BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from Boston Public Library http://www.archive.org/details/expansionoffrankOOmass Government Documents Department Draft Environmental Impact Report ' EXPANSION OF FRANKLIN PARK e£ - "*%j&&m iiOSuMi FUUlifr LEyfi&iJ Government Documents Department Draft Environmental Impact Report EXPANSION OF FRANKLIN PARK Prepared for the METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION by CLM/SYSTEMS, INC. 292 Main St. Cambridge, Mass. 02142 December ,1973 QL77 circs'* TABLE OF CONTENTS I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Page II SUMMARY 8 A. Description 8 B. State Identification Number 8 C. Preparing Agency 8 D. Submittal Dates 8 E. Region to be Impacted 8 F. Summary of Impacts 8 III PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 A. Goals and Objectives 10 B. Location 10 C. Theme 22 D. Structures and Facilities 15 1. Pavilions 2. Land Acquisition 3. Existing Buildings and Landscape 21 4. Additional Facilities 22 5. Service 6. Animal Wastes 7. Heating and Cooling Plant 23 8. Emergency Power 24 9. Fire Systems 26 10. Water Supply 26 11. Sanitary Sewage 26 12. Storm Drainage 28 13. Electricity and Gas 28 14. Admissions and General Operations 28 15 20 23 23 Page 15. Expected Attendance 29 16. Parking 30 17. Future Plans 3 6 18. Landscaping 3 7 (a) Exterior Landscaping 3 7 (b) Interior Planting 39 19. Educational Program 41 20. Cost, Financing, and Construction Schedule 42 21. Project Staff 42 IV THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE AFFECTED 43 A. Surrounding Area 43 1. Land Use 43 (a) Boston Redevelopment Authority 45 (b) Boston Model City 47 2. Traffic, Parking, and Public Transportation 49 (a) Existing Traffic Conditions 49 (b) Zoo Generated Traffic 61 (c) Traffic Safety 62 (d) Parking Availability 63 (e) Zoo Parking Demand 67 (f) Public Transit Service 6 7 3. Air Quality 74 (a) Carbon Monoxide Monitoring and Prediction 74 (b) Emission Density Estimates 81 (c) Incinerator 87 4. Noise Levels 88 5. Aesthetics and Public Attitude 92 6. Olmsted Park System 93 (a) Olmsted Historic District 95 Page 7. Franklin Park (a) History (b) Existing Conditions B. The Zoo Site 1. Topography 2. Climate 3. Existing Wildlife 4. Trees and Vegetation 5. Aesthetics 6. Geology 7. Storm Drainage 8. Sanitary Sewage 9. Water Quality 10. Solid Waste 11. Utilities 12. The Franklin Park Zoo (a) History (b) Present Condition V ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. No Action B. Build at Another Location C. Modify the Project 1. No Parking Garage 2. Alternate Parking Locations 3. Build a Smaller Zoo at Franklin Park 4. Alter the Site Plan 5. Change the Type of Exhibit 95 95 99 101 101 101 104 106 108 110 112 113 114 116 116 117 117 121 125 125 125 125 125 125 126 126 126 Page VI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 127 A. The Proposed Project 127 1. Local and Regional Impacts 12 7 (a) Traffic 127 (b) Air Quality 138 (c) Noise 145 (d) Energy 151 (e) Storm Drainage 153 (f) Sanitary Sewage 153 (g) Water Quality 154 (h) Water Supply 155 (i) Solid Waste 156 (j ) Aesthetics and Public Attitude 157 (k) Impact on Wildlife 161 (1) Public and Animal Health 161 (m) Education 162 (n) Economics 163 (o) Police and Fire Protection 166 (p) General Community and Governmental 167 Reaction (q) Rodent Control 138 (r) Animal Security igg 2. Impact on the Olmsted Park System 169 3. Impact on the Zoo Itself 171 (a) Animals 171 (b) Air Pollution 171 (c) Noise 173 (d) Plants and Vegetation 173 B. Alternatives -j 74 1. No Action 174 (a) Positive Impacts 174 (b) Negative Impacts 176 Page Build at Another Location 178 (a) Positive Impacts 178 (b) Negative Impacts 182 Modify the Project 183 (a) No Parking Garage 183 (b) Alternative Locations for Parking 184 (c) Build a Smaller Zoo at Franklin Park 192 (d) Alter the Site Plan 193 (e) Change the Type of Exhibit 196 VII MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 200 VIII WRITTEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNITY REACTION 203 FOOTNOTES 204 APPENDICES A. ANIMAL SPECIES LIST 209 B. MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE AVERAGES 2 13 C. CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE FRANKLIN PARK ZOO EXPANSION 222 LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1 Projected Monthly Design Attendance at Franklin Park Zoo 31 2 Franklin Park Zoo Projected Daily Attendance 32 3 1986 Parking Demand 36 4 Minimum Temperature, Humidity and Light Levels 40 5 Speed Limits in Project Area 50 6 Average Traffic Volumes During Peak Season 53 7 Hourly Traffic Distributions 54 8 Selected Peak Season Hourly Traffic Volumes 55 9 Intersection Analysis, Existing Conditions 5 8 10 Intersection Analysis, 1976 Conditions 59 11 Intersection Analysis 1986 Conditions 60 12 Dangerous Intersections Near Franklin Park 63 13 Existing Off-Street Parking 65 14 Existing On-Street Parking 66 15 Bus Connections Between MBTA Rail Transit Lines 71 and Franklin Park 16 Highest and Second Highest Ambient Carbon Monoxide Levels 75 17 Comparison of Measured Carbon Monoxide Conectrations with Predicted Values 79 18 Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 80 Near Zoo Entrance 19 Franklin Park Grid Cell - 1973 Travel Data 84 20 1973 Emission Densities for Hydrocarbons Nitrogen 85 Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide 21 Existing Outdoor Noise Levels at Selected Receptors 91 22 Intersection Analysis, 1976 Conditions with Zoo 133 Development 23 Weekday Impact of Zoo Traffic on Local Streets 136 24 Predicted Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Zoo Entrance 140 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Number Page 25 Present and Future Emission Density Estimates 142 26 Future Peak Hour Noise Levels With and Without 147 Zoo Development 27 Typical Noise Levels From Construction of 151 Amusement Park or Recreation Area LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 1 Project Location Map 11 2 General Site Plan 13 3 Visitor Circulation 14 4 Sample Pavilion Cross Section 16 5 Sample Exhibit Connector 17 6 Scale Model of Zoo Development 18 7 Service Access and Animal Holding Areas 19 8 Sample Exhibit Layout 21 9 General Exhibit Plan 22 10 Pavilion Ventilation 25 11 Utility Connections 2 7 12 Satellite Parking Garage Location 34 13 Surrounding Land Use 44 14 Local Redevelopment Programs 46 15 Existing Traffic Circulation 51 16 Existing Parking Locations 64 17 Existing Public Transit Connections 70 18 Future Public Transit Connections 73 19 Distribution of Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Averages 76 20 Map for Air Pollution Model 78 21 Air Pollution Grid Cell 82 22 Topography and Receptor Distances 89 23 Olmsted's Franklin Park 97 24 Historical Development of Franklin Park 100 25 Franklin Park Zoo Historical Development 102 26 Climatological Information 103 27 Sunlight, Wind, and Open Space Information 105 28 Site Vegetation 1°7 29 Existing View Down the Greeting 109 30 Site Geology HI LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Number Page 31 Franklin Park Zoo Master Plans 32 Weekday Arrival and Departure Pattern 33 Sunday Arrival and Departure Pattern 34 Parking Alternatives 35 Site Plan Alternatives 120 129 130 188 195 I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 1. RECEIVED. n i 00041 ^£\ project is located on a high, well-drained section of land with no expected impact on Commonwealth waters other than through storm drainage. 9. Could the project (s) change existing features of any of the Commonwealth's beaches? There will be no impact on Commonwealth beaches. 10. Could the project (s) result in the elimination of land presently utilized for agricultural purposes? Tho sfifp ig in an nrhan park. 11. Will the project (s) require a variance from, or result in a violation of, any statute, ordinance, by-law, regulation or standard, the major purpose of which is to prevent or minimize damage to the environment? X. No violations of existing environmental standards or regulations is foreseen at this time. 12. Will the project(s) require certification, authoriza- tion or i uance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? 2l This project may come under the Federal Clean Air Act. : ' u. Short Long Term Term Yes No Yes No 13. Will the project (s) involve the application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? There are regulations regarding the disposal of dung from imported or diseased animals. 14. Will the project (s) involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? X_ Thp prnjppt sitp is not 1 orated on a flood plain. 15. Could the project (s) result in the generation of signi- ficant amounts of noise? X X There will be construction noise, as well as noise penftratpd from increased traffic. 16. Could the project (s) result in the generation of signi- ficant amounts of dust? X X_ Onr.R thfi project is completed, there will be no exposed land to create a dust problem. Dust control measures will be taken during construction. 17. Will the project(s) involve the burning of brush, trees, construction materials, etc.? X X Construction debris will not be burnedf but there vill be en incinerator on site. 18. Could the project (s) result in a deleterious effect en the quality of any portion of the state's air or water resources? (If yes, indicate whether surface, ground water, offshore) X X Air quality may be affected by increased traffic. 5. Short Long Terra Term Yes No Yes No 19. Could the project (s) affect an area of important scenic value? X X Tt is evpprted that this impact will be positive. 20. Will the project result in any form of environmental damage not included in the above questions? X X Increased traffic congestion may be a problem. III. Statement of No Significant Environmental Effects A "yes" answer to any of the questions in Section II indicates that the project may cause significant environmental damage, and that an EIR will probably be required. If you have answered "yes" to one or more of the questions, but still think the project will cause no significant environ- mental damage, indicate your reasons below. An extensive environmental impact report will be prepared for this project. We would however like to point out the following information. Environmental impacts are being identified and assessed during the planning stage of this project and prior to final design. It is anticipated that potentially adverse environmental impacts can be eliminated or kept to a minimum through careful planning and design measures. This planning stage is being conducted with a genuine awareness of the [(UUcl^ auA historical significance of the project site. We also recognize that the pro- ject will result in a significant educational resource for the people of Greater Boston and will attract large numbers of people, especially school children. Increased traffic resulting from visitors to the zoo will be an unavoidable impact which must be balanced against the social benefits of the zoo. These major concerns, as well as other related or minor impacts v/ill be examined in the environmental impact report. 6. IV. Conclusions Place a check in the appropriate box. 1. ( ) It has been determined that the project will not cause significant environmental damage. No further reports will be filed. 2. (Sd It has been determined that the project may cause significant environmental damage. A draft environmental impact report will be submitted on Deremher 1r 19 7 3 (approximate date) . *See comment under Section III The draft report will be: 3. ( ) Standard 4. &0 Extensive 5. ( ) Combined 6. Joint, in participation with_ designated as the lead agency, Signature of Preparing Officer , with aZE ■^JK '£±zL4. Title Dir. . Environmental Planning Office AddressHDC, 20 Somerset St., Boston, 02108 Telephone 727-8880 II SUMMARY A. Description Expansion of the Franklin Park Zoo The proposed project will expand, modernize, and renovate the Franklin Park Zoo. Four major pavilions will be constructed to provide an all-weather facility for the display of animals from the African continent. B. State Identification Number C. Preparing Agency Metropolitan District Commission, Planning Office D. Submittal Dates Draft: December 21, 1973 Final: E. Region to be Impacted The project is located in Franklin Park, which is bordered by the Roxbury, Dorchester and Jamaica Plain sections of Boston. The proposed development will affect these areas specifically, but it will also have general economic, educational, and cultural impacts on the entire metropolitan area and the New England region. F. Summary of Impacts The proposed project will represent a significant educational and recreational resource for the entire New England region. It will be located in a section of Boston in need of the financial commitments and renewed public interest associated with a major development of this size. The existing limited zoological facilities on the site will be greatly improved and expanded to the benefit of both visitors and animals. Spin-off usage is also expected in adjacent portions of a seldom used regional park facility. The project will generate additional traffic loads that will affect existing levels of noise, air pollution and general congestion. It Summary represents an increased demand for community and regional facilities and services, including water, energy, storm and sanitary sewage treatment, and solid waste disposal. The project will both positively and negatively affect the aesthetics of the Zoo site and Franklin Park, and it will also affect a portion of the Olmsted Park System which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a major expansion of the existing zoological facilities at Franklin Park in Boston being undertaken jointly by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) and the Boston Zoological Society (BZS). A. Goals and Objectives The objective of the project is to create a year-round facility that will function both as a zoological park devoted to the exhibition, conservation, and breeding of animals and as an educational and recre- ational resource for the New England region. The planning of the animal exhibits has emphasized the placement of the various designated species of animals into areas that are, as nearly as possible, similar to their natural habitats. In this way, the animals will benefit from an eviron- ment that is more natural than the cages and confined areas common to many zoos, while the zoo visitor will be able to experience seeing the animals at close range and in a more natural setting, thus enhancing the educational experience. While the Boston Metropolitan area is rich in cultural and institutional facilities, it lags behind most major cities in its zoological parks. This project represents a significant improvement over the presently limited Franklin Park Zoo facilities. In future years, it is hoped that other areas of Franklin Park that are now seldom used will become more popular, better maintained, and safer. In addition, the project represents a major financial commitment in a section of Boston presently undergoing extensive redevelopment. These benefits, as well as others of lesser significance are discussed in detail in Section V. B. Location The project site is located in the northeast corner of Franklin Park which is bordered by the Roxbury, Dorchester, and Jamaica Plain sections of Boston, (see Figure 1 ). The development will take place on existing Franklin Park Zoo property (52 acres) presently owned by the Metro- politan District Commission (Chapter 189, Acts of 1965). In addition, 16. 25 acres of adjacent park land known as the "Sausage" and owned by the City of Boston 10 SOURCE : BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Project Description will be leased to the MDC under a proposed 99-year agreement. (See Figure 25). Franklin Park is a part of Boston's Olmsted Park System, a series of parks linked by continuous parkways. This "Emerald Necklace" includes the Boston Common, the Public Gardens, Common- wealth Avenue, the Back Bay Fens, the Muddy River, Jamaica Pond, the Arnold Arboretum, and Franklin Park. This park system is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project will affect certain portions of Franklin Park and these impacts on a designated historical area, both adverse and beneficial, will be discussed in Section V. C. Theme The expanded Zoo will have an African continent theme. This concept is part of the overall plan of the BZS to utilize the three MDC zoos as complementary exhibits. (In addition to Franklin Park, the MDC operates the Walter D. Stone Memorial Zoo in Stoneham and the Blue Hills Trailside Museum). In future years, it is expected that these facilities will include zoological exhibits representing Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, and the Poles. The proposed African exhibit at Franklin Park will include the major animals and associated small mammals (plus reptiles and birds) found throughout the four regions of that continent (veldt, bush and forest, tropical forest, and desert). (Appendix A contains the animal species list, along with exhibit areas). Each of these regions will be represented within a separate enclosed exhibit pavilion linked to a larger outdoor exhibit area. These four structures are located in what are now defined as open areas within the existing Zoo site, and are shown in Figure 2. (It should be noted that the structure furthest to the north has been relocated since this site plan was drawn. It has been shifted 60 feet closer to Seaver Street). These indoor exhibit areas will be utilized when weather conditions make outdoor exhibits unfeasible. Thus the Zoo visitor could follow either the interior circulation loop (Figure 3A) or the exterior circulation loop, (Figure 3B), depending on the weather. It is expected that the animals will be indoors roughly six months of the year. 12 u c ST a. Q. O t- c o (/> c • >. « o 3 O CO ® B : A mi, / E^TRANC ■ i \: METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION HUYGENS AND TAPPe', ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS VISITOR CIRCULATION Scale: I =575 FIGURE CLM/ SYSTEMS, INC. CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS Source: Huygens and Tappe, Inc. Project Description D. Structures and Facilities 1. Pavilions The exhibit pavilions will be constructed of a network of steel trusses supporting a system of cables holding a fiberglass rein- forced teflon-coated fabric covering. This fabric is translucent in appearance, is non-combustible, self-cleaning, resistant to tear and puncture, and has a life expectancy comparable to or in excess of conventional roofing systems. The fabric is an off-wh'ite color in manufacture, but weathers to a greyish-white color. The use of this type of fabric and structure is innovative only in its application to a zoo. Similar structures have been built and used successfully elsewhere in the country. The pavilions will be either single, double, or triple tent configurations as shown on the site plan, all derived from the same structural components. The basic component is a space with a circular boundary (diameter 220 feet), 70 feet above park grade at mid- span. (The fabric itself will not be higher than 55 feet above grade). The edge of each structure comes down to meet a series of earth berms which are developed to continue the lines of the natural topography. Figure 4 shows a cross-section of the Tropical Forest pavilion as an example. The total area covered by these four structures is slightly less than six acres. Each of these pavilions will be served by concealed connectors to other pavilions containing people walkways, service facilities, small exhibit areas, dioramas, film loops, etc. , as shown in Figure 5. In this way, the Zoo visitor will receive an introduction to the major exhibit areas before he actually enters them. Figure 6 shows a photograph of a scale model of the expanded Zoo. Animal holding areas and other service facilities for feeding, cleaning and general animal care will be located beneath the perimeter of each pavilion as shown in Figure 7. In this way, the animals can be easily shifted to either indoor or outdoor exhibits depending on the weather conditions. 15 UJ 2 » in 5 1 ^ s 5 u. s «■ O a u 5 Z t- « o z _ — O *> 1- i -J - w 5 " z ~S| > *- -" < ° _ 6 t z ™ 10 u m 5 _I ° ill _ E S O 5 _J « o UJ S O i IT e t- £ UJ * S £ O OT < o V) * d3 o c 0) a. CL O 0- w c a> 0) o o ttvt Rosenthal Photo SCALE MODEL OF 200 DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 6 Project Description Figure 8 shows the indoor tropical forest exhibit, with the light area running through the center indicating the walkway. In this and all other exhibits, a consistent attempt has been made to screen the Zoo visitors from each other while viewing the animals. This has been done by- judicious placement of rocks, trees, and shrubs, as well as by changes in walkway elevation. Figure 9 shows the four major exhibits and their inter- connecting pavilions. 2. Land Acquisition It is proposed that the parcel of land between Glen Lane and Circuit Drive (the "Sausage") will be incorporated into the Zoo program, but will be used primarily as a heavily wooded "buffer" zone between the Zoo grounds and Circuit Drive. No structures will be built on this land, but a network of elevated walkways, paths and fences consistent with USDA require- ments will be placed in and around the existing vegetation and natural rock outcroppings to form a series of park use areas. The existing gravel parking lot on a portion of this site will be removed and landscaped, and Glen Lane will be closed to the public and used for both service access and exhibit areas. 3. Existing Buildings and Landscape Of the existing buildings, the Elephant House and the Lion House are to be demolished, and the Service Area expanded. The existing Children's Zoo and Range Area will be utilized, as well as the newly constructed Aviary. The existing columns at the Peabody Circle entrance will remain, as will the statues at the opposite end of the site. Long views along the major axis of the site will be maintained so that the scale and detail of existing features of the site will be kept. Upgrading of existing heavily treed areas will be part of the development program and incorporation of picnic and rest areas within the Zoo boundaries will be provided. 4. Additional Facilities The program for the Zoo includes an extensive educational program, so a small 300 seat auditorium and an educational resource center are designed into the complex. These facilities will be available for use 20 CLM Source ; Huygens and Tappe, Inc Project Description by neighborhood community groups on a programmed basis. A cafeteria and several refreshment stands will also be located within the complex. 5. Service Service access within the Zoo is shown in Figure 7. All major pickups and deliveries will be made at the remodeled Service Area, with the materials to be distributed throughout the site by small electric cargo vehicles. There will be access for emergency vehicles throughout the site. The new Service Area will be an expanded version of the existing facility, and will include a commissary, grain and hay storage, a green- house, a paint and carpentry shop, garage space, a new heating and cooling facility, an animal hospital, and an administration center. 6. Animal Wastes The Zoo will utilize a small approved pathological incinerator to dispose of dead animals and other restricted materials. Animal manure is expected to be disposed of through the use of a liquid composting system similar to the one presently being evaluated for the Bronx Zoo in New York. This system will safely deodorize, pasteurize, biologically decompose, and chemically purify animal wastes, and is presently being used in several large dairies in this country. The project staff is presently evaluating the feasibility of utilizing the methane generated by this composting process. 7. Heating and Cooling Plant A new central heating and cooling plant will be built in the existing Service Area to supply the heating and cooling medium for the new buildings and several of the existing buildings. The heating plant will consist of multiple water-tube, low temperature hot water boilers (240 -180 F. ), utilizing a nitrogen pressurization system, hot water pumps, water treatment, etc. The cooling plant will consist of multiple hot water absorption-refrigeration machines, or electric centrifugal refrigeration machines, chilled water pumps, cooling towers, condenser water pumps, etc. The chilled water and hot water will be distributed to the various buildings through a piping system in an accessible tunnel throughout the project. This tunnel will also be utilized by other services (electric, water, communication, etc. )„ 23 Project Description The basic air supply and exhaust approach for each building will be as follows: An envelope of conditioned air will be created to provide heating and cooling of the people walkways. This system will utilize 100 percent outside air and will provide the only cooling for the exhibit areas and a portion of the heating. Supplementary heating will be provided to maintain the exhibit areas at the winter- design condition. This system will be designed so that as the outside air temperature drops below the inside design temperature, less and less outside air will be utilized. This system will also discharge its air in the area of the people walkways and be drawn back through the structure to the perimeter. (See Figure 10 ). There will be an exhaust system to move large quantities of air through the structure for the purpose of purging the interior of the building. The air will be drawn in from the perimeter and dis- charged through an exhaust fan located outside of the structural compression ring at the top of each building. An animal quarters ventilation system will provide ventilation and heating for the animal areas. The air for the system will be drawn from the exhibit area (when possible) or from the outdoors. If it becomes necessary, a system will be installed for recirculation of air so as to provide localized air motion for plant life. Exhaust air from the complex will be passed through a heat recovery cycle before being discharged to the atmosphere. Manually controlled misting devices will be provided in the Tropical Forest pavilion for humidity control. 8. Emergency Power The proposed project will include an emergency electric power system located in the heating and cooling plant. This system will be adequately sized and diesel driven with automatic transfer switches located in each building. Egress lighting, fire and communication systems, and all heating motors will be connected to the emergency system. 24 a a. o l- ■o c a in c a> >» 3 u o CO Project Description 9. Fire Systems The following fire systems shall be provided: - Interior fire alarm - Automatic smoke detection - Sprinkler alarm - Fire standpipe - Exterior fire alarm Fire hydrants will be located at intervals of approximately 500 feet. Access to these hydrants by fire-fighting equipment will be over the interior service roads used by Zoo service vehicles. 10. Water Supply Water for both fire protection and general Zoo operations will be supplied from the 36-inch water main on Blue Hill Avenue. A 12- inch loop encompassing the pavilions will supply service to each pavilion and fire hydrant. This connection to the City water system has been worked out with Boston Department of Public Works personnel, and is conditional on the completion of the deep rock tunnel connection to the Chestnut Hill Reservoir. This project is presently under construction, with completion expected in December, 1974. The present pressure in the existing main is 42 psi. When the tunnel is completed, the pressure will be increased to about 55 psi. This should be adequate for both Zoo operations and hydrant protection. Based on early schematic drawings, it is estimated that the peak Zoo demand under normal conditions will be 1, 000 gallons per minute. Since the water system serves the dual function of everyday supply and fire fighting, the ultimate capacity in the event of a fire will be 2, 500 gpm. 11. Sanitary Sewage A new sanitary sewage system will be provided to service the Zoo, and will discharge into the existing 2 '9" sewer located west of Circuit Drive, with some additional flow into a 10- inch sewer near the golf course clubhouse. Where feasible, existing sewer lines within the Zoo will also be used (See Figure 11). 