The following is a synopsis of the environmental term and conditions to which the City of Newton, Massachusetts, has agreed in the Settlement Agreement that was executed on October 20, 2009, between the City and the 14 Newton Petitioners of record in the matter captioned MassDEP OADR WET 2009-030; DEP File No. 239-0590. 

The case arose under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. chapter 131, section 40, because a part of the proposed artificial turf field and track fell within the 100 linear feet of a vegetated wetland.

In the first instance, in March 2009, the Newton Conservation Commission placed the following conditions on the permitting of the construction of an artificial turf field and   track adjacent to a wetlands area known as WR#16. The conditions were as follows: 

29. Conditions have been incorporated into the plan to try to ensure that crumb rubber cannot migrate into the adjacent bordering vegetated wetland (or into the storm drain system) in any quantity. The applicant has incorporated in-line catch basins with sumps along the entire length of the proposed trench drain and in-line catch basins every 6-months for a period of 18-months for rubber granules. If rubber granules are found, the rubber granules will be removed and placed back within the limits of the synthetic turf field.

 

The applicant has also incorporated vinyl screening on the proposed 4’ high chain link fence in proximity of the bordering vegetated wetland. The applicant and the Environmental Planner shall together inspect the vinyl screening every 6-months for a period of 18-months for rubber granules. If rubber granules are found, these rubber granules will be removed and placed within the limits of the synthetic turf field.

 

If rubber granules are found within the trench drain and /pr at the base of the vinyl screen, the Commission may require that testing be done along the wetland line at 6-month periods for a period of 18 months to detect rubber granules. If rubber granules are detected, the Applicant shall take steps satisfactory to the Commission to further prevent the rubber granules from reaching the wetland.

 

30. The applicant shall perform an EPA approved lead wipe test on the installed synthetic turf to determine the amount of lead dust or bio-availability of the lead in the specified products. Lead wipe tests are performed to determine the amount of lead that can be transferred by touch from hand to mouth. The synthetic turf product installed shall meet or exceed the lead wipe testing standards adopted by the EPA for “bare soil in children’s play areas,” and shall be less than or equal to 400 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area (µg/sq. ft).

 

31. No herbicides, pesticides, or insecticides shall be used on the fields within 100 ft buffer zone, except with the prior written permission of the Commission.

 

32. Prior to start of work, City of Newton shall collected no less than three (3) grab samples of the substrate from the bordering vegetated wetland adjacent to the proposed work in the buffer zone. These samples shall be analyzed by EPA-approved methods and by an EPA-certified laboratory for the presence and concentration of heavy metals, to include: zinc, iron, manganese, barium, lead and chromium.

The petitioners believed that the Newton Conservation Commission’s conditions did not go far enough in ensuring that the leachate from the fields does not harm the wetlands. Therefore, the Petitioners appeal the decision of the Newton Conservation Commission the Massachusetts Depart of Environmental Protection’s Wetland Division.

On June 6, MassDEP Wetlands Division issued its Superseding Order overrode the Newton Conservation Commission’s conditions, setting forth its own conditions.  

In affirming the permitting of the project, MassDEP incorporated the following special conditions on the project:

Special Conditions … 19 (k) Letter of April 30, 2009, from Gale Associates Inc. with the sampling schedule and standards for testing signed by Nathan A Collins and Paul J. Tyrell.

 

36. “Snout” catch basins shall be inspected and cleaned if needed be at the beginning and end of each “field season” (spring and fall). This condition shall be in perpetuity.

The content of the Gale Associates letter set forth the following: “The City agrees to the three times per year for five years testing protocol as outlined in [NERO’s] letter … to the levels indicated in the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00). NERO’s letter, dated April 22, 2009, from Michael Abell to City Engineer stated: “Sampling will be for zinc, cadmium, chromium and lead. MassDEP is also requesting a plan for at least 3 times during the playing season (April-November) for a minimum of five years.

