HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet-GFR Lead Agency 1-7-25 mtg1
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
DATE: December 26, 2024
RE: Cornell Game Farm Rd Field Hockey Field – Establish Lead Agency, Begin SEQRA
Enclosed please find materials related to the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project
on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road
Athletic Complex (also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex).
The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the
conversion of the existing natural grass practice field (McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf field along
with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two support
facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box).
Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting
rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase
two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also
includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements.
The enclosures include:
1. Draft resolution establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the
environmental review
2. A copy of the Lead Agency concurrence letter to Involved Agencies, and agency response
3. Another copy of the letters from NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP),
dated October 18, 2024 & October 28, 2024 (included in November 19, 2024, meeting packet)
4. Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and blank FEAF Part 2
5. Public comments received for January 7, 2025, meeting packet distribution
The Planning Board classified this project as a Type I Action, pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617) on November 19, 2024. As such, the project
requires the completion of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and a coordinated review
amongst the agencies that have discretionary authority to approve certain aspects of the project.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental
review of the project on November 19, 2024. The attachments include a letter officially notifying
Involved Agencies of this intent and requesting concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as
Lead Agency. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Involved Agencies have 30 days to respond to the
notification (letter sent November 20, 2024 – agency responses required by December 20, 2024). The
town received one response from an Involved Agency, which is attached.
2
The NYS OPRHP, another Involved Agency, previously issued comments on the project related to areas
of potential archaeological interest, so the two letters associated with potential impacts to
archaeological resources are also attached (these letters were also in the November 19, 2024, Planning
Board meeting packet).
The purpose of the January 7, 2025, Planning Board meeting is for the board to establish themselves as
the Lead Agency and to begin discussing the environmental review. The board will need to pass a
resolution (draft attached) to establish itself as the Lead Agency. Once established, the board must then
begin to reasonably consider whether the project has the potential for at least one significant adverse
environmental impact. At the November 19, 2024, meeting, the Planning Board agreed to hold off on
making any SEQR determination on the project until the town received Cornell’s responding papers
associated with the Meinig Fieldhouse Article 78 lawsuit.
There are no prepared draft FEAF Parts 2 and 3 included in this meeting packet. To assist the board, the
enclosures include a FEAF Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a blank FEAF Part 2, so the board can
review and discuss the sections that need to be completed.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this proposal by phone at 273-1721,
extension 121, or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov.
Cc: Elisabete Godden, Project Manager, Cornell University, Facilities and Campus Services
Kimberly Michaels, Director of Landscape Architects, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio
Leslie Schill, Director of Campus Planning, Cornell University, Office of the University Architect
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR – Establish Lead Agency
Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project
Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, 62.-2-6
Game Farm Road
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
January 7, 2025
Whereas:
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on November 19, 2024, considered a Sketch
Plan for the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm
Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road
Athletic Complex (also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex). The proposal
involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the
conversion of the existing natural grass practice field (McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf
field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities,
and two support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/-
square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey
team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and
indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of
the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater
facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly
Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent;
2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Planning
Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR
Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality
Review, because the proposal involves an activity, other than the construction of residential
facilities, that involves the physical alteration of 10 acres (6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (6) (i)), and
parking for 100 vehicles (Town Code 148-5.C (3)); and
3. At its meeting on November 19, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board proposed to establish
itself as the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced
proposal. Potential Involved and Interested agencies were notified of its intent to serve as Lead
Agency on November 20, 2024;
4. The Planning Board, on November 19, 2024, accepted a Full Environmental Assessment Form,
Part 1, submitted by the applicant, along with a report containing a narrative and studies titled
“Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Site Plan Review Application Report,” dated October 3,
2024, prepared by Fisher Associates, drawings titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field,
Cornell University,” dated 09-27-2024, prepared by Sasaki, and other materials;
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved
Agencies, establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-
described proposal.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Town Planning Project No.: DEV-24-10
TO: Involved Agencies:
Katherine Borgella, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County Planning Department
Elizabeth Cameron, Director of Environmental Health, Tompkins County Whole Health
Dereth Glance, Regional Director, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Region 7
Rod Howe, Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town Board
Ruth Pierpont, Director, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
Jeffrey Smith, Director, Tompkins County Highway Department
FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
DATE: November 20, 2024
RE: Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project
REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS
The Town of Ithaca has received an application for Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell Game
Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project, which has been determined to be a Type I Action under both the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA), and Chapter 148, Environmental
Quality Review, Town of Ithaca Town Code. In an effort to coordinate review under SEQRA, your Board
or Agency has been identified as having “approval” authority over some aspects of this project. It is the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board’s intention to act as Lead Agency in this review.
Here is a link to a Full Environmental Assessment Form (Full EAF), Part 1, along with supplemental
project information provided by the applicant : CU GFR Field Hockey Field. These are the minimum
materials required under SEQRA for Lead Agency coordination.
It is respectfully requested that you advise within thirty (30) days of your consent to the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board serving as the Lead Agency for this project. The Planning Board will undertake Lead
Agency status at that time, in the event that you do not respond within thirty (30) days.
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please contact me at (607) 273-1721, or by email
at cbalestra@townithacany.gov.
Enc.
2
cc: Bambi Avery, Town of Dryden Town Clerk
Lori Brewer, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
Ray Burger, Town of Dryden Director of Planning
Leslie Schill, Cornell University Director of Campus Planning
1
Chris Balestra
From:Scott Freyburger <sfreyburger@tompkins-co.org>
Sent:Friday, December 20, 2024 12:27 PM
To:Chris Balestra
Subject:FW: Request for Lead Agency Status - Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Attachments:CU GFR Hockey - letter to involved agencies - lead agency intent.doc
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
**WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the
from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact
the IT department
Chris,
Sorry about the delayed response. We at TCWH have no objec ons to the Town Planning Board serving as the
Lead Agency for this project.
Thank you,
Sco Freyburger, P.E., M. Eng.
Public Health Engineer
From: Elizabeth Cameron <lcameron@tompkins-co.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:17 PM
To: Scott Freyburger <sfreyburger@tompkins-co.org>
Subject: FW: Request for Lead Agency Status - Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Hey Scott – Would you please handle this? Thanks - Liz
From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 3:13 PM
To: Katie Borgella <KBORGELLA@tompkins-co.org>; Elizabeth Cameron <lcameron@tompkins-co.org>; Jeffrey Smith
<jsmith@tompkins-co.org>; dereth.glance@dec.ny.gov; dep.r7@dec.ny.gov; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>;
fred.bonn@oprhp.state.ny.us
Cc: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>
Subject: Request for Lead Agency Status - Town of Ithaca Planning Board
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Hi,
The Town of Ithaca has received an applica on for Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell Game Farm
Road Field Hockey Field Project, which has been determined to be a Type I Ac on under both the State
2
Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA), and Chapter 148, Environmental Quality
Review, Town of Ithaca Town Code.
A ached is a le er that includes a link to materials associated with the project. The Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has declared their intent to be the lead agency for the environmental review of this project and is
reques ng concurrence with that declara on.
Please let me know if you cannot open the link and I’ll find another way to send you the materials.
Cheers,
Chris (she/her)
Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 273-1721, ext. 121
cbalestra@townithacany.gov
Cultivating our gifts to create a legacy of infrastructure that improves quality of life.
October 28, 2024
C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, OPRHP Letter of Concurrence
Dear Director Randall:
In our submission for Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field on October 3, 2024 we provided official reports from Public
Archeology Facility (PAF) which indicate that there are no areas of potential archeological interest within the limits of the proposed
project.
In an effort to be thorough, the project team worked with PAF to coordinate a a review of the reports by the Division for Historic
Preservation within the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). This review was completed
and has yielded a letter of concurrence with the findings of the previous studies, which is attached.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We look forward to introducing the project to
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at the November 19 meeting.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Michaels
Director of Landscape Architecture
1001 W Seneca Street, Suite 201 • Ithaca, New York 14850 • 607.277.1400 • fisherassoc.com
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Division for Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189
(518) 237-8643 • https://parks.ny.gov/shpo
KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID
Governor Commissioner
October 18, 2024
Sam Kudrle
Archaeologist
Public Archaeology Facility
Binghamton University
Science 1
Binghamton, NY 13902
Re: OPRHP
Addendum to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project
24PR08775
03PR00922
Dear Sam Kudrle:
Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted
materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (section
14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are
those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources.
They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be
involved in or near your project.
OPRHP has reviewed the Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey report for the Addendum
to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (24PR08775) prepared by The Public
Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Consulting Archaeologists (September 2024;
24SR00535). OPRHP concurs with the report recommendation that no additional
archaeological investigation is warranted.
Based upon this review, it is OPRHP’s opinion that no properties, including archaeological
and/or historic resources, listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Registers of
Historic Places will be impacted by this project.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at Bradley.Russell@parks.ny.gov.
Sincerely,
Bradley W. Russell, Ph.D.
Historic Preservation Specialist - Archaeology
17
Full Environmental
Assessment Form
FEAF 2019
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and,when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes”or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”,proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information
contained in Part 1is accurate and complete.
A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State:Zip Code:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State:Zip Code:
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State:Zip Code:
Page 1 of 13
Cornell Field Hockey field
On the west side of Game Farm Road,between the road and McGovern Fields;Town Parcel #62.-2-6 and #62.-2-5
Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics.Construction of the project is proposed in two
phases.Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed,NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field.The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized
grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields.Phase one will include a field hockey pitch,a new driveway,formalized parking,
pedestrian amenities,and small support facilities.The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building.
An additional building (phase two)for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation.The building will be a single-story clubhouse
facility to serve the field hockey team.The clubhouse will include team locker rooms,offices,meeting rooms,a physical therapy/training room,a lounge,toilets,showers,and an
indoor training space.The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field
hockey practice during inclement weather.
The proposed septic system,storm water management system,and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate the needs of the
future clubhouse.The enclosed documents and FEAF address the full project buildout (field and clubhouse).
Kimberly Michaels
607.227.1400
kmichaels@fisherassoc.com
1001 W.Seneca Street,Suite 201
Ithaca NY 14850
Elisabete Godden,Project Manager
607.255.2478
egodden@cornell.edu
102 Humphries Service Building
Ithaca NY 14853
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14850
B.Government Approvals
B.Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s)
Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
a.City Council, Town Board,9 Yes 9 No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village 9 Yes 9 No
Planning Board or Commission
c. City, Town or 9 Yes 9 No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d.Other local agencies 9 Yes 9 No
e. County agencies 9 Yes 9 No
f. Regional agencies 9 Yes 9 No
g.State agencies 9 Yes 9 No
h. Federal agencies 9 Yes 9 No
i. Coastal Resources.
i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?9 Yes 9 No
ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?9 Yes 9 No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?9 Yes 9 No
C.Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
•If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
•If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No
would be located?
b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway;9 Yes 9 No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan,9 Yes 9 No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13
(Future Land Use designation is "campus")
Town Board: Sewer Exemption
Town Planning Board: SEQR, Site Plan Approval,
Special Use Permit
ZBA: Sign Variance
TCHD OWTS Construction Permit; Tompkins
County GML 239M Review
NYSDEC: Stormwater Permit; OWTS SPDES
Permit
C.3. Zoning
a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?9 Yes 9 No
c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.
a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d.What parks serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?_____________ acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?_____________ acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?_____________ acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?9 Yes 9 No
i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________
d.Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?9 Yes 9 No
iii.Number of lots proposed? ________
iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?9 Yes 9 No
i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months
ii.If Yes:
•Total number of phases anticipated _____
•Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year
•Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year
•Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
LDR -Low Density Residential
Ithaca City School District
Cornell Campus Police,Tompkins County Sheriff
Ithaca Fire District #1,Bangs Ambulance
East Hill Recreation Way
Recreational -Field Hockey Field
15.65
12.22
506
2
3 2025
tbd tbd
It is anticipated that within five years,the phase two building could move forward.
If so,it would likely take 12-18 months to complete.The infrastructure proposed for phase I is sized to accommodate phase II.
f. Does the project include new residential uses?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
At completion
of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i. Total number of structures ___________
ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres
v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations
a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes 9 No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
•Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
•Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? 9 Yes 9 No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii.Will the excavation require blasting?9 Yes 9 No
ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
3
20'-0"97'-0"165'-0"
14,400
Stormwater detention and treatment
N/A
N/A
1.0 0.72
5'-14'375'
Traditional construction techniques associated with the installation of a compacted earth fill embankment for stormwater mitigation
ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation,fill, placement of structures, or
alteration of channels,banks and shorelines.Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments?Yes 9 No
If Yes,describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________
•expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________
•purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
•if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c.Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
•Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?9 Yes 9 No
•Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No
•Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No
•Do existing lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If, Yes:
•Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
•Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
•Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.If water supply will be from wells (public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
•Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
•Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No
•Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No
•Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No
Page 5 of 13
950 Domestic consumption only)
Cornell University Water System (NYSDEC Permit #: 7-5030-00008/00007)
A new 8" HDPE water main will be connected to the existing system located at the McGovern Soccer Building and extended to the project.
Fall Creek via the Cornell University Water Filtration Plant
N/A
N/A
N/A
A public water supply will be used for the proposed project.
N/A
950
Sanitary wastewater
N/A
N/A
•Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
•Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
•Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
•What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)
ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
•If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?9 Yes 9 No
iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?9 Yes 9 No
f.Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify:
i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit,9 Yes 9 No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Page 6 of 13
N/A
A septic system that includes a subsurface mound absorption bed, septic tank, and pump station will be installed to provide wastewater treatment for the project.
The required onsite wastewater treatment system construction permit will be applied for and obtained from the Tompkins County Health Department.
N/A
3.47
123
Driveway/parking drainage system, swales, athletic field underdrains
Runoff will be collected via a system of drainage inlets, swales, and underdrains; then directed to two bioretention filters and an extended detention
shallow wetland before being released to Cascadilla Creek. Existing drainage patterns and rates will be maintained.
Cascadilla Creek
h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants,9 Yes 9 No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): _____________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Parking spaces: Existing ___________________Proposed ___________Net increase/decrease _____________________
iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?Yes No
v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site?9 Yes 9 No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No
for energy?
If Yes:
i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade, to an existing substation?9 Yes 9 No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.
i.During Construction:ii.During Operations:
•Monday - Friday: _________________________•Monday - Friday: ____________________________
•Saturday: ________________________________•Saturday: ___________________________________
•Sunday: _________________________________•Sunday: ____________________________________
•Holidays: ________________________________•Holidays: ___________________________________
Page 7 of 13
N/A
7AM - 3PM
7AM - 3PM
7AM - 3PM
7AM - 3PM
6AM - 9PM
9AM - 9PM
9AM - 9PM
n/a
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,9 Yes 9 No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?9 Yes 9 No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting?9 Yes 9 No
If yes:
i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? 9 Yes 9 No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)9 Yes 9 No
or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage?
If Yes:
i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
iii.Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities:________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides,9 Yes 9 No
insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i.Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?9 Yes 9 No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
•Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
•Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
•Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
•Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 13
N/A
Construction: Typical construction and jobsite activity noise: Diesel engines, dump trucks, excavators, etc.
Operations: PA system, spectators, field hockey activity during practices and games
Twenty-two 20' pedestrian lights will be installed in the proposed parking lot and along the sidewalk/path circulation areas between parking, field
hockey field, and support facility locations. Four 70' tall standard athletic lighting poles will be sited at the corners of the field hockey field.