26 Project Description 12. Storm Drainage Each pavilion will be surrounded by a concrete drainage trough in order to collect storm water from the roof surface. These troughs plus the water moats and ponds in the exhibit areas are designed to delay the runoff from a ten-year design storm without flooding. The extent of the delay will depend on a Boston Parks Department determination of the available capacity of the 2'9" sewer near Circuit Drive. Piping from the troughs will be sized to limit the flow, thereby creating a delayed run-off condition. The remainder of the site will be drained as it is presently, eventually connecting to the 2'9" sewer. Where possible, the water from these detention troughs will be used to recharge the water moats and ponds. In addition, the feasibility of using this runoff water for irrigation of the interior exhibits is presently under investigation by the project staff. Although the City of Boston presently has a combined sewerage system, separate sanitary and storm sewers will be run from the Zoo to the existing 2' 9" sewer to allow for separate City sewer systems in the future. 13. Electricity and Gas Incoming electric service from Boston Edison Company will be from Seaver Street, connecting to the new central heating and cooling plant. Gas service will be provided from the main in Seaver Street. (See Figure 11). Based on early schematic drawings, the maximum estimated electricity and fuel loads are 5,000 KVA and 40,000,000 BTU per hour respectively. 14. Admissions and General Operation On October 9, 1973, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted Chapter 890 of the Acts of 1973 which allows for an entrance fee to be charged at the Franklin Park Zoo, with revenues to accrue to the Zoo. In addition, it was stipulated that the Zoo will be open for a reasonable period of time each day free of charge, that persons 65 years of age and over and uniformed members of the U. S. Armed Forces will enter at half-price, and that school children in groups from the MDC Parks District communities will enter the Zoo without charge on a scheduled basis. 28 Project Description Although it has not been officially decided, the BZS is considering having free admission to the Zoo during the first hour of operation of each day. During other times, the expected admission charge will be between $1. 75 and $2. 50 for adults and between $. 75 and $1. 00 for children, depending on the actual age distribution of Zoo visitors and the revenue needed for break-even operation. The proposed Zoo will be operated in the same manner as the existing one. The MDC will own the Zoo's capital facilities, and will pay the BZS an annual fee for assuming full management responsibility, in addition to paying the salaries of the Zoo's civil service employees. Operating revenues from shuttle bus charges, admissions, rides, tours, food sales, and private contributions will be used to maintain the new Zoo. The site is expected to be open from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. throughout the year. The full-time staff will be approximately 170 employees, with supplementary hiring during the peak summer season. 15. Expected Attendance Experience in other cities throughout the country has shown that there are vast differences in the levels of attendance achieved by zoos. These attendance levels depend on such factors as the proximity, magnitude and quality of similar or competing attractions, the zoo location, ease of access, and the characteristics of the zoo and its management. Table 1 shows the design projections of attendance at the Franklin Park Zoo through 1986, as estimated by Economic Research Associates. Approximately 1,500,000 visitors are forecast for 1976. Since the project is designed as an all-weather facility, the effects of adverse weather on attendance can be minimized. As shown, July and August are expected to be the months of highest attendance, reflecting the influx of tourists as well as the availability of more leisure time to area residents. Judicious scheduling of school visits can be used to alter the attendance distribution if necessary. Table 2 shows the projected average attendance on weekdays and Sundays. Sunday attendance is expected to account for the 29 Project Description greatest share of weekly attendance throughout the year, although that relative share will drop during the spring and summer months when tourists are present in greater numbers during the week. (An important aspect of the attendance distribution is that between 40 and 65 percent of all Zoo visitors will arrive on weekends, when traffic loads in the project area are light). The peak day attendance is expected on Sundays in July and August when 15,339 visitors are forecast for 1976, and 16,566 for 1986. Economic Research Associates also estimates that based on studies at the New England Aquarium, 70 percent of the Zoo visitors will come from Boston Metropolitan area and surrounding towns within a 50-mile radius, 20 percent will come from the rest of New England, and 10 percent will be tourists from outside New England. 16. Parking An important aspect of the project development has been the provision for safe and efficient access to the Zoo and the availability of parking for the general public. In a September 1973 feasibility study for the proposed project, a 1200 car parking garage was recommended for the site now occupied by the Refectory. This recommendation met with opposition because of historical, aesthetic, and general environmental considerations. Since that time, a number of meetings have been held between the project staff and various representatives of the City and other interested parties in an effort to develop an acceptable alternative. The final parking recommendation is a direct result of this joint effort. The parking demand was developed by Economic Research Associates based upon attendance at other zoo sites and qualified by local factors within the New England Region. Experience at other facilities has shown that roughly 90 percent of all zoo visitors arrive by private automobile and charter bus service. An average occupancy rate of 3.5 persons per car for weekend visitors, and 2. 2 persons per car for weekdays has been assumed. Peak in-grounds Zoo attendance values will range from 30 percent of the daily total in the winter months to 50 percent during summer months. 30 Project Description TABLE 1 PROJECTED MONTHLY DESIGN ATTENDANCE AT FRANKLIN PARK ZOO Percent of Annual Attendance Thousands of Visitors Month 1978 1981 1986 January 4% 60 62 65 February 5% 75 77 81 March 7% 104 108 113 April 10% 150 155 162 May 12% 180 186 194 June 11% 165 170 178 July 15% 225 232 243 August 15% 225 232 243 September 7% 105 108 113 October 6% 90 93 97 November 5% 75 77 81 December 3% 45 46 49 TOTAL 100% 1,497 1,549 1,619 SOURCE: Economic Research Associates. 31 w < Eh J J o CO CO m CM D- CO CO CM CO o CO CO CO co i-H in 00 CO 1— 1 CO CO CM i-H o in 00 r~ i-H m i-H Tf *# m in CO Q3 02 in o CD •4-J i-H CO O) lH CO m CM CO CO 1—1 CD r~ ■<* CO > tH LO CO CO "tf in OS CO CD o £> CM CD o iH CO CO <# 1—1 05 m i-H i—i o O i— I C- CD CO ■* CO o CO E- CO CO CO CO in in CM 0) X i— 1 CO CO T-H CM ■* I-H in in i-H CD i> HH CO £ :>> 3 rt £ "TS CO CO ^h co m 1— 1 a> a> CD CO CO •* c 3 CD c^ CO CO o i—i 1—1 CO CO co o i-H CO D- CM > 2 c i — i G ^ cd CD TD CD 3 # ^ ^ ^ ^ # ^ # fe- # # ^ in m m m m o o o rn m o o 0 O 0 ■* *tf -# CO CO CO CO CO ** O 1—1 i—i i—i i-H CO CO ■* CO CO tH l-H lH W «r-< > 03 CO CO CO CM o CO CO o CO CO co CU r- 1 D5 CO CO t~ CM CO 1—1 1— 1 r- ^ > a +j 1—1 3 C * § CU o Wee tend ^ t£ # ^ ^ V-P *£ fe^ ^ ^ [- c- t~ CO oo CM CN1 CM t- c- co CO iH i-H i-H On o <;• M u u >> CU CD CD >> u X s CD a CU co u X X X 3 o 3 3 •-3 a 3 u X CD Eh x u I—I •— < u < £ CU 3 3 1-3 >> I-H 3 1-2 +-> CO 3) 3 < CD XI o -|H o O B CD > o S5 CU o CD P co CD CJ O CO CO < X a u a CU co CU cr; £ o 3 o CJ H u o CO 32 Project Description Table 3 shows the average parking demand for the design year 1986 based on these factors. Demand for spaces in 1976 should be roughly 8 percent less than those shown for 1986. Zoo employees will park along a portion of Glen Lane near the Service Area, where space will be provided for approximately 50 cars. It is proposed that all Zoo visitors travelling by private automobile will be directed to a large parking garage located in the Forest Hills Area. (See Figures 1 and 12). This garage would be built by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works under the Federally assisted Fringe Parking Program, and will be of sufficient capacity to accommodate both commuter parking and Zoo parking due to the difference in peak usage periods. It is expected that the parking fee will be less than $1.00 per day. This garage was initially proposed as part of the Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR) Southwest Corridor Study in con- junction with the planned modifications to the MBTA Orange Line in the area. Although the facility is only in the planning stage, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction is negotiating contracts for both a Fringe parking demand study and an environmental impact statement, and expects construction to be finished in time for the completion of the Zoo development. It should be stressed that this parking facility is being built to accommodate commuter vehicles. The actual number of spaces that will be provided has not been determined at this time, but will be developed at a future date through a complete demand analysis. For the purpose of this report, only the environmental impacts associated with Zoo generated traffic will be considered. After parking at the garage, visitors will be transported to and from the front entrance of the Zoo on double decker buses operating solely between the satellite lot and the Zoo. These buses will travel a one-way distance of 1. 5 miles along Circuit Drive, with an estimated trip time of five minutes. Eight buses will be required to provide service 33 METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION HUY«EHS AND TAPPC , ARCH IT SATELLITE PARKING GARAGE LOCATION CLM/SYSTEMS.INC. C A Mimoae. MASSACHUSETTS CLM Source: Boston Redevelopment Authority Project Description at a 1. 3 minute headway during peak periods (3000 passengers per hour). On off-peak days, only four of the vehicles will be utilized, which increases the headway to 2. 6 minutes. The fare structure is expected to be 25 cents for adults and 10 cents for children, which will generate additional revenue for Zoo operations. TABLE 3 1986 PARKING DEMAND Parking Demand Number of,.^ Number of Month Weekends Weekdays Weekends Weekdays January 523 130 8 23 Feburary 703 174 9 19 March 1040 257 9 22 April 1356 493 10 20 May 1785 649 9 22 June 1596 1016 10 20 July 2130 1355 10 21 August 2130 1355 8 23 September 1368 338 10 20 October 1020 252 9 22 November 711 226 8 22 December 351 112 10 21 1976 Demand is estimated at 8 percent less than values given. Includes Holidays SOURCE: Alan M. Voorhees & Associates. 36 Project Description 17. Future Plans This environmental impact report will deal with the project as presented. At this time, there are no definite plans or funding for specific future exhibits at the Franklin Park Zoo that have not been considered in this report. In the event that there is a proposed expansion of the project at some later date, the environmental impacts of that expansion will have to be assessed at that time. 18. Landscaping It should be emphasized that the proposed project, although primarily a zoological park, will also be a unique botanical/horticultural experience as well. Since the beginning of the project, a great deal of effort has gone into an examination of the wide variety of factors affecting the design, installation and maintenance of the plant materials both on the interior and the exterior of the proposed structures. Several other zoos and conservatories have been visited, and many specialists have been contacted in an effort to anticipate and solve future problems. These specialists include Dr. Dennis Brown, Director of the New York Botanical Gardens, and Dr. Stuart Dunn, Professor of Botany at the University of New Hampshire. (a) Exterior Landscaping Generally speaking, the exterior design intent is to utilize as much of the existing vegetation as possible. New planting will increase the total vegetative cover to approximately fi'ty percent over and above what presently exists. It should be noted that a number of trees will be removed, many of which are diseased or in poor condition from either age or storm damage. The new exterior planting will provide more variation in plant species, which will diminish the possibility of major areas being wiped out by a single disease, (i. e. , Dutch Elm). There will be a rather significant increase in the amount of shrubs, ground cover and various flowering plant materials which are not presently in the park. New 37 Project Description plantings of evergreen trees to provide year-round foliage for visual variety and screening are also planned. Whenever possible, plant materials that approximate the appropriate African plant material will be utilized indoors. A list is being prepared of plant materials that will accomplish this in form, texture, and flowering or fruiting habits, and that will also be tolerant to New England growing conditions. Within the established design parameters, emphasis will be placed on creating a park-like atmosphere that combines variety, appropriate vegetation and other site improvements with minimum maintenance. (1) Tree Protection, Moating and Erosion Wherever possible, existing vegetation will be utilized and protected from construction and from the abuse anticipated from the animals. Moating is but one of the techniques that will be employed to protect vegetation. Fencing (hidden from the visitors' line of sight), specially constructed tree guards and grates, and special surface treatment to keep soil from being compacted around ths roots are some of the protection techniques anticipated for use. Where moating (or other excavation) occurs, the excavation will be kept beyond the "drip line" of the crown in order to disturb as little of the root system or soil as possible. Erosion caused by the action of animals will require "other than normal" precautions. Special surfacing may be used in certain situations, but as the design progresses, the various exhibits will have to be treated area by area. There will be a loss of groundcover in certain animal areas, although the indoor/outdoor exhibit potential will make it possible to move animals to interior exhibits even during favorable weather to "rest" an area made barren by animals. 38 Project Description (b) Interior Planting To date, several zoological and botanical gardens have successfully dealt with lighting and temperature requirements similar to those of the expanded Zoo, but on a smaller scale. A great deal has been learned from these efforts, and all indications are that success can be achieved at the scale of the new Franklin Park Zoo. Plant materials are being investigated that normally thrive on lower than full sunshine light levels, and which can also tolerate the project design temperatures. (1) Climate Control The re-creation of an African climate indoors will be done only to a limited extent. Thus the Tropical Forest will be more humid than the Bush Forest, and the Desert will be less humid than the Veldt, but this will not reproduce exactly the African climate. This is possible because plants will be specifically chosen to tolerate temperature minimums and maximums as shown in Table 4. Although the minimum design temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit, some chilling damage would be expected if the temperature dropped to 40 degrees for several days. In the event of a major power failure, portable heaters and emergency generators may provide adequate temporary heat to maintain minimum temperatures. It is anticipated that some artificial lighting will be required. The pavilion fabric is presently being analyzed by the Sylvania and DuPont testing laboratories in an effort to determine the percentage of light emissions and the quality of that light. These results will indicate the natural lighting conditions, which will then be supplemented by artificial means. The final selection of the interior plant material will take place after further development of the Zoo final design. It is anticipated that most of the interior plant material will come from the warm southern and western states and will be specially selected and shipped in order to control quality and survival. 39 Project Description TABLE 4 MINIMUM TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, AND LIGHT LEVELS Exhibit Tempe Day rature (°F) Night Humidity (%) Day Night Light (foot candles per 16-hour day) Veldt 65 50 40 40 1000 Tropical Forest 70 50 40 70 1000 Bush Forest 65 50 30 30 1000 Desert 60 50 20 20 1500 Source: Moriece and Gary Inc. (2) Irrigation The irrigation system presently planned for use in both interior and exterior areas has a combination of automatic and manual control. In certain areas an automatic system can be successfully and economically employed, but throughout the site, hose bib connections will be provided for manual distribution of water. Within the interior exhibits themselves, the distribution of plant nutrients may be accomplished along with the irrigation. This procedure will allow for better and more rapid distribution of nutrients and will eliminate burning caused by build-up or over-concentration of dry fertilizers. In addition, a method of utilizing storm runoff from the pavilion detention troughs for irrigation purposes is currently being investigated. (3) Support Facilities and Staffing There will be a definite necessity for the provision of nearby greenhouse facilities for holding, nursing, and propagating 40 Project Description supplementary plant materials for both indoor and outdoor use. Although it is difficult to estimate at this point, support greenhouse requirements should be in the neighborhood of 5,000 square feet. This greenhouse will not accommodate extremely large plants which will be used in some exhibits; these plants will be handled at an off-site facility. Staffing of the proposed Zoo will require that, among other things, the grounds maintenance crew be technically qualified and highly motivated. Presently it is estimated that a full-time crew of from 8 to 12 will be necessary to perform the essential maintenance requirements for the interior and exterior areas and support greenhouses. 19. Educational Program Decisions on specific educational programs to be offered at the Zoo have not yet been finalized. It is the intention, however, to provide for education on a wide variety of levels. Education of the average visitor will be built into each exhibit using a number of techniques, including film loops, and descriptive signs containing multiple levels of information. The BZS Education Committee has directed particular attention toward designing suitable programs for grade school classes. Current thinking in this area indicates that the most reasonable way to insure a meaningful trip for a particular class is to have the individual teacher play a large part in the program design. It has been proposed that a work area and library be available to teachers for their planning. The Zoo as a whole is to function as a resource center for teachers, providing back-up information and technical aid which may or may not be related to a class visit. The idea of having a class visit the Zoo for several consecutive days is being considered. It is felt that a prolonged visit will provide an opportunity for children to more fully integrate the Zoo experience with other studies, such as geography, culture, and art, which could be taught in "classrooms" provided by the Zoo. 41 Project Description A variety of mini-courses have been proposed for the high school level; possible subjects include: animal behavior, comparative anatomy, and physiology. Plans are also being made for youth groups at the Zoo. These would include junior curators, junior keepers, etc. In addition, at the college and graduate level, it is hoped that opportunities can be provided for supervised research. Although these various programs are not finalized at this time, there will be a continuing effort to maximize the educational potential provided by a facility of this type. 20. Cost, Financing, and Construction Schedule The facility will cost an estimated $15, 000, 000. Of this total $8, 000, 000 has already been allocated to the MDC by the Massachusetts Legislature, $5,000, 000 will be raised by the BZS from private contributions, and the remainder is expected to come from programs within the Federal Government, although these funds are not committed at this time. Construction will begin in early 1975, and will proceed while existing exhibits remain open to the public. It is hoped that some of the new exhibits will be open during the Bicentennial Year (1976), but final completion of all phases of the project is not expected until 1977. 21. Project Staff Huygens and Tappe, Inc. Architects and Planners Weidlinger Associates Consulting Engineers Cosentini Associates Mechanical Engineers Moriece and Gary, Inc. Landscape Architects Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. Transportation Consultants CLM /Systems, Inc. Environmental Consultants Charles B. Soloman, Construction Consulting Cost Consultants Economic Research Associates Economic Consultants Laventhal Krekstein Horwath & Horwath Economic Consultants 42 IV. THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE AFFECTED A. Surrounding Area 1. Land Use The area surrounding Franklin Park to the north consists primarily of low to middle income residential neighborhoods with a substantial minority group population. There are a few major industries in an industrial strip located about a mile from the Zoo site. Commercial establishments are generally located along Blue Hill Avenue and several other roadways. The area also contains a relatively high proportion of institutions, such as schools, rest homes, and churches. Figure 13 shows the existing land use in the Zoo area. The area surrounding the southern portion of Franklin Park contains two major institutions, the Lemuel Shattuck State Hospital for Incurable Diseases, and the Boston State Mental Hospital. Four very large cemeteries, (Forest Hills, Mt. Hope, Calvary, and New Calvary) are located to the south of the hospitals, as shown in Figure 1. The other institution in the area is the Prendergast Preventorium, which is between the Calvary and the New Calvary Cemeteries. The Preventorium was originally a camp for children suffering from asthma and tuberculosis, and is now used as a city-run camp for children. Near the satellite parking garage at Forest Hills, land use varies from block to block. The MBTA Orange Line runs through this area on elevated tracks, with a stop at the Forest Hills Station, 200 feet from the proposed parking structure. Roughly paralleling the MBTA right-of-way is the Penn Central mainline, which is in use at this time, and is also elevated over several roadways. The remainder of the area is composed of a mix of single-story commercial establishments, old two-and three- story wood frame residences, several churches, a hospital, the West Roxbury Court House, several surface parking lots, and a large MBTA storage yard for buses and trolleys. 43 o c to e >< \ -J O u I— I fa fa Sh o P fa bj p o p w o ^ Jin a <1 fa Q fa H O fa fa fa en CO in CO CD CM in rJH CO CO CO CO CM >! OJ •1 n % cd rH iH i—l CM HH -o [h C fa 3 CO CD o CO CD 1—1 fa t> co CD CO fa CD * « „ P_J i— 1 1-H i-H T— I CO £ 1—1 CD in co CD CO CO 00 0 Eh >i CO LO CO OO cd 03 * ■, mi X3 rH CM i— 1 CM « X O CD O CO in S» CD CD o m t- >— I I> m CD » ■I a* rH CM rH CM CD CO O CO CO CO CO CM CM CM >> 1—1 CD CD t> cd CO -a fa c > ^ K CO CD CO I> C~ s CO CM CO i-H i— 1 LO m CD Eh 1—1 CM CO O P CD 00 m co u CO CO O CO CM fa U >5 CO ■i « rc! -a I— 1 i— ( tH CD a; £ CD co T— 1 CO CM CO CO CM C~ CM CO o rH o l> CO CD r~ "* CM CO HH CO CM CO cd CO ■» * •» tH CM CM CO T3 c co CO o n CD o (M in CM CO O 1-H -* c~ fa CO « •t ■i > < fa tH CM CM CM fa CM m m P CD o o CO CO T— 1 m CD to co * m * fa >> 1H ^ CO TF P cd J T3 PQ CD o o CD CD o CO o C^ LO Oi o CO * « at rH CO C^ HH . • • • <•< fa ^. u O fa ^ • Sh 00 ' CM » P HH 'f i— * CO H 1 co in cd CD Oh c o o c u CD < 1 co co Time Period A! cd 0) fa ojd C •r-l c Sh o - Weekday - Sundays u 3 O P cd cd fa i HH 0 - Weekday - Sundays - Weekday - Sundays CD r~ co T— ) U o 4h "O fl cd CD O > •rH fa bo >> CD cd CO n O si 4-i cd g CJ Sh >> 0) cd H-> OJ £ CO & >5 J3 CO in hi) OO +-> cd •rH P a i T3 o •i-t U 0) bu •« cd 0) CO •r-i CO 0) J C cd CJ •rH • OJ CO • T3 cd O OJ H-> cd •rH CJ O 0) c s O o N fa CO CO < cd < 4-H o cd og o +j c H-3 dj CO co 0) CO a OJ CD CD 0) OJ £ 1— l o 1 * U si Sh 0! CD u cd OJ O O > CD H-» > CJ 3 o H-> C # ■r-4 ■a > 0) > OJ OJ S3 cd Sh fa ■*H fa 3 rH Jh •rH u O U fa HH P o CO 55 Affected Environment demand for the 4:30-5:30 p.m. peak period, which is considered the "worst case" situation. A volume to capacity (V/C) ratio was calculated to indicate the capability of the intersection to handle future traffic increases. This ratio can be categorized into three groupings: - Volume to Capacity Ratio less than 0. 75 Those segments of the roadway which not only have sufficient capacity to handle existing volumes, but also provide for traffic growth in the near future. - Volume to Capacity Ratio between 0. 75 and 0. 99 Sections of roadway with sufficient capacity at present, but which, to a varying degree, provide for little future growth. - Volume to Capacity Ratio 1. 0 or Greater Indicates sections where additional capacity is currently required. In addition, a level of service was determined for each 4 intersection, using the Highway Capacity Manual. Level of service definitions for stoplight controlled intersections are as follows: No vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically the approach appears quite open, turning movements are easily made and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. This represents stable operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. C - Stable operation continues. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red indication, and back-up may develop behind turning vehicles. This is the level typically associated with urban design practice. D - Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excess backups. Affected Environment E - This represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. There may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the inter- section, and delays of several signal cycles are possible. F - This represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross- street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach. Tables 9, 10, and 11 summarize the results of this intersection analysis for existing, 1976, and 1986 "worst case" conditions respectively. Intersections with existing problems include: Blue Hill Avenue at Seaver Street because of the major left turn movements from the northbound Blue Hill Avenue approach, and Blue Hill Avenue at Columbia Road because of the high volume of the Columbia Road approach. These tables show that significant capacity is available on the street system around the Zoo to accommodate growth in the near future. The only intersection showing major capacity deficiencies by 1986 is Blue Hill Avenue at Seaver Street. The other intersections, (with the exception of Blue Hill Avenue at American Legion Highway), will each have only one approach at capacity. It should be noted that near the proposed satellite parking lot, the Forest Hills rotary presently operates at a theoretical Level of Service D, although on observation, this rotary actually operates quite efficiently. Also, in the immediate vicinity of the satellite lot, the existing traffic conditions are very congested during peak hours. Due to the complicated network of streets in that area, analysis by individual inter- sections would not be meaningful. It can be stated, however, that during peak hours the whole Washington Street /A rborway area operates at Level of Service E. In addition to this intersection analysis. Circuit Drive was examined to determine its future capabilities as an urban arterial, and it was found to have a V/C ratio of 0. 