The Petitioners viewed the MassDEP’s Superseding Order wanting in that not only it overrode the Newton Conservation Commission’s conditions, but also it fell short of providing a basis for monitoring the long term effect of the crumb rubber leachate from the artificial turf field and the effect of the fields’ drainage system on the South Meadow Brook. Therefore, in June 2009, the Petitioners appealed the Wetland Division’s Superseding Order of Conditions. 

The Settlement Agreement recognizes the Superseding Order of Conditions as the final permit of record in the case, which means that the City is obligated to MassDEP for the conditions that were placed in the Superseding Order of Conditions – notably:

1. The City will undertake sampling for zinc, cadmium, chromium and lead 3 times during the playing season (April-November) for a minimum of five years, to the levels indicated in the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00).

2. “Snout” catch basins shall be inspected and cleaned if needed be at the beginning and end of each “field season” (spring and fall). This condition shall be in perpetuity.

Furthermore, the Settlement Agreement binds the City to the Newton Conservation Commission’s own conditions, as further amended by the agreement – notably:

3. Newton shall inspect the trench drain and in-line catch basins every 6-months for a period of 18-months for crumb rubber granules. If crumb rubber granules are found, the crumb rubber granules will be removed.

4. Newton shall inspect the vinyl screening on the 4’ high chain link fence in proximity of the bordering vegetated wetlands every 6-months for a period of 18-months for crumb rubber granules. If crumb rubber granules are found, these crumb rubber granules will be removed.

5. If a significant accumulation of crumb rubber granules are found within the trench drain or at the base of the vinyl screen, or in both locations, Newton shall continue to inspect along the wetland line at 6-month periods for an additional period of 18 months to detect crumb rubber granules. If a significant accumulation of crumb rubber granules are detected, Newton shall take steps to further prevent the crumb rubber granules from reaching the wetland.

6. Newton shall perform an EPA approved lead wipe test on the installed synthetic turf to determine the amount of lead dust or bio-availability of the lead in the specified products. The synthetic turf product installed shall meet or exceed the lead wipe testing standards adopted by the EPA for bare soil in children’s play areas.

7. No herbicides, pesticides, or insecticides shall be used on the fields within the 100 foot buffer zone to the wetlands, pursuant to Newton’s Integrated Pest Management Policy, maintained and executed by the City of Newton’s Department of Parks and Recreation, and as may be amended from time to time.

8. Newton shall collect no less than three (3) grab samples of the substrate from the bordering vegetated wetland adjacent to the proposed work in the buffer zone. These samples shall be analyzed by a certified laboratory for the presence and concentration of heavy metals, to include: zinc, iron, manganese, barium, lead and chromium.

9. Newton agrees that at the future time of full replacement of the synthetic turf carpet, Newton shall consider the use of alternative in-fill material other than crumb rubber in-fill, including in-fill materials made of natural ingredients that are biodegradable which is demonstrated to have performance viability comparable to crumb rubber, if then available.

10. [As relates to No. 6 above]: The initial wipe test done of the surface of the synthetic fields shall be performed within 90 days of the issuance of the Final Decision and SOC final permit of record in this matter, without the benefit of irrigation or precipitation preceding the test by three days followed by annual wipe tests performed during the month of September for a period of five years.

11. [As related to No. 9 above]: Newton shall collect no less than three (3) grab samples of the substrate from the bordering vegetated wetland adjacent to the proposed work in the buffer zone. These samples shall be analyzed by a certified laboratory for the presence and concentration of heavy metals, to [also] include copper, and cadmium. 

12. Newton shall test the water from the Well #1 only of the two wells used to irrigate the fields which constitute the project for the presence of metals including zinc, iron, manganese, barium, lead, chromium, copper, and cadmium. The baseline test of water from Well #1 shall be conducted within ninety (90) days after the issuance of the Final Decision and SOC final permit of record in this matter, followed by annual tests for five years following the initial test.