If necessary, a professional will apply pesticides or herbicides to control unwanted vegetation and pests. Cornell utilizes an
Integrated Pest Management approach to grounds management on campus that will be used at this site as well.
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
•________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
•________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No
waste?
If Yes:
i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a. Existing land uses.
i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
9 Urban 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm)
9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ____________________________________
ii.If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or
Covertype
Current
Acreage
Acreage After
Project Completion
Change
(Acres +/-)
•Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
surfaces
•Forested
•Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-
agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
•Agricultural
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
•Surface water features
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
•Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
•Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
•Other
Describe: _______________________________
________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
soccer fields and baseball diamond
1.55 5.02 +3.47
4.70 2.53 -2.17
0.10 0.33 +0.23
Lawn 9.30 7.77 -1.53
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? 9 Yes 9 No
i.If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i.Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
•Dam height: _________________________________ feet
•Dam length: _________________________________ feet
•Surface area: _________________________________acres
•Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii.Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 9 Yes 9 No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i.Has the facility been formally closed? 9 Yes 9 No
•If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i.Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
9 Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
9 Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
9 Neither database
ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? 9 Yes 9 No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv.If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
v.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? 9 Yes 9 No
•If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
•Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
•Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
•Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
•Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? 9 Yes 9 No
•Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site
a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________%
___________________________ __________%
____________________________ __________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained: _____% of site
9 Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site
9 Poorly Drained _____% of site
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%: _____% of site
9 10-15%: _____% of site
9 15% or greater: _____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, 9 Yes 9 No
ponds or lakes)?
ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii.Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, 9 Yes 9 No
state or local agency?
iv.For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information:
•Streams: Name ____________________________________________Classification _______________________•Lakes or Ponds:Name ____________________________________________Classification _______________________•Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________Approximate Size ___________________ •Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v.Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? 9 Yes 9 No
j.Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No
k.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
>10
N/A
Silt mixed with clay and trace sand.100
Glacial Till (>13 ft depth)
>10
100
100
RiverineCascadillaCreek
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii.Extent of community/habitat:
•Currently:______________________ acres
•Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
•Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
If Yes:
i.Species and listing (endangered or threatened):______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 No
special concern?
If Yes:
i.Species and listing:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? 9 Yes 9 No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? 9 Yes 9 No
i.If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i.Nature of the natural landmark: 9 Biological Community 9 Geological Feature
ii.Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13
Deer Rodents Garter Snakes
Three Birds Orchid is identified on the EAF Mapper,but the conditions for this species do not exist on the project site.
NRCS Soil Mapping
e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district 9 Yes 9 No
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i.Nature of historic/archaeological resource: 9 Archaeological Site 9 Historic Building or District
ii.Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 9 Yes 9 No
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________
h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local 9 Yes 9 No
scenic or aesthetic resource?
If Yes:
i.Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 9 Yes 9 No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________
ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? 9 Yes 9 No
F.Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G.Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________
Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________
Page 13 of 13
Eligible property:CCC Camp SP-48 (140 Game Farm Road)
Former Civilian Conservation Corp building (shed)located on the property
Former CCC building (see above),19th century farm sites,Native American sites
Multiple archaeology investigations.
Cayuga Lake Byway;Town-Designated View on Pine Tree Road;County-Designated View on Turkey Hill/Dodge Road
Scenic byway,designated views
Byway +/-2.7;Views +/-0.5
Kimberly Michaels October 1,2024
PRINT FORM
Director of Landscape Architecture
33
Supplemental Information
This page has been intentionally left blank.
35
Impact on Land
The proposed development is located adjacent to McGovern Soccer Fields on Game Farm Road, and two overhead NYSEG
transmission lines. The project area currently consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a drive lane that connects
Game Farm Road to McGovern Fields. Land disturbance for the project will be limited to excavation for utilities (septic, water
service, drainage, electrical), field development, support facility development, site earthwork, and pavement installation. All
excavated material is intended to be used on site. Existing drainage patterns will be emulated to the extent possible. Erosion
and sediment controls will be implemented during construction as outlined in the project SWPPP, and the site will ultimately be
stabilized with vegetation. No significant adverse impacts to land are anticipated.
Impact on Water
The site currently drains to Cascadilla Creek, which lies north of the project site, and runs to the west, ultimately to Cayuga
Lake. The watershed contributing to Cascadilla Creek is greater than 1,500 acres. The proposed development conforms to the
Town of Ithaca Stream Setback Law and is greater than 100 feet from the southern stream bank. Based on a review of the FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Ithaca, NY (dated June 19, 1985), the project property is located in flood zone “C” for
Cascadilla Creek. The FEMA definition of flood zone “C” is areas that are of minimal flood hazard, and higher than the elevation
of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance-flood.
There are neither federal nor state wetlands located on the project site. The National Wetlands Inventory indicates that the
adjacent Cascadilla Creek area is a Forested/Shrub Wetland, but the project will not disturb land within that area.
The stormwater management design will reduce runoff discharge from the project area for the 1, 10, and 100-year storm events,
and will provide Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Reduction, and Erosion Control Measures to meet the NYSDEC and Town of
Ithaca requirements.
Potable water for domestic, fire protection, and Field Hockey watering purposes will be supplied from the Cornell University Zone
3 distribution grid. This system has adequate capacity to accommodate the project. The distribution main will be protected from
the Field Hockey watering system with an approved backflow prevention assembly.
Wastewater collected from the proposed buildings will be directed to an on-site septic tank.
No significant adverse impacts to water are anticipated as a result of the project.
Impact on Air
The proposed project will include no new emissions sources and therefore is expected to have no adverse impacts on air quality.
Impact on Plants, Animals, & Agriculture
The existing project site consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a gravel drive lane; is adjacent to two other
improved soccer fields; and is currently characterized by mowed grass, surrounded by fallow fields. One pine tree (4” DBH) will
be removed as part of the construction of this project. This land has not been used in the last 20 years for agriculture and is not
within an Agricultural or Farmland Protection Zone.
According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper which provides generalized locations of Rare Plants and Animals,
the Three Birds Orchid is identified as potentially inhabiting these parcels. The Three Birds Orchid habitat is beech forest, which
does not exist on the project site. No significant adverse impacts to plants, animals, or agriculture are expected as a result of this
project.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The proposed project is not located within an identified viewshed and will be surrounded by similar athletic facilities, therefore
no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources are expected.
Supplemental Information
36
Impact on Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources
According to SHPO CRIS, the entire project parcel is within an “archaeological buffer area”. Between 2003 to 2021, Public
Archaeology Facility (PAF) and Panamerican archaeologists surveyed and investigated roughly 43% of the current and former
agricultural fields owned by Cornell University along Game Farm Road, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road. From these
investigations, four precontact Indigenous sites, one historic site, and one precontact site with an associated early historic
component were identified within the properties owned by Cornell University. Most of these site areas were either investigated at
the Phase 2 level of analysis and found to be not eligible for the National Register as individual sites or were not recommended
as potentially eligible after the Phase 1 surveys. Of the precontact sites, only one produced the cultural material results
consistent with a high research potential, and through consultation with NYS OPRHP an Alternative Mitigation Report was
developed to summarize, analyze, and interpret all of the Cascadilla Creek Sites within an archaeological district focused on
upland sites in marginal environmental settings. The studies have identified one area of potential archaeologic interest, and that
area is not within the project site. For more information, refer to the Phase I Reconnaissance Addendum Survey (2024) appendix.
There are no structures, sites, or districts within the project properties that are currently listed on the State or National Register of
Historic Places. A shed located on the 62.-2-6 tax parcel (located north of the NYSEG transmission lines from the project site is
listed as an “Eligible” facility, as a Civilian Conservation Corps structure CCC Camps SP-48 at 140 Game Farm Road), according
to the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS). This structure will not
be impacted by the proposed project.
The project team is coordinating with SHPO and expects to receive a letter of concurrence with PAF’s findings in November. This
letter will be provided to planning staff once available.
Impact on Open Space & Recreation
The project site consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a driveway with informal parking that is accessed from
Game Farm Road. The project site is adjacent to McGovern soccer fields and a small fieldhouse used by Cornell Athletics. The
new Field Hockey venue will be consistent with these active recreation land uses. The project site will not impact the East Ithaca
Recreation Way trail, a nearby open space amenity. The project will have a positive impact on university recreational space by
providing Cornell University’s field hockey athletes with a new playing field. No negative impacts to open space or recreation are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Impact on Critical Environmental and Unique Natural Areas
There are no designated critical environmental areas (CEA) within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The nearest
CEA, Coy Glen, is located approximately four miles west of the project site.
The Cascadilla Creek Woods and Fish Ponds Unique Natural Area is located north of the project site. As previously noted, all site
development is at least over 100 feet from the creek, compliant with the Town of Ithaca’s Stream Setback Law. Site grading and
other proposed improvements are outside of the UNA boundary. Stormwater management features are being designed for the
project to protect downstream features. No adverse impact to Unique Natural Areas is anticipated as a result of the project.
Impact on Transportation
Parking Impacts
The project will provide 120 paved parking spaces to support both the proposed field hockey venue and existing soccer practice
fields. This will provide adequate parking, based on detailed projected use for these functions. The project is not anticipated to
result in adverse impacts to parking.
Traffic Impacts
The complex lies on the west side of Game Farm Road, a Tompkins County road where the street centerline is identified as the
municipal boundary between the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. The soccer and proposed field hockey facilities are
accessed directly and solely via Game Farm Road, which runs for just over one mile between NYS Route 366 to the north and
Supplemental Information
37
Tompkins County’s Ellis Hollow Road to the south.
Field hockey practices are anticipated to generate up to 18 vehicle trips between 6:30-9:00AM Mon-Friday. Field Hockey
competitions are anticipated to generate up to 74 car roundtrips and one or two buses in the afternoon/evening hours. These
additional vehicle trips are not expected to impact the level of service on Game Farm Road or to disrupt typical traffic patterns.
Please see Traffic and Parking study memo appendix for more information.
The project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to local traffic or parking.
Impact on Energy
The project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to energy. The project facilities and lighting will be supplied by the
existing NYSEG electric service along Game Farm Road. Service is presently extended to the McGovern field soccer facility.
The field hockey facilities are small and require relatively low energy loads, and the electrical capacity is sufficient to supply the
programmatic needs of the project. No propane or other natural gas is proposed for this project. The project will comply with the
Ithaca Energy Code Supplement.
Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light
Sound generation will be restricted to typical noise associated with athletic facilities, including a sound system for warm up
music, and expected competition sound including spectator cheering and commentating. The sound system is designed to
project sound from east to west across the field to reach spectators within the field area, the dugouts, and the press box, while
minimizing the volume of noise to the surrounding area.
A sound study has been completed for the proposed project and is provided as an appendix. By focusing sound west, toward the
field hockey field, volume is greatly mitigated for the surrounding areas, including residences located to the south of the project
site along Game Farm Road. Modeling for the audio system indicates that the project will not increase noise over existing sound
levels.
There are no significant odor-producing aspects from the field and associated operations.
Four, 70’ tall athletics field light poles will flank the field hockey field to provide sufficient, safe lighting to support both
competition and practice play. Pedestrian lighting will be Cornell standard LED fixtures that are energy efficient and dark-sky
compliant. No light trespass will occur.
No significant adverse impacts to sound, odor or light are anticipated as a result of the project.
Impact on Human Health
This project proposes to build one NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field hockey field to support a needed practice and
competition venue for the varsity field hockey team. Much scrutiny and research has been completed to specify this field
to ensure that Cornell athletes, visitors to the field, and the general public health are protected. Synthetic turf, as proposed
for this project, has been shown to pose no health risk in more than 110 technical studies conducted by a variety of trusted
scientific authorities, including the US EPA, US Department of Energy and Environment, Washington State Department of
Health, and more. The proposed synthetic turf installed at Game Farm Road will meet the requirements set forth in New York
State Environmental Conservation Law, Section 27-3313(2). (“On and after December thirty-first, two thousand twenty-six, no
carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose.”). Additionally, the
synthetic turf will not include infill.
From an air quality perspective, health agencies in New York State, New York City, and the State of Connecticut collected air
samples on synthetic and natural turf fields during use. The air samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and airborne particulate matter. The studies showed that inhalation exposures
Supplemental Information
38
resulting from playing on synthetic turf fields were insignificant and not different from inhalation exposures on natural grass
fields.
Impact on Growth & Character of Community
The field hockey field will expand athletics activities on Cornell’s Game Farm Road lands, while retaining a sense of openness,
rural character and vernacular in its field and facility development. The update from a lightly used grass soccer field to a regularly
used field hockey facility will not significantly change the area. There are no significant adverse impacts to the character of the
community anticipated as a result of the project.
Impacts from Construction
Construction for phase I is anticipated to take approximately six months, beginning in March 2025 with completion in August
2025.
Construction may have short-term impacts to the community as the development period is brief. Construction routes will utilize
approved truck routes and Tompkins County roads to Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Road. The project will have erosion control
features outlined in the SWPPP and as previously described, to protect the public and the environment. Construction will be
limited to 7am to 3pm to minimize afternoon and evening disturbances.
Staging and laydown will be located on a Cornell lot located just north of the proposed Field Hockey Field and Northeast of the
existing McGovern Fields on a disturbed parking area previously used for other project staging.
Temporary traffic controls will be provided on Game Farm Road only as needed but are not anticipated frequently. Emergency
vehicles will have access to the site for the duration of construction. Waste from construction will be disposed of legally and
appropriately.
Construction vehicles will be directed to access the site via a prescribed route either north or south from Game Farm Road for
field development. The project will generate approximately 300 truck roundtrips over a two-month period. The largest volumes
of truck activity would be associated with importing general fill used for rough grading the site and bringing the new field up to
finished grade elevation, when a maximum of 30 trucks could be expected to arrive on site in a single day.
Most long-distance delivery routes to/from Cornell’s campus utilize route 81 north or south. Traffic leaving the site and heading
north would utilize NYS Route 366 to NYS Routes 13 to 81 north. Traffic leaving the site and heading south would use Tompkins
County Roads: Ellis Hollow Road to Pine Tree Road (an approved truck route), on to NYS Routes 79 to 81 south.
Due to the project location and the fact that appropriate safety controls and best work practices will be followed, there should be
negligible adverse impacts from construction.
Supplemental Information
Figure: Site Logistics - March 2025 through August 2025
39
Supplemental Information
Full EAF Part 2 (blank, with instruction sheet) - for Lead Agency
617.20
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Purpose: The Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) provides an orderly and
comprehensive means for evaluating the potential environmental significance of a proposed
action. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer.
Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also
understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the
environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who
have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the
question of significance. The lead agency must use the Full EAF for Type I actions and may use
it for Unlisted actions.
The Full EAF consists of three parts and when completed it will serve as the determination of
significance:
Part 1 - Is completed by the project sponsor. Part 1 provides basic information including a
description of the proposed action, proposed site location and its environmental resources. The
information provided in Part 1 is later used by the reviewing agency to complete Parts 2 and 3.
The questions in Part 1 are grouped in sections A-G:
•Section A gathers information that identifies the project sponsor, the proposed action, and the
proposed action’s location.
•Section B requests information about government approvals or funding.
•Section C requests information about planning, zoning and community services.
•Section D requests information about the proposed action.
