School district contemplating synthetic turf vs. natural grass

Considering costs, health and environmental impacts 

By Kendra Walker

As the Gunnison Watershed School District bond construction project continues, one piece of the facility improvements and expansion is still to be determined: the athletic fields. The school board, the bond executive committee and the district’s owner’s representative, Artaic Group, are weighing the pros and cons of installing synthetic turf versus natural grass for fields on the Crested Butte Community School and Gunnison Community School.

Artaic has been in the process of conducting research and community engagement surrounding synthetic turf and natural grass and which to use for the three fields included in the scope of the project, one at CBCS and two behind GCS. Artaic has engaged the bond project’s user groups, school athletic directors and coaches, stakeholders from Western Colorado University and other community members. Artaic provided an update during the school board’s October 7 meeting and will come back to the school board in November with additional information and input from the executive committee to have the board weigh in on a final decision around the fields.

“We wanted to provide a snapshot of where things are currently before you make that decision,” said Ryan Smelker of Artaic. “We really tried to weigh as many factors as possible as we contemplate synthetic vs. natural,” he said, citing water quality, environmental impacts, health concerns, the project’s budget and the cost to put in and maintain the fields. “We want to dig in as deep as we possibly can because we know that’s a big decision for this school and the community.”

Artaic has engaged senior water resources consultant Jeff Writer with engineering firm SGM to conduct a water quality study to address concerns when considering natural grass vs. turf. Writer has a Ph.D. in environmental engineering and was also a science teacher at CBCS. 

Natural grass

Writer explained that natural grass is generally less expensive to install than artificial turf. However, natural grass requires more maintenance, watering and use of fertilizers and herbicides that can impact groundwater and runoff. Weather also degrades natural fields which impacts their use and length of the playing season. 

Writer said the water quality impacts are relatively low for natural grass. “I think the storm water runoff from our streets is much higher than anything coming off of the field,” he said. He said there are also some natural, biodegradable fertilizers and herbicides that can be used. 

Currently, all Gunnison Watershed School District fields are natural grass. Western has an artificial turf field at its Mountaineer Bowl. 

Artificial turf

“There’s certainly some advantages and disadvantages of artificial turf,” said Writer. Synthetic turf requires higher upfront installation costs but is much more durable than natural grass. “The big advantage is they are designed to last and have a consistent playing surface with relatively less maintenance. Our facilities can be used much more heavily.” Writer noted that feedback from Western representatives has been positive regarding the ability to use the field more.

Writer explained that the synthetic turf consists of perforated carpet backing, infill made from recycled tires and plastic fiber blades that simulate natural grass. When looking at water quality concerns from stormwater runoff, Writer noted there are various chemicals of concern associated with artificial fields.

The plastic fiber blades are usually made of polyethylene used in common products including food and beverage packages. “That is pretty standard and pretty robust, it’s not going to break down,” he said. 

Writer said one of the main concerns surrounding artificial turf is runoff of zinc and polycarbonate, common compounds associated with tires. However, he said that the runoff is minimal. 

“Bear in mind that when they look at the runoff from the field, it’s less so than what you’ll see from parking lots and asphalt,” he explained of studies done on school turf fields. “I also do a lot of work with the Coal Creek watershed, and the zinc concentrations into Coal Creek are higher than what they’re seeing [with turf].”

Writer said there are wood and cork alternatives to the tire infill that are more environmentally friendly and would eliminate those concerns. Should the district choose the artificial turf route, “I would definitely recommend not using that rubber material,” he said. 

Writer also said that concerns have been raised about the use of PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) in the artificial turf manufacturing process. PFAS are often referred to as forever chemicals because they don’t degrade, such as Teflon cookware. “There’s been no study that has found those PFAS in artificial turf,” he said. “There have been environmental advocacy groups that recommend not using artificial turf for playing fields, but there really is no science out there that this is a human health concern. It’s mostly, this might be bad, so maybe they would caution against using those. I do feel pretty confident in saying you’re not going to put something in front of the school that you’re going to caution your kids from sitting on. They’re going to have as much exposure to these chemicals from their GORE-TEX jackets, their carpet, etc.”

He noted turf manufacturers must provide information about their materials, and the district could require that they do not use PFAS in their manufacturing process. 

Board member Mandy Roberts has advocated against the district installing artificial turf. “I’m hearing from a lot of soccer players that the synthetic surface is hot,” said Roberts. “Tell me what happens when the sun is shining down on the plastic, what chemical is released?”

“It’s mostly associated with the rubber infill because that’s what releases these semi-volatile organic compounds,” said Writer. “They found that in indoor settings that was really an issue, but they did not find any air quality concerns in outdoor settings from that. These compounds are also coming off your pavement. If you’re playing teams in Texas, yes, those fields are hot. The wood infill is maybe not as hot.”

Artificial turf lasts 10 to 15 years; however, Writer said there is currently no way to recycle the material once it needs to be replaced. “One of the concerns is that it’s a manufactured product and what do you do with it 12 years down the road. Generally, this stuff will probably end up in a landfill. My biggest concern on this product is putting a giant piece of plastic on these schools that’s going to have to be thrown away and replaced. That’s when you get into the philosophical question of is this a sustainable practice.”

He summarized, “From a human health standpoint it is in my opinion not a big issue, to me the big issue is what are we going to do with this product.”

“We have to make the decision of what’s in the best interest for our kids. As a parent my kids are going to be playing on it,” said Roberts. “I want them to be in the healthiest environment, all of our kids, and natural [grass] seems to be the more normal thought process. For convenience, the [turf] fields might be ready sooner, but my concern is that later on we might have health issues with our kids because of the convenience.”

“It’s convenience, it’s great use, but there are the unknown concerns that you will have to weigh in on and think about,” said Writer. 

Artaic will present more information and feedback in November for the school board’s consideration and to weigh in on the natural grass vs. artificial turf field decision. That decision will then help allocate the project’s $4 million in unassigned funds and determine funding for other alternate line items in the overall $120 million budget.

“While we frame that decision from the board primarily rooted in health and safety concerns, there are obviously financial decisions as well,” said superintendent Leslie Nichols. “Should the board approve using synthetic, the executive committee will be tasked with determining what funds are going to be put toward that material.”