The basic documents (click):

Newton Conservation Commission Special Conditions

MassDEP (WETLANDS/NERO) Special Conditions

[No. 02] Newton, Mass.: For now, school committee member opposes artificial turf at Newton South High School. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. June 15, 2008. Geoff Epstein, a member of the Newton School Committee stated in a Newton community blog this morning, “I favor implementing a drainage solution for the [Newton] South [High School] fields with natural grass surfaces, for cost and environmental reasons. Full maintenance for the grass has to be part of that package. If after several years of use it has proven impossible to maintain the grass fields in good condition with the use required by NSHS and if synthetic turf has by then been proven to be environmentally safe, I would be OK with one field being switched to turf.”

Source: Newton TAB blog http://blogs.townonline.com/newton/?p=28882#comments  (Geoff Epstein on June 15th, 2008 2:03 am).

Epstein was responding to a constituent inquiry by Anatol Zukerman, an architect, as to Epstein’s view on the multi-million dollar project to convert the fields at Newton South High School from natural grass to artificial turf. For SynTurf.org’s reporting on Newton South fields, go to http://www.synturf.org/thenewtonbrief.html.     

In his first term on the Newton school committee, Epstein holds a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, with post-doctorate experience at MIT and Oxford University; he taught physics at Boston University. http://www.geoffepstein.net/Topics/Topic.cfm?TopicName=Home

Epstein’s response embodies the precautionary principle (http://www.synturf.org/precautionaryprinciple.html). It also suggests a belief that natural grass has not been given a fair shake in the debate to render the fields more playable.

No. 01.B]  League opposes Newturf plan, letter to editor from Susan Rosenbaum to the editor, Newton TAB, Septemebr13, 2006.

The League of Women Voters of Newton remains concerned about many of the issues we raised when the proposal to install artificial turf at Newton South High School was heard by the Community Preservation Committee in November 2005.
We have carefully listened to discussions unfolding in the community and in the Community Preservation Committee's deliberations. Still, we question the wisdom and appropriateness of using CPA money to fund rebuilding of these fields.
We have reservations about the proposed large commitment of CPA funds for this project. The NSHS fields are important to community athletics and need maintenance. A capital project to restructure the fields may be wise for the city to undertake as it plans ahead for several years of Newton North High School construction that will take those fields out of play. However, although a tenuous legal argument may be made to justify this as a CPA project on the basis of 'expanding recreational opportunity.' we do not believe this project meets the intent of the CPA law.
We also question the priority status implied by dedicating such a a large share of the fund to this project. The CPC's obligation under the statute is to recommend funds according to a community-wide needs assessment. Can we honestly sat that this project represents a need commensurate with our insufficient affordable housing, acquisition/protection of open space, and protection of deteriorating historic properties?
Further, attending to water issues is of paramount importance. South Meadow Brook, which runs under the fields, regularly floods downstream areas. Flooding is an immense potential liability for the city and could ultimately cost more than this proposal. Therefore, flood control should be coordinated with the Conservation Commission and with other projects in this watershed area.
We also fear that a strong advocacy campaign may lead to hasty approval of this project. Using this material in this location, requires vetting thoroughly and realistically of both first and long term maintenance and replacement costs
We urge the Aldermen to proceed with the utmost scrutiny as they assess this large request for CPA funds.
Susan Rosenbaum,
President,
League of Women Voters

No. 01.D]  Research should precede work on South fields, by Priscilla Leith, July 31, 2007, available at  http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinions/x1575046691. 
 
Many voices have added to the cacophony in the debate over what should be done to “fix” the playfields adjacent to Newton South High School and two other schools nearby, where school children and extra-curricular sports leagues are often unable to play because the fields are wet.
 
Proponents of installing artificial turf justify the need for the lingering NewTurf proposal by repeating the complaint that the fields are not useable for many days of the year. This is absolutely true. However, proponents seem to be proposing a “solution” before the problem has been properly diagnosed by the right professional people. The wet fields are due to the geographic location of the playfields, which sit within a bowl-shaped depression that is a low point in a complex network of brooks. The history of this area as a swamp goes back more than 100 years. Under today’s state wetland protection laws, it could never have been filled in.

