond) season and ongoing uncertainties leading to the loss of current athletes who may be forced to transfer to other colleges, coupled with the inability to recruit athletes for the future. • A Positive Declaration would thus end the athletic careers of the current rising senior class and cause the other current and incoming student-athletes on the team to consider transferring to another program, all of which would result in significant mental health harm to these young women. • On the other hand, neither a Positive nor a Negative Declaration would measurably impact the lives of Ithaca’s residents or the group opposed to the fleld hockey turf. • Thus, I respectfully ask the Planning Board to focus on the question at hand, which is whether there is evidence that the proposed field hockey turf would lead to significant environmental impact, and vote for a Negative Declaration. 2 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing to you as a board-certifled pediatrician and pediatric subspecialist, a child health researcher, and the mother of a Cornell fleld hockey student-athlete. The Researcher’s Approach to Testing Hypotheses As the members of the Ithaca Planning Board who currently or previously worked in STEM flelds know, in reviewing the scientiflc evidence for a hypothesis, it is important to carefully weigh whether the scientiflc studies that we use to argue that our hypothesis is correct provide evidence for our specific hypothesis or not. If one formulates the hypothesis that building the proposed fleld hockey turf at Cornell’s Game Farm Road is harmful to the environment or to the health of the players, then one needs to provide scientiflc evidence to support this statement. Simply stated, such scientific evidence does not exist. A Brief Review of the Scientific Evidence as it Pertains to the Proposed Field Hockey Turf I have reviewed the list of “peer-reviewed studies” presented by the group Zero Waste Ithaca on their website to support their opposition to artiflcial turf, as well as the studies mentioned by letter writers addressed to the Planning Board, and have found the following: Most references cited were not peer-reviewed studies. I excluded these, as peer-reviewed publications are the gold standard for scientiflc studies. Peer-review means that before deciding to publish a study, the scientiflc journal sends the study to a number of independent scientists who are experts in the subject matter of the study and who provide feedback on whether the study is scientiflcally rigorous enough that it warrants publication in the scientiflc journal. Examples of excluded references that were not peer-reviewed included a poster presented at a conference which is, by deflnition, not a peer-reviewed published study that medical professionals would consider as evidence and base their practice on, a study manuscript that has been posted publicly but not yet peer-reviewed, and opinion pieces, news articles, position statements, etc. Exhibit 1: Review of 89 peer-reviewed studies referenced in the bibliography of Zero Waste Ithaca and in letters to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board 89 54 22 13 Total references Not artifical turf Turf with infill Not FH turf Relevant scientific studies 0 3 After the exclusions, there were a total of 89 peer-reviewed studies. Of these, 54 studies were not relevant to the hypothesis presented by those opposing the Game Farm Road development, that the proposed fleld hockey turf would be harmful to the environment or to humans, because they were not studies about artiflcial turf. A further 22 studies were not relevant because their subject was artiflcial turf with inflll or crumb rubber, which is not the type of turf that is proposed. An additional 13 studies were not relevant because their subject was turf that was not only not the speciflc type of turf that is proposed, but not even in the general category of fleld hockey turf. These included studies whose subject was football turf, general use recreational turf, park coverings, playground turf, as well as laminate fiooring. Please refer to the tables at the end of my letter with a categorized list of the 89 studies. The peer-reviewed studies brought forth all demonstrate: • a subject of the study that is unrelated to the speciflcs of the fleld hockey turf proposal, • measured outcomes that are not relevant to the proposal, • or conclusions that are vague and call for further study. In addition to the exclusion criteria listed above, many studies exhibited additional exclusion criteria. Some studies were in vitro (in a test tube) cell studies and animal model studies, both of which are considered data that the scientiflc community does not use to directly extrapolate to and make decisions about humans. Other studies discussed PFAS, yet the proposed fleld hockey turf does not have PFAS in it. Some studies clearly stated as their conclusions that the turfs studied pose no danger to users and that the question of environmental impact is theoretical, or that human studies don’t exist, and thus call for data on humans to be explored in the future. That leaves us with zero studies that demonstrate a relationship between the artificial turf in the proposal for the field hockey turf, and any harm caused to the environment or people. Why it is Important to Approach a Review of the Literature with Scientific Rigor We have to be very mindful of how we interpret the scientiflc literature and what conclusions we draw from it. Inundating the zone with a long list of references does not in and of itself refiect scientiflc rigor or an evidence base for a speciflc hypothesis. As a practicing physician, I have to ensure that when I read a study, I don’t jump to conclusions about the study’s flndings and extrapolate from the study population or study conditions to a different population that I am treating. I also have to be cognizant of whether a relationship that is seen in a study between two conditions is an association or is truly causative. In the studies presented by Zero Waste Ithaca, there is no overlap between the subject of each study and the proposed turf, much less any type of causal relationship between such turf and human or environmental outcomes. The Difference between Association and Causation – and the Lack of Both in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature on Field Hockey Turf Even if there was a relationship found between the proposed fleld hockey turf and negative health or environmental outcomes, that would still not imply causation. This means that from the scientiflc perspective, there would have to be studies that clearly demonstrate not only that people or the environment are harmed when fleld hockey turfs like the proposed one are built, but that it is 4 the turf itself that is causing this harm, and not some other factor. An exaggerated example to explain the need to prove both association AND causation is as follows. If we install the fleld hockey turf and then see a statistically signiflcant increase in fleld hockey players sustaining concussions, we could assume that the fleld hockey turf is causing harm to the players. But upon closer examination, we may discover that the ASSOCIATION may be statistically signiflcant, but it is likely not CAUSATIVE, as the use of fleld hockey turfs is associated with the use of fleld hockey sticks, and fleld hockey balls, and it may in fact be the use of fleld hockey sticks or the balls that is causative of the observed increase in concussions. Thus, if we blame the turf for the concussions, we would not be correct in our assessment of the situation. There is NO scientific evidence that there is an association, much less causation, between the proposed field hockey turf and player health or environmental outcomes. Listening to the Opposition: The Lack of Evidence for Turf Causing Harm as Explained by Studies that Zero Waste Ithaca Posted on their Website For a study to support the hypothesis that the proposed fleld hockey turf would be harmful to the athletes or the environment, it would have to show multiple causative connections: this speciflc turf type causing human illness or causing environmental impact that in turn causes human or wildlife injury. In each of the studies brought forth, multiple links in this logic chain are missing. I will quote a reference from the Zero Waste Ithaca website, with the caveat that this systematic review also does not study the proposed turf type. Nonetheless, it summarizes the state of the literature on other types of turf better than I could: “A systematic review of databases revealed 5673 articles of which 30 were deemed eligible […] Definitive conclusions were unable to be derived on the human health risks posed to users of artificial turf under real-world exposure scenarios. Future studies are recommended to explore the risks associated with the potential synergistic toxicities of chemical mixtures found in artificial turf.” (Ryan-Ndegwa et al. "Exploring the Human Health Impact of Artiflcial Turf Worldwide: A Systematic Review." Environmental Health Insights, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241306291.) Putting the Lack of Evidence of Harm in Perspective: Of Field Hockey Turfs and Racecars To put the lack of evidence into perspective, one can compare it to levels of evidence on common child health topics. There is overwhelming scientiflc evidence that car seats and bicycle helmets save children’s lives, so all experts agree and there are laws for child car seat use and bike helmet use. On the other hand, the evidence on the causes of and solutions for childhood obesity and for teen driving deaths are less clear. We know that walking and riding bikes instead of driving everywhere is good for kids to combat obesity and other health issues, and that teen driving deaths involve cars. Yet all of these concerning public health issues don’t mean that we should ban the Cornell Engineering Project Teams from building and racing cars as part of their educational journey, or the athletes who are Formula One racecar drivers from doing what they have trained for and dreamt of their whole lives. 5 • First, it would be unfair to single out one small group of individuals, in this case the Cornell Engineering students who participate in Project Teams, to bear the brunt and suffering of doing something for the greater good. • Second, Project Teams building cars does not measurably contribute to the problem of childhood obesity and teen driving deaths in New York State, the US, or the world. • Third, shutting down the Project Teams wouldn’t measurably contribute to solving the problem of childhood obesity and/or teen driving deaths. Solutions for childhood obesity and teen driving deaths, while extremely important, need to be found outside of the realm of Cornell Engineering Project Team students. The same arguments apply to the Cornell Division I Varsity Field Hockey Team’s contributions to the global issue of microplastics in the environment. Our daughters and their field hockey turf are not responsible for the Earth’s microplastics problem and aren’t contributing to it measurably by playing on the proposed field hockey turf so we shouldn’t target the hard-earned dreams of a group of innocent young women without scientific evidence to validate our choice of target. It would be unfair to force them into a life-changing disproportionate sacriflce for a problem that they and their turf are not measurably contributing to, whose solution their life-changing sacriflce would not measurably impact. A Positive Declaration would translate to exactly that, as the international governing body for fleld hockey (FIH) and the NCAA require a certain type of artiflcial turf for the sport to be played, so a Positive Declaration would signiflcantly endanger a storied 53- year-old Division I Field Hockey program and thus the athletic careers of the young women on this team. Taking away their ability to play NCAA Division I sports would be devastating. It would also be an irresponsible, deeply unfair, and irrational decision. To stay with our theoretical example, if cars are banned at the national and international level one day, then, sure, we can go ahead and ban the Project Teams. Similarly, given Zero Waste Ithaca’s concern about the environmental impact of artiflcial turf, it would be reasonable for them to advocate for national governments and international institutions as well as the governing bodies of each sport to provide the funding to scientists to conduct careful research into the health and environmental impact of such turfs. If evidence from carefully conducted research one day shows that a different path forward is better, and laws and international sports rules are changed, then it will make sense to abide by those rules. But in the meantime, given the lack of evidence, we should not be jumping to actions that are not supported by sound reasoning or scientiflc evidence. In other words, we shouldn’t make an innocent group operating within the conflnes of current scientiflc evidence and current laws and current sports rules become collateral damage in a campaign not supported by scientiflc evidence. As it stands, the advocacy campaign to block the fleld hockey team’s turf is as if they are trying to slay the dragon of microplastics but are killing the innocent puppy that is sitting next to the dragon instead. 6 Environmental Stewardship is Important The questions that Zero Waste Ithaca is asking are extremely relevant, and I applaud them for their passion. I very much appreciate their general mission and share many of the group’s goals and values. For example, I regularly shop at Zero Waste stores, and I am an avid user and supporter of my local branch of the regifting/waste reducing program Buy Nothing, which Zero Waste Ithaca supports in Ithaca. We all need to look within ourselves to choose our own sacriflces to protect the environment. However, we should not campaign to force others to become sacrificial lambs for environmental causes with no scientific evidence base. Microplastics in Consumer Products and the Environment: Important Philosophical Excursions Not Relevant to the Question in Front of the Ithaca Planning Board The debate on the balance of development and industry versus nature and health, with its wide- ranging interconnected issues and consequences, is a highly philosophical one. Yes, anything that is built in nature is at a philosophical (and practical) level impinging on nature, but that fact does not mean that we can and should all move into the woods, sleeping under trees, naked, eating wild berries. That would deflnitely be better for the environment, but there are many confiicting values and practical considerations on why we will all not be doing that. Similarly, the ubiquity of microplastics throughout the environment and in most accoutrements of everyday living in industrialized nations is an important and extremely complex topic for humankind to address. It is similar to the issue of using fossil fuels vs. nuclear energy vs. wind energy. There are many stakeholders, complex societal impacts, complicated international politics: the solution to this issue is not currently in front of the Ithaca Planning Board. Similarly, the theoretical question of society shifting away from using artiflcial turf, or the theoretical question of society shifting away from houses, cars, airplanes, refrigerators, smartphones, clothes, processed junk food or overnight deliveries of packages, is highly complex with many downstream effects, and is not in front of the Planning Board. The mandate of the Planning Board is to determine whether the proposed fleld hockey turf will have a signiflcant negative impact on humans and the environment and to weigh the environmental impact versus the social impact of the project. Solving the philosophical conundrum of nature versus development, or the societal question of microplastics in many consumer products is not relevant to and is beyond the scope of the question at hand, which is to decide, based on the available facts and scientiflc evidence, whether there is evidence to indicate that the proposed fleld hockey turf would harm the environment or people. Such evidence does not exist. What There IS Evidence For: A Negative Effect of a Positive Declaration for the Future of Cornell Field Hockey and the Mental Health of Student-Athletes While there is no scientiflc evidence that there will be a negative environmental or health impact of the fleld hockey turf, there would be a devastating impact on and irreparable harm to the group of young women who are current and future Cornell Division I Varsity Field Hockey student-athletes 7 associated with a Positive Declaration. There is no alternative to the proposed fleld hockey turf per NCAA and FIH Guidelines: Given the timeline that a Positive Declaration entails, even under the best of circumstances, it would signiflcantly endanger the existence of the Cornell Division 1 Field Hockey Team, and depending on how long the next steps would take, it would have the potential to effectively destroy the Program. Please vote for a Negative Declaration, indicating that there is no evidence that the proposed field hockey turf will harm the environment or humans I respectfully request that the Planning Board be very intentional about focusing on the key question of whether laying down the proposed fleld hockey turf, which is a replacement for the turf that has existed for many years in Ithaca, to allow the Cornell Division I Varsity Field Hockey Team to continue to compete and exist, is harmful to the athletes or the environment. Please don’t be distracted by the confusing noise of topics not relevant to the speciflc issue and weigh your decision on a vote for a Negative Declaration based on the facts, as well as on the serious consequences of your decision. The Outcome of Your Vote Will Deeply Affect the Cornell Field Hockey Team Positively or Negatively, But Will Not Affect the Residents of Ithaca Measurably Either Way A No Vote on the SEQR The young women of the Cornell Division I Varsity Field Hockey Team are extremely ambitious, inspiring student-athletes who have worked hard for years to achieve what they have, who were ranked 17th in the country last year. If you vote no on the SEQR, you will be voting based on the fact that there is NO scientiflc evidence indicating that the proposed fleld hockey turf would be harmful to the environment or to people. In that case, these young women will be able to continue to play their sport, grow as human beings, and represent their university – and Ithaca - with pride. At the same time, there is no evidence to indicate that there will be measurable harm to the environment or to the lives of the people of Ithaca. A Yes Vote on the SEQR Conversely, if you were to vote yes on the SEQR, the impact on these same student-athletes would be irreparable harm. As the NCAA requires this type of turf fleld for Division I competition, and there is no such turf available anywhere in Ithaca or its surroundings, and there is simply no alternative to the proposed turf, a yes vote would abruptly end the college athletic careers of the rising seniors among these women and signiflcantly endanger the experience of each of these young women and subsequent generations, leading to signiflcant mental health harm to these women who have worked extremely hard for many years to achieve their dream of playing their sport at the college Division I level, as well as impacting all the women who came before them and fought so hard for women’s sports and to make the Cornell University Division I Field Hockey Program what it is today. At the same time, there is no evidence to indicate that the quality of life or health of Ithaca’s residents or the environment would improve based on the absence of the proposed field hockey turf. In other words, the difference between a yes and no vote will be the difference between the devastation of a traumatic life-changing event for the student-athletes affected, who will lose 8 something that has deflned who they are and what they have worked hard for during their entire childhood and early adulthood, versus the opportunity to continue to chase their dreams. For the Ithaca community members who oppose the turf, meanwhile, the difference between a yes and a no vote will not measurably change their lives in either direction. In summary: 1. The question that needs to be decided is whether the proposed fleld hockey turf is likely to cause human or environmental harm. The question is NOT whether microplastics, which are ubiquitous in the environment and many consumer products, need further attention and research and legislation nationally and internationally. 