Fake turf in San Francisco Parks - is it good for real people and wildlife?

Last fall neighbors went to a meeting called by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department at the Potrero Hill Community Center and learned that the Center's playing fields were scheduled to be resurfaced with a synthetic material. The new surfaces were to be "protected" by locked chain-link fencing and made available only to paying users. Bright lights were to be installed for evening use. Dismayed at losing the use of the grassy area, one neighbor called the Sierra Club, almost crying into the phone, "What can we do?"

It seems that about two years ago the Recreation and Park Department partnered with the City Fields Foundation to install FieldTurf on many playing fields throughout the city. Two fields have been installed, and five more are in the process, despite minimal community outreach and, as far as we have been able to determine, no Environmental Impact Report.

In our dense urban environment, open space is a priority. Proposals to replace dirt with synthetic surfaces in our parks and to restrict their use must have very careful community and environmental reviews.

Pros and cons

FieldTurf^® is promoted for high-end stadiums and playing fields. A "proprietary polyethylene `alloy' fiber" lies on top of a rubber base made from shredded tires, in turn on top of crushed rock or asphalt. This bottom layer provides drainage - so that water does not pool on the surface and can percolate into groundwater. The rubber provides cushioning, and the polyethylene gives the appearance of grass. The advantages extolled by proponents are year-round use, low injury rates for athletes, and low upkeep costs.

FieldTurf, however, may present-health hazards; public health experts including San Francisco's Department of the Environment have called for further study before the material is used extensively. Over time, plastic is known to degrade, releasing phthalates that are known endocrine disruptors and potential carcinogens. Shredded tires are more of an unknown, but 6 - 12% of the general population are estimated to be allergic to rubber, with an increase incidence of dermatitis and a potential increase in chronic bronchitis. FieldTurf's long-term effects on humans have not been analyzed, and no study has been done assessing effects on growing children.

FieldTurf may also help spread human pathogens. When people play on normal grass, any pathogens that they shed will be degraded in the soil environment. Heavily trafficked indoor spaces require regular cleaning, and the same must be true for FieldTurf, which is, after all, an outdoor carpet. We must be cautious about disturbing the balance of pathogen exposures, especially with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

There is an obvious difference to nature and its critters between synthetic grass in a few commercial stadiums and its use on many large playing fields, especially in a dense urban environment. Grassy fields, though far from a natural habitat, are inhabited by gophers and voles and numerous worms, insects, and other invertebrates, and are feeding areas for many birds. The city needs to weigh the effects on the natural world before installing FieldTurf throughout San Francisco.

The bright lights may harm wildlife, especially migratory birds. The lights would be intrusive for neighbors and prevent enjoyment of the dark night sky. They may also cause health problems; see www.darksky.org

According to the manufacturer, at Garfield Park, the new field has failed and is being replaced, albeit by the installers, who admit that it was not installed properly. Who will pay to replace the fields when they wear out over time?

The installation of FieldTurf requires the removal of 5 - 8 inches of topsoil. Should the city decide that the synthetic surface is not working, the removal of the three layers of the product and the re-establishment of soil is an unknown cost that will probably be borne by the city, not the commercial suppliers of FieldTurf.

Other concerns include the unsustainability of the petroleum-based, non-recyclable materials and the likelihood that instead of neighborhood users the playing fields will be used by people arriving from elsewhere in private cars.

Parks slated for FieldTurf

The two parks with finished FieldTurf surfaces are Garfield Square and Silver Terrace - although, as mentioned above, the Garfield Square park is being re-constructed due to turf failure.

The five under active construction are Crocker Amazon, Kimball Playground, Franklin Square Playground, South Sunset Playground, and Potrero del Sol.

Three are in the "neighborhood outreach" stage: Rossi, Potrero Recreation Center, and Louis Sutter playing field.

What should be done?

Open, citywide deliberations need to take place about the use and implications of artificial turf. San Francisco has banned plastic grocery-store bags. Do we now want plastic playing fields? The discussion should include the chain-link fencing, bright lights, and change of users that excludes informal playing. There are 28 playing fields proposed for FieldTurf installation. What's the rush? Let's do our homework first.

WhatYouCanDo

Call the office of Recreation and Park Department general manager Yomi Agunbiade at (415)831-2401 and the Recreation and Parks Commission at (415)831-2750.

• Ask that the precautionary principle be observed in San Francisco, with an immediate moratorium on artifical-turf installation until it is proven that no harm will be done.
• Ask the department to conduct an Environmental Impact Report on artificial-turf use on the city's fields to evaluate the cumulative impacts on people and wildlife.

For more information about FieldTurf, see the manufacturer's web site

For a critical document about the possible health hazards, see "The Truth about the Existence of Microbes in Synthetic Turf System"

Pinky Kushner, vice chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group Executive Committee