These playfields are part of the South Meadow Brook Watershed and drainage area that comprises 1,867 acres. South Meadow Brook begins at Lost Pond in Brookline, meanders through Ward 8 of Newton, is joined by Hahn Brook, Paul Brook, Stearns Brook, Dickerman Brook and a series of storms drains before flowing into the Charles River near the intersection of Oak and Needham streets. The archives at the Newton History Museum have numerous newspaper articles, maps and reports from city agencies that reveal serious flooding on Oak St. in Newton Upper Falls, and along Parker Street and Dedham Street in the past. There have been flooded homes and backyards across Ward 8. Most of South Meadow Brook is now in a culvert that runs below the NSHS playfields and under Parker Street. One map shows a junction, presumably within culverts, of South Meadow Brook with Hahn Brook below the open area right next to Newton South High School.
 
Engineers have worked on the brooks and the “problems” of flooding in this watershed for almost 100 years. In January 1985, the Newton Conservation Commission issued a four-page memorandum on the Oak Hill Playground Land and the South Meadow Brook Watershed area. Elected officials should all read this, digest it and ask questions before they vote on any proposal that alleges to “fix” the wet playfields.
 
Political pressure from athletic interests, parents and devotees of organized sports is not in the best interest of the city, nor is it in the best long-range interest of property owners downstream in Ward 8 and Ward 5 who might be subjected to flooding in the future if this project is built.
 
Newton residents and taxpayers are entitled to a public, transparent study and report that provides:

· An understandable analysis of why the fields are wet so often.
· Recommendations as to what could be done to remedy the situation.
· A list of all the options to make the fields useable for sports.
· The estimated costs for each option.
· Alternative methods of paying for each option, such as long-term bonding or within a capital improvements program.
· And, finally, whether the cost should be handled by the School Department or the city side of the budget.

Priscilla M. Leith is an Auburndale resident who has 20 years of experience in water resources with the League of Women Voters.

No. 01E] Green Decade Coalition Takes a Stand

The following is a reprint of a message from Green Decade Coalition/Newton published in its flagship newsletter Green News, vol. 17, no. 6 (November/December 2007), page 3, available at http://www.greendecade.org/download/GD.News11-12.07.pdf. Also available in print edition of Newton TAB, Septemebr5, 2007, and on Newton TAB website at http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/archive/x1185659873.
 

Turf issues. The Green Decade Coalition/Newton (GDC/N) urges the Board of Aldermen to require a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact for the proposed Newton South High School synthetic turf, prior to moving forward with any decision. The GDC/N understands that there are many factors (economics, usage, maintenance, etc.) that must be weighed in determining whether or not to install synthetic turf. However, we feel that the environmental factors have not been weighed adequately to make an informed decision.
Included in an environmental assessment, the City should perform a comprehensive environmental life cycle assessment of the synthetic turf against the best natural alternatives, which would be a grass field using organic fertilizers and the appropriate drainage system to mitigate runoff problems. This life cycle assessment would include the evaluation of installation impact, water use, fertilizers, maintenance, and replacement over a 50-year life period.
A geotechnical analysis must also be conducted. We understand this analysis is part of the proposal to build the Field Turf. The decision should be made separately from one related to synthetic turf, as it could have similar implications for natural turf.
Finally, since the fields ultimately drain into the Charles River, we need to include assessments from the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), allowing us to analyze the runoff implications. This assessment should investigate water runoff implications of the installation as well as the impacts of regular use.
We understand that there is an environmental cost to maintaining the natural fields or installing synthetic alternatives, and that there is great pressure to use and enjoy the public lands. However, the environmental factors will ultimately have direct impact on the health and safety of our children and the City, and we feel that it is imperative that we understand these implications before moving forward with the synthetic turf option.
This statement from GDC/N was sent to all members of the Board of Aldermen and published in the Newton TAB newspaper.