Orzoo CCMP 111020 Lowres
Orzoo CCMP 111020 Lowres
Orzoo CCMP 111020 Lowres
Comprehensive
Capital Master Plan
October 20, 2011
SRG +
SRG +
Oregon Zoo
Comprehensive Capital
Master Plan
October 20, 2011
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0 INTRODUCTION
3.0 BACKGROUND
4.0 MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK
5.0 BOND PROJECTS
6.0 MASTER PLAN EXHIBITS
7.0 VISITOR EXPERIENCE
8.0 SUSTAINABILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE
& OPERATIONS
9.0 MASTER PLAN COSTS
10.0 APPENDIX
1.0
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
When Metro region voters passed the $125 million Oregon Zoo Bond
Measure 26-96 in 2008, the Oregon Zoo was able to undertake a
comprehensive study to define the next 20 years of the zoos development.
The multi-disciplinary design team worked intensively with the Oregon Zoo
for over one year to develop a new master plan concurrent with innovative
and visionary designs for the bond-funded projects: Asian Elephants;
Conservation Discovery Zone; Polar Bear; Primates; Rhino; and Condor.
Energy and Water Saving Measures were incorporated into every project.
ENTRY
PLAZA
CASCADE
HUB
(Penguin Life Support System Upgrades and the Veterinary Medical Center,
also part of the bond funding, are nearing completion of construction, and
are not included in this scope.)
CENTRAL
HUB
WEST
HUB
I N
S P
I N
The zoos strong vision of animal welfare and conservation education were
both written into the bond language and carried through every workshop
E
EAST
HUB
S. AMERICA
HUB
CONCERT
LAWN
and document produced in the master planning process. Because the Zoo
is the statess biggest paid attraction, the master plan presents an incredible
opportunity to communicate sustainable practices and sustainability
principles while enhancing exhibits by focusing on vibrant, complex habitats.
This document outlines the background and process of creating the master
plan, the framework upon which circulation and exhibit placement is made,
AFRICA
HUB
the components within the framework, and descriptions of the systems that
will make the Oregon Zoo an efficient and sustainable campus.
1-7
BACKGROUND
The Oregon Zoo, the oldest zoo west of the Mississippi River, moved to its
The original zoo footprint runs east/west from the original entrance to the
current location in 1959. The bond measure replaces many of the original
elephant exhibit along a ridge that divides the campus into two drainage
basins. Two opportunities are inherent in the natural landform: the ability to
its current development due to natural land forms, steep grades and unstable
improve and clarify visitor circulation, and the potential to collect, clean and
soil conditions. The design team studied the context, vegetation, geology,
Creating a spine along the ridge is the key to organizing visitor movement
and open space, introducing intuitive way-finding, and collecting and
filtering stormwater. Deliberate hubs at key locations along the spine
provide places for gathering, events, interactive interpretive opportunities
and intuitive placement of guest services.
A new service road provides a safer environment for visitors by removing
most service and construction vehicles off pedestrian paths and by improving
emergency vehicle access. This road also serves as the greater part of a new
utility loop which, among other utilities, accomplishes energy exchange
between integrated campus structures.
OPERATIONS
GREAT
NW
POLAR
S. AMER
ASIA
AFRICA
OPERATIONS
1-8
EXHIBITS
The Oregon Zoo master plan continues to organize animals and exhibits on
The Oregon Zoo master plan presents a unique opportunity to rethink and
Northwest and the new California Condor exhibit. The broad vistas of the
leading edge sustainable design strategies. The function of the utility master
new Polar Bear exhibit marks an Arctic experience, while the energetic
penguins shift and become neighbors with other South American species.
needs of the Oregon Zoo and to facilitate meeting the zoos sustainability
South America crosses the spine and continues down to an enclosed tropical
goals.
The spine and hubs are intended to become the zoos primary open space
and unifying feature. The over arching theme of the space is stormwater
collection, management, and transport as part of the landscape. This
The design team developed pre-schematic design packages for each of the
different experience with the seasons. This landscape also facilitates intuitive
bond projects, incorporating Water & Energy Savings Measures into each.
collected, water will gently flood into some of the hardscape areas, creating
VISITOR EXPERIENCE
The master plan provides a smooth transition from vehicle to zoo, a natural
progression through the campus with interesting choices and distinctive
landmarks, and plenty of periodic places for both activity and rest.
Conservation Education will have a prominent presence at the Conservation
Discovery Zone; here visitors can learn more about how their daily lives
relate to global and local conservation.
1-9
A new chilled water utility loop, initiated beneath the service road, will
allow energy exchange between buildings with opposing loads, reducing the
use of fossil fuels for heating and cooling as more buildings and exhibits
tie in over time. Stormwater and waste water will be filtered, stored and
redistributed to meet non-potable demands. Improvements to exhibit pools
alone will reduce the zoos annual potable water use by more than 36% by
the completion of the bond projects.
Other operations updates include an efficient service yard that looks
to capturing energy and supporting emerging technologies, and a new
administration building with easy access to both the service yard and
education programs.
1-10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the many dedicated people who participated in the
development of the Oregon Zoos Comprehensive Capital Master Plan.
METRO COUNCIL
Council President Tom Hughes
Councilor Rex Burkholder
Councilor Carlotta Collette
Councilor Shirley Craddick
Councilor Kathryn Harrington
Councilor Carl Hosticka
Councilor Barbara Roberts
1-11
DESIGN TEAM
SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC., Architects
Jon Schleuning, FAIA, Principal In Charge
Paul Dedyo, PE
Evan Eykelbosch, PE
1-12
Pete Miller, PE
EQUILIBRIUM, Structural
Ed Quesenberry, SE, Principal
2.0
Introduction
PROJECT
MISSION & GOALS
PROCESS
2-1
WLL
GREAT
NORTHWEST
VET
HOSPITAL
BEAR
PARKING
CONDOR
GIFT
WOLF
ENTRY
PLAZA
COUGAR
NATURE IN
BACKYARD
Cascade
Hub
GUEST
SERVICES
Elephant Meadow
North Habitat
POLAR
BEAR
RIDGE
Train
Station
TAPIR/
PRIMATE
Central
Hub
SOUTH
AMERICA
West
Hub
FLEX 1
ASIA
FLEX 2
FLEX 3
PENGUIN
BEACH
FLEX 2
PRIMATES
CONSERVATION
DISCOVERY
ZONE
FLEX 5
CHIMP
FLEX 4
MANDRILL
AFRICA
GIRAFFE
FEEDING
Africa
Hub
MIXED
SPECIES
BIRD
AVIARY
SAVANNA
HERP.
Operations
RED
APE
East
Hub
AfriCafe
RHINO
S.A. TROPICAL
FOREST HUB
BAT
FLEX 1
SERENGETI
PLAZA
MARSH
AVIARY
Concert
Lawn
FOREST
HALL
THE
HILL
Ravine
Habitat
ASIAN
ELEPHANTS
Elephant Meander
South Habitat
LION
Serengeti
CHEETAH
2-2
ELEPHANT
HOLDING
150
300
600
PROJECT
ANIMAL WELFARE
Every animal at the Oregon Zoo should be able to go outdoors, breathe fresh
is to create a plan for the future that allows for the implementation of the
air and experience wind, rain and sunshine. Every animal should be able to
$125 million Oregon Zoo Bond Measure 26-96, passed by the voters in
make choices about how to spend the day. Every animal should be able to
2008, entitled Bonds to Protect Animal Health and Safety; Conserve and
live alone or in a family or social group appropriate to its species and sex, by
choice, as it would in a wild habitat. Bond funds provide the first phase of
will: provide the highest level of care for zoo animals, protect animal health
turning the zoos no animal left indoors master plan vision into reality.
New habitats will be larger, made from natural materials and open to the
air and sky, with sheltered areas for colder seasons. Flooring will be natural
soil, grass or other well-drained, porous material. Animals will be able to
look outside of their areas and see adjacent habitats, visitors and other
parts of the zoo. Each habitat is designed for flexibility to accommodate
This Comprehensive Capital Master Plan provides a road map for longer-
mating, pregnancy, the arrival and rearing of offspring, and a variety of social
term exhibit and site planning that creates a synergy of theme and message
groupings for each species. Some animals prefer to live fairly solitary lives,
some live in pairs, and some in large family groups. The new and renovated
work done to implement the bond projects supports future zoo campus
improvements and does not create expensive impediments. The space needs
for the elephant habitat impacted all other major master plan considerations.
Given that the components of the bond projects and master plan are
integrally related, the design team tested ideas and looked for opportunities
to solve multiple problems with each decision that was made throughout the
master plan process and the design of the bond-funded projects. The image
at left illustrates the full build-out of the master plan. Section 5.0 illustrates
the scope of the bond projects.
2-3
CONSERVATION
The Oregon Zoo is committed to conserving the worlds wildlife and
environments. The zoo is directly involved in conservation efforts for native
butterflies and turtles, pygmy rabbits and California condors. The knowledge
learned from these activities is shared with guests across the zoo and with
academic communities. The bond funds will improve spaces for some
activities that already take place on the zoo campus, such as a butterfly lab
in the Conservation Discovery Zone, as well as providing new opportunities
to share these efforts and successes with zoo visitors, exemplified by the new
California condor habitat.
The Oregon Zoo reaches more than 1.5 million visitors and program
participants each year. By showcasing its conservation programs and
achievements, the zoo builds community understanding of its broader role
in species and ecosystem restoration. It also provides inspiration to young
people entering natural resource fields and to community members willing to
help restore ecosystem health in neighborhoods and communities across the
region.
Conservation success stores are compelling, and few can top that of the
California condor. These magnificent birds can weigh up to 30 pounds
with a wingspan of nearly 10 feet. While the condor is native to the Pacific
Northwest, it hasnt been sighted in Oregon for more than 100 years. The
Oregon Zoo hopes to change that. The zoo has been successfully breeding
endangered condors at an off-site facility since 2003, in conjunction with
efforts at the San Diego Wildlife Park, the Los Angeles Zoo, and the World
Center for Birds of Prey in Boise, Idaho. Several birds have been released
into the wild as a result.
2-4
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked the zoo to assist in broadening
national awareness of the California condors plight. As part of this initiative
and the bond program, the Oregon Zoo is developing the first exhibit of its
kind in the Pacific Northwest, allowing the public to view condors and learn
more about these iconic birds with a vision of collaborative conservation
efforts with other wildlife management agencies.
EDUCATION
SUSTAINABILITY
The zoo shares animal knowledge and conservation ethics with more than
future for wildlife. What better way to do so than to model sustainable ways
and the equipment, animals and vehicles that support them is wildly
challenging. The new Conservation Discovery Zone will outfit students for
Using resources wisely will reduce impacts on wildlife and habitat around
the world.
programs around the region and provide curious zoo visitors with a deeper
understanding of the animals entrusted to its care. The Conservation
Discovery Zone will function as a base camp where students can focus and
begin their zoo learning adventure.
Education spaces are integrated into each bond-funded project throughout
the zoo. In some cases, the space may be a discrete room adjoining an
animal habitat, while in others it may be tucked away along a visitor path.
excitement and knowledge that will inspire people to make a better future
for wildlife.
No net loss of biodiversity and productive healthy habitat for forests and
These varied space and locations provide ultimate flexibility for sharing the
riparian areas.
See section 8.0 for more details on the Metro 2010 Sustainability Plan
Outdated facilities have been obstacles to the zoos goals of modeling best
practices. Some of the zoos plumbing and wiring is original to the late
exhibits.
2-5
To conserve water, the zoo is adding rain-harvesting and other waterconservation infrastructure to the entire campus and to each project. To save
energy, a new condenser water loop will move heat energy from one building
to another. For example, the polar bear pool and the elephants exhibit are a
great opportunity for energy sharing, as both buildings will be constructed in
the near future, both are easily accessible from the condenser loop, and they
THEMATIC GOALS
To provide a framework for the development of the master plan, Oregon Zoo
leadership and staff, with the design team, developed a series of thematic
goals:
have opposing heating/cooling needs (heat can be drawn from the polar bear
pool, and pathway. The zoo already composts animal and food waste and
Fluid dynamics
2-6
PROCESS
DESIGN PROCESS
The multi-disciplinary design team developed a planning and design process
and schedule to allow for thorough exploration and confidence in bond
project and master plan decision-making. The work began in September
2010 with a visioning workshop involving zoo staff. The design team
produced four interim reports and presented them to the Oregon Zoo Bond
Advisory Group to report on progress, costs, decisions and next steps. Five
presentations were made to the Oregon Zoo Bond Citizens Oversight
Committee, and an interim presentation to the Metro Council was made in
January 2011, as well as a report on the elephant habitat project in June 2011,
and adoption of the bond project implementation plan in September 2011.
The design team produced pre-schematic designs for the following bond
projects: Asian Elephants; Conservation Discovery Zone; Polar Bear;
Primates; Rhino; and Condor. Energy and Water Saving Measures were
incorporated into all of the bond projects and the master plan. The other
two bond projects were initiated prior to this teams involvement: the
The Oregon Zoo held public open houses to share bond project and master
plan progress. The general public was asked to provide feedback, and their
comments were assessed as to the viability of some of the design ideas.
2-7
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
The design team developed cost estimates for each bond project and updated
The design team, led by land use planners The Bookin Group, submitted
an application to the City of Portland on September 23, 2011, for a Type III
an independent cost estimator to keep the project on track and to test the
Major Amendment to the zoos 2003 Conditional Use Master Plan (CUMS)
economic viability of each. Additional costs were developed for the train
and Environmental Review for Asian Elephants and Condor Habitats and
relocation and the construction of the service road as they were critical first-
step components to expanding the elephant habitat. SRG worked with the
will allow for the construction of those projects, which will be initiated prior
zoo/Metro to develop the owner costs and these too were scrutinized by the
to the expiration of the current CUMS in 2013. This project will not trigger
independent cost estimator and then assigned to each bond project. Overall,
any increase in parking or traffic demand, therefore the City has agreed to
the bond projects are designed to be built within the remaining bond funds.
use of the nearly 1,000 space surface parking lot that is owned by the City
Master plan implementation is not funded by the bond but components can
be implemented through other funding sources, such as private donations,
grants, alternative financing strategies, or a future bond measure.
Please refer to Section 9.0 for master plan budgets.
2-8
3.0
Background
3-1
The original footprint of the zoo runs east/west in about the middle of the
current zoo campus, from the original entrance to the elephant exhibit. The
area is relatively flat and runs along a ridge that divides the campus into
two drainage basins. From this natural land form derives two important
opportunities for the master plan: to improve and clarify visitor circulation,
1:60
10.4.10
DATE
+
SRG +
VEGETATION MAP
3-2
WORKSHOP #1
SCALE
VEGETATION
and to find sustainable solutions for stormwater flow and reuse. The team
studied the context, vegetation, geology, hydrology, landforms, topography,
circulation, potable water network and existing infrastructure, age of existing
buildings and suitable land for development.
Refer to Interim Report #1.
LANDFORMS
DRAINAGE BASINS
FILLED AREA
OPEN CREEK
PIPED CREEK
DIRECTION OF SLOPE
RIDGE
FILLED AREA
OPEN CREEK
PIPED CREEK
DIRECTION OF SLOPE
RIDGE
1:60
10.4.10
DATE
Master Plan
NORTH BASINOregon Zoo Comprehensive CapitalBACKGROUND
3-3
10.4.10
ZOO BOUNDARY
1:60
DRAINAGE BASINS
DATE
PIPE
OUTFALL
SRG +
SOUTH BASIN
LANDFORMS
LANDFORMS
SCALE
PIPE
OUTFALL
FILL
WORKSHOP #1
RIDGE
NORTH BASIN
SCALE
ZOO BOUNDARY
maintaining and enhancing the zoo train, organizing the animals into global
land forms, steep grades and unstable soil conditions. The design team
revenue through new event and food venues and generally improving the
was challenged with fitting six-acres of habitat for the Asian Elephants,
SITE MAP
General Landscape
Animal Holdings
Animal Exhibits
Water Feature
Exhibit Buildings
Visitor Amenities
Education
Administration
Facilities Maintenance
EAGLES
Utilities
CSS
Visitor Pathways
CASCADES OTTER
HOSPITAL
BOBCAT
Railroad
PUMP
HOUSE
MAX STATION
AVIARY
COUGAR
RETAIL
BLACK
BEAR
FAMILY
FARM
MOUNTAIN
GOAT
ELK HOLDING
ENTRY PLAZA
BARN
WOLF
SITE MAP
POLAR BEAR
SUN BEAR
TRAIN
STATION
CLASSROOM
STELLER
COVE
LEOPARD
General Landscape
WILD PIGS OF
ASIA
CHIMPANZEE
TIGER
CLASSROOM
PENGUINARIUM
INSECT ZOO
Animal Holdings
PICNIC AREA
TIGER
TERRACE
PRIMATES
BUILDINGS
Animal Exhibits
OVERLOOK
ELEPHANT
MUSEUM
RED APE
RESERVE
LORIKEETS
Water Feature
RHINO/HIPPO
BARN
ADMINISTRATION
Exhibit Buildings
AFRICAFE
ELEPHANT
BACK YARD
HIPPO
Visitor Amenities
ELEPHANT
BARN
ZEBRA
HOOFSTOCK
Education
CONCERT
LAWN
PREDATORS OF THE
SERENGETI
GIRAFFE
LION
BATCAVE
Facilities Maintenance
GREENHOUSE
1:60
10.4.10
SCALE
DATE
TREETOPS
Utilities
Visitor Pathways
ZOO
MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEE PARKING
3-4
ELEPHANT
FRONT YARD
BANDSHELL
PYGMY GOATS
RECEIVING
Administration
SNOW
SHED
SCULPTURE
GARDEN
RHINO
WILD DOG
MEEKRATS
HORTICULTURE
BIRDS OF PREY
MONKEYS
RAINFOREST
BIRDS
SWAMP
CHEETAH
VISITOR CIRCULATION
The current path system, wayfinding and visitor support are challenging to
visitors and often negatively impacts their experience. Visitors routinely get
lost in the series of Africa species habitats, the lowest part of the zoo and
furthest from the entrance, and many secondary pathways are too narrow for
passing strollers and congestion results. The circulation system, food service,
restroom facilities, weather protection and other visitor amenities can be
improved to provide a comfortable, natural progression through the campus
with interesting choices and distinctive landmarks, and plenty of periodic
places for both activity and rest.
BACKGROUND
3-5
INTERPRETIVE
LANDSCAPE
Overall, the Oregon Zoo currently offers its guests a wide range of
Much like the rest of the zoo campus, the landscape has grown episodically,
quality as well as some that are dated and/ or ineffective. Several exhibits
portions of the original zoo. The plantings, although innovative for the time,
were designed to mimic the natural habitat of the zoo animals. The result
that greatly enhance their interpretive impact, notably the recent Predators
of the Serengeti exhibit and the Cascade Trail through the Great Northwest
frequent care and irrigation to maintain the health of the plants. Recent
zone. While signage and graphics are the predominant interpretive media,
efforts by zoo staff in replacing plants with native and adaptive species, has
led to reduced care and irrigation. However, the variety and type of plant
opportunities also are provided. These have the effect of engaging guests
3-6
ART
There are several instances of
art installations throughout the
zoo, which are received well by
visitors of all ages. They will be
maintained though some may be
moved due to the expansion or
relocation of the animal habitats
to which they are related. No
formal art acquisition program
exists, however, a 1% for Art
program will be implemented as
part of the bond.
FOOD SERVICE
RETAIL
There are four types of food service venues currently at the zoo:
The Zoo Store is near the zoo entrance and visitors must pass by it but
The Cascade Grill at the entry serves the highest quality food but it is
not centrally located to best serve hungry visitors when they are half way
through their visit. The kitchen here also provides catering services for
events around the zoo.
The AfriCafe and Bear Walk Cafe offer a limited menu with less healthy
choices. The zoo receives many negative comments about the quality of
the dining experience at the AfriCafe.
Several fast food kiosks are located throughout the zoo to serve visitors
during busy times. When they are not open, the kiosk leaves the visitor
with a negative message and few options.
dont always enter it when leaving the zoo. The opportunity in the future
is improve exiting circulation to encourage visitors to enter the store and to
provide additional permanent and cart retail sites at the hubs to increase
revenue and provide options to visitors.