•Section E requests information about resources on or adjacent to the proposed site.
•Section F provides the project sponsor the opportunity for supplying additional information
including project elements that may avoid or reduce impacts.
•Section G is where the certifying signature of the preparer is provided.
Part 2 - Is completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all
potential resources that could be affected by a proposed action and to determine the potential size
of the impact by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information
found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the
most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2
question. Part 2 is designed to help a reviewer identify any element of a proposed project that
may have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment.
Part 3 - Is completed by the lead agency. Part 2 questions where the impact has been identified
as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of
the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact should
be explored in a series of written, well reasoned statements in Part 3. The discussion of impacts
in Part 3 will serve as the supporting documentation for the determination of significance.
Page 1 of 10
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could
be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental
professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that
can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the
most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the
lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity.
If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
Tips for completing Part 2:
•Review all of the information provided in Part 1.
•Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook.
•Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2.
•If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section.
•If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question.
•Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact.
•Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency
checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.”
•The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis.
•If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general
question and consult the workbook.
•When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@.
•Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts.
•Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project.
1.Impact on Land
Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO YES
the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is
less than 3 feet.E2d 9 9
b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater.E2f 9 9
c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or
generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface.
E2a 9 9
d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons
of natural material.
D2a 9 9
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year
or in multiple phases.
D1e 9 9
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical
disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides).
D2e, D2q 9 9
g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.B1i 9 9
h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 9
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project :
Date :
FEAF 2019
Page 2 of 10
2.Impact on Geological Features
The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit
access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, NO YES
minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
E2g 9 9
b.The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a
registered National Natural Landmark.
Specific feature: _____________________________________________________
E3c 9 9
c.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 9
3.Impacts on Surface Water
The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water NO YES
bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b, D1h 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water.
D2b 9 9
c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material
from a wetland or water body.
D2a 9 9
d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or
tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
E2h 9 9
e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion,
runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments.
D2a, D2h 9 9
f.The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal
of water from surface water.
D2c 9 9
g.The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge
of wastewater to surface water(s).
D2d 9 9
h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of
stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving
water bodies.
D2e 9 9
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or
downstream of the site of the proposed action.
E2h 9 9
j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or
around any water body.
D2q, E2h 9 9
k.The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing,
wastewater treatment facilities.
D1a, D2d 9 9
Page 3 of 10
l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 9
4.Impact on groundwater
The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or NO YES
may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
(See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand
on supplies from existing water supply wells.
D2c 9 9
b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable
withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer.
Cite Source: ________________________________________________________
D2c 9 9
c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and
sewer services.
D1a, D2c 9 9
d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d, E2l 9 9
e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations
where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated.
D2c, E1f,
E1g, E1h
9 9
f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products
over ground water or an aquifer.
D2p, E2l 9 9
g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100
feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
E2h, D2q,
E2l, D2c
9 9
h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
5.Impact on Flooding
The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. NO YES
(See Part 1. E.2)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.E2i 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j 9 9
c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k 9 9
d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage
patterns.
D2b, D2e 9 9
e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b, E2i,
E2j, E2k
9 9
f.If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair,
or upgrade?
E1e 9 9
Page 4 of 10
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________ 9 9
6.Impacts on Air
NO YES The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.
(See Part 1. D.2.f., D.2.h, D.2.g)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may
also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels:
i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2)
ii.More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O)
iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of
hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions
vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2h
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated
hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous
air pollutants.
D2g 9 9
c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions
rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat
source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour.
D2f, D2g 9 9
d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a” through “c”,
above.
D2g 9 9
e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1
ton of refuse per hour.
D2s 9 9
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
7.Impact on Plants and Animals
The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) NO YES
If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any
threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal
government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2o 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal
government.
E2o 9 9
c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any
species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the
Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2p 9 9
d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or
the Federal government.
E2p 9 9
Page 5 of 10
e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural
Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect.
E3c 9 9
f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any
portion of a designated significant natural community.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E2n 9 9
g.The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or
over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.E2m 9 9
h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,
grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat.
Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
E1b 9 9
i.Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of
herbicides or pesticides.
D2q 9 9
j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
8.Impact on Agricultural Resources
The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) NO YES
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System.
E2c, E3b 9 9
b.The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
E1a, Elb 9 9
c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of
active agricultural land.
E3b 9 9
d.The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10
acres if not within an Agricultural District.
E1b, E3a 9 9
e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land
management system.
El a, E1b 9 9
f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development
potential or pressure on farmland.
C2c, C3,
D2c, D2d
9 9
g.The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland
Protection Plan.
C2c 9 9
h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________9 9
Page 6 of 10
9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in NO YES
sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and
a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource.
E3h 9 9
b.The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant
screening of one or more officially designated scenic views.
E3h, C2b 9 9
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:
i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons)
ii. Year round
E3h
9
9
9
9
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed
action is:
i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work
ii. Recreational or tourism based activities
E3h
E2q,
E1c 9
9
9
9
e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and
appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource.
E3h 9 9
f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed
project:
0-1/2 mile
½ -3 mile
3-5 mile
5+ mile
D1a, E1a,
D1f, D1g
9 9
g.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological NO YES
resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
E3e 9 9
b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory.
E3f 9 9
c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E3g 9 9
a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or
State Register of Historical Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner
of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for
listing on the State Register of Historic Places.
Page 7 of 10
d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
e.If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Moderate to large impact may
occur”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3:
i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part
of the site or property.
ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or
integrity.
iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which
are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
E3e, E3g,
E3f
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E1a,
E1b
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E3h,
C2, C3
9
9
9
9
9
9
11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation
The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a NO YES
reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted
municipal open space plan.
(See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem
services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater
storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat.
D2e, E1b
E2h,
E2m, E2o,
E2n, E2p
9 9
b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.C2a, E1c,
C2c, E2q
9 9
c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area
with few such resources.
C2a, C2c
E1c, E2q
9 9
d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the
community as an open space resource.
C2c, E1c 9 9
e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
9 9
12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO YES
environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d 9 9
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
Page 8 of 10
13. Impact on Transportation
The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.j)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 14.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.D2j 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or
more vehicles.
D2j 9 9
c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j 9 9
d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j 9 9
e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j 9 9
f.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
14. Impact on Energy
The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.k)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation.D2k 9 9
b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission
or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a
commercial or industrial use.
D1f,
D1q, D2k
9 9
c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k 9 9
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square
feet of building area when completed.
D1g 9 9
e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light
The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local
regulation.
D2m 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,
hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home.
D2m, E1d 9 9
c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o 9 9
Page 9 of 10
d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 9 9
e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing
area conditions.
D2n, E1a 9 9
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
16. Impact on Human Health
The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure NO YES
to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may cccur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day
care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community.
E1d 9 9
b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.E1g, E1h 9 9
c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site
remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action.
E1g, E1h 9 9
d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the
property (e.g., easement or deed restriction).
E1g, E1h 9 9
e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place
to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health.
E1g, E1h 9 9
f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future
generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the
environment and human health.
D2t 9 9
g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste
management facility.
D2q, E1f 9 9
h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q, E1f 9 9
i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of
solid waste.
D2r, D2s 9 9
j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of
a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
E1f, E1g
E1h
9 9
k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill
site to adjacent off site structures.
E1f, E1g 9 9
l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the
project site.
D2s, E1f,
D2r
9 9
m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 10
17. Consistency with Community Plans
The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. NO YES
(See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp
contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s).
C2, C3, D1a
E1a, E1b
9 9
b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village
in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%.
C2 9 9
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 9 9
d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use
plans.
C2, C2 9 9
e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not
supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.
C3, D1c,
D1d, D1f,
D1d, Elb
9 9
f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development
that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.
C4, D2c, D2d
D2j
9 9
g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or
commercial development not included in the proposed action)
C2a 9 9
h. Other: _____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
18. Consistency with Community Character
The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. NO YES
(See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas
of historic importance to the community.
E3e, E3f, E3g 9 9
b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.
schools, police and fire)
C4 9 9
c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where
there is a shortage of such housing.
C2, C3, D1f
D1g, E1a
9 9
d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized
or designated public resources.
C2, E3 9 9
e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character.
C2, C3 9 9
f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3
E1a, E1b
E2g, E2h
9 9
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
From: Yayoi Koizumi
Sent: Thursday,January 2,2025 8:00 AM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Subject: New Year,Renewed Call for Accountability on Synthetic Turf Projects
•• • • • • . •
January 2, 2025
Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Members,
We are writing to express serious
concerns about an apparent conflict of interest that may have compromised the
integrity of the decision-making process regarding Cornell University's
synthetic turf projects, specifically the "Meinig Fieldhouse Project"on Tower
Road. While construction is already underway,we believe the integrity of the
decision-making process warrants closer scrutiny, particularly given the
potential conflict of interest involving Mitch Glass, the former chair of the
City Planning Board, and Sasaki, the architectural firm representing Cornell.
Glass worked for over a decade at Sasaki, from
2002 to 2012, at their
headquarters in Watertown, MA—the same location where Trey Sasser, the Sasaki representative
advocating
for Cornell's plans, has worked for twenty-six years (Exhibit 1, 2). Given their overlapping tenure at the
same
location, it raises reasonable concerns that they knew each other
professionally. While Glass's employment with Sasaki ended over a decade ago,
such a long-standing professional relationship raises valid questions about
impartiality.At a minimum, this connection should have been disclosed to
ensure public trust and transparency in the decision-making process.
The City Planning Board's issuance
of a Negative Declaration for Cornell's Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA)
during a four-person meeting on September 3, 2024, raises additional concerns.
The meeting barely made quorum and included a brand-new board member who may
not have been fully informed about the nine months of public comments leading
up to the decision. Shortly after this approval, Mr. Glass stepped down from
the City Planning Board,which raises questions about whether the process had
the full benefit of continuity, rigor and transparency.
Another troubling element of this
process involves Frank Rossi, a Cornell professor and director of the
university's turf management program. Rossi submitted a letter to the City and Town Planning Boards
on August 29, 2024,
ostensibly in support of Cornell's synthetic turf proposals. However, his
claims—including the recommendation of a 212-micron mechanical filtration
system to capture microplastics—are inconsistent with current scientific understanding. Experts in
plastics and microplastics science widely recognize
that particles below 1 micron in diameter, including nanoplastics, are notoriously difficult to capture,
raising questions about the accuracy of Rossi's assertions.
Furthermore, emission of microplastics does not go only with water runoffs; air
emissions and tracking by players on their shoes and clothes also need to be
considered.
Additionally, Rossi's involvement
raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest. Cornell's turf management
program collaborates with Penn State's synthetic turf research program,which partners with
FieldTurf, a major
synthetic turf manufacturer(Exhibit 3,4). While the exact funding relationship
between FieldTurf and Penn State's program is unclear, this connection calls
into question the impartiality of Rossi's advocacy for synthetic turf.
Furthermore, Rossi has documented ties to Petro-Canada in
relation to pesticide research (Exhibit 5), raising further concerns about his
independence from the fossil fuel industry. In public interviews, such as with The Cornell Daily
Sun, Rossi and Cornell's Meinig Fieldhouse Project
Team have repeated industry narratives, including claims about synthetic turf reducing water use,
fossil fuel emissions and pesticide reliance—claims that are increasingly contested by independent
experts.
While these affiliations may not inherently disqualify his input, they
underscore the importance of transparency and critical scrutiny.
Rossi's letter to the planning boards and his alignment with synthetic turf
advocates highlight the need for critical scrutiny of the expertise and
motivations influencing decisions on projects like these. His history of
affiliations with a fossil fuel company undermines confidence in the
objectivity of his contributions to this discussion. Furthermore, the
references he makes in the letter lack citations, making it difficult to verify
the accuracy of his assertions.
To promote transparency and
accountability in decision-making,we recommend that planning board members
disclose their CVs with links on the board's main official pages (Town and City), including any past
affiliations or ties to developers,
architectural firms,fossil fuel companies, or universities. This measure would
help ensure that potential conflicts of interest are visible to the public and
provide greater confidence in the board's impartiality when evaluating
projects. Such transparency is essential for fostering trust and maintaining
the integrity of the planning process.
We bring these issues up now not
only to highlight the troubling precedent set by the Meinig "Fieldhouse"
project but also to urge greater scrutiny for Cornell's new synthetic turf
proposal on Game Farm Road. These projects were initially part of the same
proposal before being segmented—a decision that raises its own environmental
review concerns. Segmentation limits the scope of environmental assessments and
prevents a holistic evaluation of the cumulative impacts, including
environmental, health, and environmental justice issues.
Cornell's approach to public
concerns has been equally troubling. During the December 17, 2024, Town
Planning Board meeting, Cornell representative Kimberly Michael dismissed
community concerns claiming they"take one study and make it seem as though it's
the whole world" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZA8Giktyyo&t=620s). This statement is a near
repetition of remarks she made earlier
during the May 28, 2024, City Planning Board meeting, demonstrating Cornell's
dismissive stance.
At the time of the Negative
Declaration's approval in September 2024, Zero Waste Ithaca had submitted a 70-page bibliography of
peer-reviewed studies
and reputable sources addressing synthetic turf's risks. In contrast, Cornell's submissions relied on
just 12 references
to support claims about synthetic turf's safety(See page 33-34 (10-11)of"Additional Materials,April 2,_
2024." No additional sources were cited in Cornell's highly
problematic"Additional Materials, July 9, 2024").
During the May 28, 2024, City
Planning Board meeting, Ms. Michael stated:
"I shouldn't be speaking in the kind of granular way that this group is
putting the information out there.
... there are holes in their
science... they jump to conclusions... they
make one study presented as if it's the whole world's study...they employ a lot of
really great persuasive
techniques." (Timestamp 2:03:00)
(City
of Ithaca Public Meetings. "Planning Board Meeting-May 28, 2024."
YouTube video, 2:37:35, May 28, 2024, timestamp 1:40:00—2:14:00,
https://www.yQutube.com/Watch?v=p dzzownm-Zc.)
Her December remarks closely
mirrored these earlier comments, suggesting a lack of meaningful engagement
with the concerns raised by the community.
These remarks attempted to
discredit a webinar organized
by Zero Waste Ithaca,which featured six independent experts, including PhDs,
chemists, attorneys, and organic natural grass field specialists. The webinar
was well attended with over 300 registrations, and helped defeat a proposed synthetic turf plan in a
Wisconsin school district.
This dismissive rhetoric undermines
substantive discourse and fails to engage with the community's well-researched
concerns. We urge the Town Planning Board to carefully consider the City
Planning Board's handling of the Meinig Fieldhouse project as you evaluate
Cornell's new synthetic turf proposal for Game Farm Road. This includes
scrutinizing the imbalance in evidentiary submissions, reassessing reliance on
potentially misrepresented studies, and ensuring that decisions affecting the
community and environment are made transparently and equitably.
In addition, we call on the Town
Planning Board to request full disclosure of Cornell's financial or research
partnerships with synthetic turf manufacturers and other industry stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Yayoi Koizumi
PS:
This letter has been shared with media outlets for transparency.