29 and a Level of Service A. 57 Affected Environment TABLE 9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, EXISTING CONDITIONS (4:30-5:30 P. M. Peak Period) Existing Design A Volume to Existing Level Approach Volume Capacity Capacity Ratio of Service Blue Hill at Seaver Blue Hill (SB) 949 1000 0. 94 C Blue Hill (NB) Left 530 350 1. 51 / E Straight & Right 388 925 0.41 J Seaver (EB) *# Right 950 NA NA 1 C Straight & Left 441 450 0. 98 J Seaver (WB) 243 250 0. 97 C Blue Hill at Columbia Blue Hill (NB) 899 1480 0.61 A Blue Hill (SB) 1498 2200 0.68 A Columbia (WB) 1444 1100 1. 31 E Blue Hill at Glenw ay- Blue Hill (NB) 1067 2400 0.44 A Blue Hill (SB) 2045 2650 0. 77 A Glen Lane 861 1000 0. 86 A Blue Hill at American Legion Highway Blue Hill (NB) 975 1550 0.63 A Blue Hill (SB) Right 1003 NA NA / A Straight 1292 2080 0.62 J American Legion Highway (EB) 445 700 0.64 A At Level of Service C NA - Does not apply Source: Alan M. Voorhees & Associates 58 Affected Environment TABLE 10 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, 1976 CONDITIONS (4:30-5:30 P. M. Peak Period) Volume to Level Approach Volume Capacity Capacity Ratio of Service Blue Hill at Seaver Blue Hill (SB) 992 1000 0.99 C Blue Hill (NB) Left 554 350 1.58] E Straight & Right 406 925 0.44J Seaver (EB) t ( Right NA NA NA I C/D Straight & Left 461 450 1.02J Seaver (WB) 254 250 1.02 C/D Blue Hill at Columbia Blue Hill (NB) 940 1480 0.64 A Blue Hill (SB) 1566 2200 0. 71 A Columbia (WB) 1510 1100 1.37 E Blue Hill at Glenw ay- Blue Hill (NB) 1116 2400 0.47 A Blue Hill (SB) 2138 2650 0.81 A Glen Lane 900 1000 0.90 B Blue Hill at American Legion Highway Blue Hill (NB) 1020 1550 0.66 A Blue Hill (SB) Right NA NA NA "I A Straight 1351 2080 0.65J American Legion , Highway (EB) 465 700 0.66 A At Level of Service C NA - Does not apply Source: Alan M. Voorhees & Associates 59 Affected Environment TABLE 11 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 1986 CONDITIONS (4:30 -5:30 p. m. Pe >ak Period) Design Volume to Level of Approach Volume Capacity* Capacity Ratio Service Blue Hill at Seaver Blue Hill (SB) 1152 1000 1. 15 D/E Blue Hill (NB) Left 643 350 1.84") Straight & E Right 471 925 0.51 J Seaver (EB) Right NA NA** NA ^ D/E Straight & V Left 535 450 1.16 J Seaver (WB) 295 250 1. 18 D/E Blue Hill at Columbia Blue Hill (NB) 1090 1480 0. 74 A Blue Hill (SB) 1818 2200 0.83 A Columbia (WB) 1752 1100 1.59 E Blue Hill at Glenway Blue Hill (NB) 1295 2400 0.54 A Blue Hill (SB) 2482 2650 0.94 B Glen Lane 1045 1000 1.04 C/D Blue Hill at American Legion Highway Blue Hill (NB) 1183 1550 0. 76 A Blue Hill (SB) Right NA NA NA 7 A Straight 1568 2080 0.75 ) American Legion Highway (EB) 540 700 0. 77 A At Level of Service C NA - Does not apply Source: Alan M. Voorhees & Associates 60 Affected Environment Circuit Drive will continue to have ample capacity through 1986, and will remain at Level of Service A. It should be noted that this analysis has been conducted for the "worst case" situation- -that of the evening rush hour, when traffic is roughly 25 percent heavier than the average daylight hour. If this factor is applied to the volumes in Tables 9, 10, and 11, it becomes clear that any serious congestion that occurs is presently confined to the 5 peak travel periods of 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. If the traffic volumes continue to increase, and if no improvements are made to the intersections near the Zoo, this congestion problem will gradually spread to other hours of the day. (b) Zoo Generated Traffic Present attendance at the Children's Zoo averages around 2500 visitors on clear Sundays during the summer. Using the same assumptions that are being applied to the proposed Zoo expansion, this means that 90 percent of this number, or 2250 people arrive by private transportation. Assuming 3. 5 people per car, this means that approximately 643 cars are presently travelling back and forth to the Zoo on a peak summer day. If this total is then distributed over the day using a modified version the arrival and departure patterns shown in Figure 33 (modified to reflect a two-hour rather than a three-hour stay) this means that during the peak hour (1:00 to 2:00 p.m. ), there are approximately 85 arrivals and 91 departures, or a total of 176 vehicles either coming or going during the hour. If these vehicles are then distributed over the various roadways around the Zoo using directional splits estimated by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, it can be clearly seen that existing Zoo traffic is a very small fraction of the total area traffic on the peak attendance days, and is even less significant on off-peak days. For example, it is estimated that 45 percent of Zoo traffic travels from the southwest up Circuit Drive, (and back the same way). This means that 80 Zoo generated cars travel on Circuit Drive between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. on Sundays, when the existing traffic load is 570 vehicles. Zoo generated traffic on Blue Hill Avenue during the same time period is 53 cars, which is less than two percent of the present 2940 vehicles. 61 Affected Environment (c) Traffic Safety Many intersections in the Franklin Park area have accident levels far above what might be expected with proper traffic control devices. (See Table 12). In particular, Blue Hill Avenue experiences a succession of dangerous intersections that could be improved considerably by both proper circulation patterns within many of the adjacent street networks and a good signal system operation, while the two traffic rotaries near the Forest Hills area are also dangerous and in need of improvement. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works is aware of these problems and has plans for future modifications. The most dangerous intersection in the area is that of Blue Hill Avenue and Columbia Road at the Park entrance where 61 accidents occurred in 1970, as reported in the Areawide TOPICS Plan, Roxbury- Jamaica Plain, prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the Federal Highway Administration in 1972. In addition, there were 37 accidents at the Blue Hill Avenue /Glenw ay Road intersection. At both these locations, operating conditions are hazardous due to the lack of separate traffic signal turning phases, separate turning lanes and adequate signal visibility. Forty-five accidents occurred at the intersection of Blue Hill Avenue and Seaver Street in 1970. Present operating conditions are hazardous due in part to the lack of separate left turn storage for the movement from inbound Blue Hill Avenue to westbound Seaver Street. Signal visibility is also a problem at this intersection. The intersection of Seaver Street and Elm Hill Avenue was the site of 31 accidents in 1970. Present traffic operating conditions are hazardous due to the lack of sufficient advance signal visibility and geometries which do not adequately separate traffic movements. In the vicinity of the proposed satellite parking garage, there were 42 accidents at the rotary where Circuit Drive, Forest Hills Street, and the William J. Casey Highway converge, and 46 accidents at the small "rotary" where Washington Street and the Arborway converge. 62 Affected Environment TABLE 12 DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS NEAR FRANKLIN PARK (No. of Accidents) Intersections 1970 Accidents 1. Blue Hill Avenue /Circuit Drive Columbia Road 61 2. Washington St. /Arborway Rotary 46 3. Blue Hill Avenue /Seaver Street 45 4. Forest Hills St. /Circuit Drive /William J. Casey Highway Rotary 42 5. Blue Hill Avenue /Glenway Street 3 7 6. Blue Hill Avenue /American Legion Highway 31 7. Seaver Street/Elm Hill Avenue 31 SOURCES: Areawide TOPICS Plan, Roxbury- Jamaica Plain (Boston) Massachusetts: Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy- Stratton, Chestnut Hill, Mass., Sept. 1972. Areawide TOPICS Plan, West Roxbury-Roslindale-Hyde Park, (Boston) Massachusetts: Tippetts-Abbett- McCarthy-Stratton, Chestnut Hill, Mass., Oct. 1972. (d) Parking Availability As shown in Figure 16, there are six off-street parking areas available to the general public and within easy walking distance to the Zoo. The total number of vehicles which can be accommodated by these lots is approximately 505. (See Table 13). All of these lots are within the Franklin Park complex. There are two off-street parking areas within the complex which are currently not available for general use since the Park roads leading to them are blocked off. These lots, in the vicinity of White Stadium (300 spaces) and on Pierpont Road (190 spaces) can accommodate approximately 490 vehicles. 63 (J c E \ S -l u . | ^ -'~—.Jr r> ..♦vA.v 9 s 1 V. i\iJ ? - • ' L^ m ' ' «# to ^* .., / 1*"^ & & '--.. I":i ^G/ METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION HUYGENS AND TAPPe', ARCHITECTS ANO PLANNERS FUTURE PUBLIC TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Scale: I "=1780' CLM/SYSTEMS.INC. CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE 18 CLM SOURCE: ALAN M. VOORHEES ft ASSOC. Affected Environment 3. Air Quality There are no major sources of air pollution or noxious odors from industrial emissions in the vicinity of the project site. There are, however, a number of domestic incinerators used in apartment houses for solid waste disposal. In addition, there are several very heavily travelled roadways, and a Zoo incinerator used mostly for animal wastes. (a) Carbon Monoxide Monitoring and Prediction Over a period of three weeks from August 14th to September 4th of this year, (which included Labor Day weekend), a continuous sampling of ambient levels of carbon monoxide (CO) was conducted at the Endicott School, 40 feet from Blue Hill Avenue and 100 feet from the intersection of Blue Hill Avenue and Glenway Road. (Receptor A in Figure 22). This site was chosen because of its proximity to a heavily used intersection, as well as its location near the Zoo entrance. Under the supervision of personnel of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, the monitoring equipment was installed in the school and calibrated on a 7 daily basis when possible. (The sampling probe extended from a classroom on the northern side of the school). As a result of this effort, over 400 hours of valid CO measurements were obtained. These continuous measurements were averaged on an hourly basis, and the results are shown in Appendix B, along with associated wind data obtained from the Blue Hills weather station, which is roughly four miles from Franklin Park. A summary of this hourly data is provided in Table 16 , which shows that the highest one hour average measured over the three week period was 15.0 parts per million (ppm), with the second highest 13. 2 ppm. The national standard established by the Environmental Protection Agency for a one -hour CO average is 35 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year, so this one-hour standard was not exceeded at the project site. 74 Affected Environment TABLE 16 HIGHEST AND SECOND HIGHEST AMBIENT CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS (Measured from 8/14/73 to 9/4/73 at Endicott School) Carbon Monoxide (ppm) One-Hour Average Eight-Hour Average Highest 2nd Highest Highest 2nd Highest Endicott School 15.0 13.2 10.2 9.9 National Standard 35.0 (Maximum one-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year) 9.0 (Maximum eight-hour avg. concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year) Source: CLM/Systems, Inc. The hourly mreasurements were then averaged over continuous eight hour periods, the results of which are summarized in Table 17. The national ambient air quality standard for an eight-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once pe: year. As shown in Figure 19, this eight-hour standard was exceeded four times out of 377 valid averages. All four of these high averages occurred in succession on Saturday evening, September 1, 1973, which was part of the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend. (The weather that day was hot and humid, with scattered clouds and low winds from a westerly direction, changing to southeast). The highest eight-hour concentration was 10. 2 ppm and the second highest was 9. 9 ppm. In summary, Figure 19 shows that carbon monoxide levels were generally low in the project area, although on occasion they approached (and four times exceeded), the national ambient air quality standard for an eight-hour average. 75 (/> 0) o < £E < n o= rr _J rr CENT ATE E CL n EED I0NA < Q 2 Z UJ o o H LU Z co ro to a> to oo o o X o (0 o o < CO < 5 Oi 100i-inr.n« ro JououoH>^un°n5^s'°'A' yo"o'U0UntJnBneUB'a"g"&*'c CO aooonnnnn ,W~°„o„°-.0..< y.W«WAWJA t£> 00 o 00 to CO ro o 0> oo 00 (O o ir> o lO O if) o IO r^ r- CD CD IO to -sf 2 1 r- io O > O O UJ a D (D a> 01 o 0) E o> a. 03 CL o — oo Z O 1- 0> < — i IX. CO o z UJ < LU cc O tu cn Z" > i o < o a or UJ o a x a> _■— 1 i X oo o o _! in z < o o o> 2 1- i o z o fO * O CO q: a> to < o o to" or 0> c\i 3 O X 00 <_> u CM c M 0> E ai ^ « o >. CO >k S _l o o o . . o a u t. 3 o CO Affected Environment In addition to the continuous CO sampling, a computer model was used to predict existing concentrations at several different 8 locations in the Zoo area under specified conditions. Before this was done, seven different calibration runs were conducted to be compared with the measured concentrations at the Endicott School. These calibration runs were initialized using the expected traffic flow, wind speed, wind direction, and stability class for each specific time period. It was also necessary to input an emission factor for each road segment. It was found that an emission factor based on a low vehicle speed of 5 mph produced the best correlation. This may be because the CO monitor was located very close to a stoplight-controlled intersection where idling vehicles are generally present on either roadway at any given time. These idling vehicles would thus produce a significant portion of the measured CO. Table 17 shows a summary of the calibration data and predicted results in comparison to the measured CO levels. It should be noted that the predicted values only account for the CO contributions from vehicles on Blue Hill Avenue and Circuit Drive near the Endicott School, and that variations due to buildings or other barriers are not included. Since it does not include any background levels, the model should predict lower concentrations than those measured, which is in fact the case in six out of seven calibration runs. Thus some amount of background CO should be added to the result of each calibration run in order to obtain a more complete prediction. The purpose of this calibration effort was to show how the model's predictions differ from measured values. This is important when the model is used to predict trends in future concentrations at locations where there is no measured data. For example, Table 18 shows eight-hour average CO concentrations predicted by the computer 9 model for four different receptor locations in the Zoo area. (See Figure 20 ). These concentrations were calculated for the "worst case" conditions using existing traffic levels. (The wind direction that causes 77 h zoo / x ENTRANCE s> fXMILy LIFE .CENTER ENDICOT SCHOCyl *< "\7local x /wesiden< *+ 'o* vt.J < 9 t M$ * *S O o METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION HVIUH MO Jkm, AMMITfCTI US PLAHMM MAP FOR AIR POLLUTION CLM/ SYSTEMS, INC. CUM— IMC. MMgjCWMMTTl S&ib CO W P J <3 > Q H H U t— l Q H CO K IV 0H CX> *— < K H •># i — i £ CU ro ,Q 2 fci 0 i— ( 0) a 2 CO i H CO 55 C3 ■* >wl co w 3 tan u 3 1 — I X < 0 z i—i o n o u 0 CO pq o CJ w • rH < r! u H Q CU 13 m < cu W Sh § 3 co fc CD 0 2 ' 0 ro 1 — I Cd < cx § o u Cy z T3 CU T3 0) H P. T3 CU CU o g a o O C " •H O +! a cj c o Su g a CU , i3 a Oca rj cu ^ o -l-J . — . ^ 01 io Ih co .Q cd O couC ^2 o a CU CU Sh CU Q co -a c M O +-> u cd Eh C CJ o (i; CO cc ro •iH 6 ^h w & ■h a, 3 > CJ -rt u Q o H -.-< cu X 3 r 01 (i) 1 — 1 > PC U ■H &H H u Q 1— 1 1— 1 cu £ 3 a; CU 3 > i— i m m CM CM CM CM CO CM CO O o O o o O o •a o CM CM a> CM Oi ■> o C~ o CM .— 1 CM H *-H o 1— 1 *— i i— t .-1 CD CO CD m m CD m O CO i— 1 o CO r- CO oo oo c- CD o co o o o CO CO o <* CM o CM "^ CM o o o CO o o CO CO o o CO CO o o CO CO a cd a a cd a a a cd a 00 02 o CO m CO m t- CO 03 c~ ■* c~ ■* r- i-H 1-H i— 1 CM CM CO CM CM CM CO co CO co CO CO 00 o c co a cu CO CO cu CJ M 3 o CO 79 Affected Environment the peak CO levels varies from receptor to receptor. ) These predictions are all for a wind less than one mile per hour during stable atmospheric conditions. It should be noted that these predictions are subject to the same general variations from actual values that were seen in Table 17, that they do not include background CO levels, and also that these are peak values due to eight successive hours of meteorological conditions that occur quite infrequently in this region. Under these conditions, however, the predicted CO concentrations in the Zoo area would range from 5. 11 ppm at a local residence to 18. 05 at the site of the proposed Model Cities Family Life Center. This high value is due largely to the location of the site, which is very close to both Blue Hill Avenue, Columbia Road, and Circuit Drive. Table 18 also shows the predicted CO levels under average weather and traffic conditions. These values do not include background levels, so they are also expected to be low. Under these conditions, the CO concentrations range from 2. 14 ppm to a high of 4. 71 ppm, again at the Family Life Center. TABLE 18 PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS NEAR ZOO ENTRANCE Receptor Wind Direction Worst Case* Predicted 8-Hour CO Level (ppm) Average Case** Predicted 8-Hour CO Level (ppm) A: Zoo Entrance S B: Proposed Family Life Center SW C: Endicott School NNW D: Local Residence NNW 9.87 18.05 8.47 5. 11 2.22 4. 71 2.77 2. 14 The "worst case" condition assumes wind speed less than one mile per hour, stable atmospheric conditions, and peak eight hour traffic flow. The average condition assumes a wind speed of 13 miles per hour, neutral stability, the same wind direction as the "worst case", and average daytime traffic flow. Source: CLM/Systems, Inc. 80 Affected Environment Because of the late date of the decision to use a satellite parking garage at Forest Hills, it was not possible to monitor the air quality in that area. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that pollutant concentrations in that area will be similar to those near the Zoo entrance. This should be true for three main reasons. (1) Large open spaces are located to the east (the Arnold Arboretum) and to the west (Franklin Park and Forest Hills Cemetery). (2) Traffic volumes in the area (42,000 vpd on the William Casey Highway / A rborway, and 29,000 on Washington Street) are actually significantly lower than those near the Zoo entrance, where Blue Hill Avenue, Circuit Drive, and Columbia Road converge (53, 800, 12,400, and 19,000 vpd respectively). (3) The majority of this traffic moves smoothly up the Forest Hills overpass without any delay due to stoplight controls. Thus for the purposes of this report, it will be assumed that the general air quality in the Forest Hills area is similar to that measured and predicted at the Zoo entrance. (b) Emission Density Estimates The complicated reaction processes of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions in the atmosphere make it useful to examine these pollutants on an area source basis. Carbon monoxide will also be examined in this way for comparison purposes. Figure 21 shows one grid cell developed for the Environmental Protection Agency's "Proposed Transportation Control Plan for the Metropolitan Boston Air Quality Control Region. " This grid cell includes the project site, portions of the major roadways serving the area, and the satellite parking garage site, (a total of four square miles). Travel data developed for this grid cell as part of the EPA transporation plan for Boston is summarized in Table 19 . Using this data, it is possible to calculate a total daily quantity of motor 81 y>/i m ■fih% m *.--■■ fi ■ M rm& ucx r<^ ■sa;; v€i .SW vJS& *5aBi ^ la, X? #V ^ •>\ #5Sf £*vi S5l; Esf '^OeU «S^V lJp\2v9f a s? ~, -4/e: '/«., FRANKLIN PARK I PS3B! sM>P3 1 j#% :^ /;•..■ "fisC'** &> U7V>4\V\ METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION HUYOENS AND TAPPE , ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS AIR POLLUTION GRID CELL Scale: l"= 1780' FIGURE 21 CLM/ SYSTEMS.INC. CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS Affected Environment vehicle generated emissions for the entire grid cell, using the latest emission factors for different vehicle categories. These emission factors were developed for each vehicle class taking into account the age distribution of the vehicles, the speed distributions within the grid cell, a weighted mileage factor, a deterioration factor for air pollution control equipment, and the latest EPA emission factors for each model year. Emission factors that account for the pollution control extension granted to automobile manufacturers by the EPA are not available at this time. Table 20 shows the results of these calculations for 1973 conditions. The total motor vehicle generated hydrocarbon 2 emissions in the project area are estimated to be 203 kg/mi /day. The total motor vehicle generated NO emissions are estimated at 166 kg/ 2 X 2 mi /day, and the total for CO is 1,278 kg/mi /day. In the Transportation Control Plan, it is estimated that in the 250 square mile study area surrounding Boston, 137,900 kilograms of hydrocarbons were emitted by motor vehicles per day as of December 31, 1972. (There are no equivalent NO emission figures). x 2 This corresponds to an emission density of approximately 550 kg/mi /day, which is over twice the calculated level for the Zoo area. These vehicle emissions must be added to the hydro- carbon emissions from stationary sources to provide a total emission density. Since detailed HC emission data is not available for the small project grid cell, it is assumed that the same quantity of HC emissions will enter the air from stationary sources in the Zoo area as from motor vehicles. (This estimate is expected to be high because the Zoo grid cell is predominately open space and does not contain many stationary HC sources). 2 , Thus it is estimated that in addition to the 203 kg/mi / .2 day vehicle generated HC emissions, there will be 203 kg/mi /day HC emissions from stationary sources, for a total HC emission density 83 Affected Environment TABLE 19 FRANKLIN PARK GRID CELL - 1973* TRAVEL DATA Vehicle Type Light Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty Vehicles (Diesel, 6000 lb. G.V.W. ') Heavy Duty Vehicles (Gas, 6000 lb. G.V.W.) Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 110,337 2,727 4,720 TOTAL 117,781 :;:Gross Vehicle Weight Proportion of Travel by Speed Classifications Speed Percentage of Total VMT 50 0.0 40 24.1 30 52.7 20 23.2 TOTAL 100.0 This data was expanded from that given for 1970 by applying a 1.6% annual growth rate. Source: Alan M. Voorhees and Assoc. 84 a o 't-i - — - CO >> co nJ Q U H 3 cti O c o •iH co co o s u w Si o o cd tuo CO c o >s to c? ctiO 5 ~-~ o •rH co CO o CC bo CuO CD C O ■rH CO >^ j>> co rt 5US Q ffi W c o ••"' t CO JJ co O U £ a! ffl H fe M o CO CO • l-t (i) r^ J-l i— i 0) > T3 O i— i 1—4 0) > cd Si > 1— 1 i—l !-H CO 1-1 CO ^r cc "<* co o o « ft ft « m in CM CO OS m CO ^H lO ^ >> OS ►>i +j SB Q CO 3 CO l—l CD 1—1 CO ight ehicl a si r! 0 £ < 0 J > ffi > ffi 0) H >> >> >> d rt rt xs T3 T3 CM CM tuD co o CM OJO CO CD Cud J* oo o CM CM •I- •I- U CO c o Xi S o o Jh Ti >-, X >5 o ctt T3 O T3 U bn CJO CD CO T) CO CD o •|H o TJ m > ■«* r-( t> m +-> o CD CD in m en H o E CO u O CO r~ m c a CD LO m m CM o H-> fcUO U i— i rt •rH c co & •rH X X O O CO CO CJ CM c- w W o X CO O 3 co m £ 2 m m i— i a o t> *— t rH c- H LO m rt co CU ^ tn * o u o CJ < CO 3 in i— i m 2 CD o o u o H-H & i— i 0> +j ■^ en CO CO CJ o CO CO CO m 0 H te ffl CM co o co CO o CO CO a CD CO CO m 0) m m U CJ c CU CO T3 r* CJ ■sf O) o U ■rH CO CD K CO o m 3 in CO CO m i—i rt CO CO CO o o CO t> CD CO < H CO u CO o CO o a CD CD CO CO U CM co i— l ^ i— 1 O o X 3 CO CO o a ,_, m &h CO cr w w CJ CD m 1 H z s o o o o mended e Levels a in a 1 a in a u o u o ^ o !h o >> 3 o CO 3 o CO 1 rn 3 O o 3 O o X X in o r* (4:30-5 Sunday: X X CM o X CM 1 o a 8 1 O H-J O o CD a CO rt a o a o ' o >> »— ) in .0) CD •• CD CD •• CD CD rt _| J £ Oh •* Ph CU r~1 Ph rH | K Q i £h 0 a CD K a a u CU) o u Ph x CJ Sh ci CD CO CD K CM >> 1 a O * O) X! tin § •rH Ph Ph CU > •iH c o H-> •rH rt H-> &h m CD co o ■l-l o c U i— i a T3 C < o •rH >, +-> a rt X R tm •rH o ffi ^ •rH u Ph CJ U a CI o m tm a co r— 1 CD CD CD i— ( cuo •rH tm CD t—i 0) CO ■rH O c X ci i—i •rH > < -t-» o CO CO 5 j u i a 2 V u CJ •rH CO 1 CD W CD u f- i H r- 1 \ / (O < t 1 <* i y t ? i X // i i IO LU / I / i # lO 1 ■hm ^ f> j* 1 D / / * «• H ^ / cr / a*. < w 4 * ># 1 EL / / 1 ro Jj _l < WW / i >- < Q »- o X ^ x ^ / 1' Q Q Z h- J ' ro Ll 1 O CM LU < Q. LU ^ CO * 1 < -J < > ■^r Q y ^4 > IT < * f 1 cm »- i X V i / cc XT. < ^^^^^ i CM >- < CM 1 Q 1 * *. a. LU 1 • LU ^^ 1— -— — u. en 1 r, ° £ c - « o o Q si? o o o CD Z * < 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 3 O C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) o c > £- <* m o CO 9 s O CM 1-H m i— i 1-H o • a o XI i-i CO ^ o co r- o * S •* ■* ■* t- co •i-i O -tf CO o o CM 1 i-H «* co co r-H o o o o o CO m CO a> o CO CO -* • O I— 1 m co CM Cfl 03 s CD r- X o c- C- CO t> co o t-H CO 00 t> c CM £ SJ i-H CO 1-1 1-H CO U 1 CD S 0 u 3 O cp i-H O 0 -- o CM CO E'- co CM CO CM co CO £> i— 1 1-H T— 1 CO 1-H crease, requenci u KH O 0) CI «« CO Eh ffi bo en 02 CD o i> CM H pq < K CD a CO 0) 6 d *£ CO XI U co m i-H 1-H © annual bserve < 8 r— i CJ •i-l o o with Zoo <* CM CO CO CO H CO co el N XI CM Oi Oi CO o • o 0 m i-H CO CM CM i-H rH • 0 EH U t o cp <* o o -»■ o CM O i-H H CO co m in m CM CO in CM t> o ed on a as based CO QJ CO 3 rQ 0) l-H Oh i— i % C hange CO • co CM <* • co 1-H m CM 3 X! CO cu Q 6 **< CM •rH H-> cu o 3 i-H o d o with Zoo o O CO CO in I c •r-t CO > •H Sh £ cp cm OS m CM rH CO 1—1 o CO 1-H m CO CD g i Q o CO O -f— 1 cp o o o 05 1-1 in O) ni C 3 rH — o m CO CM ■* CO fic lev* ributio CJ & N CO CM CM in i-H in i-H CO rH •H u Sh * e»H +J o • • Cfl CO CfH ■54- +■> +3 TJ CO >> ■a £ c < QJ >5 Sh Sh >> cfl H-> o M U ? X! 0 CO ojo U cfl ^ r5 a CO c a Cm >> HI 3 O 3 o a? 3 CJ Sh •i-i U o ■s < o +■> Sh O XI CO CO •!