High school complex and its playing fields viewed from the air late last month.
Tim Johnson

Turf Opponents Urge Planning Board to Require Grass Fields

Passionate opponents of the plan to use artificial turf as the centerpiece of an athletics field overhaul at the regional high school had their turn before the Oak Bluffs planning board Thursday.

Passionate opponents of the plan to use artificial turf as the centerpiece of an athletics field overhaul at the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High school had their turn before the Oak Bluffs planning board Thursday night.

“I support this project with a properly maintained grass field,” said Richard Toole. “We need to do this without the safety of our drinking water being challenged.”

He was one of many critics who focused on the potential impacts on the water table from PFAS — known as forever chemicals because they break down slowly. The long-term effects of the chemicals are believed to be harmful to human health and still being studied.

The $11 million phase one project to renovate and realign the school playing fields, including a new track, is in its final phase of permitting after receiving approval from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission last summer. A special permit is needed from the planning board because the project lies in a water resource protection overlay district.

On Thursday, speakers lined up for two hours to urge the planning board to reject the artificial turf field and require a grass field instead.

Nearly every speaker echoed the same theme, saying the potential dangers of PFAS outweigh any benefits that a turf field would bring.

At previous hearings high school coaches, teachers and athletes all expressed the strongest support for a turf field, saying among other things that it would reduce the risk of injury.

But on Thursday many who spoke said a properly maintained grass field would provide the same benefits as artificial turf.

“We all need water . . . without it, everything else is impossible,” Scarlet Johnson said. “I believe the alternative is simple: grass.”

Ms. Johnson and others proposed that the school instead install a grass field maintained by low or no-nitrogen fertilizers, coupled with a rigorous maintenance schedule.

Jeremy Houser, a biologist and staff member who works for the Vineyard Conservation Society, noted the lack of support for the project from Island environmental groups.

“The number of environmental groups that have weighed in support of it is zero,” Mr. Houser said.An environmental advocacy group, VCS has opposed the artificial turf project at hearings and in its Conservation Almanac, a regular newsletter.

Mr. Houser took note of recent events on Nantucket, where plans to install a turf field have been halted. “Nantucket’s issues are really very similar to our own,” he said. “Despite that, the school there decided not to move forward.”

Off-Island advocates who had spoken out against PFAS during recent Oak Bluffs board of health meetings attended the hearing as well, reiterating warnings about the dangers of PFAS.

“You have heard, or will hear, that there are safe PFAS,” said Kyla Bennett, New England director for the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “This is simply not true . . . There is no safe level of this carcinogen.”

The hearing continues next Thursday, when planning board members will ask questions about the project, and give high school spokesmen an opportunity to respond to comments.

The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 04/23/2022 - 14:28

Permalink

Mark Acker Vh

I wonder if the waste of millions of gallons of water from our aquifer to keep the natural grass alive in the summer is worse than the unsubstantiated effects of PFAS leaching out?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 04/23/2022 - 15:07

Permalink

Headline Misleads OB

Having attended the entire meeting, I feel this headline misleads the public on the broader argument being made by nearly every person who spoke.

Each person spoke specifically against PFAS and its related chemicals being placed in close proximity to the island’s water source. That grass in the alternative is somewhat of a given, an obvious proposed solution.

Turf Opponents Urge Planning Board To Deny Use of “Forever Chemicals” for Playing Field

as a headline is way more accurate and indicative of the argument being made.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 04/24/2022 - 10:49

Permalink

Diana Carpinone

There was some discussion of nitrogen fertilizer during the hearing and it is a legitimate concern that runoff can have detrimental effects on the environment. A few facts on maintaining natural grass athletic fields:

Natural grass athletic fields do require some supplemental nitrogen (N) to stay healthy and playable.

Phosphorus (P) is not required.

Runoff is mainly from synthetic fertilizers and over/misapplication.

Organic fertilizers containing zero P and low levels of water insoluble N are available.

By following the best practices laid out in the NOFA Standards for Organic Land Care, a grass athletic field can be maintained properly without concern for nutrient pollution.

Organic practices, fertilizers and soil amendments support a healthy soil foodweb that can naturally cycle N leading to a decrease in the need for fertilizers overall.

A natural grass athletic field is a living system. Healthy soil grows healthy grass. It filters pollutants, retains more water and sequesters carbon too. Given the proper care and maintenance, organic land care practices will lead to lower costs for inputs, irrigation and labor over time, and result in a durable and safe playing surface for athletes.

Diana Carpinone AOLCP
President, Non Toxic Communities

Questions? MV

Am I to assume this can all be done within the existing budget? The consultant was wrong? There will not be a need for 2 additional fields to properly rest this field? Those additional fields will also be able to be maintained within the existing budget? Why does everyone keep thinking this is a one for one deal? Go back and look at the presentations. If the grass was as easy to grow and as cheap as everyone says why does turf even exist? So many questions!!!!

Islander61 OB

So Diana, President, Non Toxic Communities, it's obvious your comments are bias but let's discuss. IF you have unlimited budgets and man power you can say anything can be done, but this is not the case here. Your statements alone prove that grass would be an expensive undertaking and would still have a high potential for failure. We have an organic golf course here on the island and I played it last fall. They had so much grass that was torn up due to skunks and rodents there were several areas that were really unplayable, and that was a golf course with a full time staff and a budget that would far outdo a high school. Forget what a football or soccer team would do to that situation. No one is saying you can't grow grass, you can, but it will not hold up under the pressure of high school athletics. This is why so many high school are going synthetic, they have the same problem as the high school does. The proposed synthetic field has been tested and retested and those EXPERTS, experts in that were hired by the MVC, have said it will not contaminate the water based on science and the laws of physics. The concerns have been listened to and the school has addressed all those concerns and then the MVC added more contingencies which the school agreed to. Due diligence has been done.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/25/2022 - 00:38

Permalink

Bob Edgartown

Please let’s just vote on this and be done as in the end many will be upset many will be happy and the majority of us will just be glad to see it out of the papers. I do think it’s worth listening to and giving weight to the people who will actually use these facilities and what they would like. So often people who don’t have a skin in the game like to dictate to the people that do. Because we know what’s good for you you do not.

Skin in the game OB

Shouldn’t the people who drink water (all humans on MV) have a say regarding an aspect of project that would irreparably harm their (all humans on MV) drinking water?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/25/2022 - 11:43

Permalink

Rebecca Chilmark

When it comes to forever chemicals in our only water table, don't we all have 'a skin in the game'?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/25/2022 - 14:21

Permalink

James EDGARTOWN

Why is it only the synthetic turf field that is being discussed? Why does the opposition continue to ignore the materials used in the track?? Melted crumb rubber over asphalt surely must concern those worried about the aquafer. Someone PLEASE EXPLAIN. HELLO Diana, President, Non Toxic Communities?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/25/2022 - 15:16

Permalink

Really! MV

I don’t think this a condition type of special permit. Thumbs up or thumbs down. Someone from the town correct me if I am wrong. Bye bye track!

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.