Exhibits
Exhibit
1: Mitch Glass's CV from Cornell's website, showing his tenure at Sasaki
Associates in Watertown, MA
Mitch Glass,ASLA Comell University,319 W Sibley Hall,Ithaca,NY 14853 mglass@cornell.edu
Teaching Visiting Lecturer
Experience Cornell University,3-Year Appointment,July 2017-Dec 2020
Department of City and Regional Planning;College of Architecture,Art,and Planning(AAP)
Department of Landscape Architecture;College of Agriculture and Life Sciences(CALS)
Courses+Academic Activities(2020-2021):
CRP5072 Urban Design Workshop:"Kingsbury Run Nature Reserve"
LA3010 LA Studio;"Discovering Indigenous Topographies in Ithaca"
Faculty Advisor for ULI Hines Student Urban Design Competition
Courses+Academic Activities(2019-2020):
CRP5072 Urban Design Workshop;"Retrofitting the Mail:An Ithaca and Lansing Case Study'
CRP5650 Urban Design Workshop;"MidTown Cleveland"(collaboration with LA)
LA5970 LA Independent Study;"West Campus Landscape 6.0 Cornell University"
LA6020 LA Studio;"MidTown Cleveland"(collaboration with CRP)
LA7010 LA Studio;"Rural,Urban+Hydrological Convergence in the Genesee River Valley'
Faculty Supervisorfor A5 Student Competition Challenge,Sanya,China
Cornell Team Member,Home Say Kenya initiative for Rockefeller Food System Vision Prize
Courses+Academic Activities(2018-2019):
CRP5072 Urban Design Workshop;A Vision for Equity and Affordability in Lakewood,Ohio"
CRP5850 Urban Design Workshop;"Post-Industrial Revitalization in Canafohade,NY"
LA2020 LA Studio;`West Campus Landscape 6.0 Corned University"
LA6010 LA Studio;`The Greening of Binghamton,New York"
Secondary Advisor for ULI Hines Student Competition(Honorable Mention;Cincinnati,OH)
Courses-Academic Activities(2017-2018).
CRP5850 Urban Design Workshop;A Mixed-Use Waterfront for the City of Ithaca,NY"
LA3020 LA Studio:11-81 Syracuse:Envisioning the Urban Landscape"
LA6010 LA Studio;A Green Infrastructure Plan fora Resilient Coney Island,NY"
Secondary Advisor for ULl Hines Student Competition(First Place Winner;Toronto,CAN)
Professional Senior Urban Designer
Experience Goody Clancy,Boston,Massachusetts,December 2012—May 2017
Senior Urban Designer and Landscape Architect for a 70-person architecture and
planningfurban design firm,focusing on revitalizing downtowns and urban districts in the US.
• 1-84 Hartford Project,Hartford,CT
• Hill-to-Downtown Community Plan,New Haven,CT
• Glenbrook/Spdngdale TOD Feasibility Study,Stamford,CT
• Southwest Detroit Neighborhood Framework Plan,Detroit,MI
• Potomac Hill Campus Master Plan,Washington,DC
Senior Associate
Sasaki Associates,Inc.,Watertown,Massachusetts,August 2002-August 2012
Senior Associate and Landscape Architect for a 250-person multi-disciplinary design firm;
managing multi-national teams,budgets,schedules and designs for publiclurban,corporate,
commercial and new community projects throughout the US and Asia.
• Kunming City Framework Plan,Kunming,China
• Yalong Say Master Plan,Sanya,China
• Xiamen National Guest House,Xiamen,China
• Chongming Island Design Competition,Shanghai,China
• Jordan Dead See Vision Plan,Amman,Jordan
• Thu Thiem New Urban Area Plan,Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam
• Gurgaon New Town,Gurgaon,India
• Lulu Island Master Plan,Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates
• U.S.Steel Southworks Master Plan,Chicago,IL
https://aap.cornell.edu/sites/default/fi les/person/M Glass%20CV%2OSep%202020.pdf
Exhibit
2: Trey Sasser's Linkedln profile, highlighting his 26 years at the Watertown,
MA location of Sasaki Associates
RV
Trey Sasser-3rd Sasaki Associate:
Senior Associate
Greater Boston-Contact info p Clemson Universi
433 connections
+Follow Mare
Activity
435 Followers
Trey Sasser commented on a post•iw
Congratulations James.
Trey Sasser commented on a post 1 mo
Congrats Richard.
Trey Sasser commented on a post•7mo
Congrats Abby
Show all comments
Experience
Sasaki Associates
26 yrs 5 mos
Watertown,MA
• Senior Associate
Jul 2007-Present-17 yrs 6 mos
• Associate
Ju12005-Jun2007 2yrs
https://www.linkedin.com/in/trey-sasser-73945bl 57/
Exhibit
3:Cornell Turf Program's webpage on synthetic turf, along with two webinars
featuring Penn State's synthetic turf program director as a guest speaker,
reflect the university's position and advocacy for synthetic turf. Frank Rossi
is listed as Contact.
Cornell synthetic turf webpage
https://safesportsfields.cals.cornell.edu/synthetic-turf/
CornelICALS
Im
College ofAgricolture and Life Sciences
Sports field management
Maintaining safe sports fields
Home,Synthetic turf
Synthetic turf
Is adding a synthetic Feld the answer?
Many factors impact
the capacity of a Contact
sports field to handle
high usage including. Frank Rossi
the soil type,grass Associate Professor
species,weather Extension Turfgrass Specialist
conditions,kind of Horticulture Section
sport,amount of School of Integrative Plant Science
usage,management College of Agriculture&Life Sciences
program,etc. Connell University
Most school sports fsr3@comelf.edu
fields are also used for y^a—V1Ayon so, n,124 noasamy,se-s ysau,eek.
a Carl Schimenti
gym class,band
practice,community activities as well as practices and games.Native soil fields can Urban Environmental Scientist
take just so much use before the turf thins and compaction becomes severe.Overuse css223@cornell edu
does impact the function and aesthetic expectations of sports fields.
Some managens have considered adding a synthetic turf field which can be played on
essentially 24 hours a day,seven days a week.Having and using a synthetic turf field Co rn e L l Turf Tweets
would allow native soil fields to be rested and have time to recuperate.These fields
are especially useful in the spring and fall when temperatures are more moderate than posts from OCornell Turf
in the heat of the summer.
Cornell Turfgrass Show webinars on Synthetic Turf Management: X
•Natural grass vs Synthetic turf decision making for K-12 schools IDr Andy McNittl
•s thetic turf management principles(Dr.Andy McNitt)
Nothing to see
YauTube Q
C
1 a.: � 1• r � �� Iuj�•�
r
Sports Turf Webinar 5:Synthetic turf with Andy McNitt,Penn State University
CorneI151PS 2 Share '�°Glip Q Save ..
2a.tK subscribers
33@ views Apr 2S,2020
Cornell Turtgrass wehsite:https//turf.cals.cornell.edu/
Resources from this webinar:
STMA Covid Resources:https://wwwsima.org/news/the-impact-...
STMA synthetic and natural grass considerations:https://www.stma.org/synthetic-turf-o...
PSU Synthetic Turf page:https://plantscience.psu.edu/research...
PSU infill depth:https://extension.psaedu/evaluaticn-...
PSU Synthetic ftber testing:https://plantscience.psu.adu/research...
Andy Mcnitt's Twitter account: x/mcniturt
PSU research on cleat safety:https://plantscience.psu.adu/research...
OJ Pre ridmi
Cornell Turfgrass Show 2021:Ep.17(Sports):Andy McNiff,High school priorities,synthetic
turf
SCornell SIPS 64 g D Share
!•a�K rsstnrs:
357 views May IQ,2021
Andy McrdltL Penn State:PriorlUes for high schoolS,synthetic lurf consideraRms.
More infarmaton hlipslfturf.aals.onrnetl.edul
https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=ug4sZZzwkjo
Exhibit
4: Penn State's "Center for Sports Surface Research" partnership with
FieldTurf, a synthetic turf manufacturer
httpa.//plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/about
PennState
Department
Graduate -
The new Center for Sports Surface Research wiLL be an intercollege program managed within the College of
Agricultural Sciences'Department of Plant Science.
FieldTurf, Fenn State partner in new center for sports
surfaces
University Park Pa.--Penn State's College of Agricu Ltural Sciences and FieldTurf,which bills itseLf as the world-leader in
sports surfacing,have partnered to develop the word's first facility dedicated to sports surface research,with a five-year
commitmentthat will center around research on synthetic turf,running tracks and indoor sports surfaces.This research
collaboration is expected to further accelerate safety within the synthetic sports surfacing industry.
The new Center for Sports Surface Research witl be an intercollege program managed
within the College of Agricultural Sciences'Department of Plant Science.The center will -
be headed by Andrew McNiff,associate professor of soil science,who is regarded as a
Pioneer in sports-surface research,particularly as it relates to natural and synthetic turf.
His research focuses on athletic field surface characterization and goLf-green _
construction and maintenance-
McNitt has been honored nationally by the GoLf Course Superintendents Association of
America.,the Musser International Turfgrass Foundation,the Crop Science Society of
America,the American Society of Agronomy and the Sports Turf Managers Association.
He also serves as the technical advisor to the NFL Groundskeepers Association and is
active with the Sports Turf Managers Association.
A significant number of professional sports and collegiate sports groundskeepers are
products of Penn State's prestigious trfgrass science program,which is considered one of the nation's finest.
"Our partnership with Penn State brings the globaL synthetic turf leader together with the global research leader in aLL
types of turf,"said Joe Fields,chief executive officer of FieldTurf-"The originaL inspiration for FieLdTurf was to provide a
surface that would enabLe athletes to attain maximum performance white minimizing injuries,and we believe that this
partnership wiLl help ensure that we continue to Lead our industry in deveLoping surfaces that deLiver unequaled
performance and safety to the athletes that we serve-"
"Penn State is excited aboutthe formalization of our research relationship with FieldTurf,"said Bruce McPheron,dean of
the College of Agricultural.Sciences."Together.I beLieve we can improve the safety of all those participating in recreational
activities,from the occasionaL softball player and school-aged children in physical education cLasses to collegiate and
professional athletes.FieldTurPs commitment to quality research is commendable and the coLlege is looking forward to a
productive future."
Exhibit
5: Peer-reviewed studies (2021 and 2023) authored by Frank Rossi, which
disclose his ties to Petro-Canada and potential conflicts of interest related
to synthetic turf advocacy
Bekken, Michael A. H., Douglas J. Soldat, Paul L. Koch, Carl S. Schimenti, Frank S. Rossi,
Trygve S. Aamlid, Karin J. Hesselsoe, Torben K. Petersen, and Chase M. Straw, et al.
"Analyzing Golf Course Pesticide Risk Across the US and Europe—The Importance of
Regulatory Environment." Science of the Total Environment 874 (May 20, 2023): 162498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitoteny.2023.162498 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S
0048969723011142
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial
interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:
Frank Rossi reports a relationship with Petro-
Canada that includes: consulting or advisory.
Acknowledgements
Special thank you to Katherine Hochella, Dimi
Schweitzer, Morgan Kitzerow, and Rachel
Guagliardo for tremendous effort in the data
entry of golf course pesticide application records
and for helping in the construction of a turfgrass
pesticide database. The authors would also like
Bekken, Michael A. H., Carl S.
Schimenti, Douglas J. Soldat, and Frank S. Rossi. "A Novel
Framework for Estimating and Analyzing Pesticide Risk on Golf Courses." Science of the Total
Environment
783 (August 20, 2021): 146840. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146840
https://www.scienced irect.conVscience/article/pi i/SO048969721019100
TEBPM MdS.P11 ••• x 69%f
sciencedirect.cam
Original Draft. Douglas Soldat: Conceptualization, Methodology,Resources,
Writing- Review& Editing,Supervision, Project administration. Frank
Rossi: Conceptualization, Methodology,Resources,Writing- Review&
Editing,Supervision, Project administration....
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships
which may be considered as potential competing interests: Michael
Bekken,Carl Schimenti,and Douglas Soldat have no conflicts of interests to
declare.Frank Rossi is employed part-time by Petro Canada who own
Intelligro,the maker of Civitas Turf DefenseTM,which is discussed in this
article.This relationship had no influence on this manuscript....
Acknowledgements 0
Addendum: Frank Rossi's research and educational involvement with CIVITAS Turf Defense
and its developer, Petro-Canada, raise important questions about the product's actual
sustainability and environmental impact. While CIVITAS is marketed as a "green" alternative
to conventional pesticides, it relies on a petrochemical base and a micronutrient package that
may provide short-term visual benefits like a "green up," but evidence suggests these
components can have detrimental long-term effects on plant health. CIVITAS has been on the
market for over a decade, yet it has faced criticism for its limited adoption and long-term
effectiveness,with reports from turfgrass professionals indicating it has failed to deliver
sustainable results in many cases. Rossi's educational outreach on turfgrass management
appears to align with his broader advocacy for Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which
focuses on reducing chemical inputs rather than eliminating them. In a study co-authored by
Rossi,which developed a framework for quantifying pesticide risk on golf courses, petroleum-
derived spray oils like CIVITAS were mentioned as an area where risk models remain
unparameterized, highlighting the complexity of assessing their environmental impact. While
the study did not explicitly recommend CIVITAS or similar products, it emphasized selecting
lower-risk products as a strategy for reducing pesticide use. These issues, coupled with the
marketing emphasis on sustainability that contradicts the petrochemical origins of CIVITAS,
highlight the need for greater scrutiny of Rossi's role in this context and the broader claims
made about the product's environmental benefits.
0 Yayoi
c 1 N Koizumi
cn' Zero
Waste Ithaca I BYO-US Reduces
Founder)
IiNGCG Co-Founder
zerowasteithaca.org
usreduces.org
Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOR-Nonprofit Incubator,a program of NOR INC,a Massachusetts nonprofit
corporation and 501(c)(3)organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law.
Learn more at https://thenopi_org.
From: Daniel Swanson
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 2:14 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Subject: Public Comment: Concerns Regarding Proposed Synthetic Turf Field
on Game Farm Road
• • 11111 1 11• • - •
T-TIMMIUMMUM
Dear Town of Ithaca Board Members,
I implore you to deliver an Environmental Impact Assessment to Cornell in relation to
their Meinig Fieldhouse Project as well as the other synthetic turf field they're planning
on constructing around campus.
Cornell hosts about its sustainability commitments on campus, but its utilization of
synthetic turf essentially allows them to push their environmental cost/impact onto
our community and the world at large. They will be contributing to the MILLIONS OF
POUNDS of air pollution that are released from large scale plastic and synthetic
rubber manufacturing plants. MILLIONS OF POUNDS of air pollution annually from
this specific class of manufacturing plants alone. Synthetic turf is made with synthetic
petrochemicals including but not limited to petroleum, natural gas, and other fossil
fuels. These petrochemicals contain carcinogens, aka substances that cause CANCER
in humans and animals. These carcinogens don'tjust become dormant or disappear
after final production. They are essential and inherent to the final product.
Cornell outlines in their sustainability commitment to having a carbon neutral
campus by 2035, using solar panels, making buildings LEED certified, all to be
leveraged for the "public good." While this all sounds great, it is purposely ignorant
of the impact that outsourcing materials from other parts of the world has. While
Cornell creates and maintains their own beautiful and expansive campus, and
theoretically works towards becoming carbon neutral, there is seemingly no
thought put into the global supply chain that they're apart of and utilize to build
new facilities. I personally believe Cornell, is well aware of this, and chooses to
just not talk about it or acknowledge it, therefore willfully suppressing the poor
environmental impact they have on the world, in part by utilizing synthetic turf,
which as I outlined before, is produced by manufacturing plants that release
millions of pounds of pollution into our air on an annual basis. That's not even
considering the carcinogens and forever chemicals found in the synthetic turf
itself, which WILL POISON our local environment in the form of micro and nano
plastic particles running off into our soil and water.