2. There is NO evidence that the proposed fleld hockey turf is harmful to human health or the environment. If there were any indications of such harm, as a mother and pediatrician and child health researcher, I would not support my daughters in playing fleld hockey on such turf. Thus, I respectfully ask that the Planning Board Members vote for a Negative Declaration. Thank you very much for your willingness to serve on the Planning Board and for all your hard work on this decision. I truly appreciate your service. Respectfully, Beatrice Lechner MD Associate Professor of Pediatrics (retired) Alpert Medical School of Brown University Table 1: Peer-Reviewed Studies Which Do Not Study Artificial Turf (alphabetical order) # Study 1 Abad López, Angela Patricia, Jorge Trilleras, Victoria A. Arana, Luz Stella Garcia-Alzate, and Carlos David Grande-Tovar. "Atmospheric Microplastics: Exposure, Toxicity, and Detrimental Health Effects." RSC Advances 13 (March 2023): 7468-7489. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA07098G 2 Aini, Sofl Azilan, Achmad Syafluddin, and Grace-Anne Bent. "The Presence of Microplastics in Air Environment and Their Potential Impacts on Health." Environmental and Toxicology Management 2, no. 1 (2022): 31-39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360292351_presence_of_microplastics_in_air_environment_and_their_potential_impa cts_on_health 3 Barton, J, Rogerson, M. “The Importance of Greenspace for Mental Health.” BJPsych International. November 1, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5663018/ 4 Brown, Erina, Anna MacDonald, Steve Allen, Deonie Allen. “The Potential for a Plastic Recycling Facility to Release Microplastic Pollution and Possible Filtration Remediation Effectiveness.” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100309 5 Campen, Matthew, Alexander Nihart, Marcus Garcia, Rui Liu, Marian Olewine, Eliseo Castillo, Barry Bleske, Justin Scott, Tamara Howard, Jorge Gonzalez-Estrella, Natalie Adolphi, Daniel Gallego, and Eliane El Hayek. "Bioaccumulation of Microplastics in Decedent Human Brains Assessed by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry." Preprint. National Institutes of Health. 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11100893/ 6 Carmona, Eric, Elisa Rojo-Nieto, Christoph D. Rummel, Martin Krauss, Kristian Syberg, Tiffany M. Ramos, Sara Brosche, Thomas Backhaus, and Bethanie Carney Almroth. “A Dataset of Organic Pollutants Identifled and Quantifled in Recycled Polyethylene Pellets.” Data in Brief 51 (2023): 109740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109740 9 7 Chand, Rupa, Lucian Iordachescu, Frida Bäckbom, Angelica Andreasson, Cecilia Bertholds, Emelie Pollack, Marziye Molazadeh, Claudia Lorenz, Asbjørn Haaning Nielsen, and Jes Vollertsen. "Treating Wastewater for Microplastics to a Level on Par with Nearby Marine Waters." Water Research 256 (June 1, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.121647 8 Chartres, Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science & Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524 9 Cousins, I, Johansson, J, Salter, M et al. “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfiuoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science Technology 56 (2022): 11172−9. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765?download=true 10 Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Beneflts of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121 11 Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Beneflts of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121 12 Devon C. Payne-Sturges, Tanya Khemet Taiwo, Kristie Ellickson, Haley Mullen, Nedelina Tchangalova, Laura Anderko, Aimin Chen, and Maureen Swanson. “Disparities in Toxic Chemical Exposures and Associated Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review and Systematic Evidence Map of the Epidemiological Literature” Environmental Health Perspectives. July 29, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11750 13 Díaz, Sandra, Josef Settele, Eduardo Brondizio, H. T. Ngo, et al. "Pervasive Human-Driven Decline of Life on Earth Points to the Need for Transformative Change." Science 366, no. 6471 (2019): eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 14 Dong, Yuping, Helin Liu, and Tianming Zheng. 2021. "The Impacts of Green Space Structure on Asthma in Toronto, Canada" Medical Sciences Forum 4, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ECERPH-3-09123 15 Gaber, Nadia, Lisa Bero, and Tracey J. Woodruff. “The Devil They Knew: Chemical Documents Analysis of Industry Infiuence on PFAS Science.” Annals of Global Health 89, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4013 16 Gaston, Kevin J., and Alejandro Sánchez de Miguel. "Environmental Impacts of Artiflcial Light at Night." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47 (2022): 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-014438 17 Geueke B, Phelps DW, Parkinson LV, Muncke J. Hazardous Chemicals in Recycled and Reusable Plastic Food Packaging. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. May 22, 2023. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-prisms- plastics/article/hazardous-chemicals-in-recycled-and-reusable-plastic-food- packaging/BBDE514AAFE9F1ABB3D677927B343342 18 Hahladakis, John N., Costas A. Velis, Roland Weber, Eleni Tacovidou, Phil Purnell. “An Overview of Chemical Additives Present in Plastics: Migration, Release, Fate and Environmental Impact During Their Use, Disposal and Recycling.” Journal of Hazardous Materials. February 15, 2018. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438941730763X?via%3Dihub 19 Heisler, J., P.M. Gilbert, J.M. Burkholder, et al. "Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Scientiflc Consensus." Harmful Algae, vol. 8, no. 1, December 2008, pp. 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2008.08.006. 20 Hiltner, Sofla, Emily Eaton, Noel Healy, Andrew Scerri, Jennie C. Stephens, and Geoffrey Supran. "Fossil Fuel Industry Infiuence in Higher Education: A Review and a Research Agenda." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, flrst published Septembe r 5, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.904 21 Huang, B. (2004). Recent advances in drought and heat stress physiology of turfgrass - A review. Acta Hortic. 661, 185-192. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.661.23 22 Huang, B. (2008). MECHANISMS AND STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DROUGHT RESISTANCE IN TURFGRASS . Acta Hortic. 783, 221-228. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.22 23 Jin, Haibo, Tan Ma, Xiaoxuan Sha, Zhenyu Liu, Yuan Zhou, Xiannan Meng, Yabing Chen, Xiaodong Han, and Jie Ding. "Polystyrene Microplastics Induced Male Reproductive Toxicity in Mice." Journal of Hazardous Materials 401 (January 5, 2021): 123430. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389420314199 24 Khalid, Noreen, Muhammad Aqeel, and Ali Noman. "Microplastics Could Be a Threat to Plants in Terrestrial Systems Directly or Indirectly." Environmental Pollution 267 (December 2020): 115653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115653 25 Kim JI, Kim BN, Lee YA, Shin CH, Hong YC, Dossing LD, Hilderbrandt G, Lim YH. “Association Between Early-Childhood Exposure to Perfiuoroalkyl Substances and ADHD Symptoms: A Prospective Cohort Study.” Science of the Total Environment. April 4, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163081 26 Lee, Chiang-Wen, Lee-Fen Hsu, I.-Lin Wu, et al. "Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics Impairs Hippocampus-Dependent Learning and Memory in Mice." Journal of Hazardous Materials 430 (May 15, 2022): 128431. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389422002199 27 Leonard, Jamie, Sujith Ravi, and Sanjay K. Mohanty. "Preferential Emission of Microplastics from Biosolid-Applied Agricultural Soils: Field Evidence and Theoretical Framework." Environmental Science & Technology Letters 11, no. 2 (2024): 136 –142. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00850 28 Levine, Hagai, Niels Jørgensen, Anderson Martino-Andrade, Jaime Mendiola, Dan Weksler-Derri, Maya Jolles, Rachel Pinotti, and Shanna H. Swan. “Temporal Trends in Sperm Count: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis of Samples Collected Globally in the 20th and 21st Centuries." Human Reproduction Update 29, no. 2 (2023): 157 –76. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmac035 29 Li, Nan, Yun Liu, George D. Papandonatos, Antonia M. Calafat, Charles B. Eaton, Karl T. Kelsey, Kim M. Cecil et al. “Gestational and Childhood Exposure to Per- and Polyfiuoroalkyl Substances and Cardiometabolic Risk at Age 12 Years.” Environment International 147 (2021): 106344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106344 10 30 Liu, Megan, Sicco H. Brandsma, and Erika Schreder. “From E-Waste to Living Space: Flame Retardants Contaminating Household Items Add to Concern About Plastic Recycling.” Chemosphere 365 (2024): 143319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.143319 31 Lohmann et al. (2020) Are fiuoropolymers really of low concern for human and environmental health and separate from other PFAS? Environmental Science & Technology, 54(20), 12820-12828. 32 Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555 33 Mehmood, Tariq, and Licheng Peng. "Polyethylene Scaffold Net and Synthetic Grass Fragmentation: A Source of Microplastics in the Atmosphere?" Journal of Hazardous Materials 429 (May 2022): 128391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128391 34 Messmer, Mindi F., Jeffrey Salloway, Nawar Shara, Ben Locwin, Megan W. Harvey, and Nora Traviss. “Risk of Cancer in a Community Exposed to Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances.” Environmental Health Insights 16 (2022): 11786302221076707. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221076707 35 Oh, Jiwon, Deborah H. Bennett, Antonia M. Calafat, Daniel Tancredi, Dorcas L. Roa, Rebecca J. Schmidt, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, and Hyeong-Moo Shin. “Prenatal Exposure to Per- and Polyfiuoroalkyl Substances in Association with Autism Spectrum Disorder in the MARBLES Study.” Environment International 147 (2021): 106328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106328 36 Park, Byung-Geon, Cheoljae Lee, Young-Jun Kim, Jinhyoung Park, Hyeok Kim, Young Jung, Jong Soo Ko, Sang-Woo Kim, Ju-Hyuck Lee, Hanchul Cho. “Toxic Micro/Nano Particles Removal in Water via Triboelectric Nanogenerator.” Nano Energy, 2022; 100: 107433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2022.107433 37 Ragnarsdóttir, Oddný , Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Stuart Harrad. “Dermal Bioavailability of Perfiuoroalkyl Substances Using in Vitro 3D Human Skin Equivalent Models,” Environment International. June, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108772 38 Rickard, Brittany P., Imran Rizvi, and Suzanne E. Fenton. "Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Female Reproductive Outcomes: PFAS Elimination, Endocrine-Mediated Effects, and Disease.” Toxicology 465 (2022): 153031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.153031 39 Royer, Sarah-Jeanne, Sara Ferrón, Samuel T. Wilson, and David M. Karl. "Production of Methane and Ethylene from Plastic in the Environment." PLOS ONE 13, no. 8 (2018): e0200574. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574 40 Salthammer, Tunga. Microplastics and their Additives in the Indoor Environment 41 Silva, Ana L.P., Joana C. Prata, Armando C. Duarte, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares, Damià Barceló, Teresa Rocha-Santos. “Microplastics in Landflll Leachates: The Need for Reconnaissance Studies and Remediation Technologies.” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100072 42 Silva, Ana L.P., Joana C. Prata, Armando C. Duarte, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares, Damià Barceló, Teresa Rocha-Santos. “Microplastics in Landflll Leachates: The Need for Reconnaissance Studies and Remediation Technologies.” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100072 43 Silvia Casabianca, Samuela Capellacci, et al. Plastic-associated harmful microalgal assemblages in marine environment, Environmental Pollution, Volume 244, 2019, Pages 617-626, ISSN 0269-7491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.110. 44 Soltanighias, Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfiuoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133. 45 Stoett, Peter, Vitória M. Scrich, Carla I. Elliff, Mariana M. Andrade, Natalia de M. Grilli, Alexander Turra, “Global Plastic Pollution, Sustainable Development, and Plastic Justice, World Development.” World Development. December 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106756 46 Sun T, Wang W, Chan Z. 2024. How do cool-season turfgrasses respond to high temperature: progress and challenges. Grass Research 4: e010 doi: 10.48130/grares-0024-0008 47 Tarafdar, Abhrajyoti, Min-Ju Oh, Quynh Nguyen-Phuong, and Jung-Hwan Kwon. “Proflling and Potential Cancer Risk Assessment on Children Exposed to PAHs in Playground Dust/Soil: A Comparative Study on Poured Rubber Surfaced and Classical Soil Playgrounds in Seoul.” Environmental Geochemistry and Health. May 27, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653 -019-00334-2 48 Tokunaga, Yurika, Hiroshi Okochi, Yuto Tani, Yasuhiro Niida, Toshio Tachibana, Kazuo Saigawa, Kinya Katayama, Sachiko Moriguc hi, Takuya Kato, and Shin-ichi Hayama. "Airborne Microplastics Detected in the Lungs of Wild Birds in Japan." Chemosphere 321 (April 2023): 138032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138032 49 University of Birmingham. “New Study Conflrms Forever Chemicals are Absorbed Through Human Skin.” Phys.Org. June 24, 2024. https://phys.org/news/2024-06-chemicals-absorbed-human-skin.amp 50 Watkins, Lisa, Susan McGrattan, Patrick J. Sullivan, and M. Todd Walter. "The Effect of Dams on River Transport of Microplast ic Pollution." Science of The Total Environment 664 (2019): 834-840. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719305078?via%3Dihub 51 Younan D, Tuvblad C, Li L, Wu J, Lurmann F, Franklin M, Berhane K, McConnell R, Wu AH, Baker LA, Chen JC. “Environmental Determinants of Aggression in Adolescents: Role of Urban Neighborhood Greenspace.” Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. July 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.002. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27343886/ 52 Zhai, X., X.-H. Zhang, Min Yu. Microbial colonization and degradation of marine microplastics in the plastisphere: A review. Frontiers Microbiology. 16 February 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1127308 53 Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 54 Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 11 Table 2: Peer-Reviewed Studies of Artificial Turf with Infill (alphabetical order) # Study 1 Bø, S.M., Bohne, R.A. & Lohne, J. “Environmental Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05689-3 2 Celeiro, M., Armada, D., Ratola, N., Dagnac, T., de Boer, J., and Llompart, M. "Evaluation of Chemicals of Environmental Concern in Crumb Rubber and Water Leachates from Several Types of Synthetic Turf Football Pitches." Chemosphere 270 (May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128610. 3 Donald, Carey E., Richard P. Scott, Glenn Wilson, Peter D. Hoffman, and Kim A. Anderson. “Artificial Turf: Chemical Flux and Development of Silicone Wristband Partitioning Coefficients.” Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 12 (2019): 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00680-1 4 Englart, John. Literature Review on Environmental and Health Impacts of Synthetic Turf. Melbourne Polytechnic, April 2021. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28126.56646 5 Fořt, Jan, Klára Kobetičová, Martin Böhm, Jan Podlesný, Veronika Jelínková, Martina Vachtlová, Filip Bureš, and Robert Černý. “ Environmental Consequences of Rubber Crumb Application: Soil and Water Pollution.” Polymers 14, no. 7 (2022): 1416. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071416 6 Ginsberg, Gary, Brian Toal, and Tara Kurland. “Benzothiazole Toxicity Assessment in Support of Synthetic Turf Field Human Health Risk Assessment.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 74, no. 17 (2011): 1175–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2011.586943 7 Gomes, Filipa O., M. Rosário Rocha, Arminda Alves, and Nuno Ratola. "A Review of Potentially Harmful Chemicals in Crumb Rubber Used in Synthetic Football Pitches." Journal of Hazardous Materials 409 (May 5, 2021): 124998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124998 8 Hua, Jing Martin Lundqvist, Shanti Naidu, Mikael T. Ekvall, Tommy Cedervall. “Environmental Risks of Breakdown Nanoplastics from Synthetic Football Fields.” Environmental Pollution. April, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123652 9 Huang, Qian’en, Jianqun Wang, Jianping Wang, Dongmei Yu, Yuanbo Zhan, and Ze Liu. “Emerging Health Risks of Crumb Rubber: Inhalation of Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals via Saliva During Artificial Turf Activities.” Environmental Science & Technology 57, no. 50 (2023): 21005–21015. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03278 10 Kim S, Yang JY, Kim HH, Yeo IY, Shin DC, Lim YW. “Health Risk Assessment of Lead Ingestion Exposure by Particle Sizes in Crumb Rubber on Artificial Turf Considering Bioavailability.” Environmental Health and Toxicology. February 2, 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/resources/citations/3278598/export/ 11 Kole, Pieter Jan, Frank GAJ Van Belleghem, Jetse J. Stoorvogel, Ad MJ Ragas, and Ansje J. Löhr. “Tyre Granulate on the Loose; How Much Escapes the Turf? A Systematic Literature Review.” Science of the Total Environment (2023): 166221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.16622 12 Magnusson, Simon, and Josef Mácsik. “Analysis of Energy Use and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Metals and Organic Substances from Construction Materials Used for Artificial Turf.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017): 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.007 13 Mohammed, Atef MF, Inas A. Saleh, and Nasser M. Abdel-Latif. “Hazard Assessment Study on Organic Compounds and Heavy Metals from Using Artificial Turf.” Heliyon 9, no. 4 (2023). https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)02135-7.pdf 14 Murphy, Maire, Genoa R. Warner. “Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: Toxicity Studies, Challenges, and Future Directions.” Environmental Pollution. October 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119841 15 Negev, Maya, Zohar Barnett-Itzhaki, Tamar Berman, Shay Reicher, Naor Cohen, Ruti Ardi, Yaniv Shammai, Tamar Zohar, and Miriam L. Diamond. “Hazardous Chemicals in Outdoor and Indoor Surfaces: Artificial Turf and Laminate Flooring.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 32, no. 3 (2022): 392–399. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00396-4 16 Pochron, S., J. Nikakis, K. Illuzzi, A. Baatz, L. Demirciyan, A. Dhillon, T. Gaylor, A. Manganaro, N. Maritato, M. Moawad, R. Singh, C. Tucker, and D. Vaughan. "Exposure to Aged Crumb Rubber Reduces Survival Time during a Stress Test in Earthworms (Eisenia fetida)." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25, no. 12 (2018): 11376–11383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1433-4 17 Russo, Carlo, Giulio M. Cappelletto, Giuseppe M. Nicoletti. The product environmental footprint approach to compare the environmental performances of artiflcial and natural turf. May 5, 2022 18 U.S. EPA, CDC. Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan. Vol I, Final Report Part 2 - Exposure Characterization. April 16, 2024. 19 Winz, Robyn, Lee L. Yu, Li-Piin Sung, YuYe J. Tong, and Dejun Chen. “Assessing Children’s Potential Exposures to Harmful Metals in Tire Crumb Rubber by Accelerated Photodegradation Weathering.” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (2023): 13877. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38574-z 20 Zhang, Xiaoran, Yinrui Wang, Junfeng Liu, Yucheng Jiang, Yiran Tian, and Ziyang Zhang. "Distribution and Health Risk Assessment of Some Trace Elements in Runoff from Different Types of Athletic Fields." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, first published March 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5587057 21 Zuccaro, Philip, David C. Thompson, Jacob de Boer, Andrew Watterson, Qiong Wang, Song Tang, Xiaoming Shi, Maria Llompart, Nuno Ratola, and Vasilis Vasiliou. “Artificial Turf and Crumb Rubber Infill: An International Policy Review Concerning the Current State of Regulations.” Environmental Challenges 9 (2022): 100620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100620 22 Zuccaro, Philip, James Licato, Emily A. Davidson, David C. Thompson, and Vasilis Vasiliou. “Assessing Extraction-Analysis Methodology to Detect Fluorotelomer Alcohols (FTOH), a Class of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), in Artificial Turf Fibers and Crumb Rubber Infill." Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 7 (2023): 100280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2022.100280 12 Table 3: Peer-Reviewed Studies of Artificial Turf That is Not Field Hockey Turf (alphabetical order) # Study 1 Bernat-Ponce, Edgar, José A. Gil-Delgado, and Germán M. López-Iborra. "Replacement of Semi-Natural Cover with Artificial Substrates in Urban Parks Causes a Decline of House Sparrows Passer Domesticus in Mediterranean Towns." Urban Ecosystems 23, no. 3 (2020): 471– 481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00931-w 2 De Haan, William P., Rocío Quintana, César Vilas, Andrés Cózar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. “The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments.” Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094 3 Golden, Leslie M. "The Contribution of Artificial Turf to Global Warming." Sustainability and Climate Change 14, no. 6, December 14, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2021.0038 4 Gould HP, Lostetter SJ, Samuelson ER, Guyton GP. “Lower Extremity Injury Rates on Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass Playing Surfaces: A Systematic Review.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine. May 20, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211069562 5 Jim, C.Y. "Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment." Landscape and Urban Planning 157, January 2017, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012. 6 Kanaan, Ahmed, Elena Sevostianova, Bernd Leinauer, and Igor Sevostianov. "Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 146, no. 10, October 2020: 04020032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001506 7 Lauria, Mélanie Z., Ayman Naim, Merle Plassmann, Jenny Fäldt, Roxana Sühring, and Jonathan P. Benskin. “Widespread Occurrence of Non-Extractable Fluorine in Artificial Turfs from Stockholm, Sweden.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters. July 6, 2022. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00260 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00260 8 Liu, Zhixin, C.Y. Jim, and P. Xu. "Playing on Natural or Artificial Turf Sports Field? Assessing Heat Stress of Children, Young Athletes, and Adults in Hong Kong." Sustainable Cities and Society 75, December 2021: 103271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103271 9 McNitt, A. S., D. M. Petrunak, and T. J. Serensits. "Temperature Amelioration of Synthetic Turf Surfaces Through Irrigation." ISHS Acta Horticulturae 783: II International Conference on Turfgrass Science and Management for Sports Fields, 2008. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.59 10 Sánchez-Sotomayor D, Martín-Higuera A, Gil-Delgado JA, Gálvez Á, Bernat-Ponce E. “Artificial Grass in Parks as a Potential New Threat for Urban Bird Communities.” Bird Conservation International. Cambridge University Press, July 26, 2022. doi:10.1017/S0959270922000119 11 Siegel, Kyle R., Brooklynn R. Murray, Jeff Gearhart, and Christopher D. Kassotis. "In Vitro Endocrine and Cardiometabolic Toxicity Associated with Artificial Turf Materials." Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. September 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 12 Simpson, Thomas J., and Robert A. Francis. “Artificial Lawns Exhibit Increased Runoff and Decreased Water Retention Compared to Living Lawns Following Controlled Rainfall Experiments.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021): 127232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127232 13 Vyrlas, Panagiotis, Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos. “Surface Temperature Experiences and Irrigation Effects on Artificial Turf.” WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development. May 22, 2024. DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20. https://wseas.com/journals/ead/2024/a405115-007(2024).pdf From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Matthew Coats Town Of Ithaca Planning CJ Randall; Chris Balestra; Cornell Field Hockey Field Letter of Support 2/28/2025 8:47:04 AM Dear Members of the Ithaca Town Planning Board, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Field Hockey project on Game Farm Road. This initiative aligns with the values and goals of our community, and I believe it will bring significant benefits to the Town of Ithaca and its residents. As a father of two young athletes who participate in sports, I hold the well-being of our children in high regard. My children often attend athletic events with me, but in particular my daughter enjoys interacting with the Cornell women athletes that consistently demonstrate being kind, mature, humble, athletic, strong-willed, intelligent and leaders on and off the field. While working in the Cornell Athletic Department for 23 years, I have dealt with the challenges of scheduling athletic facilities for most of our programs. Field hockey is the only sport on campus that utilizes a non-infill watered synthetic turf field, so having a suitable playing field is critical. Without the proper field, this program will drop in relevance from Division I. Our women's field hockey team consists of leaders of the Cornell community, accomplished students in the classroom, and athletes who compete at the highest level. Participation in field hockey promotes physical fitness, teamwork, and discipline among our youth. By providing a dedicated field for this sport, we are encouraging healthy, active lifestyles and fostering a sense of well-being. The field hockey field will be the first of its kind on Cornell's campus, a standalone women's facility that supports the advancement of women's field hockey and demonstrates our commitment to supporting women in sport, which is an invaluable contribution to our community. Rightfully so, environmental stewardship is a priority, and so I appreciate the thorough environmental analysis that has been conducted for this project already. The commitment to mitigating any potential harm and ensuring the field is built sustainably is commendable. I believe Cornell has also taken additional steps to support an environmentally safe project; including an extensive filtration system, committing to a no- PFAS turf, and complying with a statute requiring the recycling of turf which does not go into effect until December of 2026. It is important to recognize that while no project is without its challenges, the testimonials and data you have received, coupled with the absence of turf infill, supports the advancement of this project without an additional environmental review. I urge the Ithaca Town Planning Board to approve the construction of the Field Hockey Sincerely, Matt Coats Matthew Coats Sr. Associate Athletics Director Cornell University 2/18/25 Dear Planning Board, My name is Jenny Kelly and I’m a Cornell alum who also played field hockey in the late 1980’s. It’s wonderful to come back to campus and see games in person and see how the game has evolved. Last October I was on campus and stopped by the field hockey offices to say hello to Andy Smith, head coach of the field hockey team. Andy showed me renderings of the Game Farm Road facility and I was so excited for the program – that they would have a facility that would allow them to play against the best of the best on state-of-the art turf, not to mention the positive impact on current student-athletes and recruiting. It is distressing to see the project delayed for many reasons: the impact on the student-athletes, the impact on the coaching staff and recruiting and for us alums who want to see the program, and women’s sports, grow. Cornell is going above and beyond with regards to adhering to environmental standards and the proposed turf does not have any infill. Further, the water filtration system will remove particles at the smallest size detectable. Finally, Cornell is proactive in trying to designate a recycle facility for the turf at the end of its useful life. Many people beyond the team would benefit from this field including camps, clubs and other recreational teams. That’s in addition to the alums that come back to support the team! Please issue a negative environmental declaration so the project can proceed as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Kelly ’89 From: To: Subject: Sent: Chris Balestra Abby Homer FW: Public hearing for Cornell’s synturf project - when? 2/28/2025 8:48:40 AM Hi Abby, Will you please add this to the set of comments received after the PB deadline? Thanks. Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacany.gov From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 8:00 AM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Yayoi Koizumi <zerowasteithaca@gmail.com> Subject: Public hearing for Cornell’s synturf project - when? **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Hi Chris, I’m reaching out to share concerns about Cornell’s synthetic turf expansion and the review process. I appreciate the board’s efforts in considering the GEIS and making a good-faith attempt to evaluate the potential environmental and public health consequences of these projects—both long-term and short-term. I also have questions regarding the scheduling of a public hearing. I noticed that Cornell’s turf project isn’t included in the public hearing on 3/4. Will there be a public hearing at the 3/18 or 4/1 Planning Board meeting? It’s difficult for us to plan without certainty about the hearing dates and SEQR determination. We would appreciate some clarity on this. Additionally, will we be allowed to present a few photos or images when it’s our turn to speak? Cornell’s side has the undivided attention of the Planning Board, complete with PowerPoint presentations, and it seems only fair that we be granted the same opportunity. I also reviewed Cornell’s recent submission (pages 171–210 of the Supplemental Materials Submission dated 2/21), which is printed in a font so small it’s nearly unreadable. Even from the first page, it is filled with false accusations against us. With only three minutes to speak, we are trying to find a way to counter these misrepresentations. Notably, Ms. Van Leeuwen (formerly Michaels, I believe) falsely claims we provided “no links” to sources, while her own table includes green hyperlinks that don’t even work. In contrast, our bibliography is fully accessible—categorized, annotated, and structured for clarity to the best of our ability. We are not interested in burying people in technical jargon. The issue is simple: plastic is already in our bodies, and yet Cornell remains adamantly opposed to conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment. I appreciate any clarification you can provide regarding the hearing schedule and our ability to present images. Best, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org PS: We are expecting some temporary email downtime today so please hit reply all and send email to zerowasteithaca@gmail.com as well. Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: CJ Randall Kristi Phipps Chris Balestra; Abby Homer; Re: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project 2/26/2025 5:04:18 PM Hi Kristi, Apologies — and thanks for bringing this to our attention. We received many comments with identical email subject headings (that is, Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project), which complicated our usual process for saving and collating public comments. We'll double check all the comments received against what the Planning Board has received already. Thanks again, C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov From: Kristi Phipps <kjphipps773@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 4:45 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Dear Ms Randall and Ms. Balestra, I received confirmation from you that my letter regarding the Game Farm Road project was received on Monday, prior to yesterday's cut-off at noon, yet I was surprised to see that it was not included in the "combined comments as of packet mailout" posted on the Town website. I appreciate that you may have received a higher volume of letters than typical, and ask that you double check the status of my letter. I would be grateful if my letter could be distributed to the Planning Board as soon as possible, as it was intended to be included for adequate review by the PB members prior to the 3/4 meeting. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Best regards, Kristi Phipps On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:50 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Received, and will be distributed to members of the Planning Board. Thanks, C.J. From: Kristi Phipps <kjphipps773@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 7:32 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: Support for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I am writing to you to express my support for the new Cornell University Field Hockey facility at Game Farm Road. I am asking the board to vote to issue a negative environmental declaration so this project can proceed in a timely manner. I am a former field hockey goalie at Cornell University where I graduated with my Chemical Engineering degree in 1999. I played field hockey for a few more years while working in Research & Development in Chicago, but I eventually packed up my goalie gear for good. Fast forward 20 years, and my middle school daughter informed me she wanted to be a field hockey goalie. It was time to open up that smelly old bag of goalie gear! While my daughter was able to use some of the pieces, most of the gear was too old for the technological advances the sport has made in both the equipment and the playing surfaces. It is truly amazing the advances that the sport of field hockey has made since my days “on the pitch.” My daughter is now in high school and she regularly trains on the field hockey-specific watered artificial turf fields at Villanova University, Bryn Mawr College, University of Pennsylvania, Ursinus College, and more. All of these fields are built specifically for the sport of field hockey! Scientists and engineers have spent decades creating the ideal watered artificial turf structure specifically for field hockey to improve player safety, decrease ball bounce, and allow the ball to travel at incredible speeds for both passing and shots on goal. And advancements are continuously being made to benefit the sport, the athlete, and the environment. Colleges and universities all over the nation have chosen to invest in these fields specifically for their female field hockey athletes, benefiting both their NCAA programs and the youth programs in their communities. NCAA Division 1 schools have adopted these field hockey-specific watered artificial turf fields as their only playing surfaces, and many Division 2 and 3 schools are also moving in this direction. Bringing it back to the Cornell Field Hockey project at Game Farm Road, I am thrilled that Cornell is choosing to invest in the most advanced playing surface to date for both the female field hockey athletes at the university and those in the Ithaca & Tompkins County communities. As with the previous Marsha Dodson field, Cornell will use a field hockey-specific watered artificial turf field, which does not use infill (no little black beads!). In addition, I am proud to have learned that Cornell is taking every possible step to address environmental concerns, including: No PFAS, embracing the NY statute ahead of its scheduled Dec 2026 implementation. Microplastics and water particles will be filtered out down to the smallest size currently detectable. Artificial turf will be mechanically recycled at the end of its life. Again, no infill = no little black beads! Implementation of the Cornell University Field Hockey facility project at Game Farm Road is critical to the livelihood of the program. Quite frankly, without a field hockey-specific watered artificially turf, the NCAA Division 1 Cornell Field Hockey program will cease to exist. NCAA Division 1 games must be played on this surface, and therefore, athletes must train on this surface. Without another suitable playing surface within a 50 mile radius, Cornell field hockey needs to have their own field. I appreciate that the Planning Board has taken a hard look at the issues presented to you regarding this project. As you balance the importance of the livelihood of Cornell Field Hockey program with any perceived environmental or health issues, I ask that you keep in mind the facts about the actual artificial turf being proposed. I believe there is a lack of evidence of environmental harm from this project, and I am asking the Planning Board to vote to issue a negative environmental declaration so the project can continue to move forward in a timely fashion. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, Kristi Phipps FROM THE DESK OF Leane Sinicki 469 Shining Rock Drive Northbridge, MA 01534 February 23, 2025 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ithaca Planning Board, As a native of Binghamton, NY, a 1985 graduate of the Cornell School of Engineering, a four time letter winner in both Women’s Field Hockey and Lacrosse, and a 1998 Cornell Hall of Fame Inductee, I feel compelled to share my unique perspective about the Game Farm Road Project. Over the last 35 years, I have had the privilege to work and travel globally for a number of very successful Fortune 500 companies in various executive business leadership positions. These leadership roles have required me to balance the needs of various competing constituencies with di ering goals and objectives to solve complex problems while overcoming numerous challenges and obstacles. In all cases, nding win/win solutions was highly dependent on timely data driven analysis and fact based decisions. It is my strong belief that my Cornell student athlete experience created the foundation for both my personal and professional success. For the women currently participating in the eld hockey program, missing the opportunity to experience this would be a signi cant loss not only for themselves but the broader Cornell community. As evidence, I am now giving back to the university through my participation in the Cornell Engineering COMPASS mentoring program. Potentially losing these future women leaders would be a signi cant missed opportunity for the community. I understand the signi cance and importance of the Game Farm Road Project decision. I trust that the board will carefully consider the relevant environmental and health evidence with the student athlete social impact of your decision. Respectfully yours, Leane Sinicki Cornell Engineering Class of 1985 Women’s Field Hockey & Lacrosse 8 letter winner 1998 Cornell Hall of Fame Inductee Cornell Engineering COMPASS Mentor 1 From:Jill Kellner <jillikellner@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 3, 2025 2:09 PM To:Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject:synthetic turf fields **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town Planning Board Members, As a resident who lives on Ellis Hollow Road, I am very concerned about Cornell's plans to install artificial turf. Thank you for considering a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and for continuing to discuss the synthetic turf project. Our collective efforts have resulted in at least a partial victory—Cornell is now claiming in the latest agenda document for the 3/4/25 meeting that they will install "only" three synthetic turf fields (Pages 16, 171) on Game Farm Road, rather than the five or six fields included in their 2015 plans (Page 7) or their April submission of “Long Range Vision” to the Town and City Planning Boards for the Meinig “Fieldhouse” Project. This is a direct result of community pressure, proving that our advocacy is making a difference. However, this new claim is not legally binding. Cornell has a history of altering plans, and without a GEIS, as previously suggested by the Town Planning Board, there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. As it stands, the number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell’s campus is set to reach at least 11 "for the foreseeable future"(Page 171)— and potentially more. Yet, Cornell remains vehemently opposed to a GEIS and continues to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Cornell’s Continued Push for Expansion & Lack of Transparency At the last Town Planning Board meeting, a major donor to Cornell Athletics—who has contributed millions— publicly expressed frustration over project delays. She has reportedly pressured the administration to fast-track the process (Faraj, 2025, Cornell Daily Sun: link). The administration has responded by intensifying efforts to push this project forward and opposing the GEIS, as seen in the 200-page agenda packet for the upcoming meeting. It is critical to state the obvious: It is not the fault of the community, nor the town or city, that Cornell unilaterally removed its own turf fields on Tower Road without a backup plan , despite an ongoing lawsuit and public opposition due to the long-term environmental and public health risks posed by synthetic turf. Yet, they are now pushing for another synthetic turf installation—and potentially more—without proper oversight. Why is Cornell Fighting a GEIS if Synthetic Turf is Truly Safe? It is difficult to understand why Cornell so aggressively opposes a GEIS or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) while simultaneously spending substantial institutional resources to downplay the well-documented concerns about microplastic pollution and PFAS. They insist that the Game Farm Road turf—especially the field hockey field—is somehow different, safer, and exempt from scrutiny. If this turf is truly safe, why oppose a full environmental assessment?  Microplastics remain a major issue regardless of the specific type of turf. Cornell’s proposed mitigation measures are insufficient, addressing only partial runoff control and redirecting captured plastic waste to landfills outside of Ithaca—merely shifting contamination elsewhere . Many questions remain about the effectiveness of their filtration system and this does not address air emissions, soil contamination, and microplastics tracked on clothes and shoes of athletes.  Cornell continues to suggest adding more synthetic turf fields. Despite public concerns, they are still considering at least one additional synthetic field on Game Farm Road , in addition to the baseball field already in use. A GEIS is absolutely necessary. 2  PFAS concerns remain unresolved. Cornell claims the turf will be "PFAS-free," but without independent, publicly overseen pre-construction testing, there is no way to verify this. Testing must align with the PFAS definition in the New York State’s Carpet Law and be conducted under public oversight—not by Cornell.  Cornell has full control over its own testing. They determine the “independent” testing lab, methodology, and thresholds, funded by themselves, leaving no truly independent oversight. This is why a GEIS and third-party verification are crucial. Cornell’s Discrediting Tactics The agenda packet for this project spans 200 pages and contains misrepresentations and attempts to discredit and dismiss community concerns—a tactic frequently used by well-funded institutions against grassroots advocacy. Cornell has repeatedly attempted to undermine public opposition, going so far as to imply malicious intent behind our objections. This is not new—at the January 7, 2025, Town Planning Board meeting, a Cornell University representative, Kimberly Van Leeuwen (formerly Kimberly Michaels), publicly stated that community members were spreading "lies." Public comments have already been submitted in response to these allegations. Rather than engaging in these personal attacks, Cornell should focus on providing transparent, independently verified environmental assessments. The real issue remains: The environmental impact of synthetic turf is significant and uncertain, as documented by the Town Planning Board’s own investigation in the agenda packet (Page 1-12), and it requires comprehensive evaluation—including testing for PFAS and other toxic substances, as well as a full assessment of mitigation measures. I urge the Town Planning Board to continue pushing for a GEIS. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jill Kellner 1321 Ellis Hollow Road References: Balesta, Christine, Senior Planner of Town of Ithaca. “Re: Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Project - Discussion of Additional Materials, SEQR Segmentation.” May 14, 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fg4n5fanrv3o2xwf6dli5/PB-packet-5-21-24-Meinig-SEQR-Segmentation-Long- Range-Vision.pdf?rlkey=1lq70pmm1q3ie7s4yn5z073my&st=87qgj6qr&dl=0 Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_and_Campus_Planning/do cuments/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20Complex%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf Faraj, Zeinab. “‘A Monumental Blunder’: Million-Dollar Donor Baffled After Cornell Destroys Namesake Field Hockey Turf With No Immediate Replacement.” Cornell Daily Sun, February 27, 2025. cornellsun.com/2025/02/27/a-monumental- blunder-million-dollar-donor-baffled-after-cornell-destroys-namesake-field-hockey-turf-with-no-immediate-replacement/. Town of Ithaca. "Town of Ithaca Planning Board Agenda, March 4, 2025." Town of Ithaca, March 4, 2025. https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=359650&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca. From: To: Subject: Sent: E.C. Barrett Town Of Ithaca Planning Cornell's Synthetic Turf project 3/3/2025 2:50:43 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town Planning Board Members, I write to urge you to insist on a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Cornell's proposed synthetic turf fields before any decisions can be made about moving forward with them. If Cornell sincerely believes they can prove no negative environmental impact, let them do so through the GEIS. Ample evidence has been provided by the planning board's own research and the efforts of community member experts on the harmful impacts of synthetic turf, microplastics, and PFAS. Cornell's tactics to avoid a GEIS, to ram through their plans, to discredit the valid concerns raised by the community, while lying to the community about the impacts of synthetic turf, are the same tactics that are destroying our nation at the moment. Cornell's finances should not dictate the environmental and public health decisions of local government. If we can't stand for accountability, fact-based science, and public health locally, what hope do we have? Please continue to push for a GEIS. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, EC -- E.C. Barrett ecbarrett.com Dear Town Planning Board Members, Thank you for considering a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and for continuing to discuss the synthetic turf project. Our collective efforts have resulted in at least a partial victory—Cornell is now claiming in the latest agenda document for the 3/4/25 meeting that they will install "only" three synthetic turf fields (Pages 16, 171) on Game Farm Road, rather than the five or six fields included in their 2015 plans (Page 7) or their April submission of “Long Range Vision” to the Town and City Planning Boards for the Meinig “Fieldhouse” Project. This is a direct result of community pressure, proving that our advocacy is making a difference. However, this new claim is not legally binding. Cornell has a history of altering plans, and without a GEIS, as previously suggested by the Town Planning Board, there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. As it stands, the number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell’s campus is set to reach at least 11 "for the foreseeable future"(Page 171)—and potentially more. Yet, Cornell remains vehemently opposed to a GEIS and continues to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Cornell’s Continued Push for Expansion & Lack of Transparency At the last Town Planning Board meeting, a major donor to Cornell Athletics—who has contributed millions—publicly expressed frustration over project delays. She has reportedly pressured the administration to fast-track the process (Faraj, 2025, Cornell Daily Sun: link). The administration has responded by intensifying efforts to push this project forward and opposing the GEIS, as seen in the 200-page agenda packet for the upcoming meeting. It is critical to state the obvious: It is not the fault of the community, nor the town or city, that Cornell unilaterally removed its own turf fields on Tower Road without a backup plan, despite an ongoing lawsuit and public opposition due to the long-term environmental and public health risks posed by synthetic turf. Yet, they are now pushing for another synthetic turf installation—and potentially more—without proper oversight. Why is Cornell Fighting a GEIS if Synthetic Turf is Truly Safe? It is difficult to understand why Cornell so aggressively opposes a GEIS or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) while simultaneously spending substantial institutional resources to downplay the well-documented concerns about microplastic pollution and PFAS. They insist that the Game Farm Road turf—especially the field hockey field—is somehow different, safer, and exempt from scrutiny. If this turf is truly safe, why oppose a full environmental assessment? ● Microplastics remain a major issue regardless of the specific type of turf. Cornell’s proposed mitigation measures are insufficient, addressing only partial runoff control of mechanical filtration with 25 micron pore size with no independent assessment of the effectiveness of the system (keep in mind many filters contain PVDF, a type of PFAS) and redirecting captured plastic waste to landfills outside of Ithaca—merely shifting contamination elsewhere. Many questions remain about the effectiveness of their filtration system and this does not address air emissions, soil contamination, and microplastics tracked on clothes and shoes of athletes. ● Cornell continues to suggest adding more synthetic turf fields. Despite public concerns, they are still considering at least one additional synthetic field on Game Farm Road, in addition to the baseball field already in use. A GEIS is absolutely necessary. ● PFAS concerns remain unresolved. Cornell claims the turf will be "PFAS-free," but without independent, publicly overseen pre-construction testing, there is no way to verify this. Testing must align with the PFAS definition in the New York State’s Carpet Law and be conducted under public oversight—not by Cornell. ● Cornell has full control over its own testing. They determine the “independent” testing lab, methodology, and thresholds, funded by themselves, leaving no truly independent oversight. This is why a GEIS and third-party verification are crucial. Cornell’s Discrediting Tactics The agenda packet for this project spans 200 pages and contains misrepresentations and attempts to discredit and dismiss community concerns—a tactic frequently used by well-funded institutions against grassroots advocacy. Cornell has repeatedly attempted to undermine public opposition, going so far as to imply malicious intent behind our objections. This is not new—at the January 7, 2025, Town Planning Board meeting, a Cornell University representative, Kimberly Van Leeuwen (formerly Kimberly Michaels), publicly stated that community members were spreading "lies." Public comments have already been submitted in response to these allegations. Rather than engaging in these personal attacks, Cornell should focus on cooperating with transparent, independently verified environmental assessments. The real issue remains: The environmental impact of synthetic turf is significant and uncertain, as documented by the Town Planning Board’s own investigation in the agenda packet (Page 1-12), and it requires comprehensive evaluation—including testing for PFAS and other toxic substances, as well as a full assessment of mitigation measures. I urge the Town Planning Board to continue pushing for a GEIS. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Caroline Ashurst, M.Ac., L.Ac. References: Balesta, Christine, Senior Planner of Town of Ithaca. “Re: Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Project - Discussion of Additional Materials, SEQR Segmentation.” May 14, 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fg4n5fanrv3o2xwf6dli5/PB-packet-5-21-24-Meinig-SEQR-Segmentation-Lo ng-Range-Vision.pdf?rlkey=1lq70pmm1q3ie7s4yn5z073my&st=87qgj6qr&dl=0 Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_and_Campus_Pl anning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20Complex%20Facilities% 20Master%20Plan.pdf Faraj, Zeinab. “‘A Monumental Blunder’: Million-Dollar Donor Baffled After Cornell Destroys Namesake Field Hockey Turf With No Immediate Replacement.” Cornell Daily Sun, February 27, 2025. cornellsun.com/2025/02/27/a-monumental-blunder-million-dollar-donor-baffled-after-cornell-destroys-nam esake-field-hockey-turf-with-no-immediate-replacement/. Town of Ithaca. "Town of Ithaca Planning Board Agenda, March 4, 2025." Town of Ithaca, March 4, 2025. https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=359650&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca. From: To: Subject: Sent: Daniel Keough Town Of Ithaca Planning Cornell turf fields 3/3/2025 4:55:17 PM Hello Town of Ithaca Planning-- Will Cornell be required to complete a Generic Environmental Impact Statement prior to be allowed to build plastic turf fields, especially outside? If no, why is a construction project which will clearly have an impact on the environment-- why would Cornell get a free pass to avoid such an obvious step? Thank you. -- Daniel Keough From: To: Subject: Sent: Constance Stirling-Engman Town Of Ithaca Planning; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; Info; Fwd: Synthetic Turf and GEIS statement 3/3/2025 8:56:17 PM Regarding my letter below, I neglected to cc City of Ithaca and Zero Waste, and am therefore re-sending it. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Constance Stirling-Engman <cstirlingengman@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 8:48 PM Subject: Synthetic Turf and GEIS statement To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Dear Town Planning Board Members, Thank you for considering a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and for continuing to discuss the synthetic turf project. Our collective efforts have resulted in at least a partial victory—Cornell is now claiming in the latest agenda document for the 3/4/25 meeting that they will install "only" three synthetic turf fields (Pages 16, 171) on Game Farm Road, rather than the five or six fields included in their 2015 plans (Page 7) or their April submission of “Long Range Vision” to the Town and City Planning Boards for the Meinig “Fieldhouse” Project. This is a direct result of community pressure, proving that our advocacy is making a difference. However, this new claim is not legally binding. Cornell has a history of altering plans, and without a GEIS, as previously suggested by the Town Planning Board, there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. As it stands, the number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell’s campus is set to reach at least 11 "for the foreseeable future"(Page 171)—and potentially more. Yet, Cornell remains vehemently opposed to a GEIS and continues to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Cornell’s Continued Push for Expansion & Lack of Transparency At the last Town Planning Board meeting, a major donor to Cornell Athletics—who has contributed millions—publicly expressed frustration over project delays. She has reportedly pressured the administration to fast-track the process (Faraj, 2025, Cornell Daily Sun: link). The administration has responded by intensifying efforts to push this project forward and opposing the GEIS, as seen in the 200-page agenda packet for the upcoming meeting. It is critical to state the obvious: It is not the fault of the community, nor the town or city, that Cornell unilaterally removed its own turf fields on Tower Road without a backup plan, despite an ongoing lawsuit and public opposition due to the long-term environmental and public health risks posed by synthetic turf. Yet, they are now pushing for another synthetic turf installation—and potentially more—without proper oversight. Why is Cornell Fighting a GEIS if Synthetic Turf is Truly Safe? It is difficult to understand why Cornell so aggressively opposes a GEIS or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) while simultaneously spending substantial institutional resources to downplay the well-documented concerns about microplastic pollution and PFAS. They insist that the Game Farm Road turf—especially the field hockey field—is somehow different, safer, and exempt from scrutiny. If this turf is truly safe, why oppose a full environmental assessment? Microplastics remain a major issue regardless of the specific type of turf. Cornell’s proposed mitigation measures are insufficient, addressing only partial runoff control and redirecting captured plastic waste to landfills outside of Ithaca—merely shifting contamination elsewhere. Many questions remain about the effectiveness of their filtration system and this does not address air emissions, soil contamination, and microplastics tracked on clothes and shoes of athletes. Cornell continues to suggest adding more synthetic turf fields. Despite public concerns, they are still considering at least one additional synthetic field on Game Farm Road, in addition to the baseball field already in use. A GEIS is absolutely necessary. PFAS concerns remain unresolved. Cornell claims the turf will be "PFAS- free," but without independent, publicly overseen pre-construction testing, there is no way to verify this. Testing must align with the PFAS definition in the New York State’s Carpet Law and be conducted under public oversight —not by Cornell. Cornell has full control over its own testing. They determine the “independent” testing lab, methodology, and thresholds, funded by themselves, leaving no truly independent oversight. This is why a GEIS and third-party verification are crucial. Cornell’s Discrediting Tactics The agenda packet for this project spans 200 pages and contains misrepresentations and attempts to discredit and dismiss community concerns—a tactic frequently used by well- funded institutions against grassroots advocacy. Cornell has repeatedly attempted to undermine public opposition, going so far as to imply malicious intent behind our objections. This is not new—at the January 7, 2025, Town Planning Board meeting, a Cornell University representative, Kimberly Van Leeuwen (formerly Kimberly Michaels), publicly stated that community members were spreading "lies." Public comments have already been submitted in response to these allegations. Rather than engaging in these personal attacks, Cornell should focus on providing transparent, independently verified environmental assessments. The real issue remains: The environmental impact of synthetic turf is significant and uncertain, as documented by the Town Planning Board’s own investigation in the agenda packet (Page 1-12), and it requires comprehensive evaluation—including testing for PFAS and other toxic substances, as well as a full assessment of mitigation measures. I urge the Town Planning Board to continue pushing for a GEIS. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Constance Stirling-Engman References: Balesta, Christine, Senior Planner of Town of Ithaca. “Re: Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Project - Discussion of Additional Materials, SEQR Segmentation.” May 14, 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fg4n5fanrv3o2xwf6dli5/PB-packet- 5-21-24-Meinig-SEQR-Segmentation-Long-Range-Vision.pdf? rlkey=1lq70pmm1q3ie7s4yn5z073my&st=87qgj6qr&dl=0 Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_an d_Campus_Planning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20C omplex%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf Faraj, Zeinab. “‘A Monumental Blunder’: Million-Dollar Donor Baffled After Cornell Destroys Namesake Field Hockey Turf With No Immediate Replacement.” Cornell Daily Sun, February 27, 2025. cornellsun.com/2025/02/27/a-monumental-blunder-million-dollar-donor-baffled-after- cornell-destroys-namesake-field-hockey-turf-with-no-immediate-replacement/. Town of Ithaca. "Town of Ithaca Planning Board Agenda, March 4, 2025." Town of Ithaca, March 4, 2025. https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=359650&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca. Sent via email: 3/4/2025 ● planning@townithacany.gov ● pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Dear Town Planning Board Members, Thank you for considering a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and for continuing to discuss and evaluate the Cornell synthetic turf project. Cornell is now stating in the latest agenda document for the 3/4/25 meeting that they will install "only" three synthetic turf fields (Pages 16, 171) on Game Farm Road, rather than the five or six fields included in their 2015 plans (Page 7) or their April submission of “Long Range Vision” to the Town and City Planning Boards for the Meinig “Fieldhouse” Project. This is a direct result of community pressure, proving that our collective advocacy may be making a difference. However, this new claim is not legally binding. It has been brought to our attention that Cornell has a history of altering plans, and without a GEIS, as previously suggested by the Town Planning Board, there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. As it stands, the number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell’s campus is set to reach at least 11 "for the foreseeable future"(Page 171)—and potentially more. Yet, Cornell remains vehemently opposed to a GEIS and continues to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Cornell’s Continued Push for Expansion & Lack of Transparency A major donor to Cornell Athletics—who has contributed millions—publicly expressed frustration over project delays, during the last Town Planning Board meeting. The donor has reportedly pressured the administration to fast-track the process (Faraj, 2025, Cornell Daily Sun: link). The administration has responded by intensifying efforts to push this project forward and opposing the GEIS, as seen in the 200-page agenda packet for the upcoming meeting. It is not the fault of the community, nor the town or city, that Cornell unilaterally removed its own turf fields on Tower Road without a backup plan, despite an ongoing lawsuit and public opposition due to the long-term environmental and public health risks posed by synthetic turf (plastic grass). Yet, they are now pushing for another plastic grass installation—and potentially even more—without proper oversight. Why is Cornell Fighting a GEIS if Synthetic Turf is Truly Safe? It is difficult to understand why Cornell so aggressively opposes a GEIS or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) while simultaneously spending substantial institutional resources to downplay the well-documented concerns about microplastic pollution and PFAS. They insist that the Game Farm Road turf—especially the field hockey field—is somehow different, safer, and exempt from scrutiny. If this turf is truly safe, why oppose a full environmental assessment? ● Microplastics remain a major issue regardless of the specific type of turf. Cornell’s proposed mitigation measures are insufficient, addressing only partial runoff control and redirecting captured plastic waste to landfills outside of Ithaca—merely shifting contamination elsewhere. Many questions remain about the effectiveness of their filtration system and this does not address air emissions, soil contamination, and microplastics tracked on clothes and shoes of athletes. ● Cornell continues to suggest adding more synthetic turf fields. Despite public concerns, they are still considering at least one additional synthetic field on Game Farm Road, in addition to the baseball field already in use. A GEIS is absolutely necessary. ● PFAS concerns remain unresolved. Cornell claims the turf will be "PFAS-free," but without independent, publicly overseen pre-construction testing, there is no way to verify this. Testing must align with the PFAS definition in the New York State’s Carpet Law and be conducted under public oversight—not by Cornell. ● Cornell has full control over its own testing. They determine the “independent” testing lab, methodology, and thresholds, funded by themselves, leaving no truly independent oversight. This is why a GEIS and third-party verification are crucial. The real issue remains: The environmental impact of synthetic turf is significant and uncertain, as documented by the Town Planning Board’s own investigation in the agenda packet (Page 1-12), and it requires comprehensive evaluation—including testing for PFAS and other toxic substances, as well as a full assessment of mitigation measures. I urge the Town Planning Board to continue pushing for a GEIS. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jackie Nuñez -- Jackie Nuñez (she/ella) Advocacy & Engagement Manager Founder, The Last Plastic Straw o: +1.323.936.3010 x707 e: jackie@plasticpollutioncoalition.org Check out Global Plastic Laws, a database to track plastic policies around the world References: Balesta, Christine, Senior Planner of Town of Ithaca. “Re: Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Project - Discussion of Additional Materials, SEQR Segmentation.” May 14, 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fg4n5fanrv3o2xwf6dli5/PB-packet-5-21-24-Meinig-SEQR-Segmentation-Lo ng-Range-Vision.pdf?rlkey=1lq70pmm1q3ie7s4yn5z073my&st=87qgj6qr&dl=0 Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_and_Campus_Pl anning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20Complex%20Facilities% 20Master%20Plan.pdf Faraj, Zeinab. “‘A Monumental Blunder’: Million-Dollar Donor Baffled After Cornell Destroys Namesake Field Hockey Turf With No Immediate Replacement.” Cornell Daily Sun, February 27, 2025. cornellsun.com/2025/02/27/a-monumental-blunder-million-dollar-donor-baffled-after-cornell-destroys-nam esake-field-hockey-turf-with-no-immediate-replacement/. Town of Ithaca. "Town of Ithaca Planning Board Agenda, March 4, 2025." Town of Ithaca, March 4, 2025. https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=359650&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca. March 3, 2025 Subject: Require GEIS for Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Plan – NYC Just Introduced a Ban Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, New York City introduced a bill on February 27, 2025, to ban artificial turf in city parks due to its well-documented environmental and public health risks (Bill link). Other municipalities across the country have also banned or placed restrictions on artificial turf installations (See the list here). I have a question for you - if artificial turf is truly safe, why do you think Cornell University vehemently opposes conducting an environmental impact assessment? A General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is essential to ensure that Cornell is held legally accountable for the full scope of this project. Without it, they can continue to shift their plans without oversight—just as they have already reduced the number of proposed synthetic turf fields to "only" three. Without a GEIS, very few things prevent a powerful institution like Cornell from expanding artificial turf installation in the future, ignoring the long-term environmental and public health consequences. I urge the Planning Board to require a GEIS before approving any part of this project to ensure full transparency, legal accountability, and environmental protection. Sincerely, Analyse Adams Volunteer Food & Water Watch https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ References: New York City Council. Int 1202-2025: A Local Law to Amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in Relation to Prohibiting the Installation of Artificial Grass in City Parks. Introduced February 27, 2025. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7157603&GUID=EC95D71C -049C-4DB7-90E7-4A00BBC05342&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=artificial+gras s. Zero Waste Ithaca. “Municipalities with Artificial Turf Bans, Moratoriums, or Restrictions.” Updated February 15, 2025 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xb444anblrqou7vx2nno3/List-of-Municipal-Bans-and-R estrictions-on-Artificial-Turf-1.pdf?rlkey=jqapo334p8g6a9ghjizkx925h&st=hzlao8e7&dl =0 From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Regi Teasley Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Plastic grass fields at Cornell 3/3/2025 4:09:41 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Members of the Planning Board, As you know, “artificial turf” is both unnecessary and harmful. I include a recent article about how nano plastic particles have been found to pass the “blood brain barrier.” What that means is that, in addition to the particles collecting in arteries and other parts of the body, they can also enter the human brain. ** Levels of microplastics in human brains may be rapidly rising, study suggests https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/03/levels-of-microplastics-in-human-brains-may-be- rapidly-rising-study-suggests?CMP=share_btn_url ** The last thing we need now is more plastic in our environment. Think of your family, your friends, and the children in our community. And, of course, think of the student athletes who just want to excel in their sport and aren’t busy reading the medical literature. We all need to stop Cornell’s misguided plan in its tracks. The recent measles outbreak in Texas can serve as a reminder that we cannot take community health for granted. Thank you for reading my comments. Regi Teasley Ithaca ___________ Protect what is left, recover what is lost of the fair earth. William Morris, “Art and the Beauty of the Earth.” 1881 From: To: Subject: Sent: Royal Donald Colle Town Of Ithaca Planning Synthetic turf 3/3/2025 8:26:58 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Board Members, I’ve been associated with Cornell for almost 60 years. And I’ve seen the University’s faculty do some marvelous things around the world. We’ve recently documented some of this in a new book Beyond Borders published by the Cornell University Press. With this positive background, it’s discouraging to see the University’s administration support such a negative development as installing more synthetic turf close by in our own neighborhoods. I hope our Town Planning Board can take action to discourage this action by the University. Sincerely yours, Royal Colle Professor Emeritus Cornell University (121 Pine Tree Road) Safe Healthy Playing Fields Inc. www.safehealthyplayingfields.org 4 March 2025: Item #7 - SEQR Discussion, Cornell GFR Hockey Field Support a full environmental review Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc (SHPFI). SHFPI is an all-volunteer 501-c-3 non-profit. We are committed to educating communities, policy-makers and elected officials about the health, safety and financial realities of plastic fields versus grass fields and other synthetic surfaces for their parks and schools. Our constituency ranges from concerned individuals to community and civic organizations, legal, healthcare and science professionals, municipal leaders and state legislators. SHPFI is in full support of a GEIS and full SEQR. This project should not be exempt from a full review of environmental impacts. Despite Cornell University’s word that they will not seek to install additional synthetic turf on it’s campus, there is no formal obligation that would require them to stop further installations, except the upcoming New York Carpet EPR Law. They have not demonstrated transparency, full disclosure, nor a commitment to the safety of students, staff and visitors who would be exposed to the toxic and carcinogenic chemicals known to exist in this fossil fuel-based petrochemical plastic product, whether on playing fields or used in landscaping.1,2 A commitment to not use used tire crumb infill is a distraction meant for all to believe it is the only concern related to synthetic turf. Often sourced outside of the US, plant based synthetic turf infills can contain pesticides, PFAS, heavy metals and more. Because they add excess nutrients to soil and water, they have been implicated in increased frequency and severity of toxic algal blooms.3,4 4 Royer, Sarah Jeanne (Jan 2023). Choosing Synthetic Turf Is Choosing Environmental Harm. Letter to Town Council of Glastonbury, CT. Published in Let’s Talk, Talk-Action.org. https://talk-action.org/choosing-synthetic-turf-is-choosing-environmental-harm/ 3 US EPA (1 Feb 2024). Nutrients and Harmful Algal Blooms Research. https://www.epa.gov/water-research/nutrients-and-harmful-algal-blooms-research 2 Kassotis, C (23 Sep 2024). “Endocrine and cardiometabolic toxicity of artificial turf associated materials.” Video of presentation at NYU Langone Health symposium on plastics research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8MDXyQKnFA 1 Siegela, KR, Murraya, BR, Gearhart, J, Kassotis, CD (2024). “In vitro endocrine and cardiometabolic toxicity associated with artificial turf materials.” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology; (111), 104562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 Microplastics: A 2017 study found that a single synthetic turf field loses 0.5 to 0.8% of its blades annually. This estimate is ten times lower than a previous Danish study (0.8 kg/m2). This equates to 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of microplastic blade loss per year per field.5 Newer playing fields that do not require infill poured on top of the synthetic carpet are more densely woven, may have double backing,6 and have the potential for significantly greater microplastic blade and carpet backing loss to the environment. As calculated by the Martha’s Vineyard Conservancy, a single regulation sized plastic playing field is the equivalent of 3.2 million plastic bags, or 42 million plastic straws.7 Microplastic synthetic turf blades have been found in Lake Tahoe, where researchers found high levels of polyethylene and polypropylene in the lake and “…recorded plastics concentrations more than three times higher than those sampled using a similar method in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre.”8,9,10 Synthetic turf fibers have been found in the world’s oceans, ranging from 12 to over 15 percent of the microplastics found, as reported by researchers in Spain, China, Japan, Australia and Canada. Synthetic turf blades represent as much as 25% of microplastics in surface waters.11 This research lead to the California Coastal Commission's decision to not allow synthetic turf at UC Santa Barbara (13 Dec 2023) and stating synthetic turf is not superior to natural grass and is not sustainable. 11 De Haan, WP, Quintana, R, Vilas, C, Cózar, A et al (1 Oct 2023).“The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments.” Environmental Pollution; 334, 122094. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123010965?via%3Dihub 10 Personal email communication from research staff at Tahoe Environmental Research Center. Lake Tahoe Email 9 Spencer, C (2023). “Lake Tahoe has higher concentration of microplastics than ocean trash heap.” LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-14/lake-tahoe-troubling-concentration-microplastics 8 Schultz, Madison. 2022. “UC Davis Environmental Research Center fundamental at Lake Tahoe.” Sierra Sun. Accessed 26 Oct 2023. https://www.sierrasun.com/news/uc-davis-environmental-research-center-fundamental-at-lake-tahoe/ 7 Doyle, M, Slavin, D, Thomson, R (29 Jan 2019). “Numbers flawed in turf vs. grass debate.” Martha’s Vineyard Times. https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/01/29/numbers-flawed-turf-vs-grass-debate/ 6 TenCate Pivot (2024). Face weght of 120 ounces per yard2, double backing, total weight 147.5 ounces per yard2. https://geosurfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/PIVOT_1.5_Spec-1.pdf 5 Hann, S et al (2018). “Investigating Options for Reducing Releases in the Aquatic Environment of Microplastics Emitted by (but not Intentionally Added in) Products.” Eunomia, United Kingdom. https://www.eunomia.co.uk/case_study/measuring-impacts-of-microplastics/ “Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits the Commission from approving a proposed development if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment. For the reasons discussed in this report, the Commission has conditioned the NOID to require design and implementation of Final Revised Project Plans that do not include the installation of artificial turf.”12 Additional loss of microplastics from the backing (approximately 438 pounds/per field annually), exclusive of the underlayment pad and infill.13 Microplastics both leach and adsorb toxic chemicals and bacteria in the environment, putting the food chain at risk. 13 Kole, PJ, Van Belleghem, F, Stoorvogel, JJ, Ragas, A, Löhr, AJ (10 Dec 2023). “Tire granulate on the loose: How much escapes turf? A systematic literature review.” Science of The Total Environment; (903)166221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166221 12 California Coastal Commission (13 Dec 2023). “Notice of Impending Development UCS-NOID-0002-23 (Baseball Stadium Turf).” https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W13.1a/W13.1a-12-2023-report.pdf Toxic Chemicals: As outlined in the 27 Aug 2024 presentation by the California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), there are multiple chemical classes of concern in synthetic turf.14 Some of these chemicals include (not comprehensive): ● PFAS15,16,17,18,19 ● Phthalates20,21,22 ● Latex (including styrene butadiene)23,24,25,26 26 Staff writer (3 Jul 2024). “Artificial Turf Fields.” Institute For Climate Change, Environmental Health, and Exposomics. Mt. Sinai ICAHN School of Medicine. Exposomic Research 25 Sick, S (2021). Patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/10968565 24 Sick, S (2017). Patent application https://patents.justia.com/search?q=FLOOR+PAVEMENT+STRUCTURE+WITH+GEL+L 23 Tomarin, SA (1984). Patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/4497853 22 IE DuPont de Nemours (2015). https://patents.justia.com/patent/9017788 21 Safer Consumer Products Program (Aug 2024). “Background Document on Candidate Chemicals in Artificial Turf.” Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2024/07/Background-Document-on-Candidate-Chemicals- in-Artificial-Turf.pdf 20 Ryan-Ndegwa, S, Zamani, R, Martins, T (17 Dec 2024). “Exploring the Human Health Impact of Artificial Turf Worldwide: A Systematic Review.” Environ Health Insights; (18),11786302241306291 https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241306291 19 Multi-organizational fact sheet (2022). “PFAS polymers pose serious health and environmental threats.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fJDsNTIPp-YMT_7aQ0TDvTaLg2lB5PMA/view?usp=drivesdk 18 EI DuPont de Nemours (2013) https://patents.justia.com/patent/8568874 17 Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (27 Aug 2024). “Background Document on Candidate Chemicals in Artificial Turf.” California EPA. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2024/07/Background-Document-on-Candidate-Chemicals- in-Artificial-Turf.pdf 16 Woelke, D (Nov 2024). Compilation of PFAS leachate testing from synthetic turf results. PFAS leachate from synthetic turf 15 Glüge, J, Scheringer, M, Cousins, IA, DeWitt, JC et al (30 Oct 2020). “An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).” Environ Sci Process Impacts;22(12):2345–2373. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7784712/ 14 Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. (27 Aug 2024). California EPA. Presentation Slides ● Polyvinyl chloride27,28,29 ● Naptha18,,30,31 ● Siloxanes32,33 ● Talc34,35 ● Di/Isocyanates36 ● Formaldehyde29 ● Fungicides26 ● Flame retardants26 ● Coal fly ash26 ● Anti-Microbial agents37,38,39 39 Verdú, I, Gonzalez-Pleiter, M, Leganés, F et al (Mar 2021). “Microplastics can act as vector of the biocide triclosan exerting damage to freshwater microalgae.” Chemosphere. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520333907 38 Triclosan Fact Sheet. BioMonitoring California. https://biomonitoring.ca.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/TriclosanFactSheet.pdf 37 Dow Chemical (2017). https://patents.justia.com/patent/20190078235 36 Sick, S (2021) patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/11180894 35 Dow Global Technologies, Inc (2008) patent application https://patents.justia.com/patent/20100279032 34 Sick, S (2015) patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/10968565 33 Dow Global Technologies, Inc (2015) patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/9040627 32 Ferreira T, Homem V, Cereceda-Balic F et al (2024). “Are volatile methylsiloxanes in downcycled tire microplastics? Levels and human exposure estimation in synthetic turf football fields.” Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 10.1007/s11356-024-31832-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-024-31832-1 31 Modern Fibers Inc (1984) patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/4617208 30 Sick, S (2017) patent application https://patents.justia.com/patent/8568874 29 Hayes, GE (2010). https://patents.justia.com/patent/7838096 28 J. F. Adolff AG (1977) patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/4007307 27 DOC Sports Surfaces (2008) patent application https://patents.google.com/patent/US7838096B2/en?oq=7838096 ● Dibutyltin Ethylene glycol40 ● UV stabilizers30,41.42 ● Anti-Static Treatments30 ● Colorants All synthetic turf tested by academic institutions and independent third party laboratories using proper methods, techniques and reporting limits have found PFAS in synthetic turf.43,44 Impervious surfacing: Synthetic turf is an impervious, or impermeable, surface, despite what the industry tells you. The US EPA and the State of California are clear on this issue:45 “...areas such as gravel roads...that will be compacted through design or use to reduce their impermeability.” It further has defined impervious surfaces as…[a]ny surface that prevents or significantly impedes the infiltration of water into the underlying soil. This can include but is not limited to: roads, driveways, parking areas and other areas created using non porous material; buildings, rooftops, structures, artificial turf and compacted gravel or soil.” “Pollutants from aerial and terrestrial sources accumulate on impervious surfaces until runoff from a precipitation event carries sediment, nutrients, metals, and pesticides into stormwater drains and directly to local water bodies. As impervious surfaces increase, stormwater runoff increases in quantity, speed, temperature, and pollutant load. When impervious surfaces reach 10–20% of local watershed area, surface runoff doubles and continues to increase until, at 100% impervious surface coverage, runoff is five times 45 US EPA, MS4 General Permit Appendix A, Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms, https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/2016fpd/appendix-a-2016-ma-sms4-gp.pdf 44 Pollard, L, Massey, R (Aug 2024). “Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Artificial Turf: Academic, municipal, and other testing efforts.” Lowell Center for Sustainability, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. https://www.uml.edu/docs/PFAS%20in%20Artificial%20Turf%20-%20Academic%20Municipal%20%26%2 0Other%20Tests%20Aug%202024_tcm18-386957.pdf 43 Whitehead, H. D. (2023). “Development of Analytical Methods for Highly Selective and Sensitive Analytical Analysis of Compounds Relevant to Human Health and the Environment.” Version 1. University of Notre Dame. https://doi.org/10.7274/bg257d30j3m 42 Awonaike, B, Lei, YD, Parajulee, A, Wania, F (1 Dec 2021). “Phase partitioning, transport and sources of Benzotriazole Ultraviolet Stabilizers during a runoff event.” Water Research X; (13),100115 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589914721000281#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20 UV328%20and%20UV234%20were,a%20sink%20than%20a%20source%20of%20BT%2DUVs 41 International Pollutant Elimination Network.“Communications on Recent Research: Recent Research on UV-328 Further Proves its Potential to Undergo Long-Range Transport, Bioaccumulate, and Cause Harm.” https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-uv328-research-update-v1_2-en.pdf 40 Sick (2017) https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018122346A1 that of a forested watershed. Excessive stormwater runoff also increases the potential for flooding.” US EPA Impervious Surface Fact Sheet46 As impervious surfaces, accumulation of particulate matter, jet and leaded AVgas fuel from the multiple flight paths that border Cornell’s campus bring even more need for concern. In 2023, Ithaca had 39.5 inches of rainfall and 42.5 inches of snowfall. In 2024, the totals were 36.5 inches and 35.3 inches respectively. Toxic runoff from synthetic turf contributes 27,000 gallons per one inch of rain per acre of plastic.47 One inch of snowfall is roughly equivalent to 13 inches of rain.48 It is abundantly clear that, given the amount of synthetic turf currently installed on Cornell’s campus, that a massive amount of toxic runoff from synthetic fields is contaminating soil, surface, ground and, eventually, the campus and town’s drinking water. 48 NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory. (n.d.). Winter Weather FAQ. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/winter/faq/ 47 Cotrone, V (undated). “The Role of Trees and Forests in Healthy Watersheds: Managing stormwater, reducing flooding, and improving water quality.” Penn State Extension. https://extension.psu.edu/the-role-of-trees-and-forests-in-healthy-watersheds 46 US EPA (2020). “EnviroAtlas: Fact Sheet, Percent Impervious Area.” https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/ESN/PercentImperviousArea.pdf Greenhouse Gasses: Synthetic turf off-gasses both methane and ethylene49,50 and continues day and night, in ever increasing amounts for the 1,000 years it takes for it to decompose.51 Methane traps 90% more heat than carbon dioxide and is 21 times more potent. Land based plastics produce 2 times more methane and 76 times more ethylene than plastics found in waterways and oceans. The heat islands created by plastic turf playing fields are large enough to be visible from satellites circling our planet. Even if all synthetic turf were removed from Los Angeles today, methane would linger in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years, contributing to climate change and sea level rise for hundreds of years after pollutants have been cleared from the air.52 A 2017 Swedish study of total life cycle emissions on a modeled 7881m2 synthetic field concluded GHG emissions would be 527 tons of CO2e for a ten year use period, exclusive of manufacturing, transport, construction, removal and disposal.53 The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released a report in April 2024 finding that the greenhouse emissions from plastics is four times those emitted by the aviation industry.54 54 Karali, N, Khanna, N, Shah, N (12 Apr 2024). “Climate Impact of Primary Plastic Production.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Publications. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/12s624vf 53 Magnusson, Simon, Mácsik, Josef (July 2017.. Analysis of Energy Use and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Metals and Organic Substances from Construction Materials Used for Artificial Turf. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol. 122, July 2017, Pages 362-372 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.007 52 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Methane.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121 51 Chamas, A, Moon, H, Zheng, J (3 Feb 2020). “Degradation Rates of Plastics in the Environment.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering;(8)9.b https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06635 50 Royer, SJ (12 Nov 2018). Letter to Mayor M Bowser, Washington DC regarding synthetic turf. Letter to Mayor M Bowser 49 Royer, SJ, Ferrón, S, Wilson, ST, Karl, DM (2018). “Production of Methane and Ethylene from Plastic in the Environment.” PlosOne 13(8): e0200574. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200574&type=printable The resulting impact on climate change from plastics and synthetic turf are contributing factors to increased flood risk and toxic runoff55; toxic exposures during wildfires56,57; and escalating insurance costs due to both.58,59,60 The most profoundly impacted will be those who can least afford the increased burdens. 60 Capani, C (7 May 2024). “Aviva issues flood risk warning as residents turn to artificial lawns.” Insurance Times; United Kingdom. https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/aviva-issues-flood-risk-warning-as-residents-turn-to-artificial-lawn s/1451833.article 59 Sherriff, L (18 Mar 2024). “Climate change is fuelling the US insurance problem.” British Broadcasting Corp. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240311-why-climate-change-is-making-the-us-uninsurable 58 Mandel, A, Battiston, S, Monasterolo, I. (5 Feb 2025). “Mapping global financial risks under climate change. Nature, Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02244-x 57 Staff writer (17 Jan 2025). “Plastic Chemicals in Wildfire Smoke and How to Protect Yourself.” Plastic Soup Coalition. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2025/1/17/plastic-chemicals-in-wildfire-smoke-and-how-to-pr otect-yourself 56 Schlanger, Z (15 Jan 2025). “What Happens When a Plastic City Burns.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/01/los-angeles-fire-smoke-plastic-toxic/681318/ 55 Simpson, TJ, Francis, RA (Aug 2021). “Artificial lawns exhibit increased runoff and decreased water retention compared to living lawns following controlled rainfall experiments.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening; (63), 127232 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866721002570 Not recyclable: Less than 6% of plastics are recycled.61 Made of mixed plastics, synthetic turf is not recyclable, not sustainable and is a linear, not a circular product, and does not meet any definition of sustainability. The synthetic turf industry misrepresents its products when they make claims related to sustainability and environmentally friendliness. It is not enough to use the vernacular of the day. Circular products62 are “…those products that have reduced or completely no need for virgin resources and are designed with the end of their life in mind.” The United Nations defines sustainable development63 as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The UCLA Sustainability Committee64 notes: “In simplest terms, sustainability is about our children and our grandchildren, and the world we will leave them”. The Rutgers Center for Sustainable Materials65 definition: “Sustainable materials are materials used throughout our consumer and industrial economy that can be produced in required volumes without depleting non-renewable resources and without disrupting the established steady-state equilibrium of the environment and key natural resource systems.” TenCate’s “recycling” facilities: 65 Rutgers University. “What are Sustainable Materials?” Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Center for Sustainable Materials. Accessed 26 Jan 2025. https://mse.rutgers.edu/center-sustainable-materials 64 UCLA Sustainability Committe, quoting UN World Commission on Environment and Development https://www.sustain.ucla.edu/what-is-sustainability/ 63 United Nations (2024). “Sustainable Development Agenda: What is sustainable development?” https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/#1b1981a30bdd8fde2 62 “What is a circular product?” Circular Tayside, United Kingdom. https://circulartayside.co.uk/what-is-a-circular-product-and-business-model/ 61 Dell, J, Enck, J (May 2022). “The Real Truth about the US Plastic Recycling Rate.” Beyond Plastics. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/t/62b2238152acae761414d698/1655 841666913/The-Real-Truth-about-the-US-Plastic-Recycling-Rate-2021-Facts-and-Figures-_5-4-22.pdf Louisiana- California- Separate property Leased property R center of image SHPFI urges you to not support Cornell University’s false environmental claims. Demand excellence. Demand a full environmental review. Do not kick the can down the road to future generations to clean up the environmental mess the University knowingly and willfully seeks to impose without full disclosure or transparency. This is your environment, your health that you are putting at risk and imposing on your children, and their children’s children. Respectfully submitted, Diana Conway, President Dianne Woelke MSN, Board Member Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org SHPFI is an all-volunteer nonprofit 501-c-3 February 22nd, 2025 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I strongly support the approval for the Cornell University Field Hockey (CUFH) field and associated structures on Game Farm Road. As a former CUFH player and captain, and as a proud alumna of Cornell University and the stellar women’s field hockey and lacrosse programs, I request that you thoughtfully consider the key facts, merits of the approval request, and implications of the decision and timeline. Facts: The facts are clear, namely that: • This project has been requested following the required process for a CUFH field and associated structures on Game Farm Road. • The new field material to be used is NOT manufactured with PFAS, and there is a lack of evidence of environmental harm in this case. • Cornell is proactively addressing PFAS and recycling concerns by adhering to the New York State (NYS) law ahead of its effective date of December 31, 2026. • Non-fact-based efforts to derail the approval would cause significant disruption not only in the team’s 2025 practice and game location, but in the ability to recruit and retain student athletes. • This facility will also benefit a much wider group of players than just those at Cornell. Accounting for opponents, FH camps, club and recreational use we expect over 1,000 people to benefit from the field annually. Strong Community Partnership: Cornell and Ithaca have a long history of community partnership, creating a welcoming and supportive town for its citizens and students alike. As noted in the April 9th, 2024 fingerlakes.com article, “Cornell’s commitment to the community extends beyond economic factors, with numerous volunteer initiatives and support for local governments and nonprofit organizations, including a $7 million contribution to various entities”. Additional examples of economic impact from the Cornell University Economic Impact & Entrepreneurship 2023 data include: • $77M - Construction spending in Tompkins County and adjacent counties (by location of prime contractor) • $4.9M - Property taxes generated (school taxes $3.2 million, municipal taxes $1.7 million). Taxes paid on Cornell-related properties rank second in Tompkins County. • $28.5M - Capital raised in 2023 by the companies of Rev: Ithaca Startup Works, founded by Cornell (with Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College). Rev companies created 47 new jobs in 2023. • $3.9M - Capital raised by Cornell’s Center for Life Science Ventures’ Ithaca-based clients in 2023. These companies created 8 new local jobs in 2023, for a total of 31 local jobs. • $8.7M - Capital raised by Cornell’s Praxis Center for Venture Development Ithaca based clients in 2023. These companies provide 27 local jobs. Supporting Cornell’s goal of providing critically needed fields and structures for the CUFH team is yet another example of fueling and growing this foundational community/college partnership. Team Personal Impact: As I’m surmising you have heard from other current and former players, playing a sport goes well beyond the skill and dedication developed in playing the sport itself. Life lessons such as teamwork, leadership, grit, empathy, the will to win and succeed, the character to lose and congratulate your opponent, the understanding that hard work and focus leads to success in one form or another, the ability to rally a team and also console that team in defeat or heartache, the strength to never give up, and so many more. These lessons become part of our DNA and something we carry and grow throughout our lives. Many of my fondest memories and strongest lifelong friendships were forged playing sports at Cornell and in the wonderful town of Ithaca. It irks me beyond description to think that the opportunity to experience these impactful lessons would be denied to our current and future field hockey players, and, on the contrary, they would be left with a lasting negative impression of their experience at Cornell and in Ithaca. With all the facts in-hand, with a reasonable request to the town having followed the appropriate processes, you have the power to ensure that does not happen. You have the ability to not only approve the project, but the ability to positively influence the lives of these players and so many others who are looking to you for your leadership and example of executing appropriate town government action and continued support of its colleges as a vibrant community partner. Equity: Beyond these points, another equally, if not more important factor is promoting and ensuring equity for women at Cornell as a reflection of Ithaca. Ithaca is known for pro-actively and staunchly supporting and leading equity driven initiatives so that all its population feel valued and are treated equally. As noted in the town’s mission statement, “We promote quality of life, equity, and safety of all Town of Ithaca residents through planning, innovation, and continual adaptation to change.” Supporting this request would be yet another example of the town’s firm stance that equity matters and is visibly and continuously supported. Thank you for your consideration of the points made here, as well as other information you are receiving. We are trusting in you to make a sound, factually supported, impactful decision to approve the Game Farm Road project. The CUFH team, and many in the Cornell and Ithaca communities and beyond are relying on you as thoughtful and exemplary community leaders to make this happen. Sincerely, Ellen Grant Piccioli Cornell University ‘86 Subject: Ongoing Pattern of Misrepresentation in Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Submissions Dear Ithaca Town Planning Board Members, First, I would like to express my appreciation for the Planning Board’s decision to consider a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed synthetic turf field at Game Farm Road. Addressing the cumulative impacts of synthetic turf comprehensively is a necessary step toward responsible environmental planning. However, I must bring to your attention an ongoing and troubling pattern of scientific misrepresentation in Cornell University’s submissions to the Planning Board. This pattern extends from the Meinig Fieldhouse submissions to the latest materials provided for the Game Farm Road project. Misinterpretation, selective omission, and misleading framing of scientific studies have been a recurring issue, and I urge the Planning Board to approach Cornell’s claims with caution. We have previously submitted comments detailing a couple of specific instances of these misrepresentations, including Cornell’s misuse of the CY Jim study on heat hazards and its gross underestimation of synthetic turf disposal volumes. Rather than reiterating these points in full, we direct the Planning Board to our prior comments for reference. Agenda Packet Misrepresentation Cornell's latest submission to the Planning Board included in the agenda packet for the 3/4/25 meeting contains contain multitudes of issues, but here’s one example of blatant misrepresentation: "A 2024 study by the US Environmental Protection Agency found that people using synthetic turf fields are not exposed to the chemicals contained in them. The Planning Board thus had voluminous, independent evidence in front of it to support its conclusions on these topics." (Page 10). This statement is entirely false.No such EPA study has made this conclusion. EPA’s 2024 study, commonly called FRAP 2, in fact, found evidence of hazardous exposures. The fact that Cornell would make such an unsupported claim in an official submission underscores the persistent issue of scientific distortion in its filings. Additionally, another troubling instance in Cornell’s latest submission is the inclusion of a block quote that lacks attribution (Page 9). The quote, which discusses VOCs, PAHs, and air emissions, appears suddenly in the document with no clear source. Is this an excerpt from a study? A consultant’s opinion? Or simply Cornell’s own assertion dressed up as authoritative research? The absence of a citation makes it impossible to verify, raising serious concerns about the credibility of the information presented. Cornell’s Misrepresentation of Our Bibliography Cornell has also attempted to discredit our own primary sources, falsely claiming that links in our submissions and bibliography are missing or broken. This is categorically untrue.Our bibliography is fully categorized, partially annotated, and all links remain active and accessible. Unlike Cornell’s opaque 39-page table—virtually unreadable without a wide-screen monitor— our bibliography was carefully designed for clarity and accessibility. Volunteers from Zero Waste Ithaca and our allies compiled these sources one by one over the course of a year to ensure a well-organized, comprehensible resource. We encourage Planning Board members to review our sources directly rather than accepting Cornell’s mischaracterizations. Misrepresentation of EPA FRAP Studies One of the most glaring examples of Cornell’s ongoing misrepresentation is its handling of the EPA’s Federal Research Action Plan (FRAP) studies on synthetic turf and crumb rubber. This is relevant for the call for GEIS, and an example of the broader misrepresentations of studies, so allow me to detail it here. 1.Distorting FRAP 1 Findings (2019) Of the three EPA sources cited in Cornell’s previous submissions includes the 2019 Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization (FRAP 1). Cornell misrepresents its findings. The EPA explicitly stated that FRAP 1 was not a risk assessment but merely a study to characterize the presence of chemicals in crumb rubber.Cornell, however, presents the findings as though they confirm the safety of synthetic turf, misleading decision-makers about the study's intent. 2.Omitting and Misrepresenting FRAP 2 (2024) Cornell initially omitted any reference to the 2024 FRAP 2 study in its April submission of “Additional Materials” to the planning board, despite its relevance. When it did acknowledge FRAP 2 in its July submission, Cornell falsely claimed that FRAP 2 showed “no exposures occurred” to hazardous chemicals. This is demonstrably false. FRAP 2 found that synthetic turf users are exposed to hazardous chemicals through inhalation, dermal absorption, and ingestion,particularly in indoor settings. By strategically avoiding FRAP 2 in April and distorting its conclusions in July, Cornell misleads. 3.Use of Irrelevant EPA Sources Cornell’s earlier submissions includes two other EPA references with little or no relevance to synthetic turf: ·Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites: A database intended for hazardous waste sites, not for synthetic turf exposure assessments. ·Learn About Heat Islands: A general webpage discussing urban heat islands without specific mention of synthetic turf's heat retention properties. These sources provide no meaningful scientific basis for Cornell's claims and appear to be included solely to obscure the lack of relevant supporting evidence. The examples outlined above—from the CY Jim study to synthetic turf disposal, to the EPA FRAP studies—are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader pattern of selective use of data, misleading framing, and outright misrepresentation. This is deeply concerning, particularly as it pertains to public health and environmental decision-making. Given this pattern, I urge the Planning Board to conduct an independent and thorough review of the claims made in Cornell’s submissions. Relying on Cornell’s representations without scrutiny risks basing policy decisions on incomplete or inaccurate information. I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan: Final Report, Part 1 – Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization, Volumes 1 and 2.EPA/600/R-19/051, July 2019. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/july-2019-report-tire-crumb-rubber-characterization-0. Known as FRAP (Federal Research Action Plan) 1, this study characterizes the chemical composition of tire-derived crumb rubber (TDCR) used in synthetic turf fields, identifying the presence of metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The EPA explicitly states that this report is not a risk assessment and does not evaluate health impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan: Final Report, Part 2 – Exposure Characterization, Volumes 1 and 2.EPA/600/R-24/044, April 2024. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tire-crumb-exposure-characterization-report-volumes- 1-and-2. This follow-up study known as known as FRAP (Federal Research Action Plan) 2 assesses human exposure to chemicals in synthetic turf fields through inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion. Findings confirm that players are exposed to hazardous substances, particularly in indoor environments, though the report does not conduct a full health risk assessment. Zero Waste Ithaca.The Case Against Artificial Turf Expansion at Cornell: A Bibliography . Updated February 18, 2025, Accessed March 4, 2025 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i-cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO26R- Q/edit?tab=t.0 From: To: Subject: Sent: Margaret McCasland Town Of Ithaca Planning please keep pushing for a GEIS re synturf 3/4/2025 12:06:11 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department below and as a google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDkuS4rKtq1xtaLZqOevP9ty2zVTPfEiALazJ6cTVQA/edit? usp=sharing My name is Margaret McCasland and I live in the Town of Ithaca. I am a retired teacher, technical writer and science educator. I am also the mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother of student athletes, and a cancer patient. The only team sport I ever played (outside of PE class) was field hockey. Thank you for calling for Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Cornell’s proposed synturf playing fields. I’m going to comment on just a few of the many reasons that you should not approve artificial turf for this particular project. But, going forward, I am also calling on both the City and Town of Ithaca to ban artificial turf playing fields in the name of public health due to the local, regional and global pollution caused by the production, use and disposal of artificial turf, and also because of the impact on student athletes and on all children and adults enjoying indoor or outdoor recreation. As a science writer who worked with scientists in a variety of fields and as a student of the history of science, I learned that “science” is neither static nor unified. But it does have standards. Scientific communities –groups of scientists within the same specialty– have standards that are both foundational and enduring. Within a given field, best current knowledge and best practices evolve over time based on new research results, new technologies, and new ways of framing topics. When considering “scientific information,” it is important that your sources are people who work within the relevant scientific community. Cornell’s consultants assure you that the synturf they would use meets groundwater regulations. But regulations have three problems: First, there is a time lag between when scientific studies determine that chemicals are “possible,” “probable” or “definite” health hazards and when regulations are changed. Secondly, creating or changing to stricter standards is often impeded by regulatory capture. Large corporations such as chemical companies and plastic manufacturers have an outsize influence on many state and federal regulations, both through a revolving door of staff between government and industry, and by lobbying both legislatures and executive agencies and officials. The third issue with regulations is where you come in: they are too often enforced to the letter, rather than the spirit –or purpose– of laws and regulations that should be protecting people and other living beings. We got a lot wrong back in the early 80s, when I was a communications specialist for the groundwater program at Cornell’s Center for Environmental Research. We had been taught that “dilution is the solution to pollution.” We only had instruments that could measure particles in the parts per million, so we tested chemicals in the parts per million, and safety standards were set in the parts per million. Now we can measure chemicals in the parts per billion and that's a good thing, because now we know that endocrine disrupting chemicals have significant impacts –from the life-altering to the deadly– in parts per billion or even parts per trillion. Endocrine disrupting chemicals like PFAS are “messenger” molecules; just one molecule circulating in your body could be turning biological keys on and off. Parts per billion matter. Dilution is NOT the solution to pollution. Turning to more general concerns over the use of synturf, I am asking you to wear your general “public health” hat and to consider the spirit of regulations meant to protect our local ecosystems and the health of all who live here. Globally: Artificial turf both contributes to climate change and is impacted by it. Artificial turf gets much hotter than natural grass, and is thus more dangerous to use during “heat events.” Our increasingly common intense rainfalls are also more likely to damage the fields, washing away the layers that have to be installed below the green carpet we see on the surface. Locally: Please take all of the public health considerations relating to synturf seriously, for athletes, for recreational users (including kids on playgrounds!) and for nearby residents, including the increased heat on and over artificial surfaces, airborne particles and chemicals players breathe in, skin abrasions and joint injuries. Focusing briefly on just one of these hazards: A growing body of evidence shows that athletes are more likely to receive joint injuries on artificial turf, especially to their ACLs. Every single day I wear a knee brace for an ACL injury four decades ago. Mine was from winter sports, back when we had significant snow. A torn ACL is not a minor injury; even after surgery, your knee is never the same, and knee replacement surgery doesn’t fix it. [See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9083053/ and https://www.center4research.org/injuries-related-to-artificial-turf/ ] Back in the 1980s, when my daughter broke the gender barrier for floor hockey at BJM elementary School, I brought her to a varsity women’s field hockey game at Cornell. She immediately noticed that many of the players were wearing knee braces like mine. Sadly NCAA regulations for women’s field hockey now mandate synturf. I don;t know what the short term solution is, but I hope that NCAA regulation can soon be changed, to protect the knees of players as well as local and global ecosystems. PFAS are ubiquitous: they are literally everywhere. That doesn’t make it OK to load our bodies or our ecosystems with more. Because they are persistent (“forever chemicals”), ANY new release of PFAS adds to what is already there. We ALL should be working to drastically reduce new uses of PFAS while scientists and public officials should be working on better ways to test for and remove existing PFAS from critical living systems. As a consumer, I am no longer buying products that I know have PFAS in them (easier said than done –see below). As public officials, you need to be doing your part. I recently learned that PFAS have been used in Post-it Notes and Magic Tape, two 3M products that literally hold my life together. In spite of having known about the hazards of PFAS for many decades, 3M is only now phasing out the manufacture and reducing their use of PFAS. [See https://apnews.com/article/pfas- drinking-water-settlement-3m-fa41cadfe0d65b9723377a681df43af1 For 3M’s perspective, see https://pfas.3m.com/pfas_uses For a more complex view of 3M’s long knowledge of the health hazards in PFAS, see https://www.propublica.org/article/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas-pfos-inside-story Margaret McCasland Cornell ‘68 and ‘86 202-7 Cypress Court Ithaca NY 14850 mamccasland@gmail.com Dear Town Planning Board Members, Thank you for considering a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and for continuing to discuss the synthetic turf project. Our collective efforts have resulted in at least a partial victory—Cornell is now claiming in the latest agenda document for the 3/4/25 meeting that they will install "only" three synthetic turf fields (Pages 16, 171) on Game Farm Road, rather than the five or six fields included in their 2015 plans (Page 7) or their April submission of “Long Range Vision” to the Town and City Planning Boards for the Meinig “Fieldhouse” Project. This is a direct result of community pressure, proving that our advocacy is making a difference. However, this new claim is not legally binding. Cornell has a history of altering plans, and without a GEIS, as previously suggested by the Town Planning Board, there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. As it stands, the number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell’s campus is set to reach at least 11 "for the foreseeable future"(Page 171)—and potentially more. Yet, Cornell remains vehemently opposed to a GEIS and continues to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Cornell’s Continued Push for Expansion & Lack of Transparency At the last Town Planning Board meeting, a major donor to Cornell Athletics—who has contributed millions—publicly expressed frustration over project delays. She has reportedly pressured the administration to fast-track the process (Faraj, 2025, Cornell Daily Sun: link). The administration has responded by intensifying efforts to push this project forward and opposing the GEIS, as seen in the 200-page agenda packet for the upcoming meeting. It is critical to state the obvious: It is not the fault of the community, nor the town or city, that Cornell unilaterally removed its own turf fields on Tower Road without a backup plan, despite an ongoing lawsuit and public opposition due to the long-term environmental and public health risks posed by synthetic turf. Yet, they are now pushing for another synthetic turf installation—and potentially more—without proper oversight. Why is Cornell Fighting a GEIS if Synthetic Turf is Truly Safe? It is difficult to understand why Cornell so aggressively opposes a GEIS or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) while simultaneously spending substantial institutional resources to downplay the well-documented concerns about microplastic pollution and PFAS. They insist that the Game Farm Road turf—especially the field hockey field—is somehow different, safer, and exempt from scrutiny. If this turf is truly safe, why oppose a full environmental assessment? ● Microplastics remain a major issue regardless of the specific type of turf. Cornell’s proposed mitigation measures are insufficient, addressing only partial runoff control and redirecting captured plastic waste to landfills outside of Ithaca—merely shifting contamination elsewhere. Many questions remain about the effectiveness of their filtration system and this does not address air emissions, soil contamination, and microplastics tracked on clothes and shoes of athletes. ● Cornell continues to suggest adding more synthetic turf fields. Despite public concerns, they are still considering at least one additional synthetic field on Game Farm Road, in addition to the baseball field already in use. A GEIS is absolutely necessary. ● PFAS concerns remain unresolved. Cornell claims the turf will be "PFAS-free," but without independent, publicly overseen pre-construction testing, there is no way to verify this. Testing must align with the PFAS definition in the New York State’s Carpet Law and be conducted under public oversight—not by Cornell. ● Cornell has full control over its own testing. They determine the “independent” testing lab, methodology, and thresholds, funded by themselves, leaving no truly independent oversight. This is why a GEIS and third-party verification are crucial. Cornell’s Discrediting Tactics The agenda packet for this project spans 200 pages and contains misrepresentations and attempts to discredit and dismiss community concerns—a tactic frequently used by well-funded institutions against grassroots advocacy. Cornell has repeatedly attempted to undermine public opposition, going so far as to imply malicious intent behind our objections. This is not new—at the January 7, 2025, Town Planning Board meeting, a Cornell University representative, Kimberly Van Leeuwen (formerly Kimberly Michaels), publicly stated that community members were spreading "lies." Public comments have already been submitted in response to these allegations. Rather than engaging in these personal attacks, Cornell should focus on providing transparent, independently verified environmental assessments. The real issue remains: The environmental impact of synthetic turf is significant and uncertain, as documented by the Town Planning Board’s own investigation in the agenda packet (Page 1-12), and it requires comprehensive evaluation—including testing for PFAS and other toxic substances, as well as a full assessment of mitigation measures. I urge the Town Planning Board to continue pushing for a GEIS. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Emily Jernigan References: Balesta, Christine, Senior Planner of Town of Ithaca. “Re: Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Project - Discussion of Additional Materials, SEQR Segmentation.” May 14, 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fg4n5fanrv3o2xwf6dli5/PB-packet-5-21-24-Meinig-SEQR-Segmentation-Lo ng-Range-Vision.pdf?rlkey=1lq70pmm1q3ie7s4yn5z073my&st=87qgj6qr&dl=0 Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_and_Campus_Pl anning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20Complex%20Facilities% 20Master%20Plan.pdf Faraj, Zeinab. “‘A Monumental Blunder’: Million-Dollar Donor Baffled After Cornell Destroys Namesake Field Hockey Turf With No Immediate Replacement.” Cornell Daily Sun, February 27, 2025. cornellsun.com/2025/02/27/a-monumental-blunder-million-dollar-donor-baffled-after-cornell-destroys-nam esake-field-hockey-turf-with-no-immediate-replacement/. Town of Ithaca. "Town of Ithaca Planning Board Agenda, March 4, 2025." Town of Ithaca, March 4, 2025. https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=359650&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca. From: To: Subject: Attachments: Sent: Yayoi Koizumi Town Of Ithaca Planning Re: My public comment Please USE THIS VERSION 3 4 25 submission.pdf 3/4/2025 12:14:06 PM I apologize. Please use this version. It says EPA findings are also misrepresented in today's agenda packet on page 10, and it is important to mention that. Thank you, Yayoi On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 12:06 PM Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> wrote: Hi, I'd appreciate it if you could use this version - EPA findings are also misrepresented in today's agenda packet on page 10, and it is important to mention that. Thank you, Yayoi On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 12:00 PM Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> wrote: Hello, Please find attached comment for today's planning board meeting. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Subject: Ongoing Pattern of Misrepresentation in Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Submissions Dear Ithaca Town Planning Board Members, First, I would like to express my appreciation for the Planning Board’s decision to consider a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed synthetic turf field at Game Farm Road. Addressing the cumulative impacts of synthetic turf comprehensively is a necessary step toward responsible environmental planning. However, I must bring to your attention an ongoing and troubling pattern of scientific misrepresentation in Cornell University’s submissions to the Planning Board. This pattern extends from the Meinig Fieldhouse submissions to the latest materials provided for the Game Farm Road project. Misinterpretation, selective omission, and misleading framing of scientific studies have been a recurring issue, and I urge the Planning Board to approach Cornell’s claims with caution. We have previously submitted comments detailing a couple of specific instances of these misrepresentations, including Cornell’s misuse of the CY Jim study on heat hazards and its gross underestimation of synthetic turf disposal volumes. Rather than reiterating these points in full, we direct the Planning Board to our prior comments for reference. Agenda Packet Misrepresentation Cornell's latest submission to the Planning Board included in the agenda packet for the 3/4/25 meeting contains contain multitudes of issues, but here’s one example of blatant misrepresentation: "A 2024 study by the US Environmental Protection Agency found that people using synthetic turf fields are not exposed to the chemicals contained in them. The Planning Board thus had voluminous, independent evidence in front of it to support its conclusions on these topics." (Page 10). This statement is entirely false.No such EPA study has made this conclusion. EPA’s 2024 study, commonly called FRAP 2, in fact, found evidence of hazardous exposures. The fact that Cornell would make such an unsupported claim in an official submission underscores the persistent issue of scientific distortion in its filings. Additionally, another troubling instance in Cornell’s latest submission is the inclusion of a block quote that lacks attribution (Page 9). The quote, which discusses VOCs, PAHs, and air emissions, appears suddenly in the document with no clear source. Is this an excerpt from a study? A consultant’s opinion? Or simply Cornell’s own assertion dressed up as authoritative research? The absence of a citation makes it impossible to verify, raising serious concerns about the credibility of the information presented. Cornell’s Misrepresentation of Our Bibliography Cornell has also attempted to discredit our own primary sources, falsely claiming that links in our submissions and bibliography are missing or broken. This is categorically untrue.Our bibliography is fully categorized, partially annotated, and all links remain active and accessible. Unlike Cornell’s opaque 39-page table—virtually unreadable without a wide-screen monitor— our bibliography was carefully designed for clarity and accessibility. Volunteers from Zero Waste Ithaca and our allies compiled these sources one by one over the course of a year to ensure a well-organized, comprehensible resource. We encourage Planning Board members to review our sources directly rather than accepting Cornell’s mischaracterizations. Misrepresentation of EPA FRAP Studies One of the most glaring examples of Cornell’s ongoing misrepresentation is its handling of the EPA’s Federal Research Action Plan (FRAP) studies on synthetic turf and crumb rubber. This is relevant for the call for GEIS, and an example of the broader misrepresentations of studies, and it is also misrepresented in the 3/4/25 agenda packet, so allow me to detail it here. 1.Distorting FRAP 1 Findings (2019) Of the three EPA sources cited in Cornell’s previous submissions includes the 2019 Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization (FRAP 1). Cornell misrepresents its findings. The EPA explicitly stated that FRAP 1 was not a risk assessment but merely a study to characterize the presence of chemicals in crumb rubber.Cornell, however, presents the findings as though they confirm the safety of synthetic turf, misleading decision-makers about the study's intent. 2.Omitting and Misrepresenting FRAP 2 (2024) Cornell initially omitted any reference to the 2024 FRAP 2 study in its April submission of “Additional Materials” to the planning board, despite its relevance. When it did acknowledge FRAP 2 in its July submission, Cornell falsely claimed that FRAP 2 showed “no exposures occurred” to hazardous chemicals. This is demonstrably false. FRAP 2 found that synthetic turf users are exposed to hazardous chemicals through inhalation, dermal absorption, and ingestion,particularly in indoor settings. By strategically avoiding FRAP 2 in April and distorting its conclusions in July, Cornell misleads. 3.Use of Irrelevant EPA Sources Cornell’s earlier submissions includes two other EPA references with little or no relevance to synthetic turf: ·Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites: A database intended for hazardous waste sites, not for synthetic turf exposure assessments. ·Learn About Heat Islands: A general webpage discussing urban heat islands without specific mention of synthetic turf's heat retention properties. These sources provide no meaningful scientific basis for Cornell's claims and appear to be included solely to obscure the lack of relevant supporting evidence. The examples outlined above—from the CY Jim study to synthetic turf disposal, to the EPA FRAP studies—are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader pattern of selective use of data, misleading framing, and outright misrepresentation. This is deeply concerning, particularly as it pertains to public health and environmental decision-making. Given this pattern, I urge the Planning Board to conduct an independent and thorough review of the claims made in Cornell’s submissions. Relying on Cornell’s representations without scrutiny risks basing policy decisions on incomplete or inaccurate information. I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan: Final Report, Part 1 – Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization, Volumes 1 and 2.EPA/600/R-19/051, July 2019. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/july-2019-report-tire-crumb-rubber-characterization-0. Known as FRAP (Federal Research Action Plan) 1, this study characterizes the chemical composition of tire-derived crumb rubber (TDCR) used in synthetic turf fields, identifying the presence of metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The EPA explicitly states that this report is not a risk assessment and does not evaluate health impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan: Final Report, Part 2 – Exposure Characterization, Volumes 1 and 2.EPA/600/R-24/044, April 2024. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tire-crumb-exposure-characterization-report-volumes- 1-and-2. This follow-up study known as known as FRAP (Federal Research Action Plan) 2 assesses human exposure to chemicals in synthetic turf fields through inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion. Findings confirm that players are exposed to hazardous substances, particularly in indoor environments, though the report does not conduct a full health risk assessment. Zero Waste Ithaca.The Case Against Artificial Turf Expansion at Cornell: A Bibliography . Updated February 18, 2025, Accessed March 4, 2025 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i-cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO26R- Q/edit?tab=t.0 Dear Planning Board members, I am writing to urge you to follow the science and the requirements that potentially harmful projects must show that they will not harm the environment. Please require a GEIS, and hold Cornell accountable for their claims that the plastic turf is safe. Why would Cornell be opposed to an environmental impact statement if they believe that the plastic turf is safe? Please do not be persuaded by student athletes or coaches, and their pleading for their right to play year round, as a way to get you to neglect your duty. You have been presented with the evidence of suspected harm from plastic turf. Now you can support Cornell's claims of "harmless" by requiring a GEIS. Thank you for being there to protect our environment. Anne Rhodes