20251105-002: Artificial Turf Water Quality Considerations Presentation — original pdf

Backup

Artificial Turf Water Quality Considerations Austin Watershed Protection | November 5, 2025 Presentation Summary ▪ Overview of Artificial Turf (material description, installation methods, maintenance considerations) ▪ Impervious VS Pervious Cover (hydrologic and policy considerations) ▪ Water Quality/Environmental considerations on artificial turf versus sod ▪ Policy Considerations ▪ Benchmarking ▪ Staff recommendations 2 Artificial Turf Overview ▪ Synthetic fibers designed to look like grass ▪ Uses include athletic fields, playgrounds, parks, commercial, residential, dog areas ▪ Benefits: ▪ Requires no irrigation, fertilization, herbicides ▪ Extended playing time (no mud after rainstorms) ▪ Reduced operating costs (no mowing, but does need cleaning regularly) 3 Artificial Turf Overview Concerns ▪ Heat island effect ▪ No evapotranspiration cooling effect ▪ Can be as hot or hotter than concrete ▪ Infill material contents – PFAS/metals concerns, clothes staining ▪ Water quality concerns ▪ Water conservation limited by need to cool fields down with water ▪ Drainage - Potential to increase run-off ▪ Installation costs high – may be as frequent as every 10 years ▪ Health – more concussions depending, concerns about PFAS 4 Typical Installation Methods Turf Blades and Infill Shock Absorbing Pad Levelling Layer Base Gravel/Rock Layer Compacted Native Soil 5 Turf Material Considerations Infill ▪ Was typically crumb rubber (ground up tires) ▪ Source of PFAS & heavy metals ▪ Not used as often – still used in playgrounds due to shock absorbing qualities ▪ Alternative materials include: ▪ Acrylic coated sand ▪ Cork ▪ Nutshells ▪ Coconut fibers ▪ Migrates off-site easily ▪ Potential to accumulate environmental pollutants over time. Blades ▪ Microplastics – degrade over time ▪ Another source of PFAS (lubricants used in manufacturing) 6 Photo credit (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post) https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2025/08/05/artificial-turf-heat-health-environment-cost/ Turf Material Considerations Need for Replacement – breaks down over time due to heat/sun and mechanical wear ▪ Old material to landfill ▪ Periodic cleaning necessary with detergents that run off ▪ HOT: Athletic fields are often sprayed with water during hot weather to bring the temperature down ▪ Failure to maintain correctly with special equipment may void warranty 7 Natural Turf Maintenance Considerations Natural sod ▪ Soil aeriation – twice a year ▪ Irrigation needed to keep sod alive (can use reclaimed water if available) ▪ Periodic sod replacement adds cost ▪ Fertilizing/Herbicide – applied as needed ▪ Challenging to maintain under intense use ▪ Rain makes natural sod fields unplayable until dry 8 Impervious Cover ▪ Land Development code 25-8-1 (11) IMPERVIOUS COVER means the total area of any surface that prevents the infiltration of water into the ground, such as roads, parking areas, concrete, and buildings ▪ Definition of impervious cover is located in Water Quality subchapter of Land Development Code…not Drainage chapter ▪ Code distinguishes between Zoning and Watershed Impervious Cover limits ▪ Exemptions from impervious cover calculations for certain features: sidewalks, trails, stormwater control ponds, pools. ▪ Exemption from impervious cover calculations does not mean the surface is exempt from Drainage regulations 9 Compacted subgrade = Impervious Cover Low Impervious Cover = stormwater infiltration into soil High Impervious Cover = more runoff and less stormwater infiltration into soil 10 Why Perviousness Matters ▪ Infiltration of stormwater ▪ Creek base flow ▪ Soil health ▪ Tree canopy health ▪ Heat island mitigation ▪ Less erosion ▪ Reduced peak runoff (small storms) ▪ Reduced “urban stream syndrome” ▪ More macroinvertebrate biodiversity in low IC watersheds High Impervious Cover Watershed Low Impervious Cover Watershed 11 Stream Functional Pyramid 12 Existing/Previous Policies ▪ Previous EV Officer determinations ▪ Unresolved policy interpretation → left in draft form ▪ Code and criteria are silent on artificial turf ▪ Compacted base → impervious cover ▪ Site plan reviews - occasionally approved variously as: ▪ Porous pavement (Anderson HS, Vandergrift HS) ▪ 18” sand filter over underdrain along edge of field (Ann Richards MS) ▪ Site plan exemption with note saying no compaction, only proof-rolling (House Field) ▪ AISD – Interlocal Agreement: 2023 bond for 11 high school athletic fields ▪ Commercial/Multi-family/Parks vs Single Family Residential considerations ▪ No permit required for “flatwork” for single family residential permits ▪ Commercial/Multifamily/Park: De minimus installations may not trigger water quality treatment 13 Examples in Austin: Commercial Examples in Austin: Educational Facilities Examples in Austin: Parks Examples in Austin: Residential Benchmarking City Name Prohibited Allowed with drainage certification Considered Impervious Cover Notes X Pflugerville Georgetown Lakeway Kyle Dallas Raleigh, NC Nashville, TN Sacramento, CA X X X X Requires certification from a Professional Engineer X Limited to 25% of total Landscape May only be utilized in commercial, multi-family, or mixed-use and not make up more than 50 percent of the required landscaping X (depending on the manufacturer's standard specifications for installation and maintenance) X (if not designed to be pervious) X (unless designed by a professional engineer and treated like a permanent stormwater control measure) X Cannot exceed 25% of the landscape area in residential areas; shouldn’t be installed on sloped areas. 18 Staff Recommendations ▪ Staff recommends that a code amendment be initiated to address artificial turf to clarify policy ▪ Potential policy recommendations ▪ Option 1: Always considered impervious cover ▪ Option 2: Not count as watershed/zoning impervious cover for athletic fields or schools with conditions ▪ Separate water quality treatment facility ▪ PFAS free material ▪ Option 3: Other to be determined 19 Next Steps ▪ Potential code amendment initiation ▪ Environmental Commission Recommendation ▪ Codes and Ordinances Joint Committee Recommendation ▪ Planning Commission Authority to Initiate Code Amendment ▪ Gather feedback from relevant stakeholders ▪ Austin Parks and Recreation ▪ School districts ▪ HOAs/neighborhood associations ▪ Vendors ▪ Bring back recommended code amendment through adoption process 20 Questions? Liz Johnston Environmental Officer Austin Watershed Protection 512-974-2619 liz.johnston@austintexas.gov