So, does Cornell care about keeping their campus clean and environmentally
sustainable? I think so because it's clearly in their financial interest in terms of
attracting staff and students.
But, does Cornell care about their contribution to keeping the world clean and
environmentally sustainable? EVIDENTLY NOT. Just like just about every other
corporation and private organization in our country, there is a poisonous, and
frankly disgusting attitude that outsourcing pollution is acceptable and shouldn't be
questioned. The proposed synthetic turf field on Game Farm Rd is just a small
example of Cornell's hypocrisy, willful ignorance, lack of care, and lack of sense of
urgency in supporting environmental sustainability in our increasingly polluted
world.
Thanks You,
Daniel Swanson
Daniel Swanson
Coaching Coordinator
NEPA& Binghamton
(c)607.684.5532 (p)203.217.8140
soccershots.com/binghamton
This Soccer Shots franchise is independently owned and operated.
ceer Shots-
From: Brian B. Eden
Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Subject: Comment on Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Project
Attachments: Evolving Awareness of Environmenral and Public Health Threats of
Toxic Chemical Contamination.docx; Letter from Director of Campus
Planning.docx
Please share my comments with Planning Board members. Thank you. Brian
Brian Eden
Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting
January 7, 2025
Re: Cornell's Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Project
Evolving Awareness of the Environmental and Public Health Threats of Toxic
Chemical Contamination
At the risk of submitting my comments too late to serve as a positive influence on
the environmental review of Cornell's Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Project, I
offer the following to urge a comprehensive review of the proposal.
In the 1940s, Hooker Chemical in Niagara Falls buried 50,000 55-gallon drums of
chemical byproducts from the manufacturing of dyes, perfumes, and solvents for
rubber and synthetic resins in a dry canal bed and covered it with soil. A few years
later, an elementary school was built on a part of the mound. What could go
wrong? I worked with the Love Canal Homeowners and helped form a statewide
organization to support communities in the cleanup of legacy contamination sites.
We lobbied for the ultimate adoption of the NYS Superfund program.
Locally, in 1987, it was discovered that Trichloroethylene (TCE) had leaked into soil
and groundwater from an underground fire water reservoir at the Morse Emerson
Plant on S. Aurora St. TCE is a nonflammable, volatile liquid that was commonly
used for decades as an industrial metal degreasing solvent, Exposure to TCE is
associated with several types of cancers in humans, especially cancer of the
kidney, liver, cervix, and lymphatic system, according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Recent research highlighted by the American Parkinson's
Disease Association indicates there may also be a link between TCE exposure and
Parkinson's disease, a neurologic movement disorder that affects the brain and
causes difficulty with movements or motor symptoms. The authors of the report
stated that further research is needed to evaluate a possible connection between
TCE exposure and Parkinson's. The TCE contaminants had migrated down gradient
into many basements along S. Cayuga St. TCE vapor intrusion has been found in
many basements in this area. Was it surprising to learn that those chemicals
disposed of in a hole behind the factory did not just disappear?
Beginning in the 1950s, Cornell buried biological and chemical lab waste and low-
level radiation research materials in trenches at two sites north of the Tompkins
County airport. Disposal operations continued at these sites until 1978. Cornell's
cleanup of the sites is being conducted in phases, following the steps of the site
remediation process of the NYSDEC.
The area in proximity to the former Ithaca Gun site has undergone multiple
cleanups over the past 25 years. Lead shot was dumped from the Ithaca Gun
Company property into the gorge and lead shot and lead contaminated soils have
migrated onto the Ithaca Falls parcel via erosion from the gun factory. The site is
currently being developed for housing. The Ithaca Falls parcel, which is owned by
the City of Ithaca, is popular with local resident and visitors due to the scenic
nature of the Fall Creek gorge area.
Why do I review this history here? When I provided scientific information on the
threat of plastics and PFAS contamination from the proposed installation of the
artificial turf field at Ithaca College, it generated so little interest that the Town
Planning Board was unwilling to consider that information in their environmental
review. As we acquire more knowledge about the threat of toxic chemicals,
wouldn't it be reasonable for a Planning Board member to wish to learn more
about the dangers of PFAS? How many decades of our experience with incidents
of toxic contamination before one would seethe wisdom of applying the
precautionary principle.
Much like our cavalier attitude in the handling of the toxic and hazardous
materials in an earlier industrial era, we must now address the plastic pollution
legacy. There are 13,000 known chemicals associated with plastics and their
production, at least 3,200 have one or more hazardous properties of concern. Ten
groups of these chemicals are of major concern, such as PFAS and phthalates. Of
particular toxicity are a wide range of chemicals in plastics with endocrine-
disrupting properties, which short-circuit the hormone system even in very low
doses, leading to obesity, cancer, and other diseases. Our civilization's addiction
to plastic has had a devastating impact on human health.
I will not reprise my technical arguments that I have previously offered here. They
are incorporated in the 19-page paper that I co-authored for submission to the
City on the Meinig portion of this project which has been submitted by my co-
author in this proceeding. There has been a problem in engaging planning staff on
our scientific concerns. PFAS has only relatively recently received widespread
public attention as a contaminant of concern. For example, the Cornell Office of
Sustainability's mission is to protect a diverse, resilient, and beneficial set of
natural systems for the enjoyment of people and maintenance of key ecosystem
services and promote energy conservation. Why has that Office not provided
advice to the Athletic Department on the best practice for aligning the artificial
turf project with campus goals? Despite our requests to meet with the Athletic
Director on the Meinig project to discuss matters of mutual concern which were
advanced to Cornell staff in the current campus environment that encourages
freedom of expression, she was unwilling to do so (See attachment).
I'm a member of the County's Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board. In
2022 several of us discussed our frustrations regarding the perceived lack of rigor
in municipal planning boards reviews of projects involving more complex climate
and environmental issues. We formed a subcommittee to review the adequacy of
such reviews and to make recommendations for possible improvements. Among
those participating was Ed Marx, the former Director of County Planning, as well
as several former members of planning boards. Our goal was to develop some
proposed Town Environmental Quality Review (TEAR) regulations and a best
practice guidance document. There are many challenges to municipal planning
boards achieving better substantive outcomes. I offer the below points as
constructive recommendations for the Town Board and Planning Board to
consider.
• A Planning Board optimally requires diverse expertise (Achieving this goal is
challenging as member recruitment is difficult; often boards are over
represented with architects and planners).
• Early access for residents to a project's planning process; provides the
opportunity to influence plans before developers have invested significant
money in them and who thereafter become defensive and highly resistant
to any changes.
• Address the resistance of planning staff members/Board members to spend
added time and money on an EIS; an EIS would provide access to
independent, qualified third-party information and analysis and avoid the
reliance on the applicant's contractor as the sole source of technical
information. How many EIS's have been required by the Planning Board in
the past decade?
• Often planning staff and the applicant have met several times before the
project appears on a Planning Board agenda, resolved any differences, and
the staff may have already prepared the relevant SEAR documents before
residents are aware of the project.
• The staff and Board may lack expertise with the potential climate impacts of
fossil fuel use and energy inefficient building design and performance.
• Unless residents follow closely online the Planning Boards agendas,
residents may enter the process at a later date when the public hearing is
noticed and by then are regarded as unwelcome intervenors that interrupt
the smooth processing of project applications.
• Many residents believe that their opportunity for public comment is at the
public hearing. Unbeknownst to them, the SEAR determination of
environmental significance has already been decided which completes the
application process and must be accomplished prior to the public hearing
and the receipt of public comments.
• The fear of the unbudgeted costs for litigation with well-funded applicants.
Town attorneys effectively protect their clients by ensuring that
environmental review procedures are strictly adhered to. In an Article 78
Proceeding to challenge a Planning Board's determination, only procedural
matters are litigated. Were the Planning Boards findings arbitrary and
capricious? On the substantive issues, the Presiding Judge will defer to the
expertise of the administrative body, the Planning Board.
The subcommittee concluded, based upon its past interaction with elected
municipal leadership, that such suggestions would not be well received. Our
subcommittee decided not to pursue promoting a TEAR process.
The Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation held a hearing
on Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination on
November 21, 2024 to hear testimony, by invitation only, to examine PFAS
contamination. PFAS compounds, which have been found to have harmful human
health impacts, are commonly referred to as "forever chemicals" because of their
resistance to degradation and their persistence in the environment. The purpose
of the hearing was to examine PFAS contamination in ground, surface, and storm
water, with a focus on the role of wastewater treatment plants in removing such
contaminants. The general consensus from all participants, Legislators, DEC staff,
and the staffs of participating environmental organizations was that the only
option for preventing widespread contamination of the landscape was to control
PFAS at its source. Once the green fields in this project receive artificial turf
installations, they will never be returned to their natural status.
There are many local resources available to assist members in better
understanding the nature of the PFAS problem. Damian Helbling at Cornell has
studied PFAS for more than ten years. See his website
https://helbling.research.engineering.cornell.edu/ to view some relevant videos.
Since the pandemic, anti-science beliefs have been expanding. From vaccination
refusal to climate change denial, anti-science views are threatening humanity.
Specifically, anti-science attitudes are more likely to emerge when a scientific
message comes from sources perceived as lacking credibility, as in here, members
of the public unknown to Board members. Dismissal of scientific evidence is not a
new phenomenon. However, there are multiple accessible sources of relevant
information aside from those of us providing testimony here from which to source
support for a Board member to better understand this issue. I'm urging the Board
members to exercise their critical thinking skills in support of a comprehensive
environmental review of this project. Thank you.
Dear bethany, Brian, Murray, Carver and Bruce,
We appreciate your continuing interest in the Meinig Fieldhouse and outdoor field project. The
municipal project review and approval process is set by state and local law, and requires a sequence and
cadence of submittals, presentations, and responses.This makes a second line of dialogue about this
ongoing project impractical.
As shown by the significant submissions to the municipal planning boards, the project team has spent a
substantial amount of time and effort to identify the best playing surfaces for the athletes and the
environment that meets the project's programmatic needs. We will continue to work to ensure that the
products installed comply with the plans we have presented to the planning boards and are protective of
our student athletes and the community.
Sincerely,
Leslie Schill
Leslie Schill
Director of Campus Planning/ University Planner
Office of the University Architect/ Facilities and Campus Services
Cornell University
leslie.schill@cornell.edu
607.255.5239
From: Constance Stirling-Engman
Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 1:34 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Subject: Insights regarding installation of SynTurf on Game Farm Rd.for Jan. 7,
2025 meeting
• • 11111 1 11•11 111 • - •
T-TIMMIUMMUM
Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
I am writing to share insights regarding the proposed installation of synthetic turf on Game
Farm Road, urging the board to carefully consider the resilience of natural grass and the
environmental and cultural implications of prioritizing aesthetics over functionality.
Grass species commonly used in sports fields are highly resilient. Research demonstrates
that turfgrass can recover from stressors such as drought, wear, and even minor pest
damage without chemical intervention. When left untreated, most grass fields regenerate
with rain or moderate maintenance. This resilience has supported sports and recreational
use for centuries, long before the advent of synthetic alternatives.
The perception that a sports field must exhibit uniform, pristine green turf to be
functional is not supported by evidence. Clover, dandelions, and other broadleaf
plants, often labeled as weeds, do not impede playability when mowed to appropriate
heights. These species contribute to soil health and biodiversity while reducing
dependency on synthetic inputs. Historical sports and recreational activities thrived on
natural fields with diverse vegetation, proving that perfectionism in turf management is
more about aesthetics than necessity.
Moreover, synthetic turf, while marketed as a low-maintenance solution, poses significant
long-term environmental and health risks. It contributes to microplastic pollution, retains
excessive heat, and cannot self-repair like natural grass. The ecological and financial
costs of synthetic turf are incompatible with sustainable development goals, particularly
when viable, cost-effective natural alternatives are available.
Shifting from a chemical- and appearance-focused approach to a more
ecological mindset benefits not only the environment but also the community.
Encouraging the use of resilient, well-maintained natural grass fields aligns with
sustainable values and promotes a healthier, more inclusive athletic culture.
I urge the board to reconsider the reliance on synthetic turf and instead champion the
benefits of resilient, ecologically managed natural grass fields. Such a decision would
demonstrate leadership in sustainability and a commitment to the long-term well-being of
our community.
Synthetic turf begets synthetic turf. There are currently an estimated 19,000
artificial fields in the United States, with as many as 1,500 new fields installed
each year, about half of which are replacing older turf, according to a 2024 report by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A recent NBC report highlighted a California high school district's decision to reject
converting their artificial turf field back to natural grass, citing concerns over two years of
field displacement during reinstallation. This underscores the significant challenges—or
convenient excuses—that make reversing synthetic turf installations difficult once
they are in place. Such a scenario must not be allowed to happen here.
The Game Farm Road location currently features natural grass fields that are both
functional and visually appealing. Replacing them with synthetic turf would not
only destroy these fields but could also allow Cornell University to justify
avoiding any return to natural grass in the future. Preserving these natural
grassfields is essential—not only to maintain their environmental and aesthetic
value but also to uphold Cornell's stated sustainability goals of reducing fossil fuel
reliance.
Synthetic turf is the largest point source of plastic in outdoor environments and a major
contributor to microplastic pollution. Halting the construction of additional toxic plastic turf
fields, not limited to but especially outdoors, is imperative.
As a hiker and scuba diver, I see enormous amounts of plastic waste and trash on land
and especially underwater. During a recent dive trip, my husband and I picked up eight
trash bags of plastic waste on the beach, because the place where we were staying was
promoting trash pickup as part of an initiative called an Aware Dive. I also do this at
Skaneateles Lake, which provides drinking water for the City of Syracuse.
Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Constance Stirling-Engman
References:
U.S. EPA and CDC/ATSDR. Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber
Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan Final Report. Part 2—
Exposure Characterization (Volumes 1 and 2). (EPA/600/R-24/020). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2024.
https://www.epa.gov/ssystem/files/documents/2024-04/tcrs-exposure-characterization-
volume-1.pdf.
Huang, Bingru. "Recent Advances in Drought and Heat Stress Physiology of Turfgrass: A
Review." In Acta Horticulturae 661. II International Conference on Turfgrass
Science and Management for Sports Fields, 185-192. International Society for
Horticultural Science, 2004. http5.//doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.661.23.
Huang, Bingru. "Mechanisms and Strategies for Improving Drought Resistance in
Turfgrass."Acta Horticu/turae 783: II International Conference on Turfgrass Science
and Management for Sports Fields, 2008.
httpa//doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.22.
NBC Bay Area. Disposal of School's Artificial Turf Field Highlights Growing
Environmental Concerns. Published December 31, 2024.
https://youtu.be/cPYLL5Pabk0?si=AEGeM f9RJMgDtfy.
Sun, Tianxiao, Weiliang Wang, and Zhulong Chan. "How Do Cool-Season Turfgrasses
Respond to High Temperature: Progress and Challenges." Grass Research 4, no. 1
(2024): Article e010. Published online April 10, 2024. http5.//doi.org/10.48130 grares-
004-eOlo.
Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography, accessed December 31, 2024.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpuWe
ZI U/ed it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmd
RpuWe ZIU/edit?usp=gmail
Preview YouTube video Disposal of school's artificial turf field highlights growing environmental
concems
B
I.
t t f
d .
� a
Disposal of school's artificial turf field highlights growing environmental concems
From: Yayoi Koizumi
Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org
Subject: Microplastics,Synthetic Turf,and HABs-An Urgent Threat to Cayuga
La ke
R-TIMMAIMMY01
Dear Town Planning Board Members,
I am submitting an op-ed I wrote for the Ithaca Times, published on October 18,
2024. The piece highlights the connection between harmful algal blooms (HABs)
and microplastics, offering yet another example of how synthetic turf impacts both
our health and the environment.
For the record, I have also included the references used in writing the op-ed at the
end of this submission.
Microplastics, Synthetic Turf, and HABs- An Urgent Threat to Cayuga Lake
Microplastics are not only a growing environmental threat but also a direct
contributor to harmful algal blooms (HABs) in freshwater systems like Cayuga
Lake. Research shows that microplastics serve as platforms for harmful
organisms, enabling their proliferation in already stressed ecosystems. New
studies indicate that both cyanobacteria and harmful algae, such as Pseudo-
nitzschia thrive in the plastisphere—the ecosystem of microorganisms that
colonizes plastic debris in the environment—creating significant risks for water
quality. In Cayuga Lake, cyanobacteria are responsible for HABs that release
dangerous toxins like microcystins, and the presence of microplastics could be
making these blooms even worse.
When I moved to this area in 2001 , 1 was struck by the fact that I couldn't swim in
the lake with my young son due to harmful blooms. Yet, I have seen various
organizations and entities continue to call Cayuga Lake "pristine." It's time we
wake up. Locally, Professor Susan Allen at Ithaca College has been studying the
toxicology of microplastics and PFAS in Cayuga Lake with some alarming results.
Recently, Professor Karan Kartik Mehta at Cornell University raised similar
concernsabout PFAS found in herbicides used to control hydrilla, an invasive
plant. While hydrilla itself has notso far been shown to directly exacerbate HABs in
New York, herbicide treatments and the decay of plant matter may contribute
tonutrient release and oxygen depletion, creating conditions thatcould worsen
HABs.
The deluge of plastics entering our lake is alarming—some from local littering, but
also from our own Ivy League university's artificial turf projects. A recent study in
Toronto identified artificial turf as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in
the city, emitting 237 tonnes in 2020—surpassing other sources, including laundry
fibers and car tire emissions. (For perspective, the annual tonnage of single-use
foodware accessories, such as utensils, sent to the landfill from our county is
about 300 tons, at conservative estimates, based on a calculation by Chart Reuse
for our Skip the Stuff initiative.)
Despite multiple public comments and scientific evidence presented to the City of
Ithaca Planning Board—supported by national experts—the board approved
Cornell's synthetic turf project on September 3. This decision, made by a four-
person committee barely making a quorum, and lacking chemistry background,
raises serious concerns. We wonder if the brand-new board member who joined at
the September 3rd meeting fully reviewed the nine months of public comments—
especially our 70-page bibliography_ (Note: Now 100 pages with new updates as of
January 7, 2025) and a webinar with six independent experts that our grassroots
organization, Zero Waste Ithaca, organized in April. The board's chair, Mitch
Glass, left right after passing the flawed negative declaration for the environmental
impact assessment. The 9/3 meeting took place after two canceled meetings in
July and August due to a lack of quorum. We were even misinformed in an email
communication about the date of the subsequent 9/26 planning board meeting by
a city planning board staff member. This decision-making process is deeply
concerning and does not reflect the level of care our community deserves.
I am also concerned about the role that student-athletes played in the 9/3 Planning
Board meeting. Carver Hauptman, the Vice President of Cornell Environmental
Collaborative, and a Zero Waste Ithaca member, recently wrote a Letter to the
Editor to Cornell Daily Suncriticizing the lack of adequate information on health
and environmental impacts provided to students-athletes. These athletes were
strongly encouraged to attend, yet many of them were not informed about the
environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf. This was reported by the Ithaca
Voice and was also confirmed in a conversation I had with a student athlete who
wishes to remain anonymous, who stated that no information about the health
risks was provided to them. This lack of transparency is troubling, particularly
when students are being asked to participate in these meetings without being
given the full context.
Cayuga Lake is not just a pretty natural resource; it is our water supply.
Microplastics, cyanobacteria, and associated toxins jeopardize our drinking water,
harm wildlife, and threaten the local economy by damaging tourism. The impact of
Cornell's artificial turf projects—several more are planned, which could make the
total number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell's upstream campus around 11 —will
only worsen these problems, adding to the plastic pollution that fuels these
harmful blooms. Cornell's proposed mitigations—using plant-based infills,
mechanical filtration with a pore size as large as 212 microns, and third-party
testing for PFAS, without specifying the testing method, threshold, independent
review, and absurdly_proposing to conduct the testing during construction—fail to
address other toxins present in artificial turf and are far from sufficient. We have
repeatedly argued this in our public comments and multiple calls for the recall of
the negative declaration decision. Yet, the new chair of the board, Emily Petrina,
bypasses these concerns and considers the projects insignificant in terms of
environmental impact.
I would like to draw attention to a significant development in California, where the
state has recently filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ExxonMobil for allegedly
deceiving the public about the plastic pollution crisis. The lawsuit,joined by a
separate lawsuit by Sierra Club and three other NGOs, highlights how fossil fuel
producers have been misleading the public regarding the environmental impacts
of plastics. This underscores the importance of addressing plastic-related issues—
such as those posed by synthetic turf—honestly and transparently, rather than
downplaying or ignoring the risks.
In a related context, it is important to note that Cornell University, along with
several other elite institutions, receives millions in donations from the fossil fuel
industry, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest in its decision-
making.As documented in Dharna Noor's recent article in The Guardian
.(September 19, 2024), the student-led analysis of six universities, including Fossil
Fuel Cornell, highlights how these donations could influence university policies
and projects. This is especially relevant given that synthetic turf is a product of the
petrochemical industry. While corporate sponsorship for Cornell athletics is not
publicly disclosed, the university's connection to the fossil fuel industry is well-
documented and relevant to the ongoing debate about synthetic turf and plastic
pollution.
References:
Casabianca, Silvia, Samuela Cappellacci, Maria Grazia Giacobbe, Carmela
Dell'Aversano, Luciana Tartaglione, Fabio Varriale, Riccardo Narizzano, Fulvia
Risso, Paolo Moretto, Alessandro Dagnino, Rosella Bertolotto, Enrico Barbone,
Nicola Ungaro, and Antonella Penna. "Plastic-Associated Harmful Microalgal
Assemblages in Marine Environment." Environmental Pollution, vol. 244, January
2019, pp. 617-626. https://doi.org/l0.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.110.
Dougherty, Matt. "Cornell Faces Public Backlash Over Plans to Install Artificial
Turf." Ithaca Times, June 27, 2024, updated July 4, 2024.
https://www.ithaca.com/news/ithaca/cornell-faces-public-backlash-over-plans-to-
install-artificial-turf/article 26d884c2-34ad-lief-9416-eb947ec65524.html.
Dougherty, Matt. "Appellate Court Allows Challenge Against Permit Allowing
Discharge of PFAS into Cayuga Lake." Ithaca Times, July 24, 2024.
https://www.ithaca.com/news/tompkins county/appellate-court-allows-challenge-
against-permit-allowing-discharge-of-pfas-into-cayuga-lake/article 02c5279c-
4al6-11 ef-b038-1710846el6f9.amp.html.
Figueroa, Fernando. "City Planning Board Greenlights Cornell Synthetic Turf Field
Over Concerns of Environmentalists." Ithaca Voice, September 7, 2024.
https://ithacavoice.org/2024/09/city_planni ng-board-g reenlights-cornelI-synthetic-
tu rf-field-over-concerns-of-environmentalists/.
Fossil Free Cornell. Dissociate Cornell.A Review of Cornell's Fossil Fuel Ties.
Developed and researched by Fossil Free Cornell, September 18, 2024.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1 iPBmvy6v3 5tmiPy1 iXJhTNdyBXAOzLF/view.
Hauptman, Carver. "Letter to the Editor: We Deserve Full Disclosure on Synthetic
Turf Health Risks." Cornell Daily Sun. October 1, 2024.
https://cornellsun.com/2024/10/01/letter-to-the-editor-we-deserve-full-disclosure-
on-synthetic-turf-health-risks/
Heisler, J., P.M. Gilbert, J.M. Burkholder, D.M. Anderson, W. Cochlan, W.C.
Dennison, Q. Dortch, C.J. Gobler, C.A. Heil, E. Humphries, A. Lewitus, R.
Magnien, H.G. Marshall, K. Sellner, D.A. Stockwell, D.K. Stoecker, and M.
Suddleson. "Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Scientific Consensus."
Harmful Algae, vol. 8, no. 1, December 2008, pp. 3-13.
https-//doi.org/l 0.1016/j.hal.2008.08.006.
Koizumi, Yayoi. "Microplastics, Synthetic Turf, and HABs: An Urgent Threat to
Cayuga Lake." Ithaca Times, October 18, 2024, updated October 27, 2024.
https://www.ithaca.com/opinion/guest opinions/guest-opinion-microplastics-
synthetic-turf-and-habs--an-urgent-threat-to-cayuga-lake/article dfel a088-8bed-
11 ef-a3d7-9bc39ac7ee65.html.
Li, Changchao, Jian Liu, Matthias C. Rillig, Michael S. Bank, Peter Fantke, Dong
Zhu, Yong-Guan Zhu, and Ling N. Jin. "What Harmful Microbes Are Lurking in the
World's 7 Billion Tonnes of Plastic Waste?" Nature, October 1, 2024.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d4l586-024-03150-6.
Mehta, Karan. "Intentional PFAS Herbicide Injection into Cayuga Lake." Ithaca
Times, September 5, 2024. https://www.ithaca.com/opinion/guest opinions/guest-
opinion-intentional-pfas-herbicide-injection-into-cayuga-lake/article Oea2cef87
6a68-1 l of-93dl-cfb995aab518.html.
Milius, Susan. "A Toxin Behind Mysterious Eagle Die-Offs May Have Finally Been
Found: A 20-Year Search of Water Weeds and Cyanobacteria Has Turned Up a
Bird-Killing Toxin." ScienceNews, March 26, 2021.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bald-eagle-mysterious-die-offs-chemical-toxin-
found.
Noor, Dharna. "Elite US Universities Rake in Millions from Big Oil Donations,
Research Finds: Student-Led Analyses Raise Concerns of Conflict of Interest at
Six Universities, Including Princeton, Columbia, and Cornell." The Guardian,
September 19, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/l9/oil-
donations-universities.
The People of the State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of
California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. "Complaint for Abatement, Equitable
Relief, and Civil Penalties." Filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco. 2024. https://climateintegrity.org/uploads/media/bonta-
plastics-recycling-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil.pdf
Sierra Club, Inc., Surfrider Foundation, Inc., Heal the Bay, Inc., and Baykeeper,
Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation, and Does 1-10.
"Complaint for Nuisance and Violation of California Unfair Competition Law." Filed
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Case No.
CGC-24-618321. September 23, 2024.
httpa//www.cpmlegal.com/media/news/15193 2024-09-23%2000MPLAINT.pdf
Visser, Petra M., Jolanda M.H. Verspagen, Giovanni Sandrini, Lucas J. Stal, Hans
C.P. Matthijs, Timothy W. Davis, Hans W. Paerl, and Jef Huisman. "How Rising
CO2 and Global Warming May Stimulate Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms." Harmful
Algae, vol. 54, April 2016, pp. 145-159. https-//doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2015.12.006.
Zero Waste Ithaca. Artificial Turf Bibliography, updated January 7, 2025. A detailed
resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental
impacts.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmd
RpuWe ZIU/edit?usp=sharing Zero Waste Ithaca. "The True Costs of Artificial
Turf: Experts Discuss Cornell University's New "PFAS-Free" Project" Webinar
held on April 30, 2024. https://youtu.be/igk8Ss-8Bjk?si=fm4uSfUgol L4V56G
Zhai, Xinyi, Xiao-Hua Zhang, and Min Yu. "Microbial Colonization and Degradation
of Marine Microplastics in the Plastisphere: A Review." Frontiers in Microbiology,
vol. 14, 16 February 2023. https://doi.org/l0.3389/fmicb.2023.1127308.
Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions
Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1,
2024. httpa//doi.org/l0.1021/acs.est.3c04348
o Yayoi
c ,N Koizumi
�cn Zero
®a Waste Ithaca I BYO - US Reduces
Founder )
I7NACY Co-Founder
zerowasteithaca.org
usreduces.org
Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOR - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOR INC, a
Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3)organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are
tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi_org.
From: Brynn Schmitt
Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 12:53 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org
Subject: Please oppose Cornell's proposed synthetic turf expansion
Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board members,
I have recently learned of the grave risks posed by microplastics and plastic-associated
chemicals to both environmental and human health.
A December 2024 study by Soltanighias et al. revealed that the combined toxicity of
PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their individual effects. This new study
showed that combined exposure causes severe developmental failures,delayed sexual
maturity, and reduced growth in Daphnia magna,a keystone species in freshwater
ecosystems.
The health implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study_
by Kozlove, featured in Nature, established a clear link between microplastic exposure and
increased risks of heart attack, stroke, and death.Furthermore, a December 18, 2024 study_
by Chartres et al. analyzed data from 31 studies and linked microplastic exposure to
adverse impacts on sperm quality, immune function,pulmonary health, and potential
connections to colon and lung cancer. Just days later, on December 24,2024, Cropper et al.
published findings estimating that in 2015, exposure to plastic-associated chemicals like
BPA,phthalates, and flame retardants caused millions of cases of heart disease and stroke,
thousands of deaths, and significant IQ loss,resulting in global health costs of$1.5 trillion.
These studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and
microplastic pollution,which continues to grow with new research emerging almost
weekly.
Synthetic turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study_
.(De Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in the
environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified
synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting
approximately seven tons annually. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA,2020)also
highlighted synthetic turf infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in
Europe.
A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of
microplastic and nanoplastic pollution, identifying artificial turf as a contributing source.
Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the
study highlighted the significant challenges of removing microplastics from the
environment and underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective
strategies to protect both human health and ecosystems.
Despite this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward
with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12. This expansion
will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for wildlife, soil health, and
carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil fuel-derived material exacerbates
environmental and health harms throughout its lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures,
such as mechanical filtration systems,are superficial solutions that fail to address the full
extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates.
Given the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health,I urge the
Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for sustainable
alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility.
Sincerely,
Brynn Schmitt
134 Hornbrook Road
Ithaca,NY 14850
References:
Chartres,Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A.
Gandhi,Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on
Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review."
Environmental Science& Technology,December 18,2024.
ho_s:Hdoi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO9524.
Cropper,Maureen, Sarah Dunlop,Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan,Yongjoon Park, and
Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 121,no.
52 (December 24,2024): e2412714121. httpa.//doi.