Refer to Section 7.0 for master plan solutions, and to ORCAs Operations and Revenue
Analysis Report for detailed analysis of food service and retail.
CONSERVATION EDUCATION
The Oregon Zoo provides camps, group presentations and hands-on
learning opportunities to more than 750,000 kids and adults in the local
community each year. The valuable Conservation Education program is
limited in the quality and quantity of programs it can offer because its
rooms and off-site classrooms. These facilities are not adequate to serve
The opportunity in the master plan is to improve the quality, type and
locations of the food service experience.
3-7
EVENTS
The Concert Lawn and Picnic Pavilion are heavily used for corporate and
special events and generate revenue for the zoo. They also serve as valuable
open space for families to picnic and rest on crowded summer days, and
for camp and school group kids to run and play. The concert lawn will be
maintained and enhanced, but the picnic area will be relocated and resized
with the expansion of the elephant habitat as part of the bond. With the
master plan build-out of the flexible Asia habitats, this picnic area will move
to the rooftop terrace of the proposed new AfriCafe replacement.
The challenge is to find the right balance between providing excellent
habitats for animals and appropriately sized, quality outdoor space that
visitors can use for picnics or that can be rented out for special events to
maintain that important revenue stream.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Most of the zoos utility infrastructure dates back to the 1950s and 1960s
and much of it needs to be upgraded or replaced. The zoo is currently
engaged in taking inventory of the existing infrastructure and metering
current operation and maintenance practices to help target reductions.
Phasing the implementation properly will be crucial to providing these
necessary upgrades as soon as possible.
ZOO RAILROAD
The zoo train is a beloved institution and a revenue producer. The challenge
presented to the design team was how to modify the train route and
alignment to balance the zoos desire to maintain and enhance the train ride
experience with the costs and the critical land use needs to improve animal
welfare.
3-8
4.0
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES
FRAMEWORK
OPERATIONS
GREAT
NW
POLAR
S. AMER
ASIA
AFRICA
OPERATIONS
4-1
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES
circulation spine traversing the ridge of the zoo grounds. Providing a gradual
slope, visitors were gently led from the entrance towards the main attraction
a similar course. As a river flows, riffles, eddies, and pools, it scours and
deposits, accompanied by forest debris that is a critical habitat for fish and
Zoo. The initial primary organizing feature went overlooked with dense
smoothly and with more velocity through the center of the path, pausing
at the edges to rest, observe, and gather. This is the language of the spine,
sight lines.
a fluid, changing space. The paving reflects that movement. Speed and
deposition, reinforced by the stormwater management system, assimilate
Over the years as the zoo has expanded so has the number of visitors,
creating more strain to the open space framework. Looking to the future,
materials reflect the concept and reduce scale. Quiet green spaces at the
the ridge or spine remains the key to organizing visitor movement and
edges of the spine slow and filter storm runoff. Water will pool, and during
larger rain events, encroach into the spine, changing the shape and visitor
locations along the spine provide places for gathering, events, interactive
flow of water, inspiring visitors to visit the zoo even when its raining.
4-2
4-3
orifices as required.
As the master plan and bond projects
are implemented, it may be determined
that additional stormwater detention
is needed that cannot be provided
on a project site or within the spine.
To address this it may be possible to
FRAMEWORK
will encourage and engage visitors with interactive play and exploratory
information, each in a different way. Focused on educational programming
CIRCULATION
Visitor Circulation
As Oregons largest paid attraction, the Oregon Zoo attracts more than
1.5 million people a year. Visits to the Oregon Zoo are enhanced by hubs
which provide a multitude of places to gather, rest, and play, while meeting
the needs of the visitor with restrooms and food facilities. Each hub space
and services to help visitors learn about animals and conservation, the
West Hub contains the Conservation Discovery Zone. Visitor services and
orientation are located in the Central Hub, the crossroads for exploring
the zoo. Known for having one of most successful Asian elephant breeding
programs in the world, the East Hub is the zoos showpiece, as a gateway
to the elephant habitat. In addition, the East Hub supports the concert
lawn with overflow space for services
during large events. Whether used
for events or casual enjoyment, the
concert lawn remains the largest
public open space in the zoo.
ENTRY
PLAZA
CASCADE
HUB
CENTRAL
HUB
WEST
HUB
I N
S P
I N
next adventure.
For more information on visitor amenities,
see section 7.0.
EAST
HUB
VISITOR CIRCULATION
S. AMERICA
HUB
CONCERT
LAWN
main spine
primary visitor circulation
secondary visitor circulation - spine
secondary visitor circulation - exhibit
train loop
west property boundary
service road
main hub / mini hub
AFRICA
HUB
E
MASTER PLAN REPORT
10.20.2011
4-5
Emergency access is
available throughout
the zoo, while
service vehicles in
pedestrian areas will
be greatly reduced.
OPERATIONS
POLAR
ASIA
OPERATIONS
train loop
visitor crossing / Concert Lawn
4-6
Zoo Railroad
The train is a beloved institution at the zoo, and a revenue generator. The
expansion of the Asian Elephant habitat will displace the existing train
corridor and necessitate the construction of a new train alignment on the
zoo campus. The zoo is committed to improving the train experience for
guests and the new zoo route will allow visitor views into animal habitats
rather than into the back of house areas, which is the current experience.
The new route eliminates all pedestrian and vehicular track crossings for
visitor safety, and allows fire truck access throughout the zoo under the
trestles. Zoo Lights will be enhanced along the new zoo train route, and the
route through Washington Park to the Rose Garden will remain the same.
INTERPRETIVE
The overall goals of the zoos ongoing
interpretive planning and design
efforts are to provide integrated playbased learning opportunities, to help
guests understand and appreciate
the zoos commitment to sustainable
practices, and to create a more
Condor
Water Fowl
Tapir &
Primates
Polar Bear
Penguins
TRAIN ATTRACTIONS
train loop
west property boundary
emergency & service access
Concert Lawn / exhibit
main hub / mini hub
4-7
SUSTAINABILITY
Metro Sustainability Plan, and research and planning with the design team,
The Oregon Zoo aspires to become the most significant and inspiring
conservation and sustainability educational tool in the metro area,
demonstrating the successful coexistence of humans, animals, and nature,
and operating as a vital link to local and global species and habitat
conservation and survival.
Consolidating bond language
commitments, the zoos sustainability
visioning and Operations &
Maintenance priorities, the 2010
Stormwater and
wastewater is
filtered, stored and
reused to reduce
zoo water use
campus-wide.
E
WATER
USE FLOWS AND REUSE LOOPS
stormwater
tanner creek
purple pipe (water reuse)
waste water
west boundary
service road
exhibit pool
stormwater collection
wastewater
treatment
treated water
storage
stormwater detention
4-8
energy & air quality (greenhouse gas emissions), water, and habitat &
temperature remains much more consistent than the air temperature, the
ground can be used as a heat source during the winter months and as heat
access & mobility, materials management, food systems & waste, and
vertical wells to create a heat transfer surface for adding or removing heat
loop, a large portion of which will be completed concurrent with the Asian
elephant project, utilizes building and exhibit heat loads along with ground
temperature to reduce energy use campus-wide. Because the ground
Energy exchange
between buildings
with opposing loads
reduce the use
of fossil fuels in
most buildings and
exhibits.
4-9
OPERATIONS
GREAT
NW
POLAR
S. AMER
ASIA
AFRICA
EXHIBITS & VISITOR CIRCULATION
main spine
primary visitor circulation
OPERATIONS
4-10
5-1
INTRODUCTION
Developed within the context of a comprehensive master plan, the bond
projects incorporate innovative concepts that support the zoos goals for
animal exhibit design and sustainability. The scope of each project and
positioning within the overall zoo campus were carefully studied so that
they would not only meet the specific bond project programmatic goals, but
would integrate strategically into the framework of the long-range master
plan. Each project includes design solutions that meet or exceed todays
standards for animal husbandry, provides optimal management systems
for staff, and creates exciting and educational experiences for guests.
Dynamic indoor and outdoor habitats, that include natural substrates,
water, shade, vegetation, and activity-based elements such as climbing
structures, swimming pools, and mud wallows, will provide enriching
choice and variability for the animals. The bond projects, designed through
a collaborative process between the zoo and design team, will support the
zoos goal to dramatically enhance animal welfare, while supporting the
mission of animal collection sustainability, site campus sustainability, and
conservation education.
5-3
ASIAN ELEPHANTS
Supporting the zoos game changing vision, the Asian
elephant exhibit is comprised of flexible and diverse habitats
that promote animal welfare and herd socialization. The
project includes large contiguous outdoor habitats linked
to flexible and naturalistic indoor communal rooms, that
provide optimum use for matriarchal social groups and
bull elephants. Indoor areas are designed to allow access
to the outdoor habitats, at the animals discretion, in all
types of weather. The two primary outdoor spaces, the
North Meadow Habitat and the South Meander Habitat,
provide the elephants with access to rich and diverse
landscapes including grassy pastures, shallow splash pools,
deep swim channels, dust bowls, mud wallows, and relaxing
shady areas. Guests will have the opportunity to view and
encounter the elephants at several locations including
panoramic views from the main zoo path and east hub, tree
house viewing from the immersive exhibit trail, and up-close
viewing
from the indoor gallery at Forest Hall.
SITE SECTIONS
1:10
0
10
20
VIEWRAIL
COLORED &
TEXTURED
THEMED
PAVEMENT
EXISTING
GRADE, TYP.
DEADFALL
EDUCATION &
GUEST OVERLOOK
TERTIARY
TRAILS, TYP.
680
680
670
670
650
640
640
630
630
620
620
610
TERRACED LANDSCAPE
& VISITOR PATHS
RAVINE HABITAT
610
PLANTER
HILL TOP
KEY MAP
SECTION A
5-4
RAVINE HABITAT
CONTROL GATE
SHADE & UNDERSTORY
VEGETATION
670
ELEPHANT BUILDING
BEYOND
ISOLATION STALL
ACCESS
670
660
650
ASIAN ELEPHANTS
660
Asian Elephants
The interpretive focus of the new exhibits will be on celebrating the zoos
Item
Total Project Site
Quantity
8.0
Notes
89,091 SF
2.05
Acres
1.85
Acres
80,456 SF
22,700
GSF
Forest Hall
21,040
GSF
2,750
GSF
Unit
Acres
The elephant habitat expansion project scope also includes: a new home
for the Wild Life Live program animals in the renovated Center for Species
ELEPHANT
BUILDING & FOREST HALL FIRST FLOOR & GALLERY VIEWING LEVEL PLANS
Polar
Bears
1:10
MECHANICAL
& EMERGENCY
EXIT ACCESS
N
0
Survival building near the old veterinary hospital; a new zoo train route
10
20
TO NORTH
MEADOW
HABITAT
VISITOR
TRAIL
EMERGENCY
STAIR
GALLERY
VIEWING
13,500 SF
Indoor/Outdoor Shelter
3,900
GSF
1,720
SF
1,960
GSF
BULL STALL
1
KPR
1800 SF
Research Station
BULL STALL
2
1720 SF
1720 SF
ISOLATION
STALL
1820 SF
CHAIN LINK
SECURITY FENCE
KPR
SUNROOM
780 SF
ERD
CHUTE
CHUTE
KPR
FOREST HALL
HABITAT
10,090 SF
CORRAL
+25
1650 SF
KEEPER
ERD
KEEPER
KEEPER
RR
SF = Square Feet
SERVICE VEHICLE
ACCESS
GENERAL
STORAGE
ANIMAL
KITCHEN
MECH
890 SF
640 SF
470 SF
LOADING
DOCK
VEST.
PRIMARY SERVICE
VEHICLE ACCESS
Primates
PHARMACY
MAIN ENTRY
PROGRAM
11,570 SF
810 SF
Net
Net to Gross
820 SF
0 SF
18,400 SF
Gross
12,380 SF
Gross
820 SF
+33 LEVEL
MEZZANINE (+45)
Net
Net to Gross
2,900 SF
1,400 SF
Mezzanine Gross
4,300 SF
Net to Gross
1,570 SF
Net
Net to Gross
2,900 SF
1,120 SF
Gross
3,820 SF
Gross
4,020 SF
Net
2,250 SF
37,680 SF
6,060 SF
Total Gross
43,740 SF
21,040 SF
GALLERY
VIEWING
+23
ELEPHANT
BARRIER
SETBACK
Net
Net to Gross
FOREST HALL
HABITAT
SRG +
17,240 SF
1,160 SF
+38 LEVEL
+23-25 LEVEL
M
A
R CH
O I
O N
M
Forest Hall
Elephant Building
ISOLATION
YARD
SHOTCRETE
FLATWORK AT
DOORS, TYP.
UTE
ER
SF
EP
2,180
Indoor Facility
CH
KE
GSF
KEEPER
KEEP
ASIAN ELEPHANTS
ACTIVITY
STATION
Acres
2,000
ER
Please refer to the Pre-Schematic Design Submittal for Elephant and Related Infrastructure
Projects, dated September 8, 2011, for a complete description of this project.
.31
+34'-6''
CORRAL-STALL 2
SHIFT
ENRICHMENT
PANEL
G
IN
W 8
VIE +3
DN
.45
UT
lawn and pavilion, restrooms, utilities and visitor amenities to support the
+33
UT
Notes
83,200 SF
CH
RETRACTABLE
BOLLARD SYSTEM
EL
Unit
Acres
CH
road containing utility infrastructure, and the east hub with a new picnic
Quantity
1.9
SOUTH MEANDER
HABITAT
DN
Item
Total Project Site
E.
EXIT
VEST.
RESTROOMS
with enhanced views to exhibits and new train shed at the location of the
5-5
+
INTERPRETIVE CONCEPT
CONDOR
5-6
Condor
The vision for the California Condor project is to create a new habitat at
the zoo to allow guests to view these birds in a naturalistic habitat, and to
broaden public awareness of this species and the role the Oregon Zoo serves
as leaders in condor conservation. This facility will also serve as a showcase
for the conservation science and breeding programs that occur at the existing
off-site facility. The project proposes a new high-volume mesh enclosed
condor habitat, a new bird holding and keeper support facility, and several
Program: Condor
Item
Total Project Site
Condor Habitat
Condor Holding & Keeper Building
Quantity
.33
Unit
Acres
Notes
14,250 SF
.11
Acres
1,060
GSF
Rhino
guest viewing opportunities along a new trail integrated within the southern
end of the Great Northwest exhibit sequence.
Program: Rhino
Item
Total Project Site
Rhino Habitat
Quantity
.40
Unit
Acres
Notes
16,750 SF
.26
Acres
11,200 SF
5-7
provides engaging spaces for children and adults to learn and explore, animal
exhibits that highlight the zoos conservation programs, flexible spaces for
educate and inspire on these topics so integral to the Oregon Zoos mission.
and efforts at the zoo, in the region and around the world. The building
programmatic adaptability.
Custom furniture for seating,
openable to contain storage
Free-standing custom furniture,
8'-0" high for storage and visual
and acoustic separation
overhang above
Fold-up doors,
typ of 6
Tree
Canopy
3052 SF
Field
Station
Corridor
2048 SF
River
Edge
2994 SF
Storage
51 SF
Demo existing
deck and parapets
Roll-up door
South
Corridor
1051 SF
Aquatic exhibit,
accomodate plumbing
and drainage
2x4 framed 30"h platform,
unfinished, open to front with
removable canvas panel
WC - W
407 SF
Fam
95 SF
Mech
1242 SF
WC - M
377 SF
Food
Service
334 SF
Nature
Exchange
and
Intertwine
972 SF
Tix
78 SF
Coastal
Forest
481 SF
Great
Hall
3984 SF
up
up
Teen
Program
761 SF
Keeper
Lab
844 SF
Janitor
124 SF
Mech
390 SF
Entry
972 SF
FFE: 54.0'
Existing
Administration
Building
Telcom
110 SF
West
Corridor
1001 SF
Reg
127 SF
Workroom
809 SF
KinderGrotto
1519 SF
UP
3-hr CMU fire wall
Storage
151 SF
WC - W
412 SF
Prep
Kitchen
416 SF
2'
5-8
DF
WC - M
461 SF
.40
Ac
16,750 SF
Rhino Habitat
.26
Ac
11,200 SF
Unit
GSF
Notes
Quantity
30,000
Great Hall
4,000
SF
Butterfly Lab
2,000
SF
9,500
SF
The CDZ acts as a base camp for learning, for students and campers, as well
as zoo visitors, to explore the far reaches of the zoo. The entire facility is
designed to reflect an informal working laboratory, or field station. Three
distinct thematic areas for camp spaces suggest environmental diversity, and
relate to their location in the building and on the site: the River Edge looks
to a stream element in the west hub; the Tree Canopy extends over a hill
and overlooks the landscape and the future Primates expansion; and the
Kindergrotto is tucked below the roof terrace and has round openings for
natural light to imply a more protected, quieter, special place.
CDZ will engage visitors in an investigation of the ecology and natural
Bond Project Narratives for MP
Page 2 of 2
5-9
POLAR BEAR
5-10
N/A
7.29.11
DATE
INTERPRETIVE CONCEPT
SRG +
POLAR BEAR
WORKSHOP
#3
PRE-SCHEMATIC DESIGN SUBMITTAL
SCALE
CONCEPT SKETCHES
Polar Bears
The vision for the Polar Bear project is to develop a new and larger exhibit
that will be developed in such a way, to encourage and promote exploring,
digging, swimming, scratching, and other natural behaviors. The project
includes two naturalistic bear habitats, the Ridge Habitat and Beach Habitat,
comprised of deep water pools, shallow pools and streams, grass meadow
areas, and various natural substrates throughout. Headland talus beach
edges that transition up to the grassy meadow knolls will provide the bears
with panoramic views of the entire habitat and edges beyond. Guests will
Quantity
1.9
Unit
Acres
Notes
83,200 SF
.45
Acres
19,700 SF
.31
Acres
13,500 SF
2,000
GSF
Indoor Facility
2,180
SF
Indoor/Outdoor Shelter
3,900
GSF
Research Station
1,720
SF
1,960
GSF
have the opportunity to view the bears from the central hub, the main
spine and exhibit trails, the Research Station, and the Underwater Viewing
Building, with views of bears swimming and plunging in to water 10 to 12
deep. The bear holding and keeper support facilities will include a maternity
and cub room, off-exhibit yards, and multiple indoor/outdoor bear rooms
with natural substrate flooring.
SF = Square Feet
Primates
Bond Project Narratives for MP
September 22,, 2011 Draft
Page 1 of 2
5-11
PRIMATES
SITE LAYOUT & GRADING PLAN
1:10
N
0
10
20
LEGEND
CENTRAL
HUB
PROJECT BOUNDARY
DAYROOM HABITAT
HABITAT NICHE
VISITOR PATH
SERVICE ROAD
KEEPER CORRIDOR
EXISTING
PENGUINARIUM
PROGRAM
Project Area
Chimp Dayroom Habitat
27,460 SF
2,000 SF
VISITOR
PATH
SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
DIRECT LINKAGE TO
EXISTING CHIMP EXHIBIT
PRIMATES
EXISTING
CHIMP EXHIBIT
PENGUIN LSS
EXPANSION
OFF-EXHIBIT
HABITAT BELOW
MESH ABOVE
SERVICE
ROAD
SRG +
KEEPER ACCESS
AND TRANSFER
CHIMP DAYROOM
HABITAT (HOLDING &
SUPPORT SPACE BELOW)
5-12
EDGE OF ROOF
CLR Design
Program: Primates
Item
Total Project Site
The vision for the Primates project is to create new, larger, sustainable
Quantity
.63
Unit
Acres
Notes
27,460 SF
Holding & Support Space Below
2,000
SF
2,000
SF
6,800
GSF
Indoor Facility
2,660
SF
2,490
SF
Keeper Support
1,240
SF
SF = Square Feet
Condor
Interpretation will seek to foster deep interspecies connections between
chimps, in two separate habitats. The shell will provide shade during the
summer months, and protection from the wind and elements during the
colder months. Located directly below the habitats are the individual rooms
litter
foraging,
Item floors support the apes natural
Quantity
Unit hiding,
Notes and scavenging
and group rooms for primates, as well as the necessary keeper support
activities,
as well as parallel play opportunities
designed to deepen visitors
Condor Habitat
.11 Acres 4,900 SF (100# L x 50# W x 35# H +/-)
Program: Condor
.33
Acres
14,250 SF
emotional
links
to their
nearest non-human
relatives.