£■ •5C- 136 Environmental Impaats In terms of the general traffic flow on the feeder streets leading to the traffic garage, the peak Zoo traffic will occur on Sundays, when general traffic flow is light. On weekdays, the Zoo will add to peak hour traffic in varying amounts, (with the heaviest increase falling on Circuit Drive, which has the most excess capacity). The major impact from Zoo traffic will fall during those daytime hours when non-Zoo traffic is lightest, and the smallest impact will occur during the peak hours, thus tending to smooth out hourly traffic variations on the different roadways. It must also be recognized that all of this Zoo generated traffic will travel to and from one location- the satellite parking garage. If this garage were built without any changes in the local street network, the Zoo traffic would worsen conditions in a localized area that is already very congested and which presently operates at Level of Service E during peak hours. However, part of future development plans for the area call for major street improvements so that commuters and Zoo visitors can utilize the fringe parking garage without any significant congestion problems. (The parking garage will require a Federal and State Environmental Impact Statement to be approved before construction). The impact of the Zoo traffic will then fall upon the improved street network, which will have sufficient capacity at that time. (3) Traffic Congestion During Construction The traffic on the major streets around the project will be disturbed during the construction of the Zoo due to heavy vehicles entering and leaving the site, as well as by installation of the various utility services, which will connect to either Seaver Street or Blue Hill Avenue, as shown in Figure 11. General construction of the Zoo facilities will take place over approximately a two year period, although the demand for heavy vehicles will vary considerably over this period. It should be noted that an attempt has been made to balance cut and fill operations, so a minimum of trucking of fill will be required. 137 Environmental Impacts (b) Air Quality One obvious effect of the expanded Zoo is that traffic will be generated on the various roadways leading to the Franklin Park area. The peak Zoo traffic will occur on Sundays, but as pointed out in the discussion on traffic, weekdays will experience the heaviest total traffic flows on both a daily and an hourly basis. Since the worst conditions would thus occur on a weekday during the Zoo peak season, this is the "worst case" traffic volume to be evaluated in terms of air pollution potential. Zoo traffic will clearly add to existing air pollutant levels, with the largest net increase occurring near the satellite parking facility. To fully quantify this impact is impossible at this time, due to the future changes planned for the Forest Hills area. It is possible, however, to discuss this possible impact relative to the change experienced near the Zoo entrance and within the four square mile grid cell surrounding the Park. (1) Zoo Entrance As discussed previously, a combination of continuous carbon monoxide monitoring and a computer model have been used to estimate the existing CO concentrations at various locations near the Zoo entrance. These concentrations vary widely from receptor to receptor, depending mainly on the distance from the major roadways and intersections. In general, it was shown that the national ambient air quality standard for CO (the eight-hour average), would be exceeded under extended "worst case" conditions but not under average conditions. These Federal standards state that the level of 9. 0 ppm is not to be exceeded more than once per year. Thus existing ambient air near the Zoo entrance does not meet this requirement. In future years, however, as newer cars with more pollution control equipment are added to the vehicle population, and older uncontrolled cars are scrapped, pollutant emission rates will drop 138 Environmental Impacts significantly. Although general traffic volumes will also increase, it is expected that air quality will improve over present conditions. This trend in future carbon monoxide concentra- tions has been examined near the Zoo entrance, where Columbia Road, Blue Hill Avenue, and Circuit Drive converge. Based on predicted future traffic volumes and hourly distributions, as well as the additional Zoo generated traffic on these roadways (visitors driving to the satellite lot plus shuttle buses) it is possible to examine the effect that increased traffic and future pollutant emission factors will have on the local air quality. Allan M. Voorhees and Associates has estimated that about 26 percent of the Zoo visitors will travel down Circuit Drive to the satellite lot. On a peak weekday in 1976, this could mean an increase of over 1300 one way trips (650 round trips), plus 423 shuttle bus trips, all on a roadway with a forecast traffic volume of 13,000 vpd. Table 24 shows the effect this increased traffic will have on CO concentrations at several selected receptors near the Zoo entrance during "worst case" con- ditions. (Figure 20). Several items must be kept in mind in interpreting this data. The first and perhaps most important consideration is that this table is not intended as an accurate prediction of future CO levels. Instead it is intended to serve as an indicator of the trend CO concentrations are expected to follow near the Zoo in future years, based on estimates of traffic volume and the emission characteristics of the various vehicle types. (Table 17 showed the type of variations between measured and predicted values that might be expected from using this dispersion model in the Zoo area). Since future EPA emission standards for motor vehicles are subject to change, an additional element of uncertainty is present in the calculations for future years. Table 24 demonstrates two major items of importance. The first is that without the Zoo development, but with a compounded annual increase in traffic volumes of 1. 6 percent, the predicted CO concentrations will drop from 1973 levels, simply because the average 139 m u s H O O SI K W t/3 2 H S3 it W to U •r-i rn £ >! ■^ 0 1— 1 cd CM u q w w — < 1:0 3 oo q ■° o t> o ■* C- 05 &, i-H CX CO CD CM 00 f£ Kl • co • CD • CO »-( O 0 ->» o G5 t> CM CO "* "tf O 00 £ M • co • CO • co • 1— 1 cu co cd t£ ^ ^ t£ £ «*< «-H CD CM • o q i— i in CM C~ CM £ S - S CD CO CM o m C3 O, •T5 o m iH D. £ M t> co T-H CO* CO CO "* > a i— i (1) o cu cj q cd Sh a cd [Vj (h ^ CU CD B o o X! o CO o q a) T> •i-i CQ P. q m o> +■> o o •r-l tf O W o U i— i cd a; o o «£ T3 cj K o tn £ q O Kl Ph j W J < n u Q CO q o •i-i +-> •i-i T3 o q -4-> o CJ T3 CU ■r-1 q &H cd 0) u xi ojo CO CO i-H o cu a > +j cu cd 1—1 1—1 CD i-* X! o u a CO q o a q 3 •2 o +j JC i—i S-, r-l CD o a CD o a q o •i-i 0) q q o cu +■> q X aJ cu X! ^1 +■> cd CO cu CO >> CU i 1— 1 cu TJ q CD o < 73 u Ph q •iH o W ts ■H cu CO q 3 •c -i-> CU o a 3 o CJ X! CO . cd CO CO o +j u cd o cu CO q In q o -l-> CJ o CJ •1— t T3 u q •i-i <4-< cd i—i 4-> ■iH T3 q o 3h cd CO q •a •> fn o q CO -(J •H cd a a o ti CJ cu r O •H T3 cu CO CU CO CU XI CO o CO XI OjO •i-i CU CU to cu o a o 3 1-1 o > X X +J 3 U cd CU H cd — a • • cu H T3 q cd O cu CJ u p o 3f" a CO 140 Environmental Impacts TABLE 25 PRESENT AND FUTURE EMISSION DENSITY ESTIMATES* 2 (kilograms /mile /day) 1973 1976=: * 1986= l» «J- w/o With w/o With Pollutant Zoo Zoo Increase Zoo Zoo Increase Hydrocarbons 203 131 136 3.8% 49 51 4.1% (HC) Nitrogen Oxides 166 147 157 6.8% 76 84 10. 5% (NOx) Carbon Monoxide 1,278 887 924 4.2% 288 297 3.1% (CO) * From motor vehicles only. c* The emission rates used for these calculations do not reflect the one year pollution control extension granted to automobile manufacturers by the EPA. Source: CLM/Systems, Inc. 142 Environmental Impacts additional traffic plus similar estimates for 1986 affect the total emission densities of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. (It is assumed that the number of trucks making pickups and deliveries at the Zoo is minimal). In this table, the same general trend towards lower emissions with increased traffic but no Zoo development is seen again. The largest Zoo generated contribution to the grid cell is 6. 8 percent of the total NOx emissions in 1976, and 10.5% in 1986. Other increases are all on tie order of four percent. (It should be noted that the NOx increase is largely due to the diesel engine shuttle buses, since the high temperatures and large quantities of excess oxygen involved in diesel combustion are conducive to high NOx emissions). Once again it can be seen that the general grid cell air quality will improve significantly due to the lower emissions of future vehicles, and that this improvement is many times larger than the expected small increase from Zoo generated traffic. (3) Satellite Garage Area It is clear that the maximum air pollution impact of the Zoo generated traffic will be in the vicinity of the satellite parking garage, where an estimated 2510 visitor vehicles may park during a peak weekday in 1976. This would correspond to a maximum hourly traffic increase of approximately 1000 vehicles, (including 47 buses). Although this will cause a significant increase in pollutant emissions in the immediate vicinity of the garage site, the net air pollution impact of this traffic will diminish sharply away from the garage itself since Zoo visitors will travel to and from the area on a number of different roadways, all of which have very high traffic volumes relative to the added Zoo traffic. (See Table 23 ). It was previously demonstrated that the effect of a major portion of this traffic flow (26% plus buses) on air quality near the Zoo entrance was actually quite small, and that more importantly, the estimated increase in pollutants from this Zoo traffic was many times 143 Environmental Impacts smaller than the decrease expected from the lower emission rates of future vehicle populations. Although the Zoo will add traffic to major arteries leading to the Forest Hills area, on the average, 1976 and 1986 pollutant concentrations are estimated to be between 25 and 60 percent lower than present concentrations along these roadways, even including the small relative increases expected from Zoo traffic. This report will not attempt to quantify the expected increase in air pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the satellite parking garage, since at this time, future traffic patterns in the Forest Hills area are highly uncertain due to the major changes planned for the area over the next few years. When these changes are finalized, they will be subject to both Federal and State environmental impact review, which will, of necessity, include the impacts of Zoo traffic. (4) Other Air Pollution Sources The expanded Zoo will operate a small approved pathological incinerator for the disposal of dead animals and other restricted materials. Because of the design of these types of incinerators, emissions are low with correct operation, and are assumed to be negligible. The large amount of manure expected from the Zoo animals is a potential source of odors both inside the pavilions and in the area surrounding the Zoo site. Experience at other zoos indicates that odor problems are directly related to the thoroughness of maintenance programs. In view of this, at the Franklin Park Zoo the exhibit area will be cleaned each day after closing hours, and areas occupied by animals at night will be cleaned during the day. Manure will be placed in the liquid composting system which will be carefully regulated to supress odors. In addition, the air within the pavilions will be vented so that no odor buildup will occur. In general, these precautions should prevent odors from becoming objectionable both within the Zoo itself and outside the site boundaries. There will be airbourne dust during construction due to movement of heavy equipment, as well as clearing and stripping of vegetation. This dust will be minimized by the following precautions. 144 Environmental Impacts - Water will be used, where necessary, for control of dust during land clearing operations; - All open bodied trucks will be covered when in motion while carrying materials likely to give rise to airborne dusts; - Landscaping operations such as grading, application of fertilizers, etc. , will be conducted in such manner as to prevent dust from becoming airborne; and - Construction debris will not be burned on the site. (c) Noise The expansion of the Zoo will affect local noise levels only as a result of construction operations and generated traffic. It is difficult, however, to fully describe these traffic noise impacts, since the actual impact varies greatly with receptor location relative to the roadways carrying the increased traffic. Although the following discussion will emphasize the three receptors shown in Figure 22 and another receptor in the Forest Hills area, it should be emphasized that noise levels at other locations will be higher and lower than those indicated. For example. Receptor C is the approximate center of the Zoo site. Noise levels at this location will be much lower than those at the entrance gate simply because of the difference in distance. As a point of reference for the following discussion, it should be noted that an increase of 10 decibels will sound subjectively twice as loud to the human ear. (1) The Zoo Entrance Area Zoo traffic will affect the noise levels near the Zoo entrance because of both the increased automobile traffic travelling to and from the satellite garage on Circuit Drive and the shuttle bus service right at the entrance gate. As discussed previously, peak weekday noise levels in this area are presently dominated by heavy duty truck traffic. 145 Environmental Impacts On weekends this truck noise becomes insignificant, but automobile volumes are still high enough to exceed recommended noise levels at selected receptors. Employing the same type of analysis presented in the previous two sections of this report, it is possible to add the Zoo generated traffic to predicted future volumes in order to assess the impact of the development during different time periods and on different days. Table 26 shows the results of this analysis, using the same calculation methods outlined in Section IV A (4). (The receptors are shown in Figure 22). This table shows that without the Zoo development, noise levels will increase by approximately one dBA between 1973 and 1986 due to the natural increase in traffic volumes. If the expanded Zoo is built, peak hour weekday noise levels will not be affected at three receptor locations, due to the dominant truck noise. Directly in the entrance gate area, however, the noise from accelerating and decelerating buses will be significant, but will not be as noticeable or as continuous as the very loud trucks travelling on Blue Hill Avenue. On Sundays, the increased Zoo traffic near the entrance area is not sufficient to increase noise levels significantly except at the Zoo itself. The noise increase to be experienced at the center of the Zoo is estimated to be approximately seven dBA, solely due to the shuttle bus service at the front entrance. (Although buses share many basic design characteristics with trucks, they are generally quieter due to their larger mufflers and enclosed engine compartment. Noise levels ten or twenty feet from an accelerating bus are in the 80 to 87 dBA range. Zoo visitors in the immediate vicinity of the entrance gate will be exposed to this level of noise intermittently as buses drive away. Inside the Zoo the bus noise will diminish as a result of both distance and the shielding effects of buildings and other barriers. As the buses drive along Circuit Drive, the natural terrain of the Sausage will act as a very effective noise barrier due to the sharp drop in elevation. Within the Sausage itself, the buses will be audible, but their noise levels will be lower because they will be at cruising speeds (18 mph). Thus the noise impact within the main part of the Zoo will be mainly due to the buses at the entrance gate. 146 Environmental Impacts TABLE 26 FUTURE PEAK HOUR NOISE LEVELS WITH AND WITHOUT ZOO DEVELOPMENT* (Lio Noise Levels in dBA) 1973 1976 1986 w/o With w/o With Receptors Zoo Zoo Increase Zoo Zoo Increase A. Endicott School - Weekdays 83 83 83 0 84 84 0 - Sundays 63 64 64 0 64 64 0 B. Local Residence - Weekdays 84 84 84 0 85 84 0 - Sundays 63 64 64 0 64 64 0 C. Center of Zoo - Weekdays 57 58 58 0 58 58 0 - Sundays 41 42 49 7 42 49 7 Washington Hospital - Weekdays 64 65 66 1 65 66 1 - Sundays 57 58 66 8 58 66 8 The weekday peak hour is 4:30-5:30 p.m. The Sunday peak hour is 1:00-2:00 p.m. This is motor vehicle related noise only. Source: CLM/Systems, Inc. 147 Environmental Impacts In general then, in the vicinity of the Zoo entrance, weekday noise levels will not change the Zoo development due to the overriding influence of existing heavy truck traffic. On Sundays when this truck noise diminishes, the shuttle buses will increase levels within the Zoo itself, although the resulting noise levels will be signi- ficantly lower than the weekday levels. (The Federal Highway Admin- istration's recommended design noise level for recreation areas is 70 dBA, which will only be exceeded within the first hundred feet of Peabody Circle). (2) The Forest Hills Area In the Forest Hills area, the existing peak noise levels are due in large part to the MBTA elevated transit line. With increasing distance from the tracks, motor vehicle traffic becomes more significant. Thus at the Washington Hospital, (which is 600 feet from the transit line), the additional Zoo generated traffic will become significant from a noise standpoint. Table 26 shows that the net increase at the hospital during the peak hour on weekdays is expected to be on the order of one decibel. On weekends when local truck traffic diminishes, the shuttle buses become the dominant noise factor, increasing the peak hour level by an estimated eight dBA. Thus the noise level during the Sunday peak hour will be roughly equivalent to the weekday peak hour level at the hospital. Local residences are several hundred feet further from the Forest Hills overpass area, so the resulting noise levels will be three or four decibels lower than those at the hospital. In the immediate vicinity of the satellite parking garage, noise from Zoo generated automobiles will be lower than that from shuttle buses, weekday truck traffic, and the MBTA transit line. (Although it is possible that the Orange Line will be relocated and depressed below grade, this development will be many years in the future). On weekdays, the shuttle buses will also be "quieter" than the background noise levels, but on Sundays, noise from these buses will be dominant near the garage itself, just as it was directly at the Zoo entrance gate. This means that levels up to 85 dBA could be experienced at short 148 Environmental Impacts distances from the accelerating and decelerating buses. Several hundred feet away, this noise will be reduced significantly by both distance and intervening rows of structures. A general statement of the noise impact from the Zoo generated traffic is that automobile noise will not result in any significant increase in ambient noise levels, while the shuttle bus service will increase general noise levels only on Sundays when local truck noise is not present. The effect of this bus noise will be the greatest in the immediate vicinity of the two loading and unloading areas. (3) Construction Noise The construction operations at the Franklin Park Zoo will generate noise over approximately a two-year period. Work will not take place on weekends. The effect of this noise will be experienced predominantly by people living along Seaver Street or in the residential and commercial areas along Blue Hill Avenue. Some noise will be experienced at the golf course or other areas of Franklin Park bordering the Zoo. In addition, since certain sections of the Zoo will be open to the public while other construction operations are in progress, there will be a noise impact within the Zoo. It is clear that the level of construction noise experienced at any location will vary considerably depending on the distance from the noise source. In an effort to quantify this construction noise impact, it will be assumed that construction operations will take place at the center of the Zoo grounds. This will, in a sense, give an indication of the average noise level. It will also be assumed that the noise levels will be reduced by six decibels when the observation distance is doubled. Table 27 shows the typical noise levels at construction sites for major developments like parking garages, amusement parks and recreation areas. These values are given for five different observation distances. Figure 22 shows approximate distances from selected locations outside the Zoo to both the Zoo center and the closest boundary. Thus it is possible to obtain a rough estimate 149 Environmental Impacts of the peak construction noise level (when the operation is closest to the receptor) as well as the average level over the entire construction period. It must be understood that Table 27 represents noise levels that apply to a general type of facility. There will be both positive and negative discrepancies from these levels depending on the specific design of each development. For instance, the construction of buildings at the Zoo may well be quieter than indicated in the table due to the fabric covering being utilized. However, there will be limited blasting opeations at some locations, so other noise levels may be greater than indicated. These estimates also do not take into account any attenuation from topography or vegetation. The values in Table 27 reflect only construction noise, and should be added to ambient noise levels from Section IV in order to fully assess the impact. As discussed previously, the noise levels in the Zoo area are dominated by heavy truck traffic. This traffic noise is presently loud enough and close enough to the community that except for construction operations right on the Zoo border, the total noise levels from both traffic and construction will be roughly equal to the existing traffic noise. (See Section IV A(4) for a brief discussion of decibel addition). In other words, the existing ambient noise levels are high enough that construction operations will either blend in with background levels, or, in extreme cases, be noticeable but only slightly bothersome. (4) Miscellaneous Noise Noise from Zoo animals during the nighttime has been a problem at other zoos located near populated areas. At the expanded Franklin Park Zoo however, animals will be kept in their indoor holding areas overnight, so no noise problem is expected. Inside the pavilions, there may be an additional problem of noise caused by rain striking the suspended fabric. A consulting firm has been hired to analyze this problem and to recommend methods for reducing the possible impact on the Zoo visitor. It is felt that use of waterfalls, flowing water and recorded animal sounds will all be effective in masking the sound of rainfall. 150 Environmental Impacts TABLE 27 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION OF AMUSEMENT PARK OR RECREATION AREA* (in dBA) Construction Observation Distance (In Feet) Operation 100 200 400 800 1600 Ground Clearing 78 72 66 60 54 Excavation 83 77 71 65 59 Foundations 71 65 59 53 47 Erection 78 72 66 60 54 Finishing 83 77 71 65 59 These values were calculated from those given for 50 feet using the relationship that doubling observation distance reduces sound intensity by 6 decibels. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Report to the President and Congress on Noise, March, 1972. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., page 2-104. (d) Energy Based on preliminary design information, it is estimated that the maximum connected electrical load of the new Zoo will be 5,000 KVA. This electricity will reach the Zoo through a connecting line to Seaver Street. The heating and cooling operations are expected to require a maximum of 40, 000, 000 BTU/hour, to be provided by either gas or oil service. (This will be decided during the final design phase of the project). 151 Environmental Impacts Representatives of the Boston Edison Company, the Boston Gas Company, and other potential utility sources have all indicated that they feel they will be able to serve the exapnded Zoo upon its completion in 1976 or 1977 without affecting the service to other customers within the region or within the local community. It should be emphasized, however, that the proposed Zoo expansion represents a large increase in energy consumption over the existing faciltiy. Because of this increased demand, the project has been designed to conserve energy in many different ways: there will be heat exchangers in the pavilion exhaust systems; vents will be installed for recirculation of warm air; trees will be planted to divert cold winds from the surfaces of the pavilions; indoor exhibits will not be used during hot summer months unless weather is bad; only the interior visitor walkways will be cooled during the summer; a central heating and cooling plant will be utilized for maximum efficiency and economics; plants and vegetation are being selected that produce the desired land- scaping effect but which do not require tropical temperatures; and finally, the pavilions have been depressed below grade, thus taking advantage of natural heat from the earth and reducing the surface area exposed to winter wind and cold. As they are presently envisioned, the pavilions will have only the teflon fabric separating interior air from exterior air. (It is estimated that this fabric has a conductance factor (U) of 1.0). In light of recent forecasts of a national energy shortage, the project staff is now examining the economics and structural feasibility of providing some means of additional insulation for each pavilion. In addition to the cost of the insulation, the structures would then have to be designed to support a live load of 30 pounds per square foot due to the possibility of snow and ice accumulations that would adhere to the insulated fabric. There would thus be a requirement for more numerous or heavier cables and structural members, as well as a need for more artificial lighting due to blockage of sunlight by the insulation and /or accumulations of snow and ice. 152 Environmental Impacts Although an investigation of the ramifications of providing insulation material is presently being conducted, for the purpose of this report it can only be stated that many energy conserving processes and designs have been incorporated into the project, but that additional energy savings could be realized by the use of insulation. (e) Storm Drainage One of the design features of the new Zoo is the provision for large troughs around the perimeter of each pavilion to catch storm water from the roof surfaces. These troughs will be linked to the various water moats and ponds so that a large water detention capability is available in the event of a very intense storm. This system will accommodate a ten year design storm without flooding. Drainage from this network will be to the pipe system under the golf course. It is planned that the pipes leading from the Zoo to the 33-inch golf course pipe will be small enough to limit the flow in that pipe so as not to exceed its capacity. These pipe sizes will be determined in conjunction with Boston Parks Department personnel). Thus it can be stated that although the development of the Zoo site will increase the impervious ground area from approximately 7. 9 acres to 15. 6 acres, thr runoff detention system will maintain a peak runoff rate that will not cause the capacity of the receiving pipe system to be exceeded. Although the total volume of runoff will be increased by the development, the peak runoff rate will be controlled at an acceptable level, which is not the case presently. In this way, any local flooding potential is expected to be reduced as a result of the Zoo development. In addition, the feasibility of utilizing the collected runoff water for interior irrigation is presently being investigated. (f) Sanitary Sewage As previously discussed, the sanitary sewage from the Zoo will consist largely of water from the cleaning of animal holding facilities, combined with a relatively small volume of sewage from Zoo visitors and staff. At five gallons per visitor per day, an estimated 85, 000 gallons of sanitary sewage might be generated on a peak day. The contribution from Zoo cleaning operations is much more difficult to quantify, 153 Environmental Impacts but it is felt that the volume of the expanded Zoo cleaning operations might be as much as six times the present volume, which was estimated at 100, 000 gallons per day. This brings the total sanitary sewage flow to an estimated 685, 000 gallons on a peak day after completion of the expansion, where the comparable figure is 115,000 gpd under present conditions. This sanitary sewage will flow into a 3 3 -inch pipe under the golf course which eventually connects to the City sewer system 37 leading to the Deer Island treatment plant in Boston Harbor. Although a new EPA regulation requires at least secondary treatment for sewage by 1976, the Deer Island treatment plant has been granted an extension because of the tremendous volumes generated by the combined storm runoff and sanitary sewage system in Metropolitan Boston. Initially the Zoo sanitary sewage will receive only primary treatment before being passed to Boston Harbor. The design capacity of the Deer Island plant is approximately 343 mgd, with an average annual flow of 340 mgd in 1972. It should then be noted that the expanded Zoo operations might increase the Zoo sewage volume by an estimated 570,000 gpd. Although the total Zoo volume is less than one fifth of one percent of the Deer Island plant's annual flow, the increase must be recognized as an additional load on a treatment plant that is already incapable of meeting EPA standards by 1976. (g) Water Quality The Zoo expansion will affect regional water quality only as a result of storm runoff and sanitary sewage connections to the Boston sewage system. The sanitary sewage load is estimated to increase by 570,000 gallons per day over present levels, and the storm runoff volume is expected to increase by varying amounts, depending on future storm duration and intensities. Since this combined sewage will be treated and released to Boston Harbor, the Zoo will have an impact on water quality, although it will be extremely small. This will be especially true when secondary treatment is provided as a result of an implementation plan presently being developed by the MDC, the State Water Pollution Control Board, and the Federal Government. 154 Environmental Impacts It should be noted, however, that the Zoo sanitary sewage is largely due to the washing down of animal areas, and thus that the total sewage volume will be almost entirely water. (Manure and bedding material will be collected and disposed of in the liquid composting system described in the Project Description). It should also be emphasized that the U. S. Department of Agriculture enforces strict regulations created to minimize the dissemination of diseases from zoological facilities. Extreme care will be taken when animals are hospitalized to avoid spreading contaminants off the Zoo property through the sewer system. In summary, it is expected that although the total volume of storm and sanitary sewage is expected to increase as a result of the Zoo expansion, this increase will result in a very minor impact on regional water quality due to the carefully regulated disease controls, and the very dilute composition of the Zoo generated sewage, the volume of which will only be a tiny fraction of the total volume handled by the Deer Island plant. (h) Water Supply The proposed Zoo expansion will result in an increased demand for water. The existing Zoo used close to 50 million gallons of water in 1972, while future operations could use over 300 million gallons per year because of the increased number of animal areas to be washed down, as well as the added moats and ponds. Peak usage might be 1, 000, 000 gallons per day. The Metropolitan District Commission provides the main supply of water to the Boston region. Presently the regional rate of consumption is 312 million gallons per day, which exeeds the safe water 38 yield of the MDC watershed (300 million gallons per day). This problem will be handled by several planned capacity expansions, including the addition of a new water source of 72 mgd from the Connecticut River, which will then provide additional capacity for approximately 15 years based on projected population and usage increases. This capacity expansion is currently 155 Environmental Impacts in the design stage, although Legislative approval has been obtained for 39 its construction. Completion is expected in early 1977, which will coincide with the final completion date of the Zoo expansion. Although the Zoo will generate an increased demand on the regional water supply, there should be adequate capacity to handle this demand. It should also be pointed out that the Zoo design does conserve water usage, since the detention troughs around the pavilions will be utilized to collect storm water for use in the moats and ponds and possibly even for interior irrigation. Also, the fabric being used to cover the pavilions washes clean with rainwater, so additional water will not be needed to keep the structures clean. As described in the Project Description, the proposed Zoo will obtain its water from a 36-inch main in Blue Hill Avenue located across from the Peabody Circle entrance. The water will be used for both fire fighting and general Zoo operations. This connection with the City water system was agreed upon by the Boston Public Works Department, under the condition that present expansion operations to the pipe and tunnel system are completed before any connection is made. Thus, it can be stated that the City is satisfied* that the additional Zoo demand will have no adverse effect on local and regional water pressure and service once improvements to the distribution system have been completed. (i) Solid Waste Solid waste for the proposed project will be composed of wastes generated by Zoo operations and visitors, but will not include any animal wastes. Animal wastes will be disposed of on the Zoo site. It is expected that uncompacted wastes from visitors and operations will 40 amount to approximately 10 cubic yards per day during the off-season. Assuming a six-month peak season, 3, 600 cubic yards of waste would be generated during that period, and 1, 800 cubic yards of waste would be generated in the off-season. The annual total would thus be 5,400 cubic yards of uncompacted solid waste. 156 Environmental Impacts It is anticipated that refuse generated by the new Zoo will be handled in a manner similar to that of the existing Zoo. The waste will be hauled by a private contractor to a nearby solid waste disposal facility, which at the present time is the City of Boston sanitary landfill in West Roxbury. As discussed previously, the existing West Roxbury landfill has already reached capacity. It is expected that this facility will be replaced with some other approved solid waste facility by the 1976/1977 Zoo completion date. (j) Aesthetics and Public Attitude The proposed project will have both positive and negative impacts on the aesthetics of the Zoo site and surrounding area. (1) Positive Impacts Section IV B(12b) discussed the relatively rundown condition of the existing Zoo grounds. It is obvious that the new Zoo will be better maintained because of the increased public interest generated by the new exhibits. The proposed landscaping and moating discussed in Section III will be quite interesting and extensive and will be well protected from both people and animals. There will also be areas of the Zoo where families can relax or picnic, as is the case presently. (See Figure 3 B). New plantings will increase the total vegetative cover to approximately fifty percent over and above what presently exists. Although a number of trees will be removed, many of them are presently either dead or diseased. The superstructures of the new pavilions will be approximately 70 feet above grade at their mid-span, and the perimeter of each structure will be buffered by earth berms which have been developed to continue the lines of the natural topography within the existing site. The height of the pavilions will be less than the height of many of the larger trees on the site. In addition, the structures will be obscured from many locations outside the Zoo grounds by existing stands of dense vegetation as well as the natural topography of the area. Where 157 Environmental Impacts necessary, fast growing dense trees will be planted on the site borders to further isolate the Zoo from the surrounding urban area. In terms of extensive new landscaping and moating, as well as careful building design and location, the project site should be both useful and aesthetically pleasing. As a result of this project, it is hoped that other areas of Franklin Park will begin to generate the usage, interest, and therefore, the maintenance and protection necessary for a safe, enjoyable park. An example of how Franklin Park may become safer, and, therefore, more popular with the public can be found in crime records for the Park over the last year. In May, 1972, the Boston Police implemented a program whereby twelve patrolmen were stationed in the Park area during the day, and four patrolmen in the evening. Traffic was controlled by blocking off roads in the Park, with the exception of Glen Lane and Circuit Drive. The MDC also increased police protection at the Zoo site. The result of these efforts was a decrease in reported crimes and much greater Park attendance by children and adults. Increased usage of the Park area by the public might reduce both the crime rate and the general fear of crime which is presently associated with the Park area. A study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council on "Criminal Activity and Vandalism" in the Olmsted Park System concludes that: Most people feel that Park areas are dangerous; therefore they don't use the Park. Any area that is rarely frequented becomes a prime site for criminal activity. The fact is that there are few crimes reported within the park boundaries, and only fear of possible crime keeps people from enjoying the park more often and consistently. Constant use of the park could lessen the opportunity for crime and create a safer park. 41 The development of the Zoo may thus help to create a situation where more and more people could enjoy the aesthetic beauty of Franklin Park itself. 158 Environmental Impacts The proposed site plan does alter the existing layout of the Greeting area, as described previously. Although this change can be viewed as a negative aesthetic impact, it can also be considered a positive impact. The Greeting presently gives the Zoo visitor a long, unobstructed view across the site. (Figure 29 ). The proposed plan will place animal exhibits across this area, such that the vista will become a panoramic animal display, which should be a very striking feature of the new Franklin Park Zoo. (Figure 6 shows a scale model of the Zoo. Since this picture was taken, the pavilion at the far end of the Greeting has been relocated so that it is now 60 feet closer to Seaver Street on the right). The long view has still been retained in large part, but it has also been accented by the presence of the African animals. (2) Negative Impacts There will also be some negative aesthetic impacts associated with the project. The first and most obvious is that an existing site which is now relatively open will become more densly developed with buildings, walkways, moats, and exhibit areas. The same is true to a lesser extent in the Sausage area, where exhibits and walkways, (but no buildings) will be placed. The Sausage is presently 16. 25 acres of park land, and as such is a valuable regional asset. This section of land will be leased to the MDC, but will still be City of Boston property. The project will also alter the existing character of the Greeting, which has been in existence for close to sixty years. Presently it is possible to stand outside the Zoo grounds and look through to the monuments on the other end. With the proposed plan, this view from the outside is purposely blocked to isolate the Zoo experience from the urban environment outside. Once inside the Zoo, the Greeting area will be viewed as a panoramic animal display, which is a significant change from the existing open space usage. 159 Environmental Impacts A variety of evergreens will be introduced throughout the site which will both screen and complement the structures and moats on a year-round basis. Some of the proposed plantings will be close proximity to the structures themselves, where others will be located at strategic points to block long lines of sight. Since these plantings will not succeed in totally screening the buildings, there will be a possibility of sunlight reflections. Glare is expected to be of short duration and limited intensity because of both the location of the pavilions in pockets between major growths of trees and the tentlike curves of the suspended fabric which will tend to scatter light, but this potential problem should be recognized. The Zoo site (with the exception of the Children's Zoo) is presently used by neighborhood residents as a free park. This will no longer be the case once an admission charge is required, although certain free admission hours will be established as discussed previously. The remainder of Franklin Park will still be available for general recreational usage. Portions of the Sausage will not be fenced in and will be left for general park use. The Zoo site (and Glen Lane) are also used presently as access corridors for local residents walking or bicycling to and from the Playsted area (White Stadium, Theatre in the Park, etc. ). Once the Zoo grounds are closed off, these people will be forced to travel around the site along either Circuit Drive or Seaver Street, both of which are heavily traveled roadways. Adequate pedestrian safeguards (stoplights, sidewalks, etc. ) should be developed to ensure public safety. One unavoidable aspect of the Zoo development will be the generation of additional traffic. Although the parking garage will be located in the Forest Hills area, Zoo visitors will add to existing loads on most of the major arteries in the area. This will include additional traffic on Circuit Drive through Franklin Park, due 160 Environmental Impacts to visitors driving to and from the parking garage as well as the numerous shuttle bus trips. Since as many as 94 one-way shuttle trips (47 round trips) are expected during peak conditions, this will have an obvious impact on the aesthetics of the Park, especially from the standpoints of noise and bus visibility. Although the generated traffic in the immediate vicinity of the Zoo has been reduced by the use of a remote satellite lot, the use of large double decker shuttle buses through the Park must be considered a negative aesthetic impact. In the area of the satellite lot, the real impact of the Zoo generated traffic will be experienced. In this location, however, the aesthetic impacts are not as significant simply due to the existing and proposed future land use. The area is densely developed, is deteriorating in sections, and will undergo major changes in the future. Although the general impact of the Zoo generated automobile and bus traffic in the area should be recognized, the net change from existing conditions will not be that significant from an aesthetic standpoint, (k) Impact on Wildlife Wild animals living on the project site can move to other parts of Franklin Park during the construction and operation of the expanded Zoo. Because of the availability of a more natural habitat in close proximity to the project site, no adverse impact on wildlife species is expected as a result of the project. BZS officials also state that experience at the new Aviary indicates that more migratory birds will be attracted to the proposed Zoo because of the increased number of ponds and water moats. (1) Public and Animal Health The U. S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Division will be responsible for inspection of the new Zoo facilities. The existing Franklin Park Zoo is currently inspected on a quarterly basis. In addition to inspection of the site drainage, physical plant, and methods of operation, regulations require that a veterinarian be available for periodic examination of all animals and for post mortems on those that die. The disposal of restricted animal wastes and dead animals must be accomplished within the Zoo property, either through burial or incineration. The USDA must 161 Environmental Impacts also take all actions considered necessary to prevent the dissemination of diseases from the zoological park. In view of these Federal regulations, no health danger to the community or the region is anticipated as a result of the expansion of Franklin Park Zoo. (m) Education One very significant benefit of the proposed project is that it will be a valuable educational resource for the general public as well as for the regional school systems. Part of this benefit arises from the fact that the Zoo will have both indoor and outdoor exhibits, and that it will operate year- round. An outdoor Zoo is limited by the weather, and is available for classroom visits only during the spring and part of the fall. This new facility will permit groups to be reliably scheduled throughout the school year, thus avoiding the disappointment and re- scheduling problems caused by bad weather. Teachers will have more flexibility in planning a trip to the Zoo so that it fits into the correct sequence in their class program. Classroom visits can also be scheduled throughout the year in order to avoid crowded exhibit areas. It is intended that the proposed Zoo will be of significantly higher educational and visual quality than the present facility. The educational aspect of the proposed Zoo has been one of the primary considerations in the planning process. As described in the Project Description, the exhibits are planned to closely resemble the natural animal habitats. Where possible, different animal types will be grouped together as they are found naturally, instead of being segregated by species as is the case in many zoos. Information and orientation areas are planned for each major geographical exhibit, in addition to the extensive use of descriptive signs at each specific exhibit. An innovative education program and resource center are also planned as part of the new Zoo. This program is intended to serve all educational levels, from young school children to individuals interested in research. 162 Environmental Impacts (n) Economics It is estimated that the proposed Zoo facility will attract approximately 1,500,000 visitors per year in 1976. As described previously, the area around the Zoo consists of low to middle income residential neighborhoods, with some small commercial establishments, and a rather large proportion of institutions. At present, the area does not have any facilities of widespread regional interest which would draw a significant number of outsiders on a regular basis. It is expected that visitors to the Zoo will create a demand for local services and commodities. For example, gasoline and meals will probably be sought by many visitors on their way to and from the Zoo (although there will be in-grounds refreshment stands). Futher opportunities for local business may be found in a variety of Zoo- oriented shops as evidenced in the Model City development envisioned for Blue Hill Avenue and described in Section 4A (lb). Although it is contingent on a number of factors, one possible effect of the Zoo-oriented "spin-off" businesses might be an escalation in the value of land near the Zoo. At the present time it is not possible to predict accurately the degree to which this phenomenon might take place or those who would be positively and negatively affected by its occurrence. The Zoo by itself is not expected to significantly affect the commercial and residential property values in the vicinity of the Park. However, the various redevelopment programs previously discussed, (BRA and Model City), combined with the presence of a major new facility like the Zoo could generate renewed interest and bring other new developments into the area. Taken all together, this could lead to general economic growth in the community. On a regional level, the project is expected to have a significant impact as a tourist attraction. In a report to the Legislature by the Special Commission on the Franklin Park Zoo and other Metropolitan Destrict Commission Zoological Facilities, it was observed that: 163 Environmental Impacts A good zoo has an important impact on business and tourism. In the United States each year more people visit zoos than attend all professional sports events combined. A major zoological facility at Franklin Park would be the sole attraction of this type in all New England. 42 Economic Research Associates has estimated that 70 percent of the Zoo visitors will be from the local area (within a 50 mile radius), while 20 percent will be from New England and 10 percent from outside New England. Thus close to 500, 000 visitors per year could be drawn to the Boston area from various remote locations. Although it is impossible to tell how many of these people would still come to this area if the Zoo were not built, it is clear that the additional tourists will have a significant impact on the regional economy. For example, the Boston Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1.5 million tourists visited the 43 City during 1972, and that each one spent an average of $40 in the area. Since visitors to the Zoo will come from many different locations, the economic impact of this project will be highest in the Boston area, but it will also be significant throughout the entire New England region. (1) Construction The contractor for the Zoo will be required to comply with the Executive Memorandum on Minority Hiring (Altshuler 44 Plan), which calls for 30 percent minority hiring trade by trade by 1974. Since the area surrounding the Zoo has a large minority population, it is anticipated that a significant portion of those jobs will be held by area residents. Between 250 and 300 construction jobs will be created by the Zoo expansion. In addition to direct employment, the construction phase will necessitate the purchase of building materials, equipment and services from local contractors. 164 Environmental Impacts (2) Operations The Zoo presently 3mploys approximately 71 persons in permanent jobs. Sixty of these are MDC employees, who qualified for their jobs and are paid according to the Massachusetts Civil Service System. The remaining eleven employees are BZS employees. The proposed new Zoo will support approximately 170 permanent employees representing an increase of nearly 100 jobs over the present level of employment. Peak season hiring will be used to supplement the permanent staff. (3) Funding At the present time, funds for the Franklin Park Zoo come from both the BZS and the MDC. The BZS is a private, non- profit organization and the MDC is a State-appointed Commission. Funds available to the BZS are from various sources; membership fees, straight donations, admission fees from the Children's Zoo, and fund-drive revenues. In addition to its private sources, the BZS receives from the MDC between $150,000 and $200,000 as an annual management fee. As a State Commission, the MDC is funded by the State, and its budget is appropriated annually by the Legislature. Exact figures for expenditures by both groups on the Franklin Park Zoo are not available, as the accounting procedures do not differentiate between the Franklin Park Zoo and the Stone Zoo in Stoneham. The combined figures do, however, give an indication of the relative amount of money contributed by each group. In the 1973 Fiscal Year, July 1, 1972 through AC. June 30, 1973, MDC expenditures at the two zoos totalled $796,857.91, plus the $150,000 BZS management fee. BZS total expenditures for the same period were $569, personnel at both zoos. 46 same period were $569,955. These totals include salaries paid to all 165 Environmental Impacts The entrance fee for the expanded Zoo facility has been calculated at the level that would make the Zoo self sustaining, assuming that the BZS and MDC contributions remain at their present levels. The importance of this assumption is reflected in the fact that with no additional expenditures by the MDC, there will be no increase in the number of tax dollars needed to support the proposed new Zoo facility. (o) Police and Fire Protection No large increase in the demand for police or fire protection is expected as a result of the proposed project. Buildings to be constructed on the site will comply with all relevant codes and regulations, and thus will not present any special danger or fire hazard. (The fabric used to cover the structures is fire resistant). The net effect on the fire department will be that of an expanded facility to be serviced. Firefighting and emergency access will be provided throughout the site. Also, because of the tremendous quantities of water used in Zoo operations, adequate water pressure for fire fighting purposes will be available throughout the site. Past experience has shown that vandalism has been kept to a minimum or virtually eliminated in areas that are well maintained, supervised and kept free of litter and possible missies. At the new Zoo, a basic concept of constant repair and clean-up will be practiced at all times. The presence of employees in public areas will increase security. Thus it is expected that the existing level of MDC police supervision at the Zoo site will be sufficient for expanded operations. If the expanded Zoo generates spin-off usage of adjacent Franklin Park areas as is expected, the amount of supervision by the City of Boston police may change from the present security level. The exact nature of this change cannot be estimated until it is known how densely the various park sections will be utilized. If in fact the usage increases sharply and public fear of the area declines, police supervision may also diminish. 166 Environmental Impacts (p) General Community and Governmental Reaction When the 1972 Franklin Park Zoo Feasibility Study was released, a great deal of public and governmental comment ensued. This was due to several design considerations including the proposal for a single Zoo pavilion spanning seven acres and the recommendation of the use of the Refectory Site for a 1200 car parking garage. Since that time, various meetings have been held between the BZS, the MDC, the project staff, the BRA, the Boston Model City Agency, the Mayor's Office, the Boston Parks Department and many other governmental agencies, citizen groups, and concerned individuals in an effort to anticipate and solve problems at an early stage. The project as presented in this report includes several major compromise solutions between these various interested parties, perhaps the most significant of which is the decision to use a satellite parking facility and a shuttle bus system rather than some form of adjacent parking. A point to be emphasized is that virtually all of the con- troversy about this project has centered on certain design concentrations, while the general concept of an expanded Zoo in Franklin Park has been well received. Appendix C contains selected letters dealing with the Zoo expansion. A meeting was held on August 24, 1973 to discuss the historical impact of the proposed project. The following organizations were invited to attend: The Boston Society of Landscape Architects; the Preservation Committee of the Boston Society of Architects; The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities; The Boston Landmarks Commission; the Massachusetts Historical Commission; The Sierra Club; the Arnold Arboretum; the Jamaica Hills Association; the Trustees of Reservations; the Dorchester Historical Society; and the New England Olmsted Sesquicentennial Committee. In addition, a number of individuals were invited including: Professor Charles Harris, the Chairman of the Harvard University Department of Landscape Architecture; Norman T. Newton, the Charles Eliot Professor of Landscape Architecture, Emeritus (Harvard University); and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, 167 Environmental Impacts a PhD candidate in History at the Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In addition to the project staff, those attending the meeting included two representatives from the Boston Landmarks Commission, two representatives of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Professor Newton, Cynthia Zaitzevsky, and a representative from the Boston Society of Landscape Architects who also is a partner in the firm of Olmsted Associates. A letter from the Chairman of the Olmsted Sesquicentennial Committee is enclosed in Appendix C. During this meeting, a brief summary of the historical development of Franklin Park was presented, followed by a discussion by the architects showing the chronology of the project design with respect to building and exhibit locations. The pros and cons of all the different design alternatives were presented, followed by the proposed project layout and landscaping scheme. There were no major objections to the proposed design as presented. The fact that the "Sausage" area will be used largely as a buffer from Circuit Drive met with general approval, as did the proposed exhibit usage of the Greeting. The major concern expressed about the Greeting centered on its value as a visual axis or panorama, and not on the historical usage as intended by Olmsted. Included in Appendix C are letters from the MDC Design Review Committee discussing the project as presented in late September, 1973, and a letter from Professor Emeritus Norman T. Newton describing his personal reaction to the project design, (q) Rodent Control Since the expanded Zoo will store large quantities of grain, hay, and other animal food items, it is expected that rodents will be attracted to the site. Presently, rodent control is handled by a private pest exterminator under contract to the MDC. This same procedure is anticipated for the expanded Zoo, and no problems are expected. 168 Environmental Impacts (r) Animal Security Many potentially dangerous animals will be located near a densely populated urban area, so it should be stressed that every effort has been taken to insure that the exhibits and animal holding areas are escape-proof. The dimensions of the moats and barriers have been taken from existing zoos where experience has shown them to be totally effective in restraining the animals. The cages and animal holding areas will be modern and equally secure. 2. Impact on the Olmsted Park System Since the project site is located in Franklin Park, which is part of the Olmsted Park System, the proposed Zoo expansion will have an impact on this historically significant park system. The development of both the Park and the "Emerald Necklace" as a whole were discussed previously, but several aspects of this development should be re- emphasized. The first is that Olmsted intended that Franklin Park would be used by residents of the entire Boston region, not just by those living nearby, as is the case presently. Secondly, he planned for the northern section of the Park to contain zoological exhibits, children's play areas, a music court, a deer park, and a long promenade area called the Greeting which was to be a meeting place for those arriving at the Park by carriage. In this way, he had placed "gregarious" activities in one section of the Park, leaving the remainder to be enjoyed on a more private and serene basis. The Park was well used in its early years, but as its popularity declined, numerous attempts were made to renew the public interest. These attempts included the construction of tennis courts, a golf course, and Scarboro Pond, as well as the provision of motorized tours of the Park in 1905. Over the years, however, the popularity of the Park has continued to drop to the extent that it is presently used primarily as an over-sized neighborhood park badly in need of maintenance. 169 Environmental Impacts The proposed expansion of the Zoo will attract many- people to the Franklin Park area who would not have come otherwise. Much as Olmsted intended, the project site will then have a high density- usage, which is expected to generate spin-off usage in nearby sections of the Park. In this sense then, the project is consistent with the intent of the original Olmsted plan. It is appropriate that a zoo should be part of a park. In fact, it is difficult to imagine any other realistic use of the project site that would consist3ntly attract people in sufficient numbers to increase the usage of the remainder of the Park. The Zoo expansion will alter one dominant feature of the original Olmsted Plan, in that the Greeting is intended for use as a panoramic animal display rather than a pedestrian and carriage promenade area. This means that the use of the Greeting is being changed, but its impact as a visual axis is not. It should also be pointed out that although there was an original Olmsted Plan for the project site, all development on the site was the result of zoo master plans developed at later dates. For example, the Greeting was built as a result of the 1911 Shurleff plan, although it was first presented in Olmsted's Franklin Park Plan. In order to make the project; site consistent with the Olmsted Plan, the site would have to be totally re-built, since very little of it presently exists as he had envisioned. In summary then, the Olmsted Park System is listed in the National Register of Historic Places because of its significance as "one of the Nation's outstanding examples of a multi-use open space and the landscape architect's finest design project in New England". As a major component of this park system, Franklin Park is presently utilized by a small fraction of the people it was intended to serve. The proposed Zoo expansion will attract many people to the Franklin Park 170 Environmental Impacts area, and thus is considered to be consistent with the intent of the original design, although it does alter certain specific site details. The most significant change will be to the Greeting area, which will no longer be a pedestrian corridor, but instead will be a panoramic animal display. However, although the use of the Greeting will change, its visual impact as a large open space (or park axis) will be retained. 3. Impact on the Zoo Itself (a) Animals It is important to recognize that a zoo has certain basic obligations to the wild animals it keeps in captivity. Although it is not generally possible to allow animals to seek out their own food and defend themselves, it is possible to promote as much interaction and play behavior as possible. In this project, the animal exhibits have been designed to be spacious, while the emphasis in animal selection has been to provide both the variety of species necessary for an exciting zoo and the number of specimens necessary for increased interaction and breeding. In this respect, the expanded Zoo will be a tremendous improvement over the existing facilities from the point of view of the animals themselves. People coming to view the animals will be treated as the introduced, extraneous element so as not to obscure the primary purpose of providing these natural surroundings. (b) Air Pollution Section VI A (lb) discussed the expected impact of the increased air pollution generated by Zoo traffic. One aspect of this impact will be experienced within the Zoo grounds by the animals on display. They would be exposed to the same concentrations of pollutants as the general public. Although there is no specific information available that deals with the effects of air pollution on specific species of African animals, it should be pointed out that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards were established by the EPA at levels that included consideration of pollutant effects on animal health. Since future pollutant concentrations in the Zoo area are expected to be low, no danger to the animal population is anticipated. 171 Environmental Impacts One pollutant of special concern to animals is lead, which enters both humans and animals during eating, drinking, and breathing. This is because all natural food and water contain small quantities of lead, but most importantly, urban air contains varying concentrations of atmospheric lead, largely as a result of automobile emissions. Although the concentration of atmospheric lead falls off sharply with increasing distance from a roadway, there is still a significant amount of lead present in urban ambient air. At the Bronx Zoo in New York, autopsies on dead animals and blood or fecal samples from live animals have been analyzed to determine the impact of ambient lead on the Zoo specimens. Although this study has not been published, the results indicate that of the animals kept outdoors, only the large cats and primates had developed high levels of lead, some approaching clinical toxicity. Hoof stock and other species were not significantly affected. The fecal lead levels from the large cats kept outdoors were ten times higher than those kept indoors. Similarly, the lead levels in the blood of the outdoor cats were two times higher than those kept indoors. In no case, however, has the death or sickness of any animal been attributed to lead poisoning from ambient air, so zoo 47 operations are continuing without change. In order to relate this information to the proposed project it should be noted that the expected impact from ambient lead at the Franklin Park Zoo is expected to be significantly lower than that at the Bronx Zoo for two main reasons. The first is that the proposed Zoo does not have the tremendous volume of automobile traffic along its borders as is the case at the Bronx Zoo, which is bordered on three sides by heavily traveled New York City arteries, including two major expressways. Secondly, all Zoo animals will be indoors approximately six months of the year. Althougn there is no representative lead air pollution data for comparison between the two different zoos, it is reasonable to assume that the animals kept at the Franklin Park Zoo will be exposed to significantly lower lead concentrations than those at the Bronx 172 Environmental Impacts Zoo, and that Franklin Park animals will, therefore, not be endangered by the ambient lead levels. The actual design of the proposed Zoo does allow for the possibility that if for any reason the lead concentrations found in certain Zoo specimens approach toxic levels at some point in the future, the animals can be moved to indoor exhibits very easily, which will significantly reduce any further exposures to ambient lead. (In addition, there will be no lead-based paint used in any of the animal areas, since this has proved to be a lead source at other zoos). (c) Noise As discussed previously, the proposed project will not significantly affect the general traffic noise level in the vicinity of the Zoo except on Sundays. Table 26 shows that the noise levels calculated for the Zoo grounds are quite low compared to those at receptors near the major roadways. This noise level within the Zoo will be experienced by both the general public and the animals on display. Scientific literature dealing with the effects of noise on laboratory and farm animals is not extensive, but can provide some clues regarding the possible effects on Zoo animals. This evidence suggests that many animals can tolerate short periods of intense sound, and can become conditioned over long periods to peak sound intensities up to 120 48 decibels. In general, animals appear to adjust quite well to noisy environ- ments. It is thus expected that there will be no adverse impact on the Zoo animals from local traffic noise because the levels are very low compared to animal tolerance levels. (d) Plants and Vegetation The new Zoo will introduce many new plants and trees to the project site and will expose existing vegetation to the potential for increased animal and human abuse, so there is a risk that vegetative mortality may be higher than planned in this large scale undertaking. Plants are being selected based on many considerations, including tolerance of low light levels, freedom from insects and disease, and general temperature sensitivity. With any type of plant material, insects and disease will be a problem from time to time. Due to the nature 173 Environmental Impacts of the design concept (localized plant "pockets" and beds), control will be greatly enhanced. It is also intended that a holding and treat- ment area for plant material will be established so that as nearly as possible, the plants will be free from problems prior to installation. An important aspect of interior air circulation will be the control of fungus and mildew in the exhibits. This will be accomplished by the use of fan equipment in problem areas for simple re-circulation of air. In the event of a power failure, emergency power generation capability is available which, in conjunction with portable heating units, should be sufficient to maintain minimum temperatures until electrical service returns. There is also no anticipated problem to the exterior vegetation from reflective heat from pavilion surfaces. This is because the plants and trees being chosen for these outdoor areas are hardy varieties specially selected for their abilities to withstand temperature extremes. In summary, although the proposed Zoo expansion will be utilizing interior vegetation on a scale that has not been attempted before, and although the existing site vegetation will be exposed to increased abuse, many precautions are being taken to insure that any damage or loss of vegetation is minimized. B. Alternatives 1. No Action This alternative would leave the Franklin Park Zoo in its 49 present condition, with no expansion whatsoever. Funds allocated for the expansion would be re-distributed by the State Legislature. All other aspects of present Zoo operations would continue without change. (a) Positive Impacts There are a number of positive impacts or benefits associated with this alternative. First, since there will not be an 174 Environmental Impacts expansion, $8,000,000 of appropriated funds would not be spent and would reduce State expenditures by the same amount. In addition, none of the adverse environmental impacts connected with the project would be experienced. There are a number of positive impacts or benefits associated with this alternative. First, since there would not be an expansion, funds allocated by the Legislature would not be spent, so State expenditures would be reduced by $8,000,000. In addition, none of the adverse environmental impacts connected with the project would be experienced: There would be no increase in traffic generation over that level expected from the existing Zoo. The local and regional air pollution levels would not be increased by Zoo traffic. There would not be an increased Zoo demand for utility services (water, sewage treatment, electricity and gas). The 16.25 acre "Sausage Area" would remain undisturbed park land. The open spaces, (and most noteably the Greeting), would remain open on the Zoo site. No trees would be destroyed on the Zoo site. Local residents would continue to have a free neighborhood park for their enjoyment. There would not be changes made to the Zoo portion of the Olmsted Park System, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 175 Environmental Impacts Since there would be no construction operations, there will also not be any disruption of traffic, increased dust levels, or possible construction noise impacts. A relatively small number of animals would be kept in captivity, rather than the larger numbers planned for the new facility. (This is a positive impact only to those individuals and organizations who oppose the concept of a Zoo). (b) Negative Impacts There are also a number of negative impacts or costs associated with the "no action" alternative. Perhaps the largest is that the City of Boston (and the entire New England region) would remain without a major zoological facility as an educational and recreational resource. The fact that there is a need for a regional zoo is quite apparent. The Boston area presently has three zoos. The largest is the Franklin Park Zoo followed by the Walter D. Stone Memorial Zoo in Stoneham, and the Blue Hills Trailside Museum which is a very small zoo near Milton. As of June, 1973, the total animal specimens 50 on display at these three zoos was 1154. Although only 156 of these animals were located in Franklin Park at that time, many birds were being kept at the Stone Zoo during construction of the new Aviary. The actual number of specimens designated for Franklin Park was approx- imately 421. In contrast, selected zoos in other large cities had the 51 following numbers of specimens in 1972: The New York Zoological Park (Bronx Park) 3,619 total specimens. Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, 2, 990 specimens. The Pittsburgh Zoological Gardens, 2, 102 specimens. Columbus Zoological Gardens, 3, 953 specimens. 176 Environmental Impacts Perhaps more indicative than these numbers is the fact that many of the most popular animal exhibits are missing at Franklin Park. For example, there are no giraffe, hippopotamus, monkey, lion, gorilla, or reptile exhibits, to name just a few. In 1969, the Special Commission established by the Legislature to study the Franklin Park Zoo and other MDC zoos gave the following reasons in favor of a major zoological facility in the Greater Boston Area. A zoo is a major part of a fully developed urban life, one of the few types of facilities that can offer an educational and recreational experience for the entire family. . . One only needs to visit a good zoo to observe the wholesome recreational potential available. Major cities throughout the country and the world have important zoological facilities. The Commission has never encountered even one witness who has seen a worse zoo than at Franklin Park. A good zoo contributes to the stature of a city just as do a good symphony, library and professional basketball team. Annual zoo attendance on a world-wide basis now probably exceeds a staggering 300 million people, yet a good major zoo cannot be seen in New England. A decent zoo facility at Boston would avail to the people of all New England a recreational and educational experi- ence they have been missing which is available to residents throughout the rest of the United States and most of the world. A new zoo in Boston is necessary to keep pace with the many cities which have long had them, recently built them or are now planning them. ^ Other costs associated with the "no action" alternative include the following: The African theme is part of a total BZS program for the three MDC zoos, which would then have to be altered. Animals at the Zoo would continue to be kept in outdated and often inadequate exhibit areas. 177 Environmental Impacts This major facility would not be built in a section of the City badly in need of development. Other associated losses would include: the economic loss to the area of visitor purchases of goods and services; a loss of both construction jobs and operational jobs; and a more intangible loss of possible renewed interest in (and reduced fear of) an area often avoided and considered dangerous by the general public. Franklin Park would remain lightly used, as there would be no spin-off usage as a result of the new Zoo. The upkeep of the existing Zoo would remain the same, so there would be no additional manpower or money for badly needed grounds improvements. 2. Build at Another Location Another alternative to the proposed action is to build the Zoo at a different location. Since the Zoo would probably require partial funding by the Commonwealth, new legislation would have to be enacted, and a new budget would have to be voted for the project, as such funds are not transferable. The existing Zoo at Franklin Park would be closed if a larger scale Zoo were built elsewhere in the Boston area. (a) Positive Impacts The new Zoo site could be located in a downtown, city, suburban, or regional location. There is virtually no possibility of a downtown zoo in Boston because of the existing land use. Possible locations would include the Commons or the Public Gardens, but it is obvious that there would be tremendous opposition to any such proposals. The best possibility for a city location for the Zoo would be in Franklin Park. In fact, it is quite remarkable that this option even exists in a city the size of Boston. There are, of course, many possible locations for a suburban or regional zoo in the Boston Metropolitan area. Depending 178 Environmental Impacts on where such a zoo would be located, the cost of acquiring the necessary land (100 to 150 acres, allowing for fdture expansion), could easily exceed $1,000,000, thus decreasing the funds for zoo development. It is obvious that the possibility of a large recreational facility like a zoo could generate a significant amount of opposition at any location in the Boston region. The type of environmental impacts described for this project would be applicable at other locations, but the fact that the proposed project does not sharply alter the existing land use in Franklin Park does help to reduce the magnitude of the impacts in that area. This, of course, would not be true for a different location. The possibility of other locations for the Zoo has been investigated in the past. A 1967 study for the MDC by the firm Perry Dean Hepburn and Stewart reached the following conclusions: Land area available, number of people served, public transportation, range of exhibits, experiences possible, and opportunity for growth were indicated as the major site criteria for locating a zoo. The locations of downtown, city, suburban, and regional zoo types were tested against these criteria as were site alternatives in the Massachusetts area corresponding to these locations. In both cases, the zoo in a large park within the city answered these critera best. . . Franklin Park appears to be an admirable site in spite of the loss of its direct subway connection. . . and it is certainly the best in city location available. 53 The Legislative Special Commission studying the Zoo reported in 1969 that the new zoo facility should be located in Franklin Park. The most significant reasons for this conclusion are: (a) space is available, (b) accessibility to maximum population, (c) new zoo facilities would enhance the Model Cities area, and (d) public argument over selection of another site on poor city land or in a suburban residential area would delay progress for years. 179 54 Environmental Impacts In addition, the Boston Zoological Society evaluated the following location options for a new zoo: Locate the Zoo outside the Metropolitan Boston area where it would have ample acreage (100-150 vs. Franklin Park's 50-70) and major highway access, and would be removed from the public image of the "inner city". Expand Stone Zoo and abandon the Franklin Park site. Expansion would have to be across the street from the current location. Construct a new complete facility at Franklin Park as recommended by the Perry Dean and Stewart proposal, including Long Crouch Woods into the site, bringing the total acreage up to about 100 acres. Construct a partial exhibit at Franklin Park, staying roughly within current bounds, and consider Stone Zoo as a complimentary exhibit. This could be achieved by placing certain continental exhibits at Franklin Park (Africa, Asia and the Poles) and the remaining at Stone Zoo (North and South American and Australia. ) The BZS decided on a modified version of the last alternative for a number of reasons, as outlined in a letter included as Appendix C . The conclusion of that letter is as follows: 180 Environmental Impacts The Society's decison to recommend the project at Franklin Park Zoo in its current size, scheme and location is consistent with most successful zoos in the country today. With the exception of commercial "animal park" type exhibits, most of the great zoos are located in or contiguous to the heavy population centers. Success is spelled in many ways for zoos, but certainly one of the most important is the number of people it serves and the ease with which they can attend. Several of the benefits associated with a different zoo location would be experienced at the Franklin Park Zoo site. These include: The 16.25 acre "Sausage" would be unchanged. Current land use would remain the same within the Zoo site. Local residents would still have a free neighborhood park for their enjoyment. There would not be changes made to the Zoo portion of the Olmsted Park System, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Other benefits will be realized wherever the new Zoo is located. These include: There would be a major zoological facility in the New England region as a recreational and educational resource. The animals would be kept in modern, spacious exhibits. There would be an economic benefit to the Zoo area from the sale of goods and services to Zoo visitors, as well as from increased jobs in construction and operation. Parking accommodations would be easier to provide because of the availability of more land. The new Zoo design would be less constrained, in that a larger site with more useful topography, vegetation, and soils could possibly be located. 181 Environmental Impacts (b) Negative Impacts The construction of a zoo at a location other than at the proposed site would have several adverse impacts on the Franklin Park area. These include: A zoo has been in Franklin Park since 1912. The historical significance of this fact is very important, and should not be ignored. The school children and local residents of the low-income project area would not have inexpensive and convenient access to a major educational and cultural facility. A major investment would not be made in a section of the City where development is badly needed. The economic loss to local businesses, as well as the loss of possible construction and operations jobs would be very significant. The new Zoo facility would probably reduce the attendance at whatever exhibits remain at Franklin Park. If the attendance drops, it is possible that funds for manpower and maintenance would either drop or remain the same, which would lead to continued deterioration of park facilities. This would also mean a possible drop in Franklin Park usage, which is already too low. In fact, in order to fully utilize Franklin Park, some other high density usage would have to be proposed for the area which in all likelihood would have many of the same environmental impacts as the proposed project. The Franklin Park area would continue to be avoided by the general public because of the fear of crime. In addition to the cost just described, many of the adverse environmental impacts associated with a zoo at Franklin Park would shift to the new location. The difference would be one of magnitude. Possible considerations are: Wherever the site is chosen, there would be an increase in both local and regional air pollution levels due to private transportation 182 Environmental Impacts zoo access. If the air is relatively clean at the new site, this impact could be significant. Depending on the existing traffic mix (i. e. , the amount of truck traffic) near the new site, increased traffic from zoo visitors could increase noise levels. There would be some increase in traffic congestion wherever a major facility- like a zoo is located. Wherever the zoo is located, there would be an increased demand for utility services, (electricity, gas, water, and sewage treatment). The existing land use of the new site would change to one that would very likely sharply increase the density of usage. There may be a loss of trees and vegetation, depending on the amount of open space at the chosen site. Construction operations would increase the dust levels, disturb traffic, and possibly increase noise levels. It is very likely that any site chosen outside the City of Boston would attract fewer visitors than projected for an in- city location. This loss of visitors would increase as the site locations is moved further away from Boston. This is an economic loss as well as an educational and recreational loss for the whole region. 3. Modify the Project (a) No Parking Garage This alternative provides that no major parking garage or local street and surface lot parking would be made available to Zoo visitors in an effort to discourage private transportation trips into the Zoo. This would necessitate a significant expansion of the existing public transit service to the area as well as a complete public information program to promote the use of mass transit. 183 Environmental Impacts The major objection to this alternative arises from the fact that in zoos throughout the country, roughly 90 percent of the access is by private transportation, even when good transit connections are available. Families and groups simply prefer the convenience of travelling directly to the Zoo in a car to the possibility of numerous connections on a transit system. Aside from being less expensive under average circumstances, a car keeps everyone together, is often more comfortable than public transit, and allows families to carry picnic lunches and other bulky items without problems. This 90 percent modal split could change if the thinking of the general public changes, but this kind of alteration of basic orientations takes time to develop. It is expected that the first resull of the lack of private vehicle access to the Zoo would be a significani reduction in attendance, which would upset the economic feasibility ol the project. It is also clear that many groups would try to drive to the Zoo anyway, hoping to find parking within walking distance. This would have obvious adverse effects on local traffic congestion and residential parking availability. (Fenway Park is an example of an attraction with an excellent subway connection, yet the streets are lined with parked vehicles everywhere within at least a one-half mile radius during baseball games). It is also imporant to re-emphasize that the project site is located in an area of Boston avoided by most people because of a fear of crime. This fear would tend to further reduce attendance if the only access is through public transit. In summary, the combination of increased local traffic and parking impacts, the time required for rapid transit expansions, plus the expected reduction in attendance all serve to make this an unsatisfactory alternative. (b) Alternative Locations for Parking This alternative examines five basic parking options: 184 Environmental Impacts Option I: Utilize existing parking in the Zoo vicinity. Option II: Build an adjacent garage, with overflow handled by local streets and parking lots. Option HI: Build an adjacent garage but supplement this with a satellite lot linked to the Zoo by some other means of transporation. Option IV: Build no adjacent garage, and rely on a satellite lot plus existing parking near the Zoo grounds. Option V : Build no adjacent garage and rely solely on a satellite lot. This is the recommended parking solution. (1) Option I With this alternative, no additional off street parking would be provided for Zoo visitors. As discussed in Section IV A (2d) there are approximately 970 available parking spaces near the existing Zoo, in addition to 490 more spaces that are restricted at this time. The construction of the new Zoo will result in the loss of 160 spaces from the gravel lot in the Sausage, as well as 100 spaces along Glen Lane. This would leave 710 available parking spaces for both Zoo visitors and local residents, which would provide sufficient parking only 200 days out of the year, assuming that all spaces are used by Zoo visitors. If the existing White Stadium parking lot is made available, (300 spaces), along with Pierpont Road (190 spaces), and parking is allowed on both sides of Circuit Drive from Pierpont Road to Glen Lane (260 spaces), the available total comes to 1538 spaces. This would satisfy all weekday demand, and weekend demand except for the months of May, June, July, and August, again assuming no usage of the spaces by local residents. In summary, this option does not present a viable alternative. Without even considering other land use demand, sufficient spaces could not be provided for weekend attendance during spring and summer months. 185 - Pierpont Road A three-story structure for 1200 cars could be built along Pierpont Road, but once again, the location within the Park is a significant problem. - Boch Rambler Site This site would present a viable alternative if at least 600 or 700 spaces could be provided. It has good access possibilites, and is located directly across from the Zoo entrance. However, part of this location is already planned as a Family Life Center by the Boston Model City Agency. Pounds have been allocated, preliminary designs are in progress, and suggestions for changes in these plans have met with strong opposition. - Peabody Circle A small garage could be built at Peabody Circle, but this alternative would surely lead to opposition because of its prominence directly in front of the Zoo entrance, in addition to other environmental considerations. In order to provide supplemental parking for any of these options, various changes are necessary to the existing parking spaces in the Zoo area. For example, during the summer peak periods, parallel parking could be permitted along both sides of Circuit Drive, and the White Stadium and Pierpont Road area could be opened for regulated parking using the existing capacities. These changes also present problems that cannot be disregarded, such as congestion, safety, and aesthetic considerations along Circuit Drive if two lanes are used for parking. In summary, it can be said that the adverse impacts associated with parking garage location and the adverse impacts resulting from the provision of supplemental parking combine to eliminate this option from serious consideration. 186 Environmental Impacts (2) Option II With this option, a parking garage would be built near the Zoo, with overflow cars using the existing on and off-street spaces. There are a number of possible locations for a nearby parking garage, although many of these possibilities are not very probable. It is felt that any parking structure within Franklin Park would meet with significant opposition because of the use of park land. Constructing a garage site along Seaver Street is also a poor alternative due to the residential land use and traffic service capabilities of the roadway. The following garage locations near the Zoo were evaluated: the Refectory; White Stadium; Pierpont Road; the Boch Rambler Site; and Peabody Circle. These locations are shown in Figure 34. - The Refectory A 1200 car garage could be built at the Refectory site, as proposed in the Feasibility Report. This garage would have access from three different street elevations because of its unique location. In terms of access, proximity to the Zoo entrance, and projected needs, this is a very good location. However, in terms of aesthetics, historical significance, existing land use, and other environmental considerations, a parking garage at this location would have many adverse effects. Considerable opposition has been voiced against this alternative. - White Stadium If land could be made available, a parking structure adjacent to White Stadium would be a good alternative. Recently this area was closed to the general public because of problems associated with drug traffic, but a paved lot presently exists with space for 300 vehicles. Although this location has several advantages, it is felt that it would generate the same opposition as the Refectory site because of the location within the Park. 187 Environmental Impacts (3) Option III The previous section discussed possible site locations for an adjacent garage. With this alternative, the adjacent garage would be supplemented by a remote satellite lot connected to the Zoo by some other means of transportation. This concept was dropped in favor of Option V because of the site location problems previously discussed, as well as the complications arising from having two widely separated parking areas. For example, traffic congestion problems could be expected near the Zoo when the adjacent lot fills up and visitors have to be directed to the satellite lot. (4) Option IV With this alternative, there would be adjacent garage, but there would be a satellite garage supplemented by existing parking near the Zoo grounds. This alternative was dropped in favor of total satellite parking because of the expected impact on local traffic congestion and parking availability due to the number of visitors who would drive around searching for free parking places near the Zoo. (5) Option V As discussed previously, this alternative has been selected after many meetings and considerable joint effort between the project staff, the BRA, the Mayor's Office, Boston Model Cities, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, and the Boston Parks Department. The impacts associated with this location and the transportation link to the Zoo ground have been incorporated into the various sections of this report. It should be noted that several alternative modes of transportation to the Zoo were evaluated before the selection of the double decker bus system. One major consideration in this selection process was that except for the various bus systems, all other alternatives require large initial expenditures for guideways and rail- beds. Since there is always uncertainty in any attendance forecasts, 189 Environmental Impacts any alternative that allows for future modifications to either increase or decrease capacity once actualdemand is known can be considered quite desirable at this point in the planning process. When the Zoo attendance has stabilized, it is conceivable that the shuttle buses could be sold and a monorail system constructed with more assurance of success than if it is built now. The shuttle bus system can thus be either a permanent or a temporary solution. The following alternative transportation modes were evaluated to shuttle visitors between the satellite parking lot and the Zoo: - Double Decker Bus This alternative is the most economical, as it could be operated at a fare of only $. 10 per person. The buses could travel along existing roadways, so there would be no additional construction requirements. In addition, the vehicles would be attractive from a novelty standpoint and would provide scenic views of the Park, especially from the upper deck. Disadvantages include noise, air pollution, potential for highway accidents, and susceptibility to traffic congestion and adverse weather. - Standard Bus These vehicles have many of the advantages and disadvantages of the double decker buses, although they do lack the novelty and are 30 percent more expensive to operate. - Minibus This alternative appears to be the worst option financially, as it could cost from three to five times more than the recommended system. This difference is largely due to lack of capacity and the subsequent need for more vehicles. Other advantages and disadvantages are the same as those discussed previously. 190 Environmental Impacts - Light Rail This alternative is not attractive financially without a minimum 25 cent fare, and even then it could lose money if children are given reduced rates. These vehicles could be stored at the Forest Hills MBTA yards and might eventually link to the proposed Green Line - "replacement service" proposed by the BTPR when the Orange Line elevated is removed. The advantages from this system include no direct air pollution, fairly good safety, a rail-bed with a low profile, good schedule adherence and a separate right-of-way (which avoids congestion problems). Disadvantages include high noise levels, delays from at-grade roadway crossings, possible safety hazards to both pedestrians and automobiles due to lack of grade separation, moderate potential for problems caused by weather, and unsightly electric poles and wires. - Minirail This alternative is also not attractive without at least a 25 cent fare due to the large capital expense of a double-tracked or looped guideway, plus the cost of the number of trains required for adequate capacity. Advantages include lack of noise, no direct air pollution, modern design, use of an elevated guideway not subject to traffic congestion or accident hazards, good schedule adherence, good safety record, and significant attraction due to novelty and scenic views. Disadvantages include cost and general aesthetics due to the elevated guideway within Franklin Park. - Monorail This alternative is a strong third choice after double decker and standard buses, and appears financially feasible except under a $. 10 fare. Advantages include the lack of direct air pollution, noise, safety hazards, congestion problems and weather problems, in addition to very good schedule adherence and great attraction due to novelty and scenic views. Disadvantages include cost and general 191 Environmental Impacts aesthetic considerations due to the elevated guideway through Franklin Park. It should be noted that because of a monorail's high capacity, it is feasible to operate a shuttle using a single train over a single beamway. This reduces capital and operating expenses over the minirail while improving aesthetics. (c) Build a Smaller Zoo at Franklin Park This alternative considers a reduction in the magnitude of the Zoo expansion. This would involve either a renovation of existing buildings, or the construction of new facilites on a smaller scale, still utilizing the funds allocated by the State Legislature. Renovation of the existing buildings at the Franklin Park Zoo is only partially feasible. The Children's Zoo could be renovated, but the Elephant House and Lion House would not be worth repairing because of their age and old-fashioned design. The Range Area is adequate, but does leave much to be desired in terms of animal mobility and exhibit concepts. The environmental impacts associated with this alternative are the same as those for the proposed project, except for the alteration of the Greeting. It is assumed that a reduction in the size of the Zoo program would allow the designers to locate their exhibits so as to leave the Greeting as an unchanged axis, if that was desired. All other impacts change only in magnitude, assuming that a reduction in the number and types of exhibits will also bring about a reduction in annual attendance. The exact nature of the change in the Zoo program would depend on which environmental problem (or problems) associated with the proposed project needed to be eliminated or scaled down. If this alternative were adopted it would continue the piecemeal development of the Zoo which has created many problems over the years. A significant reduction in the Zoo program would thus be highly undesirable from this standpoint. A minor change in the proposed project would only slightly alter the general environmental impacts as discussed, and therefore, these impacts will not be re-stated. is: Environmental Impacts (d) Alter the Site Plan This alternative utilizes the same basic resources as the proposed project, but orients them differently on the site. There are, of course, many possible building and exhibit orientations, but only the most plausible will be discussed. During the development of the proposed project, eleven different site plans were studied in detail by the project team, in addition to many minor variations of each plan. The first considered one huge 6. 5 acre pavilion which covered all indoor exhibits under one roof. Although this concept was feasible, it was rejected because of aesthetic as well as engineering considerations. The other design alternatives dealt with four separate exhibit pavilions, each with its outdoor exhibit area extending outward from the building perimeter, with some type of service connector running underground between the buildings. The important factors that went into the evaluation of each alternative included the following, (in no particular order): General aesthetic layout (i. e. , architecturally, how would it look?). How would Zoo visitors circulate from building to building, from exhibit to exhibit ? How easily could animals be shifted from their holding facilities to either outdoor or indoor exhibits ? How did the service facilities interconnect, and how efficient were they? How much earth and rock required removal? How many trees would be destroyed? How could the topography be best utilized for exhibit purposes ? 193 Environmental Impacts How did the plan relate to the historic setting within Franklin Park? To what extent would the Greeting be changed ? How well is the body of the Zoo isolated from the outside urban area? Figure 35 shows four of these design alternatives. It should be noted that the buildings are shown only as "bubbles. " Their exact shape and orientation were not fixed at this stage of the design. These four designs were selected because they best represent the major variations that were examined. Other alternatives were very similar in concept to at least one of these four. Figure 35A shows the four separate buildings grouped closely together to the west of the Greeting, with their outdoor exhibit areas extending outward. (The Veldt and part of the Desert outdoor exhibit areas lie across the Greeting). In addition, the Children's Zoo is relocated to the present Range Area. Although this design would be convenient from service and public circulation viewpoints, it was rejected because it was too cramped (i. e. , too much was being done in too small a space). In addition, it was felt that one large cluster of buildings would make the site unbalanced and unattractive. Figure 35B shows the next alternative, which placed the exhibit buildings alternately along the Greeting, with the outdoor areas extending across this Zoo axis. This provided very convenient linear service axis and public circulation, much as in the previous design, but the exhibit buildings would have been too visible and would have extended too far into the Greeting. Figure 35C shows how these buildings were pushed back from the Greeting, and all placed together on one side. This was more difficult in terms of service access, (although still feasible), but once again, the site had too much structure on one side and became unbalanced. 194 Environmental Impacts In addition, public circulation became a problem, since the visitors would have proceeded down the exhibits, only to come to a dead-end several thousand feet from the Zoo exit. This design also did not allow adequate outdoor exhibit area without major alterations to the vegetation and topography. Figure 35D shows how the buildings were once again put on alternate sides of the Greeting, only this time they were spaced further apart, with the outdoor exhibit areas extending away from the Greeting. This design encroached less on the Greeting than the others, but the buildings were difficult to orient and the terrain was bad for certain exhibits. For example, the Veldt outdoor area would have been on a hillside, whereas a flat terrain was desirable. The other design alternatives were variations on these four main concepts. The proposed project is actually a modification of the fourth, as can be seen by comparing Figure 2 with Figure 35D. One point that became clear during this design process was that there was no way to avoid some alteration of the Greeting. It was simply too long and too wide to avoid completely. (It covers roughly one-seventh of the existing site). It became necessary to design the Zoo so that outdoor exhibit areas would be on portions of the Greeting. In a sense, instead of a long vista populated by humans, the designs were providing a panoramic view of many animals. With the natural drop in elevation of the Greeting (10 feet) and using planting as screening it became possible to let visitors cross this mall without being seen by those entering the Zoo. The final project design represents a refinement of these concepts. It can thus be said that the proposed project design represents the best of many different site plans, and that it best meets the major design criteria that were discussed previously, (e) Change the Type of Exhibit This alternative would replace the African continent theme of the proposed project with one representing animals and vegetation from climates more compatible with that of New England. This Zoo 196 Environmental Impacts would still be located in Franklin Park, and all funding aspects would remain the same. (1) Positive Impacts One benefit of this alternative would be the possible reduction in size and complexity of the indoor exhibits (and thus the structures), since many of the animals would be from northern climates and could be displayed outdoors during cold weather. If the theme were to be truly North American, there would still be a need for indoor exhibit areas for the less hardy animals. In addition, there would be a definite necessity to heat the visitor circulation areas as well as the animal holding areas if the Zoo were to operate 365 days each year and the animals are to remain healthy. A realistic estimate of the cost and energy savings from this type of exhibit change cannot be made at this time, as these factors are heavily dependent on the exact zoological program that is selected. Another benefit of this alternative would be that the Zoo animals and exhibits would be more in keeping with the character of Franklin Park than are African exhibits. Although the pro- posed project will utilize as much as existing terrain and vegetation as possible in the outdoor exhibit layouts, it is clear that the site would be a much more natural setting for North American animals, for example, than it would be for African desert or tropical forest species. One other factor that might be considered a benefit from this alternative is that the attendance would drop because of lack of many of the most popular animal exhibits (a large majority of which come from Africa) in addition to the elimination of many indoor exhibits, (which allow visitors to attend during bad weather). With reduced attendance, there would be an associated drop in problems concerning parking, air pollution, traffic congestion, and so forth. Other benefits include: - The Greeting could be left unchanged because the reduced sizes of the structures needed 197 Environmental Impacts for indoor exhibits would permit more latitude for open space planning. - Animals and vegetation would be less sensitive to the loss of heat during a power failure. In general this alternative could mean slightly- lower construction and operating costs, reduced attendance, lower energy needs, a more natural setting, and more open space possibilities. (2) Negative Impacts One major drawback of this alternative has already been discussed as if it were a benefit, and that is the fact that a change in exhibit themes will result in a reduction in attendance because of the lack of the very popular African exhibits (the elephant, lion, giraffe, monkey, gorilla, and so forth). In addition, the proposed Zoo expects to draw a significant number of people during the winter months and during bad weather because of the presence of the indoor exhibits. Although it is true that any major expansion of the existing Zoo will increase the present attendance levels significantly, it is also very likely that an African exhibit would draw more visitors than any other theme. This loss of attendance would mean reduced trip generation and therefore less of the vehicle generated problems (air pollution, congestion, etc) but it would also mean an economic loss to the surrounding community as well as the whole New England region. More intangible would be the educational or recreational loss if the New England region continues to have access to only part of the "complete zoological experience". With year-round exhibits of African animals at Franklin park and animals from northern climates at the Stone Zoo (as is presently planned) the region will have significant zoological potential. 198 Environmental Impacts The history of the Franklin Park Zoo has been one of piecemeal development. If a reduced zoological program is chosen for the proposed expansion, this history will be continued. This would mean that at some future date (at another site), a Zoo with African exhibits would have to be designed and built (at significantly increased costs), if the region is ever to have access to a complete zoological program. 199 VII MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A feeling for the extent to which the project has been modified in order to minimize environmental impacts can be seen by comparing the proposed project with the September, 1972 Feasibility Study. Changes have been made since that time which were not environmental in nature, but a great many other modifications were undertaken that do minimize the adverse environmental impact of the expanded Zoo. As discussed previously, numerous meetings were held with concerned governmental agencies, citizen groups, and individuals in an effort to discover and then remedy any items of concern. Because of this consideration of environmental problems early in the planning process, it was possible to make significant modifications before the project entered the final schematic design stage. Many different site layouts were examined before the recommended scheme was selected. The following is a summary of various changes to the project that have reduced environmental impacts: Pavilions were located in existing open areas, thus minimizing the destruction of trees and shrubs. Existing trees and terrain were utilized where possible for both the exhibits and the general landscaping. The pavilion floors were depressed below grade in order to facilitate berming, to conserve energy, to balance cut and fill volumes, and to reduce the vertical height of the buildings as perceived by the Zoo visitor from the outside. Plantings are planned at selected locations on the pavilion perimeters to block reflected sunlight and divert cold winds from the surface. No buildings have been planned for the "Sausage" area. Exhibits in that area will be viewed from elevated walkways which will wind through the trees without altering the natural canopy. The "Sausage" area will be screened from Circuit Drive traffic by selective plantings where necessary. 200 Several areas on the "Sausage" will be open to the public free of charge for picnics and relaxation. An attempt has been made to balance cut and fill operations so that trucking of fill will be kept to a minimum. Although the Greeting area has been modified, the length of the visual axis is still relatively intact. Buildings have been pushed as far as possible from the edge of the Greeting, with the open space being utilized to provide a striking panorama of animals as the visitor enters the Zoo. The existing Children's Zoo and Range Area have been incorporated into the design of the expanded facility. All service and delivery vehicles will enter the Zoo at the existing service area. Distribution within the Zoo will be accomplished by Zoo vehicles. This will minimize community traffic and noise impacts from these vehicles. Manure from unrestricted animals will not be incinerated, thus reducing the air pollution potential of the project. Storm water from the pavilion roofs will be detained in troughs around each building. These detention areas, in conjunction with the system of ponds and water moats are designed to avoid flooding during heavy storms. The feasibility of using this collected runoff water for interior irrigation is currently being investigated. Every effort will be made to keep existing healthy vegetation alive by limiting excavation to the drip line of large trees where possible, by protecting the vegetation from the animals, and by ongoing maintenance to keep problems like soil compaction around the tree roots under control. Experts in the field of indoor plants have been consulted to insure maximum survival of the interior and exterior vegetation, which is being selected based on specific limitations posed by the design and general climatic locations of the project. 201 The Zoo will obtain its water connection from a main in Blue Hill Avenue, thus avoiding 4000 feet of excavation and piping to the nearest available source near Morton Street. This represents a significant reduction in traffic, noise, and general aesthetic impacts. The existing Zoo will remain open during construction operations, so public access will remain unchanged. The parking solution now utilizes a previously planned commuter parking facility instead of a garage built solely for Zoo visitors. This solution avoids the use of park land and other controversial locations. The location of the shuttle bus service at the Forest Hills Station may encourage more rapid transit usage among Zoo visitors. Many different parking locations and people mover systems were evaluated before selecting the recom- mended system. This evaluation process involved the joint efforts of many different agencies. Every effort has been made to minimize energy consumption. Thus there is one central heating and cooling facility, heat recovery systems are part of the pavilion exhaust cycles, vents have been strategically placed to recirculate interior warm air, berms and plantings are used for heat retention and wind reflection, hardy vegetation species are being selected that do not require tropical temperatures, and only the people walkways are to be cooled during the summer months. An emergency power generating system will be provided to protect the animals and plants during extensive power failures. The large columns and statues located on opposite ends of the Greeting have been incorporated into the the project design. 202 VIII WRITTEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNITY REACTIONS As prescribed in State environmental control regulations, copies of this draft environmental impact report have been submitted for review to the following Massachusetts agencies: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attorney General Metropolitan Area Planning Council State Clearinghouse Present procedures in the Commonwealth are for the State Clearinghouse to forward copies of the draft report to other agencies not mentioned above who may have an interest in the project. 203 FOOTNOTES 1. The Code of Federal Regulations in Title 9 - Animals and Animal Products, Section 92.4 (2) establishes standards for approval of zoological parks receiving and maintaining certain imported animals. Standards include provision of satisfactory pens, cages, or enclosures, provision for the disposal of manure and other wastes, availability of vetinary services, and inspection by an authorized representative of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2. Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Technical Memo No. 3, Job 390, August 31, 1973. 3. These traffic volumes were assigned using 11-hour City of Boston counts as a data base. Mechanical recorder counts taken on Blue Hill Avenue and Circuit Drive by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates during several weeks in July and August were used to develop a calibration factor to expand the 11-hour counts to 24-hour figures. These counts were then adjusaed to a 1973 base year figure by applying a 1. 6 percent annual rate of growth. These results agree well with data from the 1972 Areawide TOPICS Plan prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the Federal Highway Administration. 4. Highway Research Board, Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Publication 1328, 1965. 5. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Technical Memo No. 2, Job 390, August 22, 1973. 6. Telephone conversation with Mr. Williams, MBTA Manager of Systems Planning, August 10, 1973. 7. The equipment utilized was an ECOLYZER, manufactured by Energetics Science, Inc. , New York, which measures Carbon Monoxide on a continuous basis using an electrochemical process. This instrument was connected to a strip-chart recorder to provide a hard copy of the measurements. 8. This model was the HIWAY model developed for the EPA. Since the model can only handle one road segment at a time, concentrations at the receptor locations were obtained by superimposing separate runs for each roadway. 9. In order to obtain an eight-hour average from the computer model, it was necessary to use the average hourly traffic flow taken from the busiest eight hours of the day. This turned out to be from 1:00 p. m. to 9:00 p. m. 10. Areawide TOPICS Plan, West Roxbury-Roslindale-Hyde Park (Boston) Massachusetts, Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, October, 1972, p. 5. 204 11. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Second Edition), April, 197.3, p. 2. 1-4. 12. Conversation with John O'Neil, Maintenance Supervisor of the Franklin Park Zoo, August 29, 1973. 13. National Register of Historic Places, Inventory-Nomination form, 1971. 14. Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, Olmsted Park Inventory Report "Historical Overview", January, 1973, p. 20. 15. Frederick Law Olmsted, "Notes on Franklin Park and Related Matters" 1884 quoted in Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, Olmsted Park Inventory Report p. 20-24. 16. The Franklin Park Advisory Committee stated: . . .the budget allocation of the Park Department was $7,249,204.00 in 1970, and although Franklin Park represents 20% of the Park property, less than 1% of this budget can be identified as having been utilized for Franklin Park. Franklin Park Advisory Committee, "A Study and Report on the Establishment of Management Plans for the Operation of Franklin Park", 1972, p. 4. 17. Franklin Park Advisory Committee, "Study and Report", p. 18. Perry, Dean, Hepburn & Stewart, "Franklin Park Zoo, Development Plan - Summary", for the Metropolitan District Commission, November 21, 1967, 19. Conversation with John Nagle, General Foreman for Franklin Park Maintenance Division, Boston Parks and Recreation Department, August 23, 1973. 2o» Conversation with City of Boston Water Department for zoo account 12 21 150 100, August 29, 1973. 21. Conversation with Mr. Holehouse, Superintendent of the M. D. C. Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant, August 22, 1973. 22. Telephone conversation with Charles Dineen, Civil Engineer in charge of the Landfill and Incinerator, City of Boston, September 10, 1973. 205 23 . Telephone conversation on September 12, 1973 with the office of Charles Ferguson, Department of Rates and Operations, Boston Gas Company. 24 . Conversation with City of Boston Water Department for Zoo account 1221150100, August 29, 1973. 25 . Conversation with Boston Edison Company, September 5, 1973. 26 . "City of Boston Preliminary Report of the Board of Commissioners of the Department of Parks with Plans and Estimates for a Zoological Garden at Franklin Park and an Aquarium at Manne Park", 1910, In "Brief History of Development: Franklin Park Zoo", compiled by Moriece and Gary, August, 19 73. 27 . Shurcliff and Shurcliff, "Franklin Park Zoo: A Plan for the Future" prepared for City of Boston Park Department, April, 1954, p. 6. 28 . Shurcliff and Shurcliff, "Franklin Park Zoo", 1954, p. 20. 29 . Shurcliff and Shurcliff, "Franklin Park Zoo", 1954, p. 20. 30 . Interim Report of the Special Commission on Franklin Park Zoo and Other Metropolitan District Commission Zoological Facilities, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, House No. 5400. 31 . Boston Zoological Society, "Report of the First Year's Operation of Zoological Parks", September, 1971, p. 3. 32 . Conversation with Boston Zoological Society, July, 1973. 33 . De Leuw, Cather Associates, "Report on Traffic, Parking and Circulation, National Zoological Park", Washington, D0 C. , June, 1972. 34. Conversation with Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, November 21, 1973. 35. Environmental Protection Agency Report to the President and Congress on Noise, February, 1972, p. 2-59. 36. Letter from Robert J. Tis, Public Relations Department, Boston Edison Company, September 26, 1973. Also subsequent conversation with Mr. Leo Flemming, November 26, 1973. Conversation with Boston Gas Company, Paul Crossen, October, 1973. 37. Conversation with the foreman of the Roxbury Headworks, MDC Sewerage Division, August, 1973. 206 38. Boston Transportation Planning Review, Southwest Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Preliminary Location Report, Program Package Evaluation Report, September, 1972, p. 1-50. 39 . Conversation with MDC Water Division, November 20, 1973. 40 . These figures were derived from information on operations supplied by the New York Zoological Society for the Bronx Zoological Park, and by the Zoological Society of Philadelphia for the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. 41 . Metropolitan Area Planning Council, "Criminal Activity and Vandalism" Olmsted Park Inventory Report, January, 1973, p. 15. 42 . Special Commission on Franklin Park Zoo and Other Metropolitan District Commission Facilities, "interim Report", May 23, 1969, p. 21. 43 . Telephone conversation with Margaret Condrick, Chamber of Commerce, September 12, 1973. 44 . Telephone conversation with Bill Najan, Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, August 10, 1973. 45 . MDC Budget, Fiscal Year 1973, Preliminary Totals (obtained from BZS). 46 . Boston Zoological Society, Statement of Income and Expenses for the Year Ended June 30, 1973. 47 . Telephone conversation with Dr.. Dolensek, Veterinarian for the New York Zoological Park, October 18, 1973. 48 . U. S. Department of Transportation, Airports and Their Environment, A Guide to Environmental Planning, DOT P5600. I, September, 1972, p. 332. 49 . It should be noted that the newly constructed Aviary will be open to the public in early 1974. BZS officials feel that attendance will increase significantly at the existing Zoo as a result of this new exhibit, although no accurate estimates have been developed. 50 . Conversation with Boston Zoological Society, July, 1973. 51. Linger, Paul N. editor. Zoos and Aquariums in the Americas, 1972, published by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. 52 . "Interim Report of the Special Commission on Franklin Park Zoo and Other Metropolitan District Commission Zoological Facilities", May 13, 1969, House No. 5400, p. 20-21. 53. Franklin Park Zoo Development Plan, Perry Dean Hepburn and Stewart, November 21, 1967. „„„ 54. "Interim Report of the Special Commission on the Franklin Park Zoo and Other Metropolitan District Commission Zoological Facilities", May 23, 1969, House No. 5400, p. 33. 208 APPENDIX A ANIMAL SPECIES LIST 209 FRANKLIN PARK ZOO- SCHEMATIC DESIGN ANIMAL SPECIES, NUMBERS & EXHIBIT AREAS (INCLUDING MOATS) VELDT REGION Number M in Max Veldt Exhibit White Bearded Gnu (Wildebeast) 6 12 Masai Giraffe 4 Grant's Zebra 6 12 Thompson's Gazelle 6 18 Masai Ostrich 4 Birds (Sunbirds, Starlings, Cattle Egrets) varies Leopard Tortoise varies Lien 4 10 Hyena - Vultures varies Indoor Exhibit Area 78,600 s.f. 7,500 5,600 19 November 1973 Outdoor Exhibit Area 156, 000s. f. 19,700 10,750 Dioramas Diurna! Small Mammci fD*k~Dik, Suni, Oribi, Rock Hyrox, Rotas) varies Nocturnal Small Mammal { Spring Haas, Aardvaark, Bat-eared Fox, Owls) varies Canine Small Mammal (.Jackal, Mongoose) varies Crepescular (Goliath Heron) varies Reptiliur. (Monitors, Safari Ams, Dung Beetle, Scorpion) varies 1,500 1,500 1,500 300 120 96.620 s.f. 186,450 s.f. Number Min Max ESERT REGION esert Exhibit Dama Gazelle 4 8 Addax 4 8 Scimitor-horned Oryx 4 8 Camel varies aboon - Mountain Sheep varies heetah 2 ioramas Diurnal Small Mammal varies Fennec, Aardwolf, Hedgehogs, Caracal, Elephant Shrews, Jerboas) sptiles (Geckos, Stonks, Tortoises, Lizards, Snakes) varies JSH FOREST REGION ifrican Elephant 3 4 lack Rhino 2 5 [jiker 3 6 bsser Kudu 3 6 fefassa Waterbuck 3 6 F.ver Hippo 3 5 Lopard (spotted & black) 2 blobus Monkey 6 10 Eioramas i. Diurnal Small Mammal varies (Klipspringers, DeBrazza Monkey, Ratel, Turacos, Parrots, Bl -Bell Pangolin Vervet) Indoor Exhibit Area 20,000 s.f. 3,000 3,000 1,500 120 27,620 s.f. 22,000 10,000 3,000 7,500 7,500 5,000 3,000 1,500 Outdoor Exhibit Area 62,000 s.f. 8,700 6,200 76,900 s.f. 42,700 31,100 11,600 15,500 15,500 13,700 2,500 lr500 Ngmber Min Max Nocturnal Small Mammal (Bosh Babies, Tree Hyrax, Crested Porcupine, White Bellied Pangolin, Genet, Birds, Bush Tailed Procupine) varies Reptiles (Lizards, Fish Geckos, Chamel ions, Skinks, Agamids, Monitors, Python) varies Indoor Exhibit Area Outdoor Exhibit Area TROPICAL FOREST REGION Yellow-backed Duiker Bongo Pigmy Hippo Congo Buffalo Lowland Gorilla - Talapoins Mandrill Dioramas Diurnal Small Mammals (Picafhartes, Giant Blue Plainrain Eater, Congo Peacock, White Headed Guinea Fowl, Zebra Duiker, Diana, Potto) Nocturnal Small Mammal (Potto (arbcreai), Giant Pouched Rat, Fruit Bat, Roycl Antelope, Water Chevatain, Otters) Replies (Monitors, Cham- el ions, Snakes) Crocodiles (Crocodiles, Tree Frogs, Fish) 3 6 2 4 3 5 3 5 4 10 vanes varies varies vanes 1,500 300 62,800 s.f. 3,400 3,500 5,000 5,000 7,300 2,000 1,500 1,500 120 300 29,620 216,660 sTf. 132,600 s.f. 11,000 6,000 9,000 9,700 12,600 48,300 "4447250"$. f. APPENDIX B MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE AVERAGES 213 MEASURED HOURLY CAB, BON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: August 14, 1973 Tuesday- Clear August 15, 1973 Wednesday- Light Rain August 16, 1973 Thursday Cloud. v and Cool Hours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * ::o ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm 12-1 A.M. 11 N NA' 7 E 2.0 I 11 NE 2. 1 1-2 A.M. 12 N NA 8 E 1.0 11 NE 1.8 2-3 A. M. 1 9 N NA 9 E 0. 8 10 NE 1.8 3- 4 A.M. 9 N NA 10 ESE 1.0 9 NNE 1.8 4- 5 A.M. 9 NNE NA 11 ESE 1.0 8 ENE 1.8 5- 6 A. M. a NE NA 11 ESE 2.0 9 NE 2.0 o • 7 A.M. ! NE NA 13 E 3.2 8 ENE 2.4 7- r> A.M. ! S ENE NA 14 E 3.0 8 NE 6.0 a- 9 A. M. 7 ENE NA 14 E 3.0 1 « NNF 4 0 9-10 A.M. 12 ENE NA 15 E 2.0 1 5 NNE 3. 8 10-11 A.M. 11 ENE NA 15 E 2.0 4 NNE 14.0 ! 11-12 Noon | I 11 ENE 2.8 15 E NA 5 1 NNE ! NA 12- 1 P.M. I 10 ENE 2.8 20 E 2.0 4 JNNE 3.2 1- 2 P. M. 12 ENE 2.8 1 1 20 E 2.2 2 JE 3.0 2-3 P.M. 13 ! E 3.0 i it E 3.5 2 SE 2.8 i - ■ L-\ .'.[. 15 i E 2.2 ! 17 E 1 i 2.5 2 SE ;2.4 4- 5 P. M. j 10 E 2.2 j 17 E 2.i i 2 SSE f 2. 3 5-6 P.M. I 10 ESE 2.2 17 E 1 2.4 0 SSW 2 5 5 - 7 P. M. 12 ESE 3.0 15 ENE 2.4 2 S 2 0 7- 8 P. M. 10 SE 3.2 14 ENE 2. 1 6 SSE 2 4 3-9 P.M. 8 SE 2.2 13 ENE 2. 2 9 S 3 0 9-10 P.M. i 10 SE 2.2 12 ENE 2. 1 10 SSW 3. 3 10-11 P.M. 7 SE 3.0 13 NE 2. 0 12 SSW 6.0 11-12 P. M. 6 ESE 2.3 14 ENE 2. 1 12 wsw 4.0 -At Blue Hills We at her Statioi l MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: August 17, 1973 Friday- Clear and Sunny August 18, 1973 Saturday- Clear August 19, 1973 Sunday Partly Cloudy J I oars Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * zo ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CC l PPT 12- 1 A.M. 12 w 4.n 12 w NA 10 S NA 1-2 A.M. 19 w 2.0 19. w NA 9 S NA 2- 3 A.M. 11 w 2.5 11 W NA 7 SSE NA 3- 4 A.M. 11 w 2.0 9 w NA 4 ESE NA 4- 5 A.M. 10 w 1.8 9 w NA 8 E NA 5 - 6 A . M. 7 w 2.1 6 w NA 8 E NA 6- 7 A.M. 6 w 4.2 3 wsw NA 7 E NA 7- 8 A.M. 4 NW 6.0 4 ssw NA 7 E NA 8- 9 A.M. 3 WNW 5.0 4 s NA 8 E NA 9-10 A.M. 2 W 4.0 3 s NA 11 ENE NA 10-11 A.M. 3 SE 5.0 4 s NA 14 ! ENE | NA 11-12 Noon 6 ENE NA 5 SSE NA 15 ENE NA 12-1 P.M. 4 ENE NA 6 ESE NA 13 ENE NA 1- 2 P.M. 6 E NA 7 S NA 13 ENE NA 2-3 P.M. 7 ESE NA 11 S TLA 10 ENE NA ',- ■:■ p. ivr. ! 8 SSE NA 12 SSW 1 NA 9 ENE NA 4- 5 P.M. 10 S NA 13 SSW NA 8 E NA 5-6 P.M. 10 s NA 11 ssw NA 11 E NA 6-7 P.M. 9 s NA 11 s NA 10 E NA 7- 8 P.M. 10 ssw NA 10 s NA 11 E NA 8- 9 P. M. 10 sw NA 8 s NA 12 E NA 9-10 P.M. 9 sw NA 10 s NA 11 ENE NA 10-11 P.M. 12 sw NA 10 s NA 10 ENE NA 11-12 P.M. 12 w NA 11 s NA 9 NNE NA *At Blue Hills We ather Statioi 1 MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: i WEATHER: August 20, 1973 Monday Clear and Sunnv August 21, 1973 Tuesday- Clear and Sunnv August 22, 1973 Wednesday- Cool and Cloudv 7 fours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * ZO 'ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO 'ppm (2- 1 A.M. 9 NNE *A 2 S 1.0 14 S 1.0 1-2 A.M. 10 N STA 1 SSW 2.0 13 S 0.4 2- 3 A.M. 9 N STA 3 wsw 3.0 13 SSE 0 4 3- 4 A. M. 10 N STA 3 w 2.6 13 SSE 0 2 4- 5 A.M. 8 N *A 3 w 2.2 12 SSE 0 2 5- S A.M. 3 N NfA 6 E 2.2 12 SSE 0.6 6- 7 A.M. 5 N SfA 3 ESE 7.5 9 SE 0. 8 7- 8 A.M. 6 NNW ^A 4 ESE 10. 3 9 SE 2. 8 8-9 A.M. ! 6 INFE ^A 5 ENE 6. 8 12 ESE 3.6 9-10 A.M. 10 ENE ^A 8 ESE 4.0 13 ESE 3. 8 0-11 A.M. 9 ENE NA 8 ESE 3.0 10 E 4.0 1-12 Noon 10 ENE NA .9 ESE NA 10 E NA 2-1 P.M. 11 ENE 3.0 8 ESE 4. 1 8 E 2.6 1- 2 P.M. 10 ENE 3.6 9 ESE 2.0 8 E 2.4 2-3 P. M. 10 ENE 3.6 10 ESE 2. 8 9 ESE 2.5 !' ! 1 1 •'•- l =?■ -•-• li 6 ENE 4.0 8 SE 3. 8 1 8 ! ENE 3.6 4- 5 P. M. 8 ENE 3.5 9 SSE 2.0 9 ENE 3.0 5-6 P.M. 10 ENE 3.0 12 SSE 1.8 10 NE 2. 8 S- 7 P.M. 9 ENE 2.6 11 SSE 1.4 11 NNE 2.0 7- S P.M. 8 ESE 2.8 12 S 2.6 12 N 3.0 8- 9 P. M. 6 ESE 3.0 12 SSE 1. 8 9 NNE 6. 0 9-10 P.M. 6 E 2.8 13 SSE 2. 0 10 N 6.0 0-11 P.M. 4 ESE 2.0 13 SSE 2.0 9 N 5.0 1-12 P.M. 5 S 2.0 16 S 1. 8 9 N 5.4 At Blue Hills We ather Statioi i MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: August 2 3, 1973 Thursday Clear and Sunnv August 24, 1973 ' Friday- August 25, 1973 Saturday Slear and Sunnv 7i ours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * :jo 'ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm I- 1 A.M. 11 N 5.0 13 W 3.2 9 WSE 6. 4 1-2 A.M. 15 N 3.6 12 WNW 2.6 8 W 5. 0 2- 3 A.M. 15 N 2.4 11 NW 2.4 5 NNW 4. 1 3- 4 A. M. 15 N 1.8 12 NNW 2.0 3 NNW 2. 1 4- 5 A.M. 13 N 1.0 11 NNW 1.6 3 NE 3. 2 5- 6 A.M. 12 N 1.4 10 N 1. 8 5 NE 3.E 6- 7 A.M. 9 NNW 4.0 9 N 3.6 2 E 4. C 7- 3 A.M. 8 NNW 5.0 8 N 6.0 3 SSE 4. c 8 - 9 A . M. 6 NNW 4.4 8 N 8.0 5 SW 4. 1 9-10 A.M. 4 WNW 4.0 5 N 5.0 9 W 4. 1 0-1 1 A.M. 5 WSW 3.2 5 NNW 3. 8 11 WSW 4.0 1-12 Noon 7 W 3.0 7 NW 3. 8 11 WSW 4. 0 2- 1 P. M. 8 NNW 2.8 6 NW 3. 1 12 W 3. i 1- 2 P.M. 7 WNW 3.0 9' NNW 4.0 14 SW 3.C 2- 3 P. M. 8 WSW 3.0 6 NNW 4. 1 16 SW 3. 1 |- 4 P. -.1. 9 WSW 5.0 L 6 NW 4.0 1 : i6 1 ssw ! 3.2 5 P. M. W 5.0 4. 8 17 SSW 3.6 5- 6 M. 11 WSW 4.4 5.5 16 SW 4.C 6-7 P.M. 11 SW 5.1 12 4. 1 15 SW 4.2 7 • 8 P. M. 14 WSW 10.0 10 2.4 15 SW 5.2 8- 9 P. M. 14 W 8.0 SSW 4.6 15 SW 5.C 9-10 P.M. 14 W 5.8 SW 7. 0 15 SW 4.2 0-11 P.M. 11 W 4.0 WSW 6.2 14 WSW 4.0 1-12 P.M. 12 WSW 3.4 WSW 8.0 16 WSW 4. 0 1 Blue Hills Weather Station MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: August 26, 1973 Sunday Clear and Sunnv August 27, 1973 Monday- Hot, Humid. Ovprrast August Tuesday Clpar, I 28, 1973 r Hours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * 20 'ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* 1 " CO (ppm 12- 1 A.M. 16 W 1.0 10 WNW 6.0 13 WSW 5.0 1-2 A.M. 14 wsw 3.2 7 S 4.8 14 wsw 3. 0 2- 3 A.M. 13 w 2.8 11 S 3. 8 14 w 2. 3 3- 4 A. M. 14 w 2.2 14 SSW 3.0 14 WNW 2.0 4- 5 A. M. 12 w 2.2 11 wsw 2.6 15 WNW 1. 8 5- 6 A.M. 11 w 2.0 10 WSW 3. 0 12 W 1. 8 5 - 7 A . M. 9 w 2.2 7 sw 6.0 12 w 5. 1 7-3 A. M. 9 w 2.2 6 wsw 9.2 12 w 9.6 8- 9 A.M. 8 www 2.2 6 w 6.2 13 w 5. 6 9-10 A.M. 9 WNW 2.2 4 wsw 5. 2 14 w 3.6 1-11 A.M. 10 NW 2.5 6 wsw 4.5 15 w 3.0 1-12 Noon 11 NNW B.O 9 wsw NA 14 WNW NA 1-1 P.M. 7 NW 2.6 9 wsw 5.0 14 WNW 5. 8 1 - 2 P. M. 10 WNW 2.4 10 wsw 5.5 20 WNW 5. 8 2- 3 P. M. 10 WNW 3.0 8 wsw 6.0 19 WNW 5.5 ■ ' -1 ~> "\ ,T 9 WNW 3.6 9 wsw 3.8 17 WNW i 5. 1 4- 5 P. M. 8 WNW 3.0 13 WNW 3.4 14 NNW 5. 2 5-5 P.M. 7 W 1.1 11 WSW 5. 4 13 N 6.5 6-7 P.M. 9 WNW 3.0 12 wsw 10.0 16 N 7. 8 7 - 8 P.M. 9 NNW 3.5 11 wsw 12.0 16 N 8.0 8- 9 P. M. 5 WNW 3.0 12 wsw 9. 8 16 N 7.0 9-10 P.M. 4 WNW 11. 1 12 wsw 6.5 14 N 6.1 0-11 P. M. 4 WNW L2.0 13 w 6.0 13 NNW 5.0 ■ 1-12 P.M. 5 WNW 7.5 13 w 5. 8 ; 13 NNW 6.0 At Blue Hills Weather Station MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: August 29, 1973 Wednesday Clear, Hot. Humid August 30, 1973 Thursday Clear. Hot. Humid August 31, 1973 Friday Clear, Hot, Humid Hours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * 2Q 'ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm 12- 1 A.M. IS NNW 5. 1 13 WNW 5.0 14 NNW NA 1- 2 A.M. 14 NW 3.2 15 WNW 4.8 13 NNW ] JA 2 - 3A.M. 15 NW 2.4 16 WNW 4.0 15 NNW NA 3- 4 A.M. 14 NNW 2.4 \ 16 NW 3.6 14 NNW ^A 4- 5 A.M. 14 NNW 2. 1 15 WNW 2.2 14 N ^A 5- 6 A.M. 13 NNW 2.0 14 NW 2.1 12 N NA 6- 7 A.M. 11 NNW 3.9 12 NW 4.5 11 N NA 7- 3 A.M. 10 NNW 6.0 10 NW 7.5 11 NNW VA 8- 9 A.M. 11 NNW 7.0 12 NW 6.0 6 NNW SiA 9-10 A.M. 9 NW 4.9 12 NW 5.2 4 NNW VA L0-11 A. M. 9 NW 4.5 12 NW 5.0 3 NW NA LI -12 Noon 10 NW 4.8 14 NNW NA 5 NW 8. 0 12- 1 P.M. 11 WNW 4.5 12 NNW 6.0 6 NW 7. 1 1 - 2 P. M. 11 WNW 4.4 11 NW NA 8 WNW 7. 5 2- 3 P. M. 10 WNW 5.0 11 NW NA 5 WNW 7.5 •i 1 "O "* f ■J T .1. . nL. 9 W 4. 8 8 WNW NA 4 WSW 6. 0 4- 5 P. M. 9 W 6.0 8 W NA 7 SSW 7.5 5- 6 P.M. 9 SW 8.0 13 WNW NA 19 NNW 8.0 1- 7 F. M. 10 SSW 7.9 13 NNE NA 13 NNW 8. 5 7- 8 P.M. 12 SW .3.2 6 WNW NA 8 ESE 6.2 I ■ ■ 8- 9 P.M. 13 W .2.5 12 W NA 10 W 8.0 9-10 P.M. 16 W 8.0 16 W NA 13 W 7.0 ,.0-11 P. M. 15 W 7.6 15 WNW NA 14 W 9.6 J. 1-1 2 P.M. NA 7.0 1.6 NW NA 12 NNW 9. 6 >At Blue Hills We ather Statioi l MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: September 1, 1973 Saturday Clear, Hot. Humir Septemb* Sunday Clfiarr U ;r 2, 1973 ot. Humid Septemb Monday Olpar-, T- er 3, 1973 (Labor Day) fnf, Hnrnirl Hours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * ^O 'ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm 2- 1 A.M. 16 N 7.6 5 SSE 1?!. 1 1a wsw i fl 1- 2 A.M. 13 N 7.0 5 s 15.0 12 w 4 n 2- 3 A.M. 10 NNW 6.1 4 s 4.2 12 w 2.R 3- 4 A. M. 8 wsw 5.0 4 ESE 2.1 10 w 1. 1 4- 5 A.M. 7 sw 5.1 10 E 2.1 10 w 0.6 5-6 A.M. 9 wsw 4.0 11 E 0.8 9 w 0.4 1- 7 A.M. 8 wsw 5. 8 7 E 0.6 7 WNW 0.4 7- 3 A. M. 6 wsw 6.0 6 ENE 0.6 4 WNW 1.0 8- 9 A.M. 5 w 6.1 5 ENE 0.8 4 WNW 1. 1 9-10 A.M. 5 WNW 6.2 5 ENE 2.2 3 NW 1.2 i-11 A.M. 4 NW 6.4 4 ESE 4.0 5 NW 2. 8 1-12 Noon 5 WNW 8.0 6 ESE 3.1 7 WNW 2.6 2- 1 P.M. 4 NNW 9. 1 4 ESE 3.0 7 WNW 2.0 |- 2 P. M. 6 NNW .0.0 5 ESE 3.0 8 WNW 2.2 2-3 P.M. 4 NNW 6.8 7 ESE 2.8 5 E 2.6 |- ■'■: P. M. I 4 NNW 6.2 8 SSE 3.0 3 SW 3.4 4- 5 P. M. 5 E 7.0 9 S 1.8 6 SSE 4.0 5 - 6 P. M. 7 E 6. 3 9 SSW 1.4 9 S 6.6 8- 7 P.M. 8 ESE 6.4 12 SSW 2.6 9 SSW 6.0 1- 8 P.M. 7 SE 7.2 11 SSW 4.0 9 WSW 10.2 8- 9 P. M. 9 SE 9.6 12 SSW 11.0 8 W 10.0 •9-10 P.M. 10 SSE 7.5 13 WSW 6.0 9 W 8.0 ^0-11 P.M. 8 SSE 9.5 12 WSW 5.4 6 WSW 8. 1 1-12 P.M. 8 SSE L3.0 13 WSW 5.8 6 WNW 7. 8 ■■M Blue Hills Weather Station MEASURED HOURLY CARBON MONOXIDE DATA (At the Endicott School) DATE: DAY: WEATHER: September 4, 1973 Tuesday Hot. Humid. Clear Hours Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir. * 20 !ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppm) Wind Speed (mph)* Wind Dir.* CO (ppiT 12-1 A.M. 6 WNW 6.4 1- 2 A.M. 7 WNW 3. 1 2.- 3 A.M. 7 NW 3.0 3- 4 A.M. 7 NNW 2.4 4- 5 A.M. 7 NNW 1.2 5- 6 A.M. 4 NNW 2.0 6-7 A.M. 3 W 8.2 7- 8 A.M. 6 W 11.4 3- 9A.M. 5 W NA 9-10 A.M. 7 WNW NA 10-11 A.M. 8 NW NA 11-12 Noon 12-1 P.M. 1- 2 P.M. 2-3 P.M. 3- 4 P. M. |4- 5 P.M. 5- 6 P.M. 6- 7 P.M. « 1 7- 8 P.M. 8- 9 P.M. | 9-10 P.M. 10-11 P.M. [11-12 P.M. -At Blue Hills We ather Statioi i APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE FRANKLIN PARK ZOO EXPANSION 222 tsnes TO&mnwnweatf/i/ 6& c/lreefi, tA^ 02/C# t&mmiuim** November 20, 1973 Commissioner Bruce Campbell Department of Public Works 100 Nashua Street Boston, Massachusetts Dear Commissioner Campbell: Attached is a copy of a letter to Secretary Altshuler describing the Commission1 s interest in making use of a commuter garage facility proposed for Forest Hills. I be- lieve it is particularly important to coordinate our in- terests with the City of Boston's stated interest in a commuter facility in this area, and with local business activities and neighborhood concerns. I look forward to an early meeting between our staff and consultants and Secretary Altshuler' s office and your staff to determine your interest in and possible scheduling of construction. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. SEARS JBOB/S End. 20 Cr&meiUel> c/tveet, SfieM&n/ 02/OS VSmmtiuHu* November 20, 1973 Alan A. Altshuler, Secretary- Department of Transportation 18 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts Dear Secretary Altshuler: It is the Commission1 s understanding that the State through the Department of Public Works is developing a system of fringe parking areas to reduce commuter traffic into the City of Boston. Further, it appears from dis- cussions with the City that the Forest Hills area is potentially a high priority site for the construction of a garage as part of the fringe parking program and the development of the Southwest Corridor. The MDC is now in the design development phase, pre- paring plans for a major new Zoo exhibit in Franklin Park. This will include 6% acres of covered year-round exhibits and extensive outdoor animal areas. The Commission's portion of the capital costs has been funded and the Boston Zoological Society, which operates the facility, has embarked on a major fund raising effort for the re- mainder of the funds. The opening of the new exhibits is planned for 1976. An important concern is for parking* Because of the low level of public transit to the site and because Zoo visits are primarily family recreation trips, it is esti- mated that 90?6 of the visitors will come to the Zoo by private automobile. It is important to minimize the impact of these trips on the community and on the Park. The MDC has been working closely with the City of Boston to develop a minimal impact solution. The most desirable would be to make use of the suggested commuter garage on off-peak periods (which turn out to be the high Zoo visitor peaks; weekends, holidays, etc.). The Commission voted on October 31, 1973 to authorize me to explore with you and Commissioner Campbell the possible timing of garage construc- tion in Forest Hills and the conditions for multiple use of such a facility. It is my understanding that the City of Alan A. Altshuler, Secretary - 2 - November 20, 1973 Boston has also expressed to you its interest in improving the commuter parking in this area through the construction of a garage. I would look forward to a meeting between the Commission staff and Zoo consultants and representatives of your office to work out the particulars of such a proposal and to de- termine its feasibility and timing. Sincerely yours, >^nMt&u, ( JOHN W. SEARS JBOB/S cc: Commissioner Campbell THE NEW ENGLAND OLMSTED SESQUICENTENNIAL COMMITTEE ONE CENTER PLAZA BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02106 July 30, 19 73 ' by minimal exposed structural elements could be very bleak. It is assumed that as the designers delve further into the problem, they will explore expression of the structure, light and shadow patterns, night effects, etc., to add interest to the exterior of the pavilions. The administration and reception area was not sufficiently developed to comment on. It was noted that, other than a new Children's Zoo and a building for Arctic animals, no significant expansion is planned. TECHNICAL The Zoo is an experimental structure. Architects and Engineers should be allowed sufficient funds for "mock-ups" and required consultant reports. From Mr. Hornbeck's experience with plant materials, both the quantity and quality of light penetrating the plastic will severely inhibit plant growth. Water seepage is bound to be a problem in underground structures in this area. Provisions must be made to keep water out as well as possible and also to drain water away that manages to penetrate. Finishes should probably not be attached directly tc retaining walls . It would be tragic to fund only the construction of the Zoo and not provide adequate funds for operation and maintenance, and prevention of inevitable vandalism. DJC/pjh • *' o" I*1