De Haan,William P., Rocio Quintana,Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar,Miquel Canals, Oriol
Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as
Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments."Environmental Pollution 334(2023):
122094.https.//doi.org/I0.10 1 6/j.envpol.2023.122094.
European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on
Intentionally Added Microplastics. Helsinki,Finland: ECHA, 2020.
https:Hecha.europa.eu/documents/I0162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac 16339en.pd
f.
Kozlove,Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death."Scientific
American(Reprinted from Nature magazine).March 9,2024.
https://www.scientificamencan.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke-
and-death/
Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics
Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20,no. 8
(April 18, 2023): 5555.https://doi.org/I0.3390/ijerph20085555.
Soltanighias,Tayebeh,Abubakar Umar,Muhammad Abdullahi,Mohamed Abou-Elwafa
Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and
Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater
Ecosystems."Environmental Pollution 363,no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133.
https://doi.org/l O.10 16/j.envpol.2024.12513 3.
Zhu,Xia,Matthew J. Hoffinan, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions
Inventory of Plastic Pollution."Environmental Science& Technology. February 1,2024.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3 c04348
Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7,2025.
A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its
environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above.
https:Hdocs.gQogle.com/document/d/19qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlm&puW
e ZIU/edit?usp=sha
One attachment•Scanned by Gmail
From: Chris Balestra
Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Abby.Homer
Subject: RE: Game Farm Road hockey field
Hi Abby,
We've got comments from the Town of Dryden about the field hockey field to send to the
PB. Will you do the honors? (I am purposely including my response to Ray Burger)
Chris
Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607)273-1721, ext. 121
cbalestra@townithacany.gov
From:Chris Balestra <CBa lestra @town ithaca ny.gov>
Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:33 AM
To: Ray Burger<rburger@dryden.ny.us>
Cc:Chris Balestra <CBa lestra @town ithaca ny.gov>; CJ Randall <cjra nda I I @town ithacany.gov>
Subject: RE: Game Farm Road hockey field
Good morning, Ray,
We had sent a GML for comments and review in November 2024 (followed up with the
lead agency concurrence). I didn't hear back from you or your board, but here was the
request with the link to materials:
"Hello Ray and Bambi,
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has a project coming that is adjacent to the Town of
Dryden/Town of Ithaca municipal border(Game Farm Road). The Cornell Field Hockey
Field project will be located off Game Farm Road in the Town of Ithaca, adjacent to the
existing soccer fields on the large set of parcels at Game Farm and Ellis Hollow Roads.
As the project will be located within 500-ft of another municipality, this email is intended to
provide notice of this proposal per GML 239-nn(3)(c).
The volume of materials was too large to place in the email as a pdf, so here is a link to all
the materials (including a staff memo and other town materials—the project was on the
agenda for declaration of lead agency at the November 19th PB meeting:U 11-19-24
PB Packet - CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Lead Agency_,pdf
Ray- we will also include similar information in a letter that will be in another email
associated with SEQR lead agency concurrence (Dryden is not an involved agency in
SEQR, but we send the concurrence letter as a courtesy since Dryden might be an
interested agency).
Please let me know if you have trouble with the attachments and I'll find another way to
send the information to you!Another email will be sent soon regarding the concurrence
with lead agency."
Our Planning Board is *just* beginning their SEQR review of this project (they haven't
established Lead Agency yet), so I will make sure your comments are received and
considered by the board. They are meeting tomorrow (January 7, 2025) to being their
SEAR review.
Please call or email if you have more comments or questions. I am concerned that my
email in November did not reach you, since I didn't hear back. Can you confirm that you
got the email?
Thanks! Happy New Year,
Chris
Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607)273-1721, ext. 121
cbalestra@townithacanygov
From: Ray Burger<rburggr@dryden.ny.us>
Sent:Thursday,January 2,2025 3:12 PM
To:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany,gov>
Subject: Game Farm Road hockey field
MUNMI . . ..
Hi Chris,
Our Planning Board has not reviewed this project yet, but since I don't know your
timeframe I want to pass on a few comments from the Town.
There should be pedestrian facilities for those using the Dryden Rail
Trail/East Hill Recway to access the field, as well as those approaching from
Ellis Hollow. Providing a multi-use trail connection will help to preserve the
safety of Game Farm Road.
This is the first athletic field lighting installed in this residential area and
deserves tight controls to mitigate impacts to nearby residences. In addition to
sharp cut off features and attention to dark sky compliance there should be
other measures to limit impacts. Committing to only having the field lights on
when players are actively using the fields and having the lights off by 10 PM
would help.
While we appreciate that "A strong emphasis will be placed on using native,
non-invasive plant material." (Project Narrative page 13) we would also like a
commitment to no invasive species.
Thanks for your consideration. When is the comment deadline?
A
Ray Burger, Director of Planning
Town of Dryden
93 E. Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053
607-844-8888 x213
http://dryden.nm s
From: ear1421@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 1:03 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning; bstaff cityofithaca.org
Subject: Re: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS and
Microplastics
Oops, forgot to sign it.
Sincerely,
Emily Jernigan
Lab tech at the Cornell university insect collection and resident of Ulysses
On Jan 7, 2025, at 12.59 PM, earl421@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members,
A series of
recent studies highlights the grave risks posed by microplastics and
plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health.
A December 2024 study by
Soltanighias et al. revealed that
the
combined toxicity of PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their
individual effects. This new study showed that combined exposure causes
severe
developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity, and reduced growth in
Daphnia magna, a keystone
species in
freshwater ecosystems.
The health
implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study_
by Kozlove, featured in Nature, established a
clear link between microplastic
exposure
and increased risks of heart
attack, stroke, and death.
Furthermore, a
December 18, 2024 study by_
Chartres et al. analyzed data
from 31 studies
and linked microplastic
exposure to adverse impacts on
sperm quality, immune
function, pulmonary health, and
potential connections to colon
and lung cancer.
Just days later, on December 24,_
20243 Cropper et al. published
findings
estimating that in 2015,
exposure to plastic-associated
chemicals like BPA,
phthalates, and flame retardants
caused millions of cases of heart
disease and
stroke, thousands of deaths, and
significant IQ loss, resulting in
global
health costs of $1 .5 trillion.
These studies
underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and
microplastic
pollution,which continues to grow with new research emerging almost
weekly.
Synthetic turf is
a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study_(De
Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in
the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et
al.,2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic
pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The
European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA 2020),also highlighted synthetic turf
infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe.
A 2023 study by Meegoda and
Hettiarachchi emphasized the
growing problem of microplastic
and
nanoplastic pollution, identifying
artificial turf as a contributing
source.
Published in the International
Journal of
Environmental Research and
Public Health, the study highlighted the
significant challenges of removing micro-Plastics from the environment
and
underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective strategies to
protect both human health and ecosystems.
Despite this
overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward
with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12.
This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for
wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil
fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout
its
lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration
systems,
are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution
and harm synthetic turf creates.
Given the
significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health,I urge
the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for
sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental
responsibility.
Sincerely,
References:
Chartres,
Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A.
Gandhi,Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic
Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A
Rapid
Systematic Review." Environmental Science &
Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO9524.
Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip
Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of
Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52
(December 24, 2024): e2412714121.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121.
De
Haan, William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas, Andres C6zar, Miquel Canals,
Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial
Greening:
Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments."
Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094.
httpa.//doi.org/�lO.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094.
European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier
Proposing Restrictions on
Intentionally-Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA,
2020.
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionra
c 16339en.pdf.
Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack,
Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature
magazine). March 9, 2024.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-
attack-stroke-and-death/
Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a
Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of
Environmental Research and
Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ij erDh20085555.
Soltanighias,
Tayebeh,Abubakar Umar,Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa
Abdallah, and
Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and
Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for
Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1
(December 15,
2024): 125133. htips.//doi.org/10.1016/J*.envpol.2024.125133.
Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A
City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental
Science & Technology. February 1, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348
Zero
Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025.
A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on
artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources
listed
above.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kM*fFHyG—
xvlmdRpuWe_ZIU/edit?usp=sharing
From: Jill Kellner
Sent: Friday,January 3, 2025 3:09 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Subject: synthetic turf
• T4 A I i TM I ff• - • .
Dear Planning Board,
I'm hoping you have received a flood of letters against the proposed installations
of synthetic turf on Game Farm Road. As a resident of the East Hill, living on Ellis
Hollow Road, not far from where the installation will be, I am particularly upset that
you would consider installing something that is known to be detrimental to the
health of the community and the planet. I am copying the letter that I'm hoping
others have sent in the hopes that you will listen and do the right thing....
Sincerely,
Jill Kellner
1321 Ellis Hollow Rd.
Ithaca, NY
Subject: Resilience of Natural Grass vs. Risks of Synthetic Turf: A Case
for Game Farm Road
This public comment addresses the Synthetic Hockey Field Plan proposed for Game
Farm Road.
Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
I am writing to share insights regarding the proposed installation of synthetic turf on Game
Farm Road, urging the board to carefully consider the resilience of natural grass and the
environmental and cultural implications of prioritizing aesthetics over functionality.
Grass species commonly used in sports fields are highly resilient. Research demonstrates
that turfgrass can recover from stressors such as drought, wear, and even minor pest
damage without chemical intervention. When left untreated, most grass fields regenerate
with rain or moderate maintenance. This resilience has supported sports and recreational
use for centuries, long before the advent of synthetic alternatives.
The perception that a sports field must exhibit uniform, pristine green turf to be
functional is not supported by evidence. Clover, dandelions, and other broadleaf
plants, often labeled as weeds, do not impede playability when mowed to appropriate
heights. These species contribute to soil health and biodiversity while reducing
dependency on synthetic inputs. Historical sports and recreational activities thrived on
natural fields with diverse vegetation, proving that perfectionism in turf management is
more about aesthetics than necessity.
Moreover, synthetic turf, while marketed as a low-maintenance solution, poses significant
long-term environmental and health risks. It contributes to microplastic pollution, retains
excessive heat, and cannot self-repair like natural grass. The ecological and financial
costs of synthetic turf are incompatible with sustainable development goals, particularly
when viable, cost-effective natural alternatives are available.
Shifting from a chemical- and appearance-focused approach to a more
ecological mindset benefits not only the environment but also the community.
Encouraging the use of resilient, well-maintained natural grass fields aligns with
sustainable values and promotes a healthier, more inclusive athletic culture.
I urge the board to reconsider the reliance on synthetic turf and instead champion the
benefits of resilient, ecologically managed natural grass fields. Such a decision would
demonstrate leadership in sustainability and a commitment to the long-term well-being of
our community.
Synthetic turf begets synthetic turf. There are currently an estimated 19,000
artificial fields in the United States, with as many as 1,500 new fields installed
each year, about half of which are replacing older turf, according to a 2024 report by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A recent NBC report highlighted a California high school district's decision to reject
converting their artificial turf field back to natural grass, citing concerns over two years of
field displacement during reinstallation. This underscores the significant challenges—
or convenient excuses—that make reversing synthetic turf installations difficult
once they are in place. Such a scenario must not be allowed to happen here.
The Game Farm Road location currently features natural grass fields that are both
functional and visually appealing. Replacing them with synthetic turf would not only
destroy these fields but could also allow Cornell University to justify avoiding any return to
natural grass in the future. Preserving these natural grassfields is essential—not only to
maintain their environmental and aesthetic value but also to uphold Cornell's stated
sustainability goals of reducing fossil fuel reliance.
Synthetic turf is the largest point source of plastic in outdoor environments and a major
contributor to microplastic pollution. Halting the construction of additional toxic plastic turf
fields, not limited to but especially outdoors, is imperative.
Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Written comment submitted to the Ithaca Town Planning Board
January 7, 2025
Re: Cornell's Proposal for Athletic Facilities at Game Farm Road
Dear Ithaca Town Planning Board members:
Following my comment submitted last month, I want to again underscore the importance of
revisiting an inappropriate SEQR segmentation during tonight's discussion of declaration of lead
agency.
Last May, Cornell requested a SEQR segmentation for the current project at Game Farm Road and
the Meinig Fieldhouse Project, on the assertion that the two projects are"functionally independent"
of one another.At the 2024-05-21 Town PB Meeting.the applicant Ms. Michaels asserted that"these
two projects aren't even necessarily dependent on each other" (8:06),that they"are on different
timelines" (-10:30),and that(echoing the language of the law) "The City Planning Board's review
and anticipated approval of the Fieldhouse project does not commit the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board to approve the construction of the field hockey field (slide deck)."'
At no point during the SEQR segmentation discussion did the applicant spell out the real
relationship between the two projects.That relationship became immediately apparent when the
applicant presented the Game Farm Road project later in 2024.At the November and December
Board meetings, Cornell argued that their new proposed field at Game Farm Road (a) must be
artificial turf due to field hockey regulations; and (b) must be completed before the Fall 2025 field
hockey season.z Both points are only relevant because the Meinig Fieldhouse will destroy the
existing women's field hockey pitch on central campus.The Game Farm Road Project can only be
considered the second phase of this action,where the women's field hockey pitch is reconstructed at
an off-campus site.'
The degree to which Cornell now pressures the Board to greenlight yet another petroleum-based
artificial turf field on their(Cornell's) own internal timeline is the same degree to which they violate
their testimony that the two projects are functionally independent.If the Board's review continues
on the pretense of SEQR segmentation,then it is inappropriate for the applicant to raise concerns
specific to field hockey turf requirements or season start dates, and it is inappropriate for the Board
members to consider them.
These two projects are clearly different phases of the same action and should be considered as such
for purposes of environmental review, according to NY State Law: "If an action consists of multiple
phases,sets of activities, or if separate agencies are involved,SEQR requires agencies jointly consider
these cumulative impacts during their review.Segmentation of an action into smaller components for
an individual review contradicts the intent of the law and may result in legal action."This
interpretation is supported by Attorney Brock's observations during the initial SEQR segmentation
discussion in May 2024. She noted that the timing of the two projects suggest a single SEQR review
because their timelines"are dovetailing so closely,"and that Cornell's"overall plan"makes these
projects dependent because"by putting certain facilities on Central Campus,you are displacing
other facilities elsewhere..." [-38:00]).3
I urge the Board to revisit the SEQR segmentation in order to uphold the integrity of environmental
review and consider the full scope of cumulative environmental impact for all phases of Cornell's
overall plan.' It is as much in the athletes'own interests as in the community's interests to conduct
an adequate environmental review. Lest the Board feel pressured by the applicant's internal
requirements around their field hockey season and NCAA requirements for plastic grass,let us
remember that it is the applicant's responsibility to plan multiple phases of an action in a fully
transparent and realistic manner so as to not hold the Planning Board hostage to a bad-faith
timeline of allegedly"independent"projects.
-bethany ojalehto mays, PhD
ENDNOTES
1.The Planning Board engaged in a long discussion about this segmentation request,noting that the
permissible grounds for SEQR segmentation include if the future phase is speculative or may not even occur
(-21:00).Even at the time of segmentation,it was noted that some dimensions of this segmentation were
unusual.During the May 21 Board meeting,when asked if they have an idea of when they would apply for the
Game Farm Road field,the applicant answered:"We're targeting handing in an application for Game Farm
Road at the end of June of this year(2024):'Town Planning Board staff member Chris Balestra noted that it's
"a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now"because typically SEQR
segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the"way distant future,"but"in this case,
it's almost simultaneous" (-16:15).In response to Board member questions,the applicant later asserted,
"They are not functionally dependent on another:one does not have to happen in order for the other one to
happen:there's no relationship there...there's another project on the way that is mildly related to this!
(-23:00).This is inaccurate.Across multiple meetings,Susan Brock also noted that the environmental review
must consider the environmental impacts of the entire project,regardless of whether part of the project is
located within the Town or City of Ithaca(see Attorney Brock at 59:00 during the 2024-03-19 Planning Board
Meeting). It is only appropriate to consider the impacts of all the artificial turf fields being proposed at
Cornell through their athletics master plan.Speaking to a Board member's question about the implications of
SEQR segmentation for the applicant,Ms Michaels responded:"If the City says it's not permissible,then they
will be the lead agency for both projects and the schedule for the project gets further delayed,which starts to
impact the timeline for athletics and the construction/completion for when a field can be ready...so that has
implications for the athletic community" (-50:00).This was the perfect opportunity to spell out the real
relationship.
2.In November 2024,Cornell informed the Town Planning Board that the women's field hockey team had
played"their last game"at the central campus pitch and now must rush the current proposal in time to
construct the new field in time for the women's field hockey season.They announced the same in an Athletics
press release.Cornell's Athletics Coverage on October 25,2024 spells out the joint nature of the two projects:
"The Big Red celebrated on the field,taking pictures and enjoying its 85th and final victory on Dodson Field
before its move to Game Farm Road complex next season.'
3.Likewise,Planning Board staff Chris Balestra noted it's"a little bit concerning that the segmentation
question is being asked now"because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that
would occur in the"way distant future,"but"in this case,it's almost simultaneous" (-16:15,May 2024 PB
meeting).
4.As both Town and City of Ithaca Planning Board members stressed in earlier deliberations,the Boards have
received historic volumes of credible,evidence-based concerns from community members,including experts,
scientists,and faculty members (and here I cite only a small selection of comments).It is a disservice to the
community's and scientists'legitimate concerns to rush this project through approvals without an EIS.
From: nmkoschm16
Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org
Cc: info@zerowasteithaca.org
Subject: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS and
M icroplastics
Dear
Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members,
A series of
recent studies highlights the grave risks posed by microplastics and
plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health.
A December 2024 study by
Soltan igh ias et al. revealed that the
combined toxicity of PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their
individual effects. This new study showed that combined exposure causes severe
developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity, and reduced growth in
Daphnia magna, a keystone species
in
freshwater ecosystems.
The health
implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study_
by Kozlove, featured in Na ture, established a clear
link between microplastic exposure
and increased risks of heart attack,
stroke, and death. Furthermore, a
December 18, 2024 study by Chartres
et al. analyzed data from 31 studies
and linked microplastic exposure to
adverse impacts on sperm quality,
immune
function, pulmonary health, and
potential connections to colon and
lung cancer.
Just days later, on December 24,_
20243 Cropper et al. published
findings
estimating that in 2015, exposure to
plastic-associated chemicals like
B PA,
phthalates, and flame retardants
caused millions of cases of heart
disease and
stroke, thousands of deaths, and
significant IQ loss, resulting in global
health costs of $1 .5 trillion.
These studies
underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic
pollution, which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly.
Synthetic turf is
a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study—(De
Haan et al., 2023),found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in
the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et
al., 2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic
pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The
European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020)also highlighted synthetic turf
infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe.
A 2023 study by Meegoda and
Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing
problem of microplastic and
nanoplastic pollution, identifying
artificial turf as a contributing source.
Published in the International Journal
of
Environmental Research and Public
Health, the study highlighted the
significant challenges of removing microplastics from the environment and
underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective strategies to
protect both human health and ecosystems.
Despite this
overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward
with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12.
This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for
wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil
fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its
lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems,
are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution
and harm synthetic turf creates.
Given the
significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health, I urge
the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for
sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental
responsibility.
Sincerely,
Nicole
Koschmann
312
Hancock Street, Ithaca
References:
Chartres,
Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland,Katherine E.Pelch, Sheiphali A.
Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic
Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid
Systematic Review." Environmental Science &
Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524.
Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip
Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of
Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24,
2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121.
De
Haan, William P.,Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar, Miquel Canals,
Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening:
Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments." Environmental
Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. httpa.//doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094.
European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing
Restrictions on
Intentionally-Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA,
2020.
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac l6339en.p
df.
Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack,
Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March
9, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack-
stroke-and-death/
Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a
Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of
Environmental Research and
Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555. http .//doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555.
Soltanighias,
Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and
Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and
Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater
Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15,
2024): 125133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133.
Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A
City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science &
Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO4348
Zero
Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025.
A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on
artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed
above.
https:Hdocs.gQogle.com/document/d/19qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlm&puW
e ZIU/edit?usp=sharing
From: Caroline Ashurst
Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 3:47 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org
Subject: Cornell University's synthetic turf project proposal on Game Farm
Road
Dear
Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members,
Hello,
it's me again! This time I am taking a beat to send a note regarding the
synthetic turf nightmare that Cornell is proposing not only on Game Farm Road,
but their larger initiative to install 11 of these monstrosities on campus.
Aga i n,
as a licensed healthcare practitioner specializing in hormonal health (with a
Master's degree education), I cannot stress ENOUGH how dangerous PFAS are for
human and animal life! The studies are staggering. The wearing down of
synthetic turf will create a plume of microplastics soaring around our air in
Ithaca. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE this in our hometown.
A
March 2024 study by Kozlove,_featured in Nature,
established a clear link between
microplastic exposure and increased
risks of
heart attack, stroke, and death.
Furthermore, a December 18, 2024
study
by Chartres et al. analyzed data from
31
studies and linked microplastic
exposure to adverse impacts on
sperm quality,
immune function, pulmonary health,
and potential connections to colon
and lung
cancer. Just days later, on December
24, 2024,
Cropper et al. published findings
estimating that in 2015, exposure to
plastic-associated chemicals like
BPA, phthalates, and flame retardants
caused
millions of cases of heart disease and
stroke, thousands of deaths, and
significant IQ loss, resulting in global
health costs of $1 .5 trillion.
These
studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and
microplastic pollution, which continues to grow with new research emerging
almost weekly.
Synthetic
turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The
Barcelona study (De Haan et al., 2023)
found that up to 15% of
larger microplastic fragments in the
environment come from artificial turf.
The
Toronto study (Zhu et al., 2024)
identified synthetic turf as the
largest contributor of microplastic
pollution in the city, emitting
approximately seven tons annually.
The European Chemicals
Ag y (ECHA, 2020), also highlighted
synthetic turf infill as the largest
contributor to microplastic pollution
in
Europe.
How
is Ithaca even considering this? Cornell is strangling the health of
generations to come here in Ithaca for the sake of their Division 1 status?
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Despite
this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing
forward with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11
or 12. This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential
for wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil
fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its
lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems,
are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution
and harm synthetic turf creates.
Given
the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health, I
urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for
sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental
responsibility.
Sincerely,
Your
friend Caroline Ashurst
References:
Chartres, Nicholas,
Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi,
Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J.Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure
on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health:A Rapid Systematic
Review."Environmental
Science&Technology, December 18, 2024.
https.LLdoi.org/lo.1021/acs.est.3cO95a4.
Cropper,
Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan,Yongjoon Park, and
Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from
Plastics."Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the
United States ofAmerica 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121.
https: do..org 10-1073/pnas 22412714121.
De Haan,William P., Rocio
Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar,Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna
Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as
Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments."Environmental Pollution 334
(2023): 122094. https: doi.org l0.l016 j.envpo1.2o23.12209_4.•
European
Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XVDossier Proposing Restrictions on
Intentionally Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020._
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac
i6339en.pdf.
Kozlove,
Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientific
American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9,
2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-
attack-stroke-and-death/
Meegoda,
J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and
Nanoplastics Pollution."International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health
20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555• https: doi.org io.339oLijerph2oo85555-
Soltanighias,Tayebeh,
Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and
Luisa
Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics
on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater
Ecosystems."Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15,
2024): 125133. https: doi.org io.1oi6 j.envpo1.2o24.t25133-
Zhu,
Xia,Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions
Inventory of Plastic Pollution."Environmental Science&Technology. February 1,
2024. httpsj
jdoi.orglio.1021/acs.est.3C-0-43-4a
Zero Waste Ithaca
Artificial Turf Bibliography, updated January 7, 2025.
A
detailed resource with over ioo pages of references on artificial turf and its
environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above.
https: docs.google.com/document/d/lggSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxv1
mdRpuWe ZIU/edit?usp=sharing
With Gratitude,
Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac.
www.carolineashurst.com
@restorativeharmony
The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching
+ Restorative Harmony Acupuncture
20221202012019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award
Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia!
*******02024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This
document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a
self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or
nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or
treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical
practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or
mental health provider about your specific health situation.
For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-
disclaimers
From: Louise Mygatt
Sent: Tuesday,January 7,2025 5:07 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; Louise Mygatt
Subject: Game Farm Road project
Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members,
I am very concerned about the synthetic turf athletic fields that Cornell is constructing or
including the proposed new one on Game Farm Road. Synthetic turf
well-documented source of microplas
pollution, and I feel that it has no plac
our community or really, anywhere. A
please note that the site on Game Far
Road is uphill from Ithaca's water supply, that is, the reservoir that feeds 6-M
after study confirms the environmental problems associated with synthetic turf, and I am
many times we need to read these reports to take them seriously.
Here are 4 examples:
1. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of mic]
nanoplastic pollution,identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the
International Journal of Environments
Research and Public Health, the stud,
highlighted the significant challenges
removing microplastics from the
environment and underscored that sc
reduction is one of the most effective
strategies to protect both human heal
ecosystems.
2. The Barcelona study (De Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplasti
the environment come from artificial turf.
3. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor
pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually.
4. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020)also highlighted synthetic turf infill
contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe.
Why is Cornell, a world-renown science research institution,going forward with plans tc
synthetic turf fields?Is Cornell in complete denial of the science around plastic pollution
at Cornell care about the obvious contradiction between the overwhelming scientific evic
synthetic turf and Cornell's plans to increase its investment in this fossil fuel-derived, en)
polluting,human and animal life-threatening material?And the contradiction between Cc
build more synthetic turf fields and its own sustainability statement is stunning. That stat
"We value our role in advancing solutions for a sustainable future and we recognize the c
between people and the Earth, acting in ways to live and work sustainably". Proposed mi
measures, such as mechanical filtration systems, are superficial solutions that fail to addr
extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Despite the overwhelming evident
Cornell continues to push for more synthetic turf.
If Cornell is not able to get real about what it's doing to the environment in our area,we 1
ourselves. I strongly urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion an
sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility.
Sincerely,
Dr. Louise Mygatt
References:
Chartres,Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A.
Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human I
Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Sc
Technology, December 18, 2024. https:Hdoi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524.
Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon
Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Americ
52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. httpa.//doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121.
De Haan,William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar,Miquel Canals, Oriol I
Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread
Aquatic Environments." Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094.
https:Hdoi.org/�lO.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094.
European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restr
Intentionally-Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020.
https:Hecha.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac l6339en�
Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientih
(Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024.
https://www.scientificamen can.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke-ai
Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nan
Pollution." International Joumal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2C
18, 2023): 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555.
Soltanighias, Tayebeh,Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa
and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics or
Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmente
363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.org/10.lol6/j.envpol.2024.1251
Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissior
of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348
Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025.
A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its en)
impacts. Includes all the sources listed above.
https://docs.gQogle.com/document/d/19q
SgRdKSPBKYdPn-8kM*I
fFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpij
usp=sharing
Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massacl
nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible,
by law. Learn more at https:Hthenopi_org.
One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
Re I Reply all You received this via BCC, so you can'
Forward an emoji
The Barcelona study-(De Haan et al.,2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic f
environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified syi
largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven ton
European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020)also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the 1,
to microplastic pollution in Europe.
A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of microx
nanoplastic pollution,identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the
International Journal of Environments
Research and Public Health, the stud,'
highlighted the significant challenges
removing microplastics from the
environment and underscored that sc
reduction is one of the most effective
strategies to protect both human heal
ecosystems
From: In Shik Lee
Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 4:24 PM
To: Town Of Ithaca Planning
Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org
Subject: Subject: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity
PFAS and Microplastics
• • - • .
The evidence seems clear that plastic fields are not a good idea.
Subject: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS
and Microplastics
Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members,
A series of recent
studies highlights the grave risks posed by microplastics and
plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health.
A December 2024 study by
Soltanighias et al. revealed that
the combined toxicity of
PFAS and microplastics is far
greater than their individual
effects. This new study showed
that combined exposure causes
severe developmental failures,
delayed sexual maturity, and
reduced growth in Daphnia
magna, a keystone species in
freshwater ecosystems.
The health implications
of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study by
Kozlove,featured
in Nature, established a clear link
between microplastic exposure
and increased risks of heart
attack, stroke, and
death. Furthermore, a December
183 2024 study by Chartres et al.
analyzed
data from 31 studies and linked
microplastic exposure to
adverse impacts on
sperm quality, immune function,
pulmonary health, and potential
connections to
colon and lung cancer. Just days
later, on December 24, 2024,_
Cropper et al.
published findings estimating
that in 2015, exposure to plastic-
associated
chemicals like BPA, phthalates,
and flame retardants caused
millions of cases
of heart disease and stroke,
thousands of deaths, and
significant IQ loss,
resulting in global health costs
of $1 .5 trillion .
These studies underscore
the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic
pollution,
which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly.
Synthetic turf is a
well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study_
(De
Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments
in
the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et
al., 2024) identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of
microplastic
pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The
European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020),also highlighted synthetic
turf
infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe.
A 2023 study by Meegoda and
Hettiarachchi emphasized the
growing problem of microplastic
and
nanoplastic pollution, identifying
artificial turf as a contributing
sou rce.
Published in the International
Journal of
Environmental Research and
Public Health, the study_
highlighted the significant
challenges of
removing microplastics from the
environment and underscored
that source
reduction is one of the most
effective strategies to protect
both human health
and ecosystems.
Despite this
overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing
forward
with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12.
This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for
wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil
fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms
throughout its
lifecycle.Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration
systems,
are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution
and harm synthetic turf creates.
Given the significant
risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health,I urge the
Planning
Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for
sustainable
alternatives that align with public health and environmental
responsibility.
Sincerely,
References:
Chartres,Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland,Katherine E.
Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff.
"Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and
Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science &
Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524.
Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip
Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of
Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52
(December 24, 2024): e2412714121.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121.
De Haan,William P.,Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas, Andres Cozar,
Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of
Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic
Environments." Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094.
https://doi.orgLI0.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094.
European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier
Proposing Restrictions on
Intentionally Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA,
2020.
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionr
ac16339en.pdf.
Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack,
Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature
magazine). March 9, 2024.
https://www.scientiflcamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-
attack-stroke-and-death/
Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a
Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of
Environmental Research and
Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ij erDh200855 55.
Soltanighias, Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi,Mohamed
Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of
Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia
magna: Implications for
Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1
(December 15, 2024): 125133.
https://doi.orgLI0.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133.
Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A
City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental
Science & Technology. February 1, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO4348
Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7,
2025.
A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on
artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources
listed
above.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyG—
xvlmdRpuWe_ZIU/edit?usp=sharing
Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOR - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOR
INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3)organization, EIN 81-
5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more
at https://thenopi_org.
Sent from my (S)!