Condor Holding
& Keeper
Building
1,060 GSF
GSF = refer
Grossto
Square
Feet
Please
the Pre-Schematic
Design Submittal for Primates, dated September 9, 2011,
for a complete description of this project.
Rhino
Program: Rhino
Item
Total Project Site
Rhino Habitat
Quantity
.40
Unit
Acres
Notes
16,750 SF
.26
Acres
11,200 SF
5-13
RHINO
5-14
Program: Rhino
The vision for the Rhino project is to renovate the existing rhino and hippo
Item
Total Project Site
Quantity
.40
Rhino Habitat
.26
Unit
Ac
Notes
16,750 SF
Ac
11,200 SF
Unit
GSF
Notes
habitats, to maximize the amount of usable habitat space for the zoos rhino
collection. With a new vision and focus on the African rhino collection, the
zoos hippo collection will be phased out over a period of time which will
free up both indoor holding and management space, and outdoor habitat
Item
Total Building Area
space for rhinos. The project includes the development of a larger, more
Great Hall
4,000
SF
Butterfly Lab
2,000
SF
9,500
SF
usable land area for rhinos, accomplished by partial demolition and selective
removal of the existing hippo divider wall and the large dump and fill hippo
Quantity
30,000
pool. A new stream course and natural habitat substrates are included, as
well as enhanced viewing areas for the guests.
Please refer to the Pre-Schematic Design Submittal for Rhino, dated September 9, 2011, for
a complete description of this project.
5-15
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the bond projects is proposed in the
following sequence in order to minimize disturbance to animals,
visitors and zoo operations, and to maximize bond dollar value
against escalation.
TO BE DEMOLISHED
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
APPROXIMATE PHASE
BOUNDARY
5-16
POLAR BEAR
Construction of the new Polar Bear habitat will dramatically
change this part of the zoo. The remainder of the old train
track will be demolished along with the existing polar bear
and sun bear habitats. The central hub utilities and final
finish of the perimeter road is included in this work. The
construction staging area will be converted to elephant use
to complete the exterior elephant habitat area.
5-17
PROJECT COSTS
These bond projects are solely funded by the remaining bond funds.
Cost estimates were developed for each project and vetted with
an independent cost estimator to maintain budget targets as each
project developed. Each project budget as shown here includes
estimates for construction; design and engineering; other consulting
SUMMARYOFBONDFUNDALLOCATION
disciplines; furniture, fixtures, and equipment; administration;
contingency, and cost inflation for future years.
Cost Summary
Project
Elephant Habitat and Related
Conservation Discovery Zone
Polar Bear
Primates and Rhino
Condor
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Estimate
48,954,771
12,773,593
18,079,392
12,951,286
2,394,667
95,153,709
14,921,164
7,200,000
(5,200,000)
112,074,873
The project budget estimates include: construction costs, construction design contingency, professional fees, interpretives, signage,
equipment, fees, permits, and related contingency.
5-18
BONDIMPLEMENTATIONPLAN
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Elephant/Road/Train
Elephant/Road/Train
Procurement/Design/Bid
Procurement/Design/Bid
Procurement/Design/Bid
Procurement/Design/Bid
Construction
Construction
Polar Bear
Polar Bear
Procurement/Design/Bid
Procurement/Design/Bid
Construction
Construction
Primates/Rhino
Primates/Rhino
Procurement/Design/Bid
Procurement/Design/Bid
Construction
Construction
Property Purchase
2020
Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5-19
6.0
INTRODUCTION
GREAT NORTHWEST
ASIA
SOUTH AMERICA
PRIMATES
AFRICA
SOUTH AMERICA TROPICAL FOREST HUB
6-1
INTRODUCTION
The animal exhibit projects, in addition to other master plan projects that
Beyond the implementation of the bond projects, the master plan proposes
hoofstock in the elephant meadow, tiger, sun bear and Amur leopard. The
integrated into the framework of the master plan and is coordinated with
visitor and service circulation systems as well as guest services and amenities.
as Red Ape Reserve, Great Northwest and Africa. Together these new and
enhanced projects propose active and enriching environments for the zoos
long-range animal collection, built within a dynamic and sustainable campus
master plan.
6-2
WLL
GREAT
NORTHWEST
VET
HOSPITAL
BEAR
PARKING
CONDOR
GIFT
WOLF
ENTRY
PLAZA
COUGAR
NATURE IN
BACKYARD
Cascade
Hub
GUEST
SERVICES
Elephant Meadow
North Habitat
POLAR
BEAR
RIDGE
Train
Station
TAPIR/
PRIMATE
Central
Hub
SOUTH
AMERICA
FLEX 1
ASIA
FLEX 2
FLEX 3
PENGUIN
West
Hub
BEACH
FLEX 2
PRIMATES
CONSERVATION
DISCOVERY
ZONE
FLEX 5
CHIMP
FLEX 4
MANDRILL
AFRICA
GIRAFFE
FEEDING
Africa
Hub
MIXED
SPECIES
BIRD
AVIARY
SAVANNA
HERP.
Operations
RED
APE
East
Hub
AfriCafe
RHINO
S.A. TROPICAL
FOREST HUB
BAT
FLEX 1
SERENGETI
PLAZA
MARSH
AVIARY
Concert
Lawn
FOREST
HALL
THE
HILL
Ravine
Habitat
ASIAN
ELEPHANTS
Elephant Meander
South Habitat
LION
Serengeti
CHEETAH
ELEPHANT
HOLDING
150
300
600
6-3
GREAT NORTHWEST
EXISTING/
ENHANCED
EXHIBITS
EXISTING/
ENHANCED
AVIARY
TOTEM
INTERPRETIVE
AREA
BEAR
HABITAT
VIEW
HLDG
COUGAR
HABITAT
ENTRY
ZOO
PLAZA
CONDOR
HABITAT
WOLF
HABITAT
HLDG
FLEX INDOOR/
OUTDOOR
BACKYARD
HABITATS, TYP.
NATURE IN
BACKYARD
CASCADE
HUB
WATERFOWL
AVIARY
INSECT
AND SMALL
MAMMAL
BUILDING
6-4
50
100
200
The existing Great Northwest exhibit zone anchors the north end of the zoo
experience and serves as the first attraction as guests enter the zoo. The
new exhibits and enhancement projects proposed in the master plan will
create more usable habitat area for several key animal species including
wolf, black bear, cougar, and condors, while still maintaining and preserving
the overall Great Northwest experience characterized by native Oregon
CONDOR
Item
Condor Holding & Keeper Facility
Quantity
1,060
Unit
SF
Notes
Bond Project Scope
4,900
SF
4,500
SF
550
SF
Quantity
11,400
Unit
SF
Notes
Expanded Flex Habitat
Cougar Habitat
9,715
SF
Wolf Habitat
8,700
SF
2,125
SF
NATURE IN BACKYARD
potentially available for each of these species, and will offer a more dynamic
Item
Renovated Farm House
environment for animals and, overall, experience for the guests. The black
bear and wolf exhibits take advantage of the vegetated slope along the south
side of the Great Northwest zone, which will provide an ideal linear wooded
SF = Square Feet
South America
reptiles and amphibians, will anchor this attraction, while pathways and
interior corridors are widened to improve guest flow through this critical
sequence at the Great Northwest.
Unit
SF
Notes
Education Animals/Teen Program
1,600
SF
Indoor/Outdoor Exhibits
2,400
SF
250
SF
enhanced to improve animal holding and exhibit zones as well as the overall
guest experience. Beavers, otters, turtles, and new indoor/outdoor pods for
Quantity
1,655
Item
Total Approximate Project Area
Quantity
.87
Unit
Acres
Notes
37,750 SF
2,730
SF
2,290
SF
Penguin Habitat
9,000
SF
9,000
SF
Mesh Enclosed
SF = Square Feet
6-5
While the overall goal will still be to celebrate, explore and interpret the
flora, fauna and habitats of the zoos home bioregion, the zoo will take
this opportunity to delve more deeply into the complex balance between
populations; and even the problem of feral and semi-feral pets will be
investigated.
At the foot of the Cascade Trail, a thoughtful adaptive reuse of the existing
Trillium Farm farmyard will focus on the resurgence of interest in near-urban
agriculture and market gardening, considering matters such as sustainable
implementation is critical.
these topics will be viewed not from the perspective of a nostalgic look
the new Nature in Backyard exhibit sequence. This zone will completely
redevelop the existing farm zone to include a new indoor/outdoor insect and
small mammal exhibit building, a mesh enclosed waterfowl aviary which can
area and these programs, serving as the zoos ambassadors to the community.
livestock (chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, goats.) At the new Trillium Farm,
be viewed from the train trestle to the south, and a series of indoor/outdoor
native Oregon habitats focused on small mammals and birds. This new
exhibit zone and the proposed enhancements to the farm house will bolster
the education animal collection and programming that occurs here today.
6-6
INTERPRETIVE CONCEPTS
SF = Square Feet
LF = Linear Feet
Asia
ASIA
Program: Asia
TIGER, SUN BEAR, AMUR LEOPARD
The master plan build-out of Asia anchors the east hub and spine, and
will bolster the overall Asia zoo-geographic zone including elephants and
Red Ape Reserve. Tying back to an important master plan mission and
initiative, the Asia sequence will create a series of large dynamic outdoor
mesh enclosed habitats to house tigers, Amur leopards, and sun bears. Via
an arboreal treeway habitat transfer system, the master plan proposes to
link these habitats to the existing red ape zone and a portion of the African
Item
Total Approximate Project Area
Quantity
.67
Tiger
Sun Bear
Notes
29,400 SF
3,725
SF
10,540
SF
6,665
SF
70
LF
Mesh Enclosed
Unit
Acres
LF = Linear Feet
primate zone as well, to provide the opportunity for habitat time sharing
HOLDING BUILDING
BELOW
FLEX
HABITAT 1
road.
FLEX
HABITAT 2
SPINE
HLDG RED
APE
EAST
HUB
50
100
200
6-7
SOUTH AMERICA
SERVICE
WEST
HUB
TAPIR &
PRIMATE
HABITAT
CENTRAL
HUB
PENGUIN
HABITAT
CDZ
6-8
50
100
200
SF = Square Feet
South America
along the north edge of the spine between the west and central hubs. This
land is currently occupied by Steller Cove and the existing tiger exhibit. The
tiger exhibit will be relocated to the new Asia zone in the master plan, and
Steller Cove will be phased out over time.
The east habitat, a mixed species exhibit featuring tapirs and primates, will
serve as the primary attraction as guests transition from the upper level entry
deck and overlook down along the north edge of the spine moving towards
Quantity
.87
Unit
Acres
Notes
37,750 SF
Penguins, Tapirs, Primates
2,730
SF
2,290
SF
Penguin Habitat
9,000
SF
9,000
SF
Mesh Enclosed
SF = Square Feet
the Conservation Discovery Zone and west hub. The west habitat will
feature Humboldt penguins in a coastal environment including water, sand,
rocks, vegetation, and other natural substrates and artifacts. Not only will
this exhibit offer views from the adjacent west hub, but the Conservation
Discovery Zone classrooms, and the event deck space to the north, will
leverage panoramic views of this dynamic habitat and species as well.
Situated between the two habitats is the animal holding and keeper support
facility. Linked to the south side of this facility is the indoor exhibit viewing
and interpretive building which will offer panoramic views of tapirs and
primates to the east, and partial underwater views of penguins to the west.
A special behind the scenes peek view from this building into the support
facility could be offered here to
provide a unique and up-close
viewing encounter.
6-9
TREEWAYS, TYP.
PRIMATES
CENTRAL
HUB
FLEX
HABITAT 3
FLEX
HABITAT 5
FLEX
HABITAT 1
FLEX
HABITAT 4
MANDRILL INDOOR/OUTDOOR
HABITAT (SUPPORT BELOW)
CHIMP INDOOR/OUTDOOR
HABITATS (SUPPORT BELOW)
6-10
FLEX
HABITAT 2
50
100
200
Primates
As defined in the bond project narrative, the vision for primates is to create
Program: Primates
Quantity
6,800
Unit
SF
Notes
Chimps and Mandrills
2,000
SF
2,000
SF
1,400
SF
Indoor/Outdoor Space
identified. In the bond, a new primate holding and keeper support facility
PRIMATES MASTER PLAN SCOPE
for chimpanzees and mandrills will replace the existing aging primate
building. Directly above the holding and support facility are new indoor/
outdoor multi-purpose mesh enclosed habitats that will be utilized primarily
by chimpanzees and mandrills. They are, however, designed to be flexible
Item
Total Approximate Project Area
Quantity
2.0
Unit
Acres
Notes
Including Bond Zone
2,600
SF
2,000
SF
Flex Habitat 1
20,000
SF
Flex Habitat 2
3,000
SF
primates.
Flex Habitat 3
5,300
SF
Flex Habitat 4
2,750
SF
Flex Habitat 5
3,200
SF
935
LF
Treeways
SF = Square Feet
LF = Linear Feet
Asia
Program: Asia
TIGER, SUN BEAR, AMUR LEOPARD
Item
Total Approximate Project Area
Mixed Species Holding Building
Flex Habitat Zone 1
Tiger
Sun Bear
Quantity
.67
Unit
Acres
Notes
29,400 SF
3,725
SF
10,540
SF
6,665
SF
70
LF
Mesh Enclosed
LF = Linear Feet
the immediate African Primate zone, arboreal linkages are also proposed
to link adjacent South American and Asian master plan habitats including
other primates, tiger, sun bear, and red ape, orangutan and gibbon. This
network of linkages allows for over 900 linear feet of habitat trails to provide
a truly unique and enriching environment for both the animals and guests.
MASTER PLAN REPORT
10.20.2011
6-11
AFRICA
RHINO
HLDG
OFF- HOOFSTOCK
HLDG
EXHIBIT
YARDS
RHINO
HABITAT
(PHASE 1)
RHINO
HABITAT
(PHASE 2)
SAVANNA
HABITAT
SERENGETI
PLAZA
MARSH
AVIARY
HERP.
BAT
CAVE
GIRAFFE
FEEDING
AFRICA HUB
SAVANNA
VILLAGE
MIXED
HABITAT
BIRD
HABITAT
LION
HABITAT
SERENGETI
GIRAFFE
CORRAL
CHEETAH
EXHIBIT
GIRAFFE
SWAMP BUILDING
BUILDING
HLDG
6-12
50
100
200
Africa
Program: Africa
Rhino
species hoofstock and giraffe habitat, the marsh aviary, the African savanna
Item
Renovated Rhino Building
Quantity
3,870
village, the mixed species temperate forest habitat, the herpetarium, and
Unit
SF
Notes
Bond Project Alternate
11,200
SF
4,880
SF
Unit
SF
Notes
Mixed Species
the existing bat exhibit. Outside of Asian Elephants, this zone occupies the
Hoofstock
largest zoo-geographic land use on the campus and will anchor the guest
experience along the southern half of the zoo.
The bond implementation plan includes a modest expansion to the existing
rhino habitat that is tied to a new emphasis being placed on this species
in the collection plan, and a phasing out of hippos over time. The master
Item
Hoofstock Holding Building
Quantity
3,400
2,000
SF
3,395
SF
Giraffe Corral
1,840
SF
Outdoor Spave
45,650
SF
Mixed Species
Redeveloped/Expanded Savanna
plan phase for rhinos will include another expansion to the usable habitat
space, and a modification and
enhancement to the visitor
sequence to offer new and
improved viewing opportunities.
Both phased enhancements are
Savanna Village
Item
Village Zone
Quantity
9,700
Unit
SF
Notes
Approximate Area
760
SF
Retail
Flex Structure 2
Shade Structure
760
SF
Flex Structure 3
Small Gift
370
SF
Flex Structure 4
Information
370
SF
Flex Structure 5
Giraffe Viewing
700
SF
575
SF
Wood Trellis
Item
Marsh Aviary
Mixed Species Forest Habitat
Interpretive/Informational
2,975
SF
Mixed Species
Indoor Herpetarium
2,340
SF
SF = Square Feet
6-13
fully integrated with the overall master plan build-out of Africa, and tie into
views from all sides. Africa Hub will serve a critical need for everyday guests,
and will also provide the opportunity for rentals, overnight camps, and other
special after hour events.
and medium hoofstock and bird species, as well as giraffes. The habitat will
animal land use, which will allow for a bolstering of the animal collection
plan in this area. A new mixed species temperate forest habitat, featuring
Colobus monkeys, bongo and duiker is included, with a holding and keeper
mixed species habitat over time. The modified immersive visitor trail system
support facility to the south along the perimeter service road. Anchoring the
moving east-west will be new in some areas, and widened in other areas
up-close views to the north will be offered from the trail and shaded deck
overlooks.
Tied to an overall master plan objective, and pulling from design criteria
established for the spine and hubs, the guest, service, and animal circulation
systems will be completely redeveloped to drastically improve flow.
Anchoring the southwest corner of
the Africa sequence is the Savanna
Village. From this hub, food, gift,
services, guest comfort, and unique
animal encounters will be provided
while offering panoramic exhibit
6-14
Item
Expanded CDZ Support Zone
Quantity
2,400
Unit
SF
Notes
Administration Building
10,900
GSF
30,000
GSF
3 Floors
SF
Treehouse Classrooms
SF = Square Feet
600
groups and after hour events, with easy and direct linkages from the dropoff, parking lot, and public transportation zones. Its location is at a critical
physical position in the zoo where visitors, after their visit through Africa,
need to ascend the hill back up towards the entrance. An elevator will be
available to assist those in need to get to the level of the west hub.
CDZ
CDZ
SUPPORT
ENTRY
treehouses on the edges of the habitats can also be used for camp programs.
The overlook provides an appropriate and dramatic entrance to the new
Administration Building for welcoming guests and potential donors.
ADMIN
OVERLOOK
SOUTH
AMERICA
TROPICAL
FOREST HUB
EDUCATION
TREEHOUSES
50
100
200
6-15
6-16
7.0
Visitor Experience
7-1
ZOO ENTRANCE
Significant physical and operational improvements to the zoos entry
experience are urgently needed. The ORCA Operations & Revenue
Analysis Report recommends implementing electronic ticketing and
membership cards to consolidate ticket sales and access control into one
zoo walking tours to their smart phones or PDAs. (Note: Design and
content features of this primary visit planning component would be
installation of:
Prominent zoo identity signage facing the parking lot. This signage
should be consistent with other expressions of the zoos brand
memorable, and immediately visible from the parking lot and from the
MAX station.
existing mountain goat exhibit, might take the form of a stylized spring
that introduces the idea of water as a key zoo-wide theme. Water would
Prominent central welcome and visit planning component within the zoo
actually and symbolically flow downhill from here and throughout the
zoo. (Note: If it proves feasible to try to capture and reuse runoff for this
entrance plaza.
7-2
EXIT GATE
ENHANCED GIFT
SHOP FACADE
ENHANCED
DROP-OFF AREA
GIFT
SHOP
ENTRY
PLAZA
COUGAR
EXHIBIT
GUEST SERVICES
& CASCADE GRILL
MAP & VISIT
PLANNING KIOSK
ENTRY PLAZA
MASTER PLAN REPORT
10.20.2011
50
100
200
7-3
Entry Plaza
This plaza should remain open for easy circulation and free of visual
obstructions for the large numbers of visitors who are orienting themselves.
West Hub
Focused on educational programming and services to help visitors learn
about preservation, the West Hub provides conservation education and
contains the Conservation Discovery Zone. It is located at a hairpin turn in
the spine and contains both the base camp for zoo education programs
and the major ride attraction: the train. It also serves as the school group
entrance and orientation area. It is important in this hub to keep visitor
circulation and train station queues distinct and clear, and maintain easily
adjusted levels of access to the CDZ.
and connected over the length of the spine, this landscape also facilitates
intuitive way finding: Follow the water.
The hub spaces are gathering areas. They provide major guest services and
accommodate large groups of visitors. Each hub space will engage visitors
with interactive play and exploratory information.
WEST HUB
Central Hub
The Central Hub is a convergence of the spine, secondary and tertiary
paths through exhibits, and the elevator up to the boardwalk, and thus will
be a planning decision point for many visitors. This area must have clear
sight lines to each option as well as plenty of places to sit and gather groups
together out of the way of the main circulation flow; it is the crossroads for
exploring the zoo.
East Hub
The East Hub is the main hub furthest along the spine. Arriving at this
area often represents the mid-point of a visit to the zoo. It is an important
revenue generation and resting point with plenty of food options, generous
picnic areas and restrooms in several locations. As the zoo is known for
having one of the most successful Asian elephant breeding programs in the
world, the East Hub is the zoos showpiece, as a gateway to the elephant
habitat. In addition, the East Hub supports the concert lawn with overflow
space for services during large events.
EAST HUB
CENTRAL HUB
MASTER PLAN REPORT
10.20.2011
7-5
PATHWAYS
The zoos circulation network extends in diverse directions from the main
circulation spine, looping through collections of habitats, single exhibits,
buildings and visitor service areas. This network of pathways varies in scale
and material expression, but it shares the spines material palette. Within
the spine, the expression of these materials is sinuous. To strengthen
circulation hierarchy, secondary paths should be much simpler in form,
but connected through the use of similar materials. Like the spine itself,
the purpose of the pedestrian circulation network is to connect and clarify.
The pathway network should remain clear, uncluttered, and executed with
beautifully detailed, durable materials.
CASCADE
HUB
ENTRY
PLAZA
CENTRAL
HUB
WEST
HUB
VISITOR CIRCULATION
main spine
primary visitor circulation
secondary visitor circulation - spine
secondary visitor circulation - exhibit
train loop
west property boundary
service road
main hub/mini hub
green space/anchor building
7-6
S. AMERICA
HUB
AFRICA
HUB
I N
S P
I N
E
EAST
HUB
WAYFINDING
short and easily remembered (the West Hub, Central Hub and East Hub
the zoos live animal and habitat exhibits and the new Conservation
Discovery Zone, as well as retail and food service components and other
Flexibility to allow for future changes to the zoo campus and directional
choices
the typical visitors trip to the zoo - approach, arrival and exit, orientation,
They are accessible, memorable, and clearly branded. The Oregon Zoos
overall interpretive goals, including both bond project and non-bond project
Refer to the ORCA Operations & Revenue Analysis Report for more detail.
INTERPRETIVE
From the standpoint of interpretation and visitor experiences, three
initiatives, are to create a more synergistic experience for guests across the
entire campus and to position the zoo itself its environmental resources
and stewardship of those resources, its husbandry and animal care practices,
and its conservation programs as an essential part of that experience.
7-7
AMENITIES DISTRIBUTION
Organizing spine and hub elements will vastly improve visitor orientation
and access to necessary amenities as well as improve visitor flows to revenue
West Hub
Exhibit Anchor: South American Penguins
generating elements.
Each large hub will contain a major wayfinding element, an amenity anchor,
an animal exhibit anchor, restrooms (men/women/family), and a number
of other amenities listed, by hub, below. Refer to the Visitor Amenities
diagram.
Entry Plaza
Exhibit Anchor: Flex Northwest Predator (wolf, bear, or cougar)
2/3/1
SW
LEGEND
SP
wayfinding
info booth
first aid
8/10/1
i
NL
SP
E NL
SP
m/w/fam restrooms
dining
food cart
gift/retail
interpretive play area
seating
3/3/1
NL
SP
4/6/1
SP
7/7/1
8/10/1
(7/8/1)
picnic/event
SW
SP
NL
elevator
stroller/wheelchair rental
1/1
NL
SP
8/10/1
NL
SP
2/4/1
SP
SP E
stroller parking
nursing lounge
visitor hub
NL
SP
3/4/1
7-9
Central Hub
Exhibit Anchor: Polar Bear
East Hub
Exhibit Anchor: Asian elephants
Amenity Anchor: major food service with views to primates and Africa,
catering/corporate and picnic events
Elevator
ACCESSIBILITY
With an elevation change of about 80 feet from the Entry Plaza to the Africa
Hub, navigating from the furthest reaches of campus can be physically
challenging for some visitors. The master plan adds three visitor elevators to
assist with vertical circulation:
An elevator pavilion will create a quick link from the Central Hub up
to the boardwalk to the entry. This structure must provide sufficient
weather protection to the elevator and associated equipment. A
vestibule at the top level and possibly a high shelter over the boardwalk
could accomplish this while preserving lines of sight at this important
vista point. The lower level would provide covered seating, an
opportunity for a coffee cart, and a location for restrooms, all tucked
visitors move from the Africa gateway at the bottom of the concert lawn,
up to the dining terrace level, and finally to the roof terrace with easy
the weather, but also completely open as with large roll up doors, and
Within the new South America Forest exhibit building an elevator will
The concert lawn redesign brings the zoos paths into ADA wheelchair
give visitors a choice about how to negotiate the climb back up the hill,
accessibility compliance from the East Hub down to the entrance to Africa.
85
65
45
E
55
35
20
15
5
E
elevator
85
site elevation
7-11
FOOD SERVICE
FIRST AID
Two major food service locations operate at opposite ends of the campus;
Each large and mini hub will be equipped with First Aid supplies. At the
the Cascade Grill at the Entry Plaza, and the AfriCafe replacement building
Entry Plaza there will be a staffed First Aid station with lie-down space. This
at the East Hub. Both these kitchens are relied upon heavily for catering for
events, see Events section for more information. Visitors can expect to find
seasonal food options at each of the large hubs and the remote Africa Hub.
NURSING LOUNGE
Carts should be designed such that when they are closed they become part
strategy.
RETAIL
The zoo store at the Entry Plaza is the major retail location for the zoo.
Improvements could be made in exiting circulation to encourage guests to
view merchandise. Mobile carts offer flexibility for themed sale opportunities
in different parts of the zoo. Key to success of retail and food carts is to
provide a plug-and-play infrastructure for flexibility, easy set up, and removal
when not in use.
the Entry Plaza only. This reduces staffing and coordination of the rental
units from different points on campus.
Stroller parking should occur as a small pull-off area with space for 2-3
strollers outside each restroom block.
Refer to the ORCA Operations & Revenue Analysis Report for more detail on visitor
amenities.
RESTROOMS
Restrooms are located at each hub for consistency of location and even
distribution throughout the campus. Throughout the course of the master
plan, all visitor restrooms will be replaced with new facilities with two
exceptions; the Cascade Grill building restrooms and the restrooms in the
Great Northwest exhibit area will be renovated.
Each block of restrooms will have a separate family restroom, a nursing
station, and a pull off location for 2-3 strollers.
7-12
LANDSCAPE
PLANTINGS
Much like the zoos animal exhibits, the zoos landscape palette has been
slowly evolving over the years: the former transitioning from bunker-like
concrete enclosures with moats and fences to multiple-species, natural
substrate habitats; the latter from garden-like public spaces and foreigninspired exhibit plantings to locally-grown, context-specific installations.
Gradually, the zoos horticulture staff has been transitioning the zoo
landscape from a traditional garden to a near-ecosystem of native and
climate adaptive plants. The master plan proposes to continue this course
of action, using the native Northwest plant palette to help organize and
Metro Council passed a resolution in July 2011 with guidelines for the
house functions. The textures and colors of our native species list will
visually tie the zoo to the larger Washington Park and West Hills context
by-project basis. The group decided this would enable a more strategic
landscapes which are visible from many vantage points throughout the zoo.
park-like environment
Zoo campus.
7-13
CONSERVATION EDUCATION
CONSERVATION DISCOVERY ZONE
The Conservation Discovery Zone is a building where both zoo visitors and
the thousands of education program participants that pass through each year
can learn about the zoos conservation programs and about environmental
conservation in general. The expansive green roof appears to rise out of the
landscape, and the building to reside below.
The CDZ bond project exemplifies the zoos vision of no child left inside
with a building that opens up and relates directly to the outdoors and
EVENTS
CONCERT LAWN & STAGE
The first phase of the zoos bond project implementation will buildout a new east edge for the existing Concert Lawn. This initial phase of
construction and renovation will include an accessible path between the
venue and the new elephant habitat. Overlooks along a boardwalk between
the concert lawn and elephant habitat will provide vantage points for
elephant viewing, accommodate student groups, classes, and small, informal
zoo activities. These spaces will also function as premium seating or privateparty balconies during concert lawn performances.
The master plan vision for the zoos Concert Lawn venue builds on this
first phase bond implementation and enhances accessibility and circulation,
better engages a reconceived AfriCafe, provides multiple stage-audience
configurations and creates unique lawn and terrace spaces that reinforce the
venue layout while creating unique, playful spaces for everyday (non-event)
use.
The proposed master plan concert lawn maintains current event attendance
levels while enhancing the event experience for those in attendance.
Sculpted concrete seat walls create defined terraces and lawn seating panels
EAST HUB
which are oriented towards a new, expanded stage. The stage is rotated
counterclockwise to better align with the topography and long axis of the
lawn and the east hub above. Where the concert lawn path passes between
ELEPHANT
OVERLOOK/
PREMIUM
SEATING
AFRICAFE
TERRACE
VIEWING
the new stage and an expanded paved zone at the lower lawn terrace, the
path is delineated from the terrace paving. This relief creates a less formal,
more intimate stage for live animal demonstrations, field classes and other
small lectures or presentations. The large paved circle itself provides space
for dancing, informal seating, play, picnicking or formal arrangements of
chairs or benches. Along its west edge, the master plan concert lawn engages
LOWER LAWN
TERRACE
STAGE
7-15
AFRICAFE REPLACEMENT
Terraced into the hillside, this building is as much landscape as it is
structure: it creates multiple viewing levels, expands the venue space
and provides food service and restroom facilities which bolster the venue
programming.
Ramps from the spine are integrated into
the primates and Red Ape Reserve to
provide accessible exterior routes to both
35
Flex Asia
Primates
Red Ape
East Hub
Roof Knoll
30
Service Access 15
Asian Elephants
Lower Terrace 30
Upper Terrace 45
Rhino
Aviary
15
Elephant
Exhibit
Boardwalk
Concert
Lawn
Stage
TRAIN TERRACE
Entry Plaza
Cascade Grill
83
72
Parking Lot
Boardwalk to
Cascade Mezzanine
67
Service
Access
Event Terrace
70
South America
Penguins
Train Loading
Platform
54
West Hub
CDZ
service yard.
Oregon Zoo Comprehensive Capital Master Plan
VISITOR EXPERIENCE
7-17
SEASONAL EXHIBITS
Available space for traveling, temporary
and seasonal exhibits will shift throughout
the execution of the bond projects. As each
improvement is completed, the zoo should
reassess space availability based on specific
exhibit needs. The future service yard is
arranged to provide open space adjacent
to Africa. Interim areas could be defined
for seasonal exhibit use within areas of the
master plan that are 15 to 20 years out, like
Flex Asia.
8-1
SUSTAINABILITY INTRODUCTION
HABITAT
Guiding Principles
Model use of habitatfriendly development practices
ENERGY
Guiding Principles
Reduce energy demand first
multiple benefits.
Targets
Reduce water use 50% below 2008 levels by 2025
Plan.
Targets
2013: Arrest GHG emissions
WATER
Guiding Principles
Prevent water use; eliminate where possible
Targets
Arrest and begin to reduce effective total impervious area
8-2
HABITAT
Healthy habitats are Metros Sustainability Plan to ensure Metros parks,
trails and developed properties positively contribute to healthy, functioning
urban ecosystems and watershed health.
Stormwater infiltration improvements are
paramount to Metros habitat goals. Improved
infiltration throughout the site will reduce
volumes entering the city storm system. Care
must be taken on this geologically challenging
site to not create high volume discharge
Improve habitat
and ecosystem
integrity and
connectivity
8-3
WATER
GOALS AND ANALYSIS FOR WATER REDUCTION
The function of the utility master plan is to provide adequate infrastructure
to meet the current and future needs of the Oregon Zoo, and facilitate
meeting the zoos sustainability goals. A majority of the utility mains at the
zoo were installed around 1955, which means these systems are nearing
the end of their useful life span. The utility master plan will replace aging
Reduce domestic
water use 50%*
below 2008 levels
by 2025.
Although a couple of the bond projects, the Veterinary Medical Center and
Penguin Life Support System Upgrades, are already under construction,
TheinOregon
Zoo has aofnumber
of sustainability
initiatives
that are driving
The Zoo is
the process
evaluating
the existing
infrastructure
with third-party
the
development
of
the
master
plan
and
influencing
how
the
utility
master
contractors using non-destructive techniques to better map the system. The intent is to
of the utility master plan to develop the backbone of the pipe network.
Key the location of the lines, identify and eliminate existing leaks, and improve wasteful
verify
plan is designed and implemented. The sustainability targets for Metro and
elements of the utility plan are as follows:
operation the
practices
to further
theirrelate
sustainability
Theaseffort
is beginning to show
zoo master
plan as they
to the civil goals.
design are
follows:
results with a consistent trend in water use reduction with each monthly bill, based on
Replace aging infrastructure
historic monthly
use.domestic
Future water
projects
provide
metering to monitor water
Reduce
use should
60%* below
2008adequate
levels by 2025.
use and identify opportunities for submetering of the mainline to more easily isolate leaks
Establish utility corridors
Reduce water usage at Hippo and Penguin exhibits 80% below 2008
in the system.
the master plan has identified future bond projects to implement portions
levels.
As can be seen in the graphic above, the largest water use on campus has been attributed to
Establish
water
tracking
reporting
system
to better
monitorMany
waterare
use.older pools
using
about
45.4 and
million
gallons
of water
annually.
Accommodate redevelopment of existing and future exhibit areas the exhibitpools,
built with inadequately sized filtration systems or no filtration system at all. As a result,
Maintain or improve the watershed health of Tanner Creek.
many pools are
regularly dumped and filled to maintain adequate water quality for animal
welfare. The
bond
projects
wereMetro
selected
the
Zoo to target
exhibits
with the largest
* Zoo campus
goal exceeds
Councilby
2010
Sustainability
Plan tothe
facilitate
meeting
water demand.
The penguin,
elephant
hippo
exhibitSeepools
areforestimated
to use 33
50% reduction
goal throughout
Metrosand
managed
properties.
Appendix
existing
conditions
notes. or 73% of the total exhibit pool water use. Construction of the
million gallons
a year,
penguin exhibit pool filtration system is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2011 and is
Oregon Zoo Comprehensive Capital Master Plan
8-4
SUSTAINABILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE & OPERATIONS
expected to save about 6.4 million gallons a year. Design and implementation of modern
filtration equipment with backwash recovery systems on these bond exhibit projects, along
with phasing out of the hippo collection and pool, has the potential to save 30.7 million
As can be seen in the graphic to the left, the largest water use on campus
has been attributed to the exhibit pools, using about 45.4 million gallons
of water annually. The bond projects were selected by the Zoo to target
the exhibits with the largest water demand. The penguin, elephant and
hippo exhibit pools are estimated to use 33 million gallons a year, or 73%
of the total exhibit pool water use. Design and implementation of modern
filtration equipment with backwash recovery systems on these bond exhibit
projects, along with and phasing out of the hippo collection and pool has the
potential to save 30.7 million gallons a year for a 68% savings in exhibit pool
water use.
Other design elements with the bond projects will save water such as
integrating soft substrate into exhibit and holding areas. These soft
substrates do not only benefit animal welfare, but will reduce the reliance
The following list represents an estimate of existing or proposed water usage at the Zoo for
a number of exhibits for daily washdown and pool backwash. Unless noted otherwise,
volumes represent existing conditions based on interviews with maintenance and operation
staff. These flow volumes for washdown were estimated from the approximate time spent
washing down the various exhibits and an estimated flow rate based on individual meter
readings at a select number of exhibits. It is estimated that the Zoo currently uses between
10,000 and 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) for washdown. Volumes for exhibit pool backwash
Oregon Zoo Comprehensive Capital Master Plan
were estimated by Zoo maintenance
staff.
8-5
SUSTAINABILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE & OPERATIONS
GROUNDWATER
The new water main will be constructed in phases. As a result, each phase
below the existing administration building in the 1950s to stabilize the site
meet its sustainability target of reducing water usage and saving a valuable
Refer to the Utilities Plans for the mapping of the existing and proposed water system
SEWER
Existing
The zoo has a complete on-site combination sewer/storm drain system.
There are two sewer discharge points at the southern end of the zoo
property; one is located south of the maintenance service yard, while the
other is located at the ravine just south of Predators. Sizes of the sewer/
storm drain lines vary with lines up to 24 inches in diameter. There have
been no reports of pipe capacity problems with regard to sanitary sewer
flows. The existing conveyance system serves as a combined sewer and
has adequate capacity to meet current sewer demands as well as to convey
stormwater runoff. The existing condition of the pipes and manholes are not
known, but a vast majority of the sewer facilities were constructed in 1955.
These facilities are likely reaching the end of their useful life.
Construct
an on-site
wastewater
treatment
facility.
One of the master plan sustainability strategies for the zoo is to construct
an on-site wastewater treatment such as a Living Machine, constructed
PROPOSED UTILITIES: SANITARY SEWER BASIN AREAS
MASTER PLAN REPORT
10.20.2011
8-7
Proposed
One of the sustainability goals and code requirements of the project is to
separate the sewer and storm drain flows. Given the steepness of the existing
topography, it is anticipated the pipe slope constraints will not be a concern
for future development.
STORM DRAIN
Existing
The campus is divided into two major drainage basins. The northern portion
of the zoo campus (East Basin) drains east to Tanner Creek, while the
southern portion (South Basin) drains to a City of Portland storm trunk line
in Highway 26. The East Basin has an extensive storm drain conveyance
system that effectively segregates storm and sanitary flows, while the South
Basin has limited storm-only lines. A majority of the South Basin currently
relies on the combination sewer/storm drain system, noted in the sewer
section, for collection and conveyance of surface runoff. The storm systems
for both basins ultimately discharge into the Willamette River.
for the master plan improvements can be achieved through four major
Pervious surfaces within the exhibit spaces and visitor viewing areas will
be maximized.
Individual projects will treat, store, and delay stormwater to the maximum
extent possible within their own footprint.
East Basin
Tanner Creek Watershed
Refer to the Existing Utilities plan for the mapping of the existing storm conveyance system.
See Appendix for proposed storm drain compliance parameters.
Separate
the sewer
and storm
drain flows
Approximate
Basin
Boundary
Tanner Creek
Outfall
South Basin
Willamette Watershed
trail in certain areas during storm events. Visitor areas, plazas, hubs, and
other primary and secondary trails should integrate similar design principles
to convey and treat stormwater at the surface where visitors can observe and
8-8
Highway 26
Outfall
Proposed
Stormwater runoff from the proposed development must be separated from
sanitary flows. Stormwater management within the zoo is complicated by
geotechnical problems, such as active slide hazards, steep slopes, and high
groundwater that can reach the ground surface during the wet season. As a
result, stormwater cannot be viably concentrated and infiltrated.
design strategies:
Pedestrian
thoroughfares
such as the spine
will maximize
stormwater
detention.
exhibit pool
stormwater collection
wastewater
treatment
treated water
storage
stormwater detention
8-9
ENERGY
GOALS AND ANALYSIS FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
REDUCTION
The Metro Council has made a strong commitment to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. In the sustainability plan issued August of 2010, the Metro
Council set the following greenhouse gas goal: Reduce direct and indirect
greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) 80% below 2008 levels by 2050.
This section of the report will describe how the Oregon Zoo Master Plan
addresses that commitment.
Scope 1 Emissions: Site fossil fuel use (Natural Gas and on-site vehicle
fuel) and refrigerants
The majority of zoo emissions are related to the supply chain, or Scope
3 emissions; the zoo is addressing these emissions outside the scope of
this master plan. Scope 1 and 2 emissions can be more directly affected
by campus mechanical and electrical systems. In fiscal year 2008-2009
Scope 1 and 2 emissions totaled approximately 4,700 Metric Tons of CO2
equivalent (MT CO2e); together these account for about 9% of Metros
total greenhouse gas emissions.
The master plan design team has taken the following steps to reduce future
energy needs. These five steps should be applied to each bond project and
other campus improvements.
Reduce greenhouse
gas emissions 80%
below 2008 levels
by 2050.
Zoo Master Plan energy and carbon goal is to achieve an 80% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from the 2008 baseline and therefore do its part in
achieving the Metro Councils overall goal.
8-11
are used mainly for heating domestic hot water and a small amount of
cooking use. There may also be some space heating that occurs even during
the warmest months. During the coldest months, the zoo consumes about
60,000 Therms of gas. It can be inferred that the increased gas use during
the colder months is due to space heating requirements. Gas use increases
by about 50,000 Therms at a cost of about $50,000 per month during the
coldest months. Eliminating all of the gas used for space heating at the zoo
would likely reduce gas consumption by more than 70% (over 200,000
Signature of the building. The average power consumption for both gas
and electricity (both in units of million Btuh) is plotted against the mean
monthly outdoor air temperature for that month.
The zoos energy signature shows that electricity use is relatively constant
regardless of outside air temperature. This is because many electric loads
are independent of the temperature (lights, pumps, plug loads etc.) and also
because electricity provides both heat when it is cold outside and cooling
Wind
See Appendix for full description of each potential renewable energy source
8-12
The following figure illustrates six strategies for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to achieve Metros goal. These strategies are discussed in more
detail in the Appendix. Note many of these items are discussed in part in
Metros 2010 sustainability plan.
Because of the additional square footage and energy intensive life support
Since all new buildings will pursue LEED Silver certification or better,
systems associated with the bond projects, campus energy use will increase
by approximately 15% after the completion of the bond projects. The figure
below shows current and anticipated greenhouse gas emissions until 2050
if the zoo were to operate on a business as usual policy toward energy
expected and actual energy use of the buildings. It will also allow future
efficiency, and the emissions reductions associated with each of the strategies
design teams on campus to compare the overall campus energy use to the
predictions made in the master plan, and assist them in sizing equipment for
future infrastructure needs.
"Business asUsual"
CO2Emmissions
Metro'sCO2
RedutionGoal
2,000
1,000
Baseline
AfterBond
Projects
2015
2020
2025
2050
CondenserLoopGeothermal
SolarThermal
SolarPV
Biomass
EnergyEfficiency
GreenPower
8-13
ENERGY - MECHANICAL
Existing building vintage at the Oregon Zoo varies from about 1955 to
2011. Many buildings are concrete or metal structure with little or no
insulation. Due to the nature of a zoo campus, in which outdoor exhibit
space communicates with large animal holding and exhibit buildings, many
buildings have large doors which are kept open even during relatively cold
outdoor air temperatures. Additionally, many animal holding buildings
require large amounts of fresh outside air for both animal welfare and odor
control. The largest HVAC load on campus is no doubt the heat required for
the outside air that is introduced both intentionally and unintentionally into
the buildings. (Note: some exhibits like Steller Cove have energy intensive
process loads for water treatment that are not considered HVAC loads.)
For Existing Heating Systems, Cooling Systems, and Natural Gas Distribution profiles, see
Appendix
8-14
loop when they require heating and reject heat to the condenser loop when
they require cooling. When all of the connected loads result in a net heating
requirement, the condenser loop is heated by a variety of potential sources,
including geothermal wells (horizontal
or vertical), conventional boilers, solar
hot water panels, or bio-fuel boilers.
If the connected loads result in a net
cooling requirement, heat is rejected
from the condenser loop through
geothermal wells or a supplemental
cooling tower. The current estimate
of the future zoo heating and cooling
building
with a energy
net cooling requirement
for much
of the year (e.g.
Polar
r loop will
allow
exchange
between
buildings
Bear and Steller Cove) could send excess heat to the campus loop, which
Train Roundhouse
*AfriCafe
8-16
ENERGY - ELECTRICAL
The existing zoo campus electrical infrastructure is the result of many
years of periodic development in the absence of a complete system vision
and direction. Much of the infrastructure is antiquated and in need of
replacement, including underground distribution and emergency power
The diagram below illustrates the existing zones of service associated with
each utility transformer and emergency/standby generator.
See Appendix for existing conditions profile and details of the emergency and standby
power system.
vision for what the electrical systems at the Oregon Zoo should be in order
As the zoo campus continues to evolve over time, the campus electrical loads
will undoubtedly evolve as well. Since the zoo campus is not expected to
drastically change in size and general make-up of exhibits, the total campus
electrical load should stay relatively consistent over time.
free energy resource to end-uses across campus. In order for the zoo to meet
8-17
Radial Distribution
The existing campus is served from a radial distribution, in which a one
way medium voltage primary feeder extends from PGE infrastructure
to serve one or more pad-mounted electrical services. Pad-mounted
transformers are dispersed throughout the campus with capacity and
location as needed to serve any given building or load area. Radial
distribution is typically the simplest and most economical way of delivering
power to a load. However, radial feeders provide no redundancy and limited
reliability as a fault anywhere along the feeder length will interrupt power
to all loads served by that particular feeder. The schematic drawing here
shows the one way nature of the radial distribution arrangement. With the
addition of a new pad-mounted transformer service at the new Elephant
exhibit, in essence a second dedicated radial feeder has been created.
However, the redundancy shortcomings of the radial distribution now apply
to both the west radial feeder and the east radial feeder.
Looped Primary Distribution
A looped primary distribution system is one in which each of the campus
pad-mounted transformers can be fed from either direction; a two way
distribution, as opposed to the radial one way. There is an in primary
feeder and an out primary feeder at each transformer with the capability
to switch between them. All transformer switches in the loop are closed
except at one location, so that one side of the loop serves a group of padmounted transformers and the other side of the loop serves the other
group of transformers. By operating the appropriate switches, any section
of the loop can be disconnected from the rest of the system. The looped
primary arrangement does not necessarily reduce the frequency of power
interruptions over the radial distribution, but it decreases the interruption
duration when a feeder fault occurs as it allows for quick restoration of
service. For the zoo campus, the radial distribution can be converted to
a looped primary distribution by completing the loop as shown in the
diagram here.
8-18
RADIAL DISTRIBUTION
ENERGY METERING
Fire Alarm, Animal Life safety and a host of other disparate systems all
You can only improve what you can measure! The zoo has committed to
a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and as part of that, a
significant reduction in campus energy use. In order to track progress and
identify areas in need of improvement, a campus-wide energy management
system (EMS) should be installed. The system should be capable of
accepting inputs related to electricity use, natural gas use and water use. The
system should be networkable to allow for communication across the campus
network and viewing of instantaneous and trended data from the internet or
any PC on campus.
By connecting the EMS to the zoo campus data network, remote access
and energy use display will be possible. The measurement and display of
energy use data provides interpretive and educational opportunities at the
zoo campus, in addition to operational and financial benefits of system
optimization and energy use reduction.
solutions which can meet or exceed industry standards and build a better
zoo.
See Appendix for more on Emergency & Standby Power Distribution descriptions, Electrical
System Improvements, Renewable Interconnections, and Lighting systems Technology
Infrastructure, Wireless, MDF and Campus Distribution
TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
The Oregon Zoo at its present location is over 60 years old and while it is
a modern facility with common modern technology systems, the majority
of its infrastructure to support those systems is as old as the facility itself
8-19
3,870
SF
11,200
SF
4,880
SF
Unit
Notes
ADMINISTRATION
Item
Hoofstock
Quantity
The
current
Administration
Building 3,400
was built
ofSpecies
the original
Hoofstock
Holding
Building
SF as one
Mixed
Hoofstock
Yards
2,000 renovation
SF
1959
zoo Off-Exhibit
buildingsHolding
and underwent
a major
in 1988. Currently
Giraffe Holding Building
3,395
SF
housing
zoo administration, the Oregon
ZooSFFoundation,
marketing and
Giraffe Corral
1,840
Outdoor Spave
Redeveloped/Expanded
Savanna
45,650and
SFvolunteers,
Mixed Species
public
relations, Conservation
Education
the space layout is
feel undesirable for receiving the zoos valued donors. By the time of the
Item
Village Zoneof
execution
Quantity
Unit
Notes
9,700 the
SF building
Approximate
Area
this phase of the master plan,
will be
ready for
760
SF
Retail
Flex Structure 2
Shade Structure
760
SF
Flex Structure 3
Small Gift
370
SF
AFlex
replacement
building adjacent to the 370
commissary
will be built in tandem
Structure 4 Information
SF
Interpretive/Informational
Flex Structure
5 Giraffe of
Viewing
700 SF
View atto
Holding
Building
with
the demolition
the existing building,
a smallIndoor
addition
the CDZ,
Flex Structure 6 - Guest Comfort
575
SF
Wood Trellis
Conservation
Discovery Zone
Africa
Item Village
Item be Item
AItem
program for the administrative offices
should
prepared at that time.
Africa
VillageSF
7,725
Marsh Aviary
The
proposed new site would support
aVillage
10-15,000
sfColobus,
building
with three
Africa
Mixed Species Forest Habitat
8,060
SF
Bongo, Duiker
CDZ
Addition
levels.
The main
the top level2,975
is accessed
atMixed
an overlook
of the
Mixed Species
Forestentry
Holdingat
Building
SF
Species
Indoor Herpetarium
Linked to existing Bat Exhibit
South
America exhibit, with views to 2,340
AfricaSFbeyond.
The lower level is half
buried
in the
slope, exposed to the south; this level should only be half the
SF = Square
Feet
Overlook
depth of the footprint of the two upper floors, and accessed at the service
yard level.
South
America
Tropical
Forest
Quantity
2,400
Unit
SF
Notes
Administration Building
10,900
GSF
30,000
Treehouse Classrooms
SF = Square Feet
8-20
600
GSF
3 Floors
SF
Proposed
Administration
Building
Existing
Commissary
Building
Africa
SERVICE YARD
this yard to the adjacent Africa exhibit, be used for temporary or seasonal
The existing service yard, while largely adequate for space requirements, is
awkwardly organized and problematic for delivery trucks to navigate. Main
priorities of the service yard redesign are:
exhibits like Dinosaurs, or be used for project staging. This area would host
the future compost/waste-to-energy solution like bio-gasification; rapidly
changing technology in this arena is evolving toward more efficiency and a
smaller footprint.
Plan for 100% on-site dry, refrigerated and frozen storage of food
Commissary will be upgraded for dry and cold campus food service
storage
2
3
and logically
4
5
6
7
8-21
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Program: Facilities
Service Yard
Item
Commissary Renovation
Commissary addition
New Service yard shops/loading areas
Quantity
9,745
4,000
16,000
Unit
SF
SF
SF
Notes
Loading and dry storage
Maintenance and Admin offices
Shop space, additional freezer
storage
Program: Railroad
wood pallets. Food waste is the most nutrient rich, followed by the manure
Quantity
Unit
8,600 SF
Notes
Maintenance office, all shops
Program:
1. Flex Use Yard: The existing shop and office structures will be removed
AfriCafe Replacement and Concert Lawn
from this area to allow for employee
parking and flex use space. It also
Concert Lawn/Stage
Item
allows for future zoo
Replace Concert Lawn/Stage
WASTE TO ENERGY
Quantity
expansion.
Unit
48,000 SF
Notes
Includes water storage below concert
lawn
and dry waste. There are several types of waste to energy systems that could
be used to process this waste. Wet waste is better dealt with in an anaerobic
digester process, whereas woody waste is best handled through a gasification
process. While either type of system could handle a mixed waste stream,
it will normally be more costly to do so. For example, wet waste such as
manure would need to be processed through a screw press to extract the
moisture in order to make it suitable for the gasification process.
will be relocated to an addition. The addition will also mark the entry to
the service yard giving it a clear identity for visitors.
4. Shops: Relocated shops and storage areas will flank the new loading
dock for easy access.
5. Loading Dock: The new loading dock will also include an area for dry
and cold storage of animal feed, meeting the health code regulations for
food storage requirements.
Featured here are two of the strategies the design team would recommend to
keep in mind for development in the master plan. Another strategy that is
very attractive but requires a large footprint is a Living Machine for treating
wastewater. This system is beautiful and has a strong visitor engagement and
educational potential, though it did not become an element in the master
plan due to exhibit priorities and site constraints.
Based on rapid evolution occurring now in waste-to-energy technologies, by
the time this phase of the master plan is ready for implementation it is very
likely there will be different, more efficient options available than described
in this report. See MEP Overview in the Appendix for more descriptions of
waste to energy solutions.
8-22
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
TERRA PRETA
broken down in the absence of oxygen (i.e. anaerobic). The process takes
differs from charcoal that its primary uses are carbon sequestration or Bio-
energy with carbon capture and storage, can improve water quality, increase
soil fertility, raise agricultural productivity and reduce pressure on oldgrowth forests. Biochar is a stable solid rich in carbon content, and thus, can
be used to lock carbon in the soil. Biochar is of increasing interest because of
concerns about climate change, thus creating biochar breaks into the carbon
dioxide cycle with carbon sequestration.
8-23
A new perimeter service road completes a loop from the entry road and
A strong priority for the master plan was to separate service and visitor
circulation as much as possible, as soon as possible. This is desirable
both from a service efficiency standpoint, and visitor safety and quality of
experience standpoint.
service yard to the new vet hospital and operations area on the opposite
side of campus. This service road will be completed in the Asian Elephants
and Related Infrastructure Projects bond project, and will have only one
visitor crossing with gates to adjust access as necessary. Within campus the
indicated visitor pathways are designed to accommodate emergency vehicles
as well as the smaller daily service and visitor conveyance vehicles.
A potential service road improvement in
a future phase would upgrade the U-curve
at the middle southern portion of the site.
The grade here is challenging, but making
OPERATIONS
POLAR
ASIA
E
OPERATIONS
8-24
9.0
9-1
Item
CONDOR
Infrastructure/Site Development
Condor Habitat Phase 2 Expansion
New View Shelter
Renovate Existing Shelter
Quantity
Unit
Unit Rate
Total Budget
60,000 SF
$42
4,500 SF
$300
550 SF
550 SF
$350
$200
Sub Total
$4,172,500
BLACK BEAR, COUGAR & WOLF
Item
Black Bear Habitat
Cougar Habitat
Wolf Habitat
New/Expanded Holding Facility
Quantity
11,400
9,715
8,700
2,125
Unit
SF
SF
SF
SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$140
$140
$140
$385
$1,596,000
$1,360,100
$1,218,000
$818,125
Sub Total
Notes
$2,520,000
Notes
Expanded Flex Habitat
Redevelop Mtn. Goat Habitat
New Flex Habitat
Adjacent to existing Black Bear
$4,992,225
NATURE IN BACKYARD
Item
Renovated Farm House
Insect & Small Mammal Building
Waterfowl Aviary
Flex Indoor/Outdoor Backyard Habitats
Quantity
Unit
1,655 SF
1,600 SF
2,400 SF
1,000 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$200
$455
Notes
$331,000 Education Animals/Teen Program
$728,000 Indoor/Outdoor Exhibits
$245
$210
Sub Total
$1,857,000
Quantity
Unit
37,750 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
Notes
$1,585,500 0.87 Acres
$42
2,730 SF
$420
2,290 SF
9,000 SF
9,000 SF
$490
$385
$350
$1,122,100
$3,465,000 Including Pools and Land Areas
$3,150,000 Mesh Enclosed
Sub Total
$10,469,200
Program: Primates
PRIMATES MASTER PLAN SCOPE
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
Mandrill Holding Facility
Indoor/Outdoor Mandrill Habitat
Flex Habitat 1
Flex Habitat 2
Flex Habitat 3
Flex Habitat 4
Flex Habitat 5
Treeways
Quantity
Unit
60,000 SF
2,600 SF
2,000 SF
20,000
3,000
5,300
2,750
3,200
935
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
Notes
$2,520,000 Excluding Bond Zone
$42
$420
$420
$250
$250
$250
$250
$250
$1,050
$5,000,000
$750,000
$1,325,000
$687,500
$800,000
$981,750
Sub Total
Adjacent to Cafe
Previous Penguinarium Site
Adjacent to CDZ Classrooms
Linking All Habitats
$13,996,250
Program: Asia
TIGER, SUN BEAR, AMUR LEOPARD
9-2
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
Mixed Species Holding Building
Flex Habitat Zone 1 Tiger
Flex Habitat Zone 2 Sun Bear
Quantity
Unit
29,400 SF
3,725 SF
10,540 SF
6,665 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$42
$385
$210
$210
Notes
$1,234,800 0.67 Acres
Flex Habitat 5
Treeways
3,200 SF
935 LF
$250
$1,050
Sub Total
$13,996,250
Program: Asia
TIGER, SUN BEAR, AMUR LEOPARD
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
Quantity
Unit
29,400 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
3,725 SF
10,540 SF
6,665 SF
$385
$210
$210
70 LF
$1,050
Notes
$1,234,800 0.67 Acres
$42
Sub Total
$6,355,475
Program: Africa
Rhino
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
Renovated Rhino Building
Quantity
Unit
125,000 SF
3,870 SF
Unit Rate
4,880 SF
Total Budget
$42
$210
Notes
$5,250,000 2.7 Acres
$812,700 Bond Project Alternate
$350
Sub Total
$7,770,700
Hoofstock
Item
Hoofstock Holding Building
Hoofstock Off-Exhibit Holding Yards
Quantity
Unit
3,400 SF
2,000 SF
3,395 SF
1,840 SF
45,650 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$350
$105
Notes
$1,190,000 Mixed Species
$210,000
$350
$140
$105
$1,188,250
$257,600 Outdoor Spave
$4,793,250 Mixed Species
Sub Total
$7,639,100
Savanna Village
Item
Flex Structure 1 - Snack
Flex Structure 2 Shade Structure
Quantity
Unit
760 SF
760 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$350
$350
Notes
$266,000 Retail
$266,000 Adjacent to Giraffe Feeding Deck
$129,500
$129,500 Interpretive/Informational
$350,000 Indoor View at Holding Building
370 SF
370 SF
700 SF
$350
$350
$500
575 SF
$280
Sub Total
$1,302,000
New and Expanded Projects
Item
Marsh Aviary
Mixed Species Forest Habitat
Mixed Species Forest Holding Building
Item
Indoor Herpetarium
Item
7,725 SF
8,060 SF
2,975 SF
2,340 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$420
$3,244,500
$560
$4,513,600
$490
$1,457,750
$770
Sub Total
Item
Water Management Zone
Colobus, Bongo, Drills, Duiker
Mixed Species
Quantity
2,400
10,900
30,000
Unit
SF
SF
SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$315
$280
$700
Sub Total
$24,808,000
Notes
$756,000
$3,052,000 2 Floors + Partial Basement
$21,000,000 Three levels
Service Yard
Quantity
Unit
109,900 SF
12,800 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$42
$8
Notes
$4,615,800 2.52 acres total, work on 2.11 acres
$102,400 Maintenance office, all shops
9-3
Administration Building
Tropical Forest Building
10,900 SF
30,000 SF
$280
$700
Sub Total
$24,808,000
Program: Facilities
Service Yard
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
Existing buildings to be removed
Commissary Renovation
Commissary addition
New Service yard shops/loading areas
Quantity
109,900
12,800
9,745
4,000
16,000
Unit
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$42
$8
$150
$250
$165
$4,615,800
$102,400
$1,461,750
$1,000,000
$2,640,000
Sub Total
$9,819,950
Notes
2.52 acres total, work on 2.11 acres
Maintenance office, all shops
Loading and dry storage
Maintenance and Admin offices
Shop space, additional freezer
storage
Program: Railroad
Round House/Train Terrace
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
New Round House and Visitor Terrace
Sub Total
Quantity
Unit
12,000 SF
8,600 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$42
$420
Notes
$504,000 Includes demolition of train shed
$3,612,000 Maintenance office, all shops
$4,116,000
Quantity
Unit
48,000 SF
Unit Rate
Total Budget
$42
Sub Total
Notes
$2,016,000 Includes water storage below concert
lawn
$2,016,000
AfriCafe Replacement
Item
Infrastructure/Site Development
Bridges to upper and mid level
Picnic Area at upeer level
Mid Level Structure
Mid Level enclosed space
Lower Level Structure
Lower Level fit-up
Aviary
Sub Total
Grand Total
9-4
Quantity
46,000
4,000
25,500
25,500
16,600
12,500
12,500
2,400
Unit
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
Unit Rate
$42
$75
$30
$245
$210
$245
$140
$500
Total Budget
$1,932,000
$300,000
$765,000
$6,247,500
$3,486,000
$3,062,500
$1,750,000
$1,200,000
$15,746,000
$126,078,050
Notes
1 acre
Maintenance office, all shops
Planting, paths, visitor amenities
Structural Frame
Kitchen/Dining/Toilets etc
Structural Frame
Loading dock/Service area/Support
Approx. 40 feet high
the 100% bonus depreciation is also changing back to the 5-year accelerated
depreciation in 2012. All of these are key variables and will continue to
change over time. For this reason, it will be important as part of regular
master plan updates to re-evaluate the landscape of available incentives.
Of all the strategies examined, on-site wastewater treatment emerged as one
that could potentially be developed in a third-party context and integrated
into the bond project work. The zoo uses an enormous amount of water
each year in order to sustain its operations. An onsite wastewater treatment
plant such as that envisioned by the bond project and master planning team
would take all of the combined storm/sewer water from the campus outfall,
recycle it and route the treated water around the campus for all non-potable
uses (e.g. exhibit pools, wash down, irrigation). The water would be treated
to Level IV water quality standards and real-time monitoring and regular
water quality testing would ensure the health of the animals and the public
is in no way compromised. The zoo would enter into an agreement with
a wastewater developer for the purchase of the treated water at a fixed
rate over a fixed period of time. Financial analysis based on information
provided by several firms indicates that the zoo should be able to negotiate
a competitive rate for the purchase of the treated water. This rate may
ultimately be lower than what they would otherwise pay, assuming water
and sewer rates continue to escalate at the same pace as they have in recent
years. The zoo has indicated a desire to pursue a due diligence study to more
thoroughly evaluate the opportunity for a wastewater treatment plant on
their campus and these discussions will begin in parallel with the issuance of
the first bond project package.
An executive summary supported by a detailed memorandum and proformas
have been developed for each strategy and provided to the zoo.
Refer to the Appendix for GESS Executive Summaries and detailed memos for solar,
geothermal, wastewater and biomass leverage financing opportunities.
9-5
9-6
10.0
Appendix
10-1
Sustainability:
The Oregon Zoo has a number of sustainability initiatives that are driving the development of the
master plan and influencing how the Utility Master Plan is designed and implemented. The
sustainability targets for Metro and the Zoo master plan, as they relate to the civil design, are as
follows:
Site Utilities:
Mapping for existing utilities is based primarily on survey information provided by the Zoo.
Additional information gathered by the design team from archive plans and site visits was used to
update and confirm the existing utility conditions. There is a relatively high level of confidence in
the location of mainline sanitary and storm gravity systems with manholes. However, the location
of pressurized water, gas systems, and utility conduit are considered only approximate. In some
Page 1
cases the record drawings showed contradicting information concerning utility location and utility
type (storm vs. combined). In these cases, the more recent set of record drawings was used. Future
phases of design should perform additional research or field work to verify utility locations and
types.
Water:
Existing Domestic Water:
The Zoo has a complete private on-site water distribution system with water service
provided by the City of Portland. The master meter service connection and a recently
installed backflow preventer (2011) are located north of the main entry and adjacent to the
parking lot north of the MAX station. The water main loops throughout the campus
following the original main pathways and service roads, with a portion following the current
rail alignment. Refer to the Existing Utilities plan for the mapping of the existing water
distribution system. With a majority of the system constructed in the 1950s, the
infrastructure is past the design life. More recent exhibit projects have upgraded some of
the lines, but the extent of the work has been limited to the immediate exhibit area. Zoo
staff has discovered and repaired a number of leaks over the years, but more are
anticipated to exist, particularly in the zones that have experienced soil movement due to
historic geological instability.
Demands:
The Zoo consumes approximately 80 million gallons of water annually based upon water
billing data from 2006 to 2011, with an annual consumption of 84.8 million gallons for the
baseline model year October 2007 through September2008.
Miscellaneous Uses
The Oregon Zoo Stormwater and Wastewater Analysis and Recommendations report dated
June 2010 performed an initial inventory of the baseline water use throughout the Zoo for a
range of uses. The data illustrated a significant percentage of annual water use could not be
accounted for and was categorized as Other Uses. Further research and discussion with Zoo
staff during the master plan process allocated some of this water use, but 27% of the water
use remains unknown. Potential demands in this category include leaks, restaurant and
catering, and operation and maintenance practices throughout the campus. Furthermore,
some of the water could be reallocated for other uses due to potential inaccuracies
measured by the water submeters. Many of the exhibit service connections do not have
meters, or in some cases the meters are too small or large to measure the fluctuating high
and low flow rates, and as a result, the Zoo has been unable to accurately estimate water
use for various exhibits or buildings.
Page 2
The Zoo is in the process of evaluating the existing infrastructure with third-party
contractors using non-destructive techniques to better map the system. The intent is to
verify the location of the lines, identify and eliminate existing leaks, and improve wasteful
operation practices to further their sustainability goals. The effort is beginning to show
results with a consistent trend in water use reduction with each monthly bill, based on
historic monthly use. Future projects should provide adequate metering to monitor water
use and identify opportunities for submetering of the mainline to more easily isolate leaks
in the system.
Exhibit Pool Use
As can be seen in the graphic above, the largest water use on campus has been attributed to
the exhibit pools, using about 45.4 million gallons of water annually. Many are older pools
built with inadequately sized filtration systems or no filtration system at all. As a result,
many pools are regularly dumped and filled to maintain adequate water quality for animal
welfare. The bond projects were selected by the Zoo to target the exhibits with the largest
water demand. The penguin, elephant and hippo exhibit pools are estimated to use 33
million gallons a year, or 73% of the total exhibit pool water use. Construction of the
penguin exhibit pool filtration system is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2011 and is
expected to save about 6.4 million gallons a year. Design and implementation of modern
filtration equipment with backwash recovery systems on these bond exhibit projects, along
with phasing out of the hippo collection and pool, has the potential to save 30.7 million
gallons a year for a 68% savings in exhibit pool water use. Subsequent exhibit pool projects
should continue to explore opportunities to reduce demands on domestic water.
Page 3
Page 4
The following list represents an estimate of existing or proposed water usage at the Zoo for
a number of exhibits for daily washdown and pool backwash. Unless noted otherwise,
volumes represent existing conditions based on interviews with maintenance and operation
staff. These flow volumes for washdown were estimated from the approximate time spent
washing down the various exhibits and an estimated flow rate based on individual meter
readings at a select number of exhibits. It is estimated that the Zoo currently uses between
10,000 and 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) for washdown. Volumes for exhibit pool backwash
were estimated by Zoo maintenance staff.
Page 5
If the individual exhibit pool life support systems cannot be designed with a closed loop
backwash recovery system due to budget and space limitations, then the design should
consider how the master plan can anticipate future collection and treatment of these
backwash volumes for reuse with the future on-site wastewater treatment facility.
Groundwater:
A drainage curtain was constructed east of the Childrens Museum and below the existing
administration building in the 1950s to stabilize the site after a significant landslide event.
The groundwater volume collected by the drainage curtain is estimated to be 2,000 gallons
per day, and without an alternative discharge point, is currently discharged to the combined
sewer system. Current Oregon DEQ regulations allow the use of up to 5,000 gallons per day
of groundwater without a water permit. This groundwater is already being pumped and
should be clean, requiring little or no treatment, depending on the use. The water could be
used to supplement the proposed water feature in front of the Conservation Discovery Zone
building at the west hub. Other alternatives include diverting this pumped water to the
future treated wastewater storage tank and distribution system for the entire Zoo campus
or it could be stored separately for washdown of the nearby exhibits, including rhino and
primates. This alternate use would reduce potable water demands and help the Zoo achieve
its sustainability objectives.
Fire Protection:
Existing Fire Protection:
Fire hydrants throughout the Zoo campus are supplied by the same on-site private water
distribution system. The existing mapping of the Zoo property shows approximately 22 fire
hydrants on campus.
Page 6
Page 7
Anticipated usage types and rates of the wastewater would need to be estimated in order
to anticipate the most effective collection points for such a system. With adequate
treatment to meet animal welfare requirements for use in exhibit pools and for washdown,
an estimated 30 million gallons of annual water demand at the Zoo could be provided by
this system. Refer to the appendix for additional information on the on-site wastewater
treatment system.
Storm:
Existing Storm Drain:
The campus is divided into two major drainage basins. The northern portion of the Zoo
campus (East Basin) drains east to Tanner Creek, while the southern portion (South Basin)
drains to a City of Portland storm trunk line in Highway 26. The East Basin has an extensive
storm drain conveyance system that effectively segregates storm and sanitary flows while
the South Basin has limited storm only lines. A majority of the South Basin currently relies
on the combination sewer/storm drain system noted above in the sewer section for
collection and conveyance of surface runoff. Only a handful of the more recent exhibit
projects that connect to the storm only systems provide water quality or detention of runoff
while the remaining exhibit and project areas connect to the combined sewer system. The
storm systems for both basins ultimately discharge into the Willamette River. Refer to the
Existing Utilities Plan for the mapping of the existing storm conveyance system.
In the East Basin, a portion of the historic Tanner Creek was put into a pipe that passes
below the Northwest Exhibit and daylights at the base of the hill at the east end of the Elk
Meadow. This pipe facilitated the filling of Elk Meadow and the construction of the northern
portion of the campus. A large diameter pipe detention facility was installed with the barn
and farm exhibit improvements that connects to this piped stretch of Tanner Creek. The
open portion of Tanner Creek is experiencing some localized erosion and scour, particularly
at the eastern edge of the Zoo campus.
In the South Basin, the system is predominantly combined sewer conveyance with the
exception of only isolated areas and a handful of exhibits that have separate storm only
lines. Construction of a new 24-inch storm only line in the south ravine, connecting the Zoo
to the public storm drain system in Highway 26 was completed in early 2009. According to
the stormwater report on record with the City, the 24-inch line was sized to accommodate
runoff from a 21.2-acre developed south basin during the 10-year storm event. There are no
known capacity issues with the Highway 26 trunk line downstream of the connection point.
Proposed Storm Drain:
Stormwater runoff from the proposed development must be separated from sanitary flows.
The routing of the stormwater conveyance system is based on the Oregon Zoo Stormwater
and Wastewater Analysis and Recommendations report from June 2010, prepared by Otak,
that took inventory of the existing stormwater system and developed a preliminary
stormwater master plan. These new lines are primarily located in the South Basin where the
Page 8
existing drainage is currently conveyed by combined sewer. Refinements were made to the
routing to align with new utility corridors along proposed service roads and along the
existing and proposed central spine alignment. Refer to the Proposed Utilities Plan for the
mapping of the proposed storm conveyance system and bond project infrastructure
improvements.
Stormwater detention and water quality requirements shall be in compliance with the City
of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services at the time when a building permit application
is submitted. At this time, separate detention requirements for impervious surfaces
generated by new development are required by the City for the two basins. New
development in the East Basin is in the Tanner Creek Watershed and must detain runoff
from the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year storm to half of the 2-year and the full 5- and 10-year
pre-developed (Lewis and Clark era) rates, respectively. In contrast, the South Basin is in the
Willamette Watershed and will be required to detain runoff from the 10-year storm to the
10-year pre-developed (Lewis and Clark era) rates. This release rate requirement for the
South Basin is a variance from current drainage code based on Land Use discussions with
the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Stormwater management within the Zoo is
complicated by geotechnical problems, such as active slide hazards, steep slopes, and high
groundwater that can reach the ground surface during the wet season. As a result,
stormwater cannot be viably concentrated and infiltrated. Water quality and flow control
requirements will have to be met by use of vegetated flow through planters and/or
detention facilities.
As discussed in the Spine narrative, stormwater is a major element that is integrated with
the design of the corridor to contribute to the character of the space. The design allows the
ponding water in vegetated stormwater facilities to encroach on the trail during storm
events. Visitor areas, plazas, hubs and other primary and secondary trails should integrate
similar design principles to convey and treat stormwater at the surface where the visitor can
observe and experience changes in the weather.
The stormwater water quality and detention requirements for the Master Plan
improvements can be achieved through four major design strategies:
1. Pervious surfaces within the exhibit spaces and visitor viewing areas will be
maximized.
2. Individual projects will treat, store, and delay stormwater to the maximum
extent possible within their own footprint.
3. When designing detention facilities, consider cumulative discharge from
multiple planned projects within a drainage subbasin to meet allowable release
rate at a point of compliance.
4. Pedestrian thoroughfares such as the Spine, will implement chains of segmented
treatment and storage facilities with flow control orifices to maximize
stormwater detention.
Due to challenges with elements such as topography, existing exhibits, native habitat areas,
connectivity, competing animal program needs and project budgets, it may not be viable to
Page 9
adequately capture and detain flows with each individual project. Identify opportunities to
over-detain runoff or accommodate expansion of detention on projects to meet discharge
requirements. The East Basin in the northern part of the campus will need to modify the
outlet of the existing detention pipe and oversize the new relocated Veterinary Medical
Center vegetated basin to augment detention capacity in the basin to meet flow control
requirements. The South Basin may also have to look at supplemental detention capacity.
Potential locations for supplemental detention would be oversizing detention pipes under
the service road areas and potential surface or below grade detention above the south
ravine.
Stormwater facilities will be maintained and operated by the Owner. Site improvements will
be required to provide access for maintenance.
Proposed Rainwater Harvesting:
Site-specific rainwater harvesting is being considered at this stage. All of the Zoo buildings
will be designed to LEED Silver standards and harvested rainwater would support LEED
certification by reducing potable water demand. Under current code, different uses would
be allowed by different facilities.
A campus rainwater harvesting facility was evaluated to collect stormwater from roof, nonsource control exhibits, and pedestrian pathways along the Spine for treatment and reuse
to meet non-potable water demands throughout the campus. However, under current code
runoff collected from surfaces other than roofs can only be used for irrigation purposes.
Since irrigation represents a small portion of the Zoos water use, the peak demand for
irrigation occurs during the dry season, it was determined that rainwater harvesting for
irrigation purposes would be impractical at this time. Instead, any centralized stormwater
detention facility designed for the campus should consider a potential retrofit for rainwater
harvesting as code and technology changes allow for additional year-round uses. As space
allows, portions of the Concert Lawn may be used for purple pipe reclaimed water storage.
Gas:
Existing Gas:
The Zoo currently has an existing natural gas pipe network. A portion of the gas network will
be demolished since it is in conflict with several of the bond project improvements. The
current condition of the gas facilities is not known.
Proposed Gas:
Further analysis of the gas system will be required, however depending on projected service
demands, the system may need to be upgraded or potentially abandoned altogether. Refer
to the MEP narrative for additional information.
Page 10
Tanner Creek
Outfall
South Basin
Willamette Watershed
Highway 26
Outfall
Approximate
Basin
Boundary
East Basin
Tanner Creek Watershed
FUTURE ONSITE
WWTP. LOCATION
TO BE DETERMINED.
TREATED WATER
SUPPLY
TREATED WATER
RESERVOIR
SUPPLY
Elephant/Elephant Museum
Hippo/Rhino
Penguins/Lorikeets
Swamp
Vollum Aviary
Polar Bear/Sun Bear
Zebra/Giraffe
Swamp Monkey/Bats
Treetops
Cascades
Primates
Predators of the Serengeti
Pigs
Lorikeets
Cheetah
Wild Dog
Anaconda
Amur Leopard
Tamarins
Duck Pond
Cichlid
Caracal
Salmon Interactive Waterfall
Turtle Stream
Salmon Holding
Elk
Black Bear
Debrazza Monkey
Flooded Forest Quarantine
Rock Python
Oregon Spotted Frog Project
Turtle Lab
Crayfish Holding
Gray Wolf
Python
Family Farm
Lungfish
Amazon display water feature
Cichlid Holding 1
Herp 2
Cichlid Holding 2
Herp 1
Herp 3
Herp 4
Bobcat
Cacomistle
Barn Owl
Saw-whet Owl
Cougar
Insect Zoo
Chimps (yard and inside)
Mandrills (yard and inside)
Saki Monkeys
Desert Iguana
Shrew
Bird of Prey
Dwarf Mongoose
Aguma
Micro Exhibits
Bee Eaters
Tortoise
Mole Rats
African Goats
Meerkats
Tomato Frogs
Old Rock Python
Bats
Constant running pool
systems there??
CSS/VMC
30,000
2,600
975
975
520
364
364
325
104,000
15,600
30,000
5,000
9,996
8,004
8,320
2,600
4,550
1,200
1,300
390
325
156
156
78
78
39
-
24,000
18,000
4,000
30,000
3,000
3,000
5,256,000
5,256,000
5,256,000
3,000,000
1,576,800
1,576,800
260,000
260,000
788,400
50,000
-
1,074,000
246,800
57,850
40,000
73,000
20,000
1,350
1,350
720
504
504
450
9,416,000
6,296,000
6,500,000
4,160,000
6,587,200
3,179,000
2,044,800
1,732,800
1,022,500
620,000
788,400
594,000
468,000
416,000
328,220
232,360
208,000
150,000
130,000
120,000
104,000
82,110
63,765
52,230
48,100
31,200
31,200
29,800
28,400
23,650
23,200
21,696
19,400
15,204
15,000
13,520
12,880
12,000
10,800
10,750
9,125
7,500
7,300
6,400
3,900
2,630
2,000
1,550
1,000
960
650
390
360
325
156
156
78
78
39
-
Area
40,000
20,000
25,000
16,000
25,000
10,000
3,000
1,500
75,000
50,000
1,300
1,500
18,000
16,000
22,000
20,000
4,000
1,200
5,000
10,000
2,000
25,000
10,500
7,500
3,900
600
600
1,800
500
1,900
1,000
2,500
750
2,000
5,000
800
960
3,000
750
1,000
25
500
20
600
75
263
50
250
10
40
25
75
30
125
20
30
10
10
5
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
?
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
175
none
1,050,000
228,800
37,050
40,000
14,400
31,200
65,000
637,500
260,000
64,220
22,360
32,110
48,165
22,230
16,900
10,400
10,400
8,450
5,200
11,700
10,400
7,200
5,200
5,200
6,000
5,200
5,200
5,200
-
16,800
10,000
375
375
200
140
140
125
4,160,000
1,040,000
6,500,000
4,160,000
1,300,000
10,000
468,000
156,000
125,000
100,000
594,000
468,000
416,000
264,000
160,000
208,000
150,000
130,000
120,000
104,000
50,000
31,200
31,200
31,200
14,400
18,000
15,200
18,000
9,000
15,000
7,680
6,000
3,000
1,000
9,125
7,500
7,300
3,900
2,630
2,000
250
1,000
960
650
360
-
220,000
90,000
5,600
2,500
19,000
2,300
375
375
200
140
140
125
Sea Lions
Sea Otters
Sea Lion/Sea Otter Quarantine
Blowhole
Kelp
Tide Pool
T1
T2
T5/6
T7
T8
T3/4
Steller Cove
SALTWATER
Steller Cove
SALTWATER W/OUT B/W REC
Steller Cove
SEAWATER
System Name
Area
Steller Cove
SALTWATER
Steller Cove
SALTWATER W/OUT B/W REC
Steller Cove
SEAWATER
Zebra/Giraffe
Swamp Monkey/Bats
Treetops
Cascades
Primates
Predators of the Serengeti
Pigs
CSS/VMC
20,947,710
1386885
This does not include Sea Lions or Sea Otters (B/W recovery)
227915
Annual estimate of our combined "other" water usages Zoo-wide
Itemized totals
annual dump and fill
annual backwashes
annual partial water changes
annual "other" LSS-related usage
Sea Lions/Sea Otters
20,947,710
1,386,885
227,915
23,320,000
618,000
Grand Total
46,500,510
23320000
Itemized totals
annual dump and fill
annual backwashes
annual partial water changes
annual "other" LSS-related usage
Sea Lions/Sea Otters
46,500,510
Grand Total
Elephants
Hippo
Penguinarium
Crocodile
Duck Lagoon
Vollum Aviary Stream
Polar Bear
Misc Smaller Exhibits
Nile Monitor
Terns at Orangutans
Giraffe
Zebra
Beaver
Otter
Swamp Monkey
Oregon Spotted Frog Project
Rhino
Swiggert Fountain
Amur Tiger
Mt Goat
Salmon/Bald Eagle
Primate Main Pool
Lions
Sun Bear
Island Pigs
Red Ape Reserve/Gibbon/Orangutan
Lorikeets
Total
15,712,000
10,660,000
6,587,200
3,179,000
2,044,800
1,732,800
1,642,500
1,036,425
788,400
594,000
468,000
416,000
328,220
232,360
208,000
150,000
130,000
120,000
104,000
82,110
63,765
52,230
48,100
31,200
31,200
29,800
28,400
46,500,510
33.8%
22.9%
14.2%
6.8%
4.4%
3.7%
3.5%
2.2%
1.7%
1.3%
1.0%
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
100%
2,075,000
0
205,000
3,179,000
2,044,800
1,732,800
2,303,125
1,036,425
788,400
594,000
468,000
416,000
328,220
232,360
208,000
150,000
130,000
120,000
104,000
82,110
63,765
52,230
48,100
31,200
31,200
29,800
28,400
16,481,935
12.6%
0.0%
1.2%
19.3%
12.4%
10.5%
14.0%
2.2%
4.8%
3.6%
2.8%
2.5%
2.0%
1.4%
1.3%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
System Name
86.8%
100.0%
96.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-40.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
64.6%
Elephants
Duck Lagoon
Vollum Aviary Stream
Nile Monitor
Terns at Orangutans
Giraffe
Zebra
Misc Smaller Exhibits
Beaver
Otter
Swamp Monkey
Penguinarium
Oregon Spotted Frog Project
Rhino
Swiggert Fountain
Amur Tiger
Mt Goat
Salmon/Bald Eagle
Primate Main Pool
Lions
Sun Bear
Island Pigs
Red Ape Reserve/Gibbon/Orangutan
Lorikeets
Hippo
Water Savings
Total
6.8%
3.5%
33.8%
4.4%
3.7%
1.7%
1.3%
1.0%
0.9%
2.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.4%
14.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
22.9%
100.0%
3,179,000
2,303,125
2,075,000
2,044,800
1,732,800
788,400
594,000
468,000
416,000
1,036,425
328,220
232,360
208,000
205,000
150,000
130,000
120,000
104,000
82,110
63,765
52,230
48,100
31,200
31,200
29,800
28,400
30,018,575
16,481,935
Polar Bear
3,179,000
1,642,500
15,712,000
2,044,800
1,732,800
788,400
594,000
468,000
416,000
1,036,425
328,220
232,360
208,000
6,587,200
150,000
130,000
120,000
104,000
82,110
63,765
52,230
48,100
31,200
31,200
29,800
28,400
10,660,000
46,500,510
Crocodile
System Name
19.3%
14.0%
12.6%
12.4%
10.5%
4.8%
3.6%
2.8%
2.5%
2.2%
2.0%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-40.2%
86.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
96.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
64.6%
gpm
gal/staff
gal/load
gpm
Other
0
0
Total
395
660
921
257
50
429
150
257
40
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
15
60
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
961
257
50
444
210
392
3,000
3,643
429
60
70
0
360
225
45
40
120
0
0
0
0
3,460
4,058
474
450
107
150
257
386
300
15
30
5
10
40
0
120
30
0
30
210
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
585
167
155
297
636
360
64
600
857
13,177
10
0
50
450
90
60
180
1,665
0
0
0
180
0
0
200
200
164
660
1,287
15,672
Exhibit Pools
Irrigation
Potable Water
Toilets & Urinals
Washdown
Other Uses / Leaks / O&M
Page 1
AverageAnnualGHGEmissionsSources
(20052010)
SupplyChain
63%
Fleet
1%
Water
1%
Commute
2%
Electricity
18%
NaturalGas
10%
SolidWaste
3%
OtherFuels
0%
Refrigerants
1%
BusinessTravel
1%
Utility
Electricity
3,100 MT
560
Equivalent Acres of
Douglas Fir Forest
Required for
Sequestration
660
Page 2
Natural Gas
Total
kWh
306,000
Therm
1,600 MT
4,700 MT
290
340
850
1000
Table 1
1
Sub-metered electrical data for most buildings was hand recorded by the Zoo staff
electrician from January of 2008 to October of 2009. The figure below shows the percent of
total zoo electricity use used at each of the buildings. Note about 20% of electricity is
unaccounted for in the sub-metered data. Steller Cove used the most electricity at 26% of
zoo total, and the Entry Complex used the second most, at 16% of zoo total. Sub-metered
gas data is not available; however, see the Mechanical Infrastructure narrative for
estimated gas use of the buildings with the most gas use.
Page 3
With the addition of the new penguin exhibit, veterinary hospital, elephants, polar bear, new
primates, and Conservation Discovery Zone, this number is expected to climb to
approximately 5,800 MT CO2e after completion of the bond projects (if no greenhouse gas
reduction strategies for existing buildings are employed during that time period). Several
strategies will need to be employed to achieve an 80% reduction from the 2008 baseline
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The figure below illustrates the 2008 baseline
greenhouse gas emissions related to electricity use (blue) and gas use (brown), the
expected increase due to the bond projects, and the necessary reductions to stay consistent
with Metros overall GHG reduction goal (15% reduction in 2015, 25% reduction by 2020,
40% reduction by 2025, and 80% reduction by 2050). Strategies to meet the goal are
discussed throughout the narrative, and summarized at the end of this section.
MeetingMetro's2050CarbonReductionGoal
GreenHouseGasEmissions(MTCO2e)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
FiscalYear
0809
After
BondProjects
(Projected)
2015
2020
GHG(Elec)
GHG(Gas)
2025
2050
Page 4
AverageAnnualUtilityCostPercentages
(20052010)
Water/Sewer
$850,000
49%
Electricty
$575,000
33%
NaturalGas
$320,000
18%
Page 5
The master plan design team has taken the following steps to reduce future energy needs.
These five steps should be applied to each bond project and other campus improvements.
1. Set aggressive goals.
2. Analyze the climate for its impact on energy use.
3. Integrate the design. Reduce energy use through design strategies and choose
efficient equipment.
4. Opt for renewable resources at both the building and campus level.
5. Verify building performance through commissioning, and measurement and
verification (M&V) plan.
Page 6
27F
4750
17F
22F
27F
43
410(kBtu/sf/year)
120
(kWh/sf/year)
9
Summary
Notes
Page 7
WeatherData:Portland,OR
100
Natural ventilation/nightcooling
ofmassforcomfort
80
Temperature(DegF)
Typical ComfortZonewithNaturalVentilation
60
Heating
Heating
40
20
0
1/1
1/31
3/2
4/2
TypicalDailyMax
5/2
6/2
TypicalDailyMin
7/2
8/1
9/1
10/1
11/1
RecordHigh
Date
12/1
RecordLow
1371
1351
1193
1137
1006
891
597
HeatingDesign
Temp:22F
337
278
CoolingDesignTemp
(DB/WB):91F /67F
284
199
57
31
13
TemperatureRangeF
Page 8
Solar Radiation
A highly sustainable building would use no more electrical energy than the amount provided
from the sun. The solar energy that hits the roof of buildings in Portland is 410 kBtu/sf/yr
(120 kWh/sf/yr). This solar energy can be captured through solar hot water heating
systems that convert the suns energy into hot water and photovoltaic (PV) technology that
converts the suns energy into electricity.
SOLAR RADIATION Portland,
OR
Incident
Radiation
(kBtu/sf/day)
January
0.41
February
0.60
March
0.99
April
1.30
May
1.77
June
1.88
July
2.05
August
1.67
September
1.26
October
0.82
November
0.43
December
0.30
Annual
1.12
Precipitation
For a detailed discussion of rainfall and other water management concepts refer to the civil
narrative.
Page 9
such as the Steller Cove filtration pumps, do not necessarily correspond to building square
footage. For these reasons, EUI is a metric which should be used with caution when
discussing buildings at the Oregon Zoo. That said, utility billing information from 2008
indicates that the zoo consumed approximately 55 million kBtus of electricity and natural
gas. The total zoo conditioned square footage is also somewhat nebulous, but is estimated
to be about 250,000 sf. Thus the overall EUI for conditioned space at the zoo is calculated
as 220 kBtu/sf/year. Again, some energy use is not associated with the conditioned square
footage and is included in the energy use, and not too much importance should be placed
on the EUI.
Another means of analyzing building energy use is to consider the Energy Signature of the
building. The energy signature is a metric frequently used by the Energy Trust of Oregon in
analyzing building performance. As with the EUI, a buildings energy signature is best used
by comparing it to benchmark buildings of the same usage, which cannot be done for the
zoo. However some useful information can still be extracted. The average power
consumption for both gas and electricity (both in units of million Btuh) is plotted against the
mean monthly outdoor air temperature for that month (the mean monthly temperatures for
the billing period were obtained from www.weatherunderground.com)
AveragePowerConsumption(MMBtuh)
OregonZooEnergySignature20052009
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
Gas
5.00
Elec
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
30
40
50
60
70
80
MeanMonthlyTemperature(F)
Oregon Zoo Energy Signature
The signature shows that electricity use is relatively constant regardless of outside air
temperature. This is because many electric loads are independent of the temperature
(lights, pumps, plug loads etc..) and also because electricity provides both heat when it is
cold outside and cooling when it is hot outside.
Page 10
As would be expected, gas use is heavily dependent on outside air temperature. During
colder temperatures more gas heating is required. During the warmest months
approximately 8,000-10,000 Therms of gas are used mainly for heating domestic hot
water and a small amount of cooking use. There may also be some space heating that
occurs even during the warmest months. During the coldest months, the zoo consumes
about 60,000 Therms of gas. It can be inferred that the increased gas use during the colder
months is due to space heating requirements. Gas use increases by about 50,000 Therms at
a cost of about $50,000 per month during the coldest months. Eliminating all of the gas
used for space heating at the zoo would likely reduce gas consumption by more than 70%
(over 200,000 Therms per year).
Cost of Utilities
The zoo receives electricity from Portland General electric and is billed according to
Schedule 83 secondary service. The zoo receives gas from Northwest Natural and is billed
according to Schedule 32 for the primary campus meter and Schedule 31 for the Cascade
Crest meter. The zoo pays approximately $0.08 per kWh and $0.95 per Therm. The chart
below shows the electricity and gas cost paid by the zoo in 2008, and the projected increase
to those costs until 2050. The added energy cost of the bond projects is incorporated in the
first few years of the graph. Total annual energy cost is shown with rates escalating at 3%
per year (solid line) and rates escalating at 6% per year (dashed line). While future energy
costs are notoriously difficult to predict, they are likely to increase significantly faster than
the rate of inflation. Reducing energy consumption over the next few decades will be
essential in protecting the zoo from volatile energy costs.
Page 11
ZooAnnualEnergyCostsatCurrentEfficiencyLevels
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
2050Energy Costs
~$3.5$5mill/year
CurrentEnergy Costs~
$900k/year
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
FY08/09
2015(Projected)
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
2047
2049
$0
AnnualEnergyCost
(3%Escalation)
AnnualEnergyCost
(6%Escalation)
Page 12
overhangs can be designed to let the suns heat into the space during winter when the solar
path is lower on the horizon, but block the suns heat during the summer when the solar
path is high.
SolarPVcanbeaddedattothecampusatanypointintime.NewbuildingscanbedesignedtobePV
readysothatiffundingisnotavailable,ortheinvestmentdoesnothavethedesiredpayback,PVcan
beaddedinthefutureifandwhenthefinancialpictureismorefavorable.SolarPVprovidesafossil
fuelfreeelectricitysource,whichcombinedwithotherrenewableelectricitysources,anddrastically
reducednaturalgasuse,willprovidethezoowiththeabilitytoachieveMetrosgreenhousegas
reductiongoal.
Solar Thermal
Solar Thermal energy can used for space or water heating and can be accomplished at the
building or campus scale. In Portlands climate, where the majority of solar radiation occurs
in the months during which little space heating is required, solar thermal is typically most
effective for water heating.
At the zoo, the master plan mechanical concept includes a campus condenser water loop
from which buildings extract or reject heat as needed. The condenser loop will require heat
sources in addition to the geothermal wells, and solar thermal could offer an excellent
Page 13
carbon neutral heat source. In fact, the condenser loop is probably the greatest opportunity
for solar thermal to be utilized at the zoo. See the mechanical infrastructure narrative for
more discussion of the condenser loop and solar thermal energy.
Geothermal
The relatively constant temperature of the earth provides an opportunity to utilize
geothermal energy for both heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. Several
system approaches are commonly applied to tap this renewable source. See the mechanical
infrastructure narrative for a detailed description of a proposed campus geothermal loop at
the Oregon Zoo.
Page 14
Over two hundred 340 deep geothermal wells helped the Port of Portland achieve 50%
energy savings and LEED Platinum certification
Closed Loop Horizontal Trench Heat Exchangers
Horizontal heat exchangers are created by digging shallow trenches (about 6-10 ft deep).
HDPE piping is laid into the trench, often in a spiral pattern (referred to as slinky wells) to
maximize the area of contact between the pipe and earth. The heat exchangers are grouped
into rows, approximately 15 ft on center. Much larger land area is required for horizontal
fields as opposed to vertical, because the heat exchange all happens horizontally near the
surface, instead of vertically to depths of 300 ft. The advantage of horizontal wells is that
they avoid the relatively high cost of drilling the vertical wells. At the zoo where large area
of land are available (e.g. the elephant meadow) a horizontal well field will provide
substantial capacity at a lower cost than vertical wells.
Page 15
Totals (lbs/yr)
165,080
1,056,000
182,402
3,650
(lbs/day)
2,893
962
3,855
There are several different methods from which useful energy can be extracted from raw
biomass material. Three of them are discussed here: anaerobic digestion, gasification, and
biomass burners. It should be noted that the financial viability of all of the following
technologies is unproven for zoo applications, and a detailed study should be carried out to
determine the feasibility and economics of a system at the Oregon Zoo. The Denver and
Pittsburg zoos both have pilot projects underway to use animal and vegetative waste in
biomass applications. The Energy Trust of Oregon will fund 50% of a feasibility study (up to
$40,000). The feasibility study should be performed by an engineering firm with biomass
experience and that is open to considering all of the below technologies in the study as
opposed to, for example, a firm that will only study anaerobic digestion.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is a methane producing process in which biomass is broken down in the
absence of oxygen (i.e. anaerobic). The process takes place in a digester which can be an
in-ground or above-ground storage tank.
Anaerobic digestion relies on microorganisms to process the waste which can be very
sensitive to the content of the waste. Cleaning fluids, antibiotics, carnivore waste are
examples of substances that can arrest the digestion process. The process typically
Page 16
requires a relatively consistent waste stream and that fresh manure be collected and added
to the digester quickly, before the natural digestion process slows.
Anaerobic digestion is used at many Northwest dairy farms for the production of methane
from bovine manure. Dairy farms are well suited to anaerobic digestion because the waste
has a relatively homogenous content and is collected frequently and consistently.
Additionally, there are typically sufficient land areas available for the relatively large
digester tanks.
Anaerobic digestion is a proven technology for dairy farms which house many thousands of
cows, but some experts question the technology for small scale applications with diverse
waste streams such as the Oregon Zoo.
Gasification
Gasification is a process that creates a synthesis gas or syngas from raw biomass. The
biomass is subjected to high temperatures and controlled amounts of oxygen in a gasifier,
from which the syngas is extracted. The syngas is similar in chemical content to natural gas
(predominantly methane) and is a significantly more useful fuel than the raw biomass. The
syngas has a significantly higher energy content than raw biomass and can be used in a
much wider variety of applications. The syngas can be used for combined heat and power
(CHP) - a process in which electricity is generated and the waste heat from the generation is
captured and used. This heat could be used to directly heat an exhibit or to add heat to the
new potential condenser water loop at the zoo.
The Denver Zoo is currently developing a gasification and combined heat and power system
to be fed by the zoos waste biomass. Project costs are estimated to be between $2 -3
Page 17
million dollars. The Denver Zoo plans to feed the gasifier with approximately 4200 lbs/ day
of waste an amount similar to the quantity of composted waste at the Oregon Zoo. The
system will be housed in an approximately 3000 sf building. The Denver zoo estimates it
will save approximately $150,000 per year, about half of which will be from energy cost
savings and half of which will be from the elimination of transportation and disposal fees
from moving the waste off-site. If these initial estimates prove accurate, the project will
have a 15-20 year payback.
The Denver zoo currently has a small scale (10 kW) working prototype of the system. The
full system is designed to be 250 kW. The Denver Zoo has expressed interested in
performing the feasibility study for the Oregon Zoo, and may be in a uniquely qualified
position to do so. The prototype is shown in the figure below.
Denver Zoo Prototype: 10kW Combined Heat and Power Biomass System
Biomass Burner
In a biomass burner, the biomass material is fed directly, with little pretreatment, into a
combustion furnace. The heat is used via an air to air or air to water heat exchanger and
subsequently used to meet water or space heating demands.
The Pittsburg Zoo is currently developing a biomass burner system which will be used to
provide radiant heat for an animal barn. The burner will be fed by elephant manure from
three elephants (300-375 pounds/day), switch grass, and wood chips from a local lumber
mill. The project is expected to cost about $1-1.5 million dollars. The Pittsburg Zoo also
considered a combined heat and power system but the first cost estimates were
prohibitively high - $2.5-3 million.
Advanced Recycling Equipment, Inc. (ARE Inc.) provided the Pittsburg zoo with a test burn
of elephant manure in order to determine the combustibility and practicality of elephant
manure as a biomass fuel. The elephant manure needed to be dried and put through a
grinder in order to work well in the combustion system. The manure was found to have a
higher heat output per weight (Btu/lb) than most forms of wood at the same moisture
Page 18
content. ARE Inc. concluded the manure would make a good fuel source based on its heat
output, its emissions content, and its ability to work in the combustion system without
additional modifications to the system.
Wind
Traditional industrial scale wind turbines are sited in areas with average wind speeds above
20 MPH. However, in the last few years, a number of building and campus scale wind
turbines have been developed for average wind speeds of 8 MPH. Average wind speeds of at
least 10 MPH are typically considered sufficient for wind power generation.
Information obtained from the Energy Trust of Oregon for the Oregon Zoo indicates that
wind typically blows from the southwest at an average speed of approximately 9 MPH (at
100 ft elevation). The Energy Trust uses a computer program to calculate wind speeds
based on interpolation of data from weather stations and geographic information, not sitespecific weather stations. ETO also included the caveat that the program indicated high
turbulence and that the wind speeds may be unreliable.
Further evaluation of site wind speed should be performed before wind power generation is
implemented at the Zoo.
Green Power
The purchase of green power from PGE is an option to ensure that whatever power is not
produced on campus is carbon neutral. In a green power purchase, the customer receives
electricity from the utility via the same electrical grid, and therefore the same literal
electricity that would be received in a standard power purchase; however, the payment is
attributed to the renewable division of the company. A separate watch dog agency ensures
Page 19
the money paid to the utility for green power is properly handled. The price of green power
to the customer is higher than the standard utility rate.
Page 20
GreenhouseGasReductionStrategies
"Business asUsual"
CO2Emmissions
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
Metro'sCO2
RedutionGoal
2,000
1,000
Baseline
AfterBond
Projects
2015
2020
2025
2050
CondenserLoopGeothermal
SolarThermal
SolarPV
Biomass
EnergyEfficiency
GreenPower
Page 21
Description
Baseline GHG emissions
GHG after bond projects
Improve existing campus energy efficiency by 30%
Condenser Loop
10,000 sf Solar Thermal Array
1.0 MW PV Array
Biomass Combined Heat and Power
Green Power
CO2
Reduction
(MT)
1500
600
150
400
400
1800
Running
Total of CO2
emissions
(MT)
4600
5800
4300
3700
3550
3150
2750
950
Percent
Reduction
Note
0%
-26%
7%
20%
23%
32%
40%
80%
1
2
3
Notes
1. Address recommendations put forth in the Level 2 energy audit for Steller Cove and
Cascade Grill and Conduct Level 2 energy audits on other high energy use buildings on
campus. Examples include:
Upgrade heating and ventilating units with heat recovery units when they are
replaced.
Upgrade light fixtures to reduce energy use by 30-50%
Commission large existing HVAC equipment and repair or replace as
necessary.
2. In the figure above the condenser loop savings assume carbon free electricity for the heat
pumps that replace fossil fuel boilers.
3.Emissions reductions associated with biomass combined heat and power equipment are
difficult to predict. A feasibility study should be conducted to more accurately estimate
energy savings.
Page 22
MECHANICAL
General
Existing building vintage at the Oregon Zoo varies from about 1955 to 2011. Many
buildings are concrete or metal structure with little or no insulation. Due to the nature of a
zoo campus, in which outdoor exhibit space communicates with large animal holding and
exhibit buildings, many buildings have large doors which are kept open even during
relatively cold outdoor air temperatures. Additionally, many animal holding buildings require
large amounts of fresh outside air for both animal welfare and odor control. The largest
HVAC load on campus is no doubt the heat required for the outside air that is introduced
both intentionally and unintentionally into the buildings (Note: some exhibits like Steller
Cove have energy intensive process loads for water treatment that are not considered HVAC
loads).
Building
Admin
Africafe
Cascade Crest
Center for Species
Survival
Elephants
Maintenance Sheds
Primates Building
Snow Shed
Swamp Building
Total
2,000
1,000
2,700
500
2,800
Estimated
Annual Gas
Usage
(Therm)
12,000
11,000
18,000
17,000
30,000
18,000
59,000
8,000
55,000
215,000
Percent of
Total Zoo
Gas Use
4%
4%
6%
5%
10%
6%
19%
3%
18%
70%
The assumptions made in calculating the estimated gas use of each building are very rough and the
results should also be considered very approximate.
It is possible that the buildings listed above consume more than 70% of the campus total.
However, the remaining 30% of gas use may be attributable to the many smaller campus
buildings that have natural gas heat.
Page 1
In addition to natural gas heating, there is some electric heating on campus. For example,
the Cascade Grill building has a variable air volume system with electric reheat terminal
units.
Page 2
Page 3
The condenser loop will allow energy exchange between buildings with opposing loads
It would also be possible to locate loop heating or heat rejection equipment at virtually any
location on campus. For example, a building with favorable roof exposure could be equipped
with solar hot water panels to provide heat to the campus loop. Or geothermal wells located
anywhere along the loop (likely in the elephant meadow) can be used to both heat and cool
the loop as necessary.
Page 4
Biofuel Boilers
Rapidly renewable fuel sources such as vegetative and animal waste are developing markets
that may play a significant role in replacing fossil fuels. A biofuel boiler could be connected
to any location on the condenser loop (possibly the maintenance yard). A biofuel boiler
would reduce the size or eliminate the need for the supplemental natural gas boiler. See the
MEP Overview section for a more detailed discussion of biomass potential at the zoo.
Cooling Towers
While not the most energy efficient means of rejecting heat from the condenser loop,
cooling towers are a proven technology that could be part of the campus heat rejection
capacity. A 150 Ton cooling tower is currently in use at Steller Cove for heat rejection.
Depending on the geothermal capacity, a cooling tower of approximately that size may be
enough to handle the remaining heat rejection requirements.
Implementation
This system should be developed with phased construction of a campus piping loop that is
extended as new buildings are added or old buildings are renovated. During Phase 1 of the
bond projects the service road will be reconstructed from Africafe around the elephants and
up to the condor exhibit. Pending the scope of the Train Roundhouse mechanical
Page 5
requirements, the loop may be extended to the Train Roundhouse during Phase 1 as well.
Condenser piping will be high density polyethylene (HDPE) piping located under the service
road during this phase. The following buildings will have access to the condenser water loop
after Phase 1 of the bond construction.
*The Africafe mechanical systems would need to be retrofitted for connection to the loop. This should happen when
the existing equipment requires replacement (likely in the next 5-10 years).
The condenser loop will be extended to the penguin exhibit, Steller Cove, the future
Conservation Discovery Zone and the Entry Plaza during construction of the west portion of
the spine. The largest individual cooling load on campus is the chiller at Steller Cove. Of all
building connections, the zoo may benefit most by connecting the Steller Cove chiller to the
condenser loop. This is for two reasons: First, the chiller at Steller Cove uses a large amount
of electricity to cool the exhibit pools. An energy audit carried out for Steller Cove indicates
the chiller is operating inefficiently and energy use could be greatly reduced by replacing it
with a heat pump connected to the condenser loop. Secondly, the condenser loop is likely
to be heating load dominated. Connecting the large chiller to the loop will help balance out
the load on an annual basis, and allow for energy sharing when the pools require cooling
and other buildings require heating.
Added energy savings may be achieved during colder temperatures by cooling exhibit pools
below the required temperature (e.g. polar bear pool), and moving the heat, via the
condenser water loop, to buildings that require heat. The Polar Bear pools total
approximately 150,000 gallons of water. Cooling that water an extra one degree Fahrenheit
would require rejecting approximately 1,200 kBtu of heat. This is equivalent to about twothirds of the heat required by the elephants building per hour during the coldest hours of
the year. Note however, that sub-cooling of the pool would likely occur during more
moderate temperatures, as additional cooling may not be desirable at the coldest times of
the year. Intuitively, one would think that Polar Bears would thrive in reduced water
temperatures; however, Living Collections and the veterinary staff need to determine the
acceptable temperature range of the pools.
The table below shows the estimated loads that might be on the system after completion of
the bond projects. Note that the loads are expected to be heating dominated. Connection of
other cooling loads to the system (e.g. the Steller Cove chiller) will likely improve the cost
effectiveness of the loop.
Page 6
Existing buildings that could be retrofit for connection to the condenser loop include:
Africafe, Steller Cove, Administration, Cascade Grill, Penguins, Existing Primates, and Vet
Hospital. The table below shows an approximation of the heating and cooling loads each
building would add to the loop. Note that the load is more balanced with the addition of
other cooling loads on the loop.
New and Existing Building/Exhibit Peak Heating
and Cooling Loads
Cooling
Heating
Description
Load
Load
(kBtu/h)
(kBtu/h)
Forest Hall/Barn
1,800
Train Roundhouse
400
Polar Bear Chiller
840
Conservation Discovery
600
Zone
New Primates
600
Africafe
300
500
Steller Cove
2,400
Admin Building
700
900
Cascade Grill
1000
1800
Penguin
200
Existing Primates
400
2700
Total
5,840
9,300
The figure below shows a drawing of potential connections to the loop including heat
addition and rejection sources.
Page 7
Page 8
expensive than convention boilers in dollars per Btu of installed capacity, it is economically
advantageous to size the well field to meet a percentage of the peak load (typically around
50-60%) and install a supplemental boiler to meet the remaining percentage of peak load.
The incremental cost of the campus loop system connected to the buildings listed in Table 3
with 5 acres of horizontal well field, compared to convention equipment in the same
buildings is approximately $1,700,000 dollars. The estimated energy savings, associated
carbon reduction, and energy cost savings is shown in the table below. Note that the
condenser loop system results in more campus electricity use than a conventional system,
because all heating is done with electricity instead of natural gas; however, because of the
efficiencies of electric heat pumps, much less electric energy is required than gas. While
this system is expected to have a relatively long payback, the change to an electric fuel
source allows for carbon neutral energy sources (including green power purchase) to meet
the energy needs a possibility not available with gas equipment.
Campus Condenser Loop Compared to Conventional System
1
Annual Electricity
Savings
(kWh)
Annual Gas
Savings
(Therm)
Annual CO2e
Savings
(MT)
Annual
Energy Cost
Savings
Incremental
First Cost
-543,000
96,000
320
$62,000
$1,700,000
Simple
Payback
(Years)
27
Annual cost savings is based on an electricity rate of $0.076/kWh, a gas rate of $1.02/Therm and
includes a cost of carbon at $15 per metric ton (MT) of CO2e.
1
See the Appendix for assumptions and calculations associated with condenser loop savings
and incremental costs. Note that the CO2e reduction associated with the loop is relatively
modest (7% of zoo total). That is due in part to the increased electricity use associated with
the heat pumps on the loop. If the electricity use of those heat pumps is generated from
carbon free sources, the emissions savings of the loop would be approximately 600 MT
CO2e. (13% of zoo total). In order for the loop to offset an even greater percentage of
emissions, solar thermal and biomass could be used as heat sources to the loop, and other
large gas users would need to be connected to the loop. The Swamp building is estimated to
be one of the largest gas users on campus, but it is not in a convenient location for
connection to the loop. Connection to the Swamp can be evaluated in the future after the
initial connections to the loop are made, and loop performance (including actual operating
capacity and heating/cooling load balance) can be evaluated.
Page 9
The master plan controls concept will connect new buildings to the campus fiber network
with BACnet direct digital control (DDC) systems and integrate those controls with the
existing Delta and Andover control systems. The zoo will need to decide which system to
use as the primary control system and front end. The Delta system could continue to be
used as the front end control system (with central computer in Cascade Grill) and the
Andover systems and new systems would need to be integrated into it. Or the Delta
systems could be integrated into another master control system (Andover or other), which
would provide the head end/user interface for the entire campus. Native BACnet devices can
interoperate with other BACnet devices without the need for gateways, which will allow the
existing digital control systems to integrate with new controls; however integration of the
systems will still require some mapping of control points from one system to another which
can be costly.
Existing buildings not currently connected to the campus DDC system will be retrofitted for
connection on a case by case basis. A head end server should be provided that integrates all
digital control systems on campus and can be controlled through a single graphic user
interface. Maintenance personnel should be able to view the status of any connected
building on the graphic user interface. The user interface should include a campus map, with
each connected building. The user should be able to select any building from the map to
access building specific controls. All HVAC equipment in the building should be represented
graphically. The user should be able to select any piece of equipment to view current
operating conditions and setpoints for that piece of equipment. The control system should
have web portal access for remote log in. The system shall be capable of sending an alarm
to mobile devices carried by maintenance personnel if any building conditions deviate from
allowable setpoints. Keepers could be given access to specific viewing and/or control
functions through the same interface.
Energy consumption data should be viewable from the central building control interface and
by visitors on interactive screens or energy dashboards located in one or more buildings
and on the zoo website. The dashboards should be interactive and allow visitors to access
various information including: current and past energy use at the zoo, sustainable design
features, and local climate data.
The figure below shows six types of buildings that have been identified based on the current
control system and the recommended master plan control system. The Table below shows a
list of campus buildings, the current control system of each, and the master plan
recommendation for controls (as indicated by the 6 Types).
Page 10
Page 11
CampusMasterPlanControlRecommendationsbyBuilding
BuildingInfo
Name
AdministrationBuilding
Africafe
Commissary
AnimalHospital
CascadeCrestBuilding
CondorHouse/KeeperArea
CSSBirds
CSSPrimates
EducationClassrooms
ElephantMuseum
ElephantBarn
ElkBarn&Viewing
EntryCanopy,Gates,TicketBooths
FelinesTiger/Leopard
HayBarn
Hippo/RhinoBarn&Exhibits
HoofstockBarn&Exhibit
MaintenanceBays/ResourceRoom
Mt.Goat&BearHolding/Mt.GoatExh
Penguinarium
PigHolding&Exhibit
PolarBears
PrimateBuilding
RailroadRoundhouse
SnowShed
StellerCove
SwampBuilding/Aviary
TigerCaf&Restrooms
Treetops
VollumAviary
VetHospital
CondorHouse/KeeperArea
ElephantBarn/ForestHall
PolarBear
WildLifeLive
ConservationDiscoveryZone
TrainRoundhouse
Primates
Sq.Ft.
34288
10442
9912
15412
34288
4500
1444
1981
3584
3485
Year
1988
1988
1955
1993
1998
1970
1993
1993
1997
1993
2514
1200
9600
1215
4219
2790
11870
5472
5327
8262
6308
2290
3300
4517
21868
8125
4463
5200
3654
14,000
900
40,000
6,000
3,500
30,000
10,000
7,500
1993
1998
1999
1989
1993
1989
1982
1998
1982
2007
1955
1955
1959
1995
2000
1990
1960
1989
1988
2011
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
ExtisingControls
HVACControls
LifeSupport
Delta
None
Delta
None
Unknown
Andover
Delta
None
StandAlone
StandAlone
None
StandAlone
None
StandAlone
StandAlone
None
StandAlone
None
StandAlone
None
Unknown
StandAlone
None
StandAlone
StandAlone
StandAlone
StandAlone
StandAlone
None
Andover
PLC
StandAlone
StandAlone
PLC
Delta
StandAlone
Delta
StandAlone
Unknown
StandAlone
Unknown
Andover
DDC
DDC
DDC
DDC
DDC
DDC
DDC
PLC/StandAlone
PLC
PLC
PLC
Control
Recommendations
Type4
Type4
Type3
Type2
Type5
*
*
Type1
Type5
Type5
Type1
Type1
Type1
Type2
Type1
Type1
Type1
Type3
Type1
Type5
Type2
Type5
Type5
Type2
Type2
Type1
Type2
Type6
Type6
Type6
Type6
Type6
Type6
Type6
RefertothefigureaboveforadescriptionofmastercontrolrecommendationforeachbuildingType.
*CSSisbeingrenovatedandwillbetheWildLifeLivebuilding
Page 12
ELECTRICAL
General
The existing Zoo campus electrical infrastructure is the result of many years of periodic
development in the absence of a complete system vision and direction. Much of the
infrastructure is antiquated and is need of replacement, including
underground distribution and emergency power systems. An
important master plan goal is to define a path and a broad vision for
what the electrical systems at the Oregon Zoo should be in order to
support the current bond project development, as well as all future
development for years to come.
Define a path
The diagram below illustrates the existing zones of service associated with each utility
transformer and emergency/standby generator. The details of the emergency and standby
power system are addressed in the next section.
Page 2
Page 3
In order to evaluate the backup power sources and associated distribution at the Zoo
campus, one must first understand the application of both emergency and standby power
systems:
Emergency System: a system intended to automatically supply illumination, power, or
both, to designated areas and equipment essential for safety to human life in the event of
failure of the normal power supply. Only those loads specifically identified by code and/or
local authorities as emergency are allowed to be connected to the emergency system. At
the Zoo, the emergency system loads generally consist of egress illumination, exit signs and
fire alarm equipment.
Standby System: a system intended to either automatically, or non-automatically, supply
illumination, power, or both, to designated areas and equipment. For some occupancy
types, specific non-emergency loads such as elevators, communication systems and smoke
removal systems, are legally required to be automatically connected to an alternate source.
Other loads, not specifically designated as emergency or legally required standby are also
allowed to be connected to the alternate source. For simplicity, whether legally required or
not, all non-emergency loads connected to the on-site alternate power source (i.e.
generator) will be considered standby. At the Zoo, the vast majority of loads are considered
standby, including animal life support systems.
Whether designated as emergency or standby, systems that provide backup power to
campus loads require three primary components: a backup source (e.g. generator), a
means to transfer from the failed alternate source to the on-site backup source (e.g.
automatic transfer switch) and a distribution system to distribute power to the loads.
Four (4) emergency/standby diesel generators, totally nearly 3MW of installed capacity,
provide 100% backup capability to the Zoo campus.
At the Zoo, the generators typically connect into the electrical distribution at the same point
where the utility transformers connect, providing a rather simple normal/standby power
distribution scheme. Refer to the simplified diagram below. Locating the transfer of
normal to standby power so far upstream in the distribution system minimizes the level of
inherent redundancy, due to the fact that only a single wiring system provides service to
campus loads. However, this level of redundancy is appropriate for the Zoo operation. The
Zoo would like to continue the existing scheme of 100% generator backup for all campus
loads.
Page 4
Two of the four campus generators provide backup power to the loads served by the
Haybarn normal power service. The 350kW generator connects into the distribution at the
Haybarn and the 450kW generator connects into the distribution at the Middle Service Road.
The generators at the Train Roundhouse and Veterinary Medical Center both connect into
the electrical distribution at the same point as the normal power service.
Refer to the Appendix for a One-Line Diagram of the existing campus distribution.
Page 5
size and general make-up of exhibits, the total campus electrical load should stay relatively
consistent over time. To fully understand what is meant by electrical load, one must first
understand a few related concepts:
Electrical Demand: the total amount of electricity being used at any given time. This is a
measurement of power, described in either kilowatts (kW) or kilovolt-amperes (kVA).
Electrical Utility Demand: the amount of electricity provided by the utility being used by a
customer at any given time. This is a measurement of power, described in either kilowatts
(kW) or kilovolt-amperes (kVA).
Electrical Energy: the amount of electricity being used over an interval of time. This is a
measurement of energy, described in kilowatt-hours (kWh).
Using the Oregon Zoos electrical billing data provided by Portland General Electric, the
average peak electrical demand for the campus is approximately 1,200 to 1,400kW. The
table below summarizes the peak electrical demands for each of the three PGE services on
campus; it is important to note that these peak demands do not necessarily, and almost
certainly do not, occur simultaneously therefore they cannot simply be added together to
determine an aggregate campus peak demand. Since the Zoo campus has no contribution
from on-site generation in the form of combined heat & power, natural gas generators,
photovoltaics, wind power, or similar, all of the electrical demand is provided by the utility,
Portland General Electric.
PGE Service
Haybarn
Train
Roundhouse
Vet Med
Hospital
Service Capacity
PGE
Zoo Distribution
Transformer
Equipment
(kVA)
(Amps)
750
2,000
Peak Demand
Percent
Loaded
Power
(kW)
Current
(Amps)
530
640
32%
1500
3,000
580
700
23%
750
1,200
370
450
37%
It must be noted that the electrical energy used by the campus is not directly proportional
to the electrical demand, but the two metrics are definitely related. For example, a building
constructed with very efficient glazing and insulation, requires less energy to heat and cool
it. For this reason, the mechanical systems installed require less capacity and have a
smaller electrical demand when operating. However, a decrease in electrical energy use
over time does not necessarily result in a proportional decrease in electrical demand.
So, as the Zoo campus evolves over time and more efficient buildings and exhibits are
constructed, one might expect electrical demand to slightly decrease. The slight decrease
due to energy efficient building and exhibit design will be more than offset by electrical
demand due to more on-site water filtration, changing program needs, changing un-built
space to built space, etc.
Page 6
Since the entire Zoo is provided with 100% backup in the form of either emergency or
standby power, the same load projection analysis described above related to normal power
can be applied to emergency and standby power loads.
The following table summarizes the peak electrical demand for each utility service compared
to the capacity of the corresponding generator. From a capacity perspective, the values in
the Percent Loaded column ranging from ~46-66% would indicate sufficient spare
capacity necessary to adapt to an increase in building or exhibit loads. However, when
calculating electrical loads as part of a new building or exhibit, the NEC requires that all
loads are assumed to be operating simultaneously, with some exception of course. This
makes connecting to existing equipment rather difficult.
16
Rated Capacity
(kW)
350
15-20
450
Train Roundhouse
13
1250
580
46%
21
750
370
49%
Emergency Generator
Haybarn
Middle Service Road
Age (Years)
Peak Demand
(kW)
Percent Loaded
530
66%
Page 7
distribution is typically the simplest and most economical way of delivering power to a load.
However, radial feeders provide no redundancy and limited reliability as a fault anywhere
along the feeder length will interrupt power to all loads served by that particular feeder.
The schematic drawing here shows the one way nature of the radial distribution
arrangement. With the addition of a new padmounted transformer service at the new
Elephant exhibit, in essence a second dedicated radial feeder has been created. However,
the redundancy shortcomings of the radial distribution now apply to both the west radial
feeder and the east radial feeder.
Looped Primary Distribution A looped primary distribution system is one in which each of
the campus padmounted transformers can be fed from either direction; a two way
distribution, as opposed to the radial one way. There is an in primary feeder and an out
primary feeder at each transformer with the capability to switch between them. All
transformer switches in the loop are closed except at one location, so that one side of the
loop serves a group of padmounted transformers and the other side of the loop serves the
other group of transformers. By
operating the appropriate switches,
any section of the loop can be
disconnected from the rest of the
system. The looped primary
arrangement does not necessarily
reduce the frequency of power
interruptions over the radial
distribution, but it decreases the
interruption duration when a feeder
fault occurs as it allows for quick
restoration of service. For the Zoo
campus, the radial distribution can
be converted to a looped primary
distribution by completing the loop
as shown in the diagram here.
Page 8
Oregon Zoo Comprehensive Capital Master Plan
Page 9
other nearby customers including the Childrens Museum and World Forestry Center. This is
important to the Zoo from an economic perspective because providing more reliable service
to customers other than the Zoo makes the creation of a looped primary a PGE
infrastructure improvement; therefore the cost of the primary feeder to create the primary
loop would be the responsibility of PGE.
As described in the Phase 1 Bond Project description, a fourth PGE utility service is to be
added at the Zoo campus as part of the new Elephant exhibit. This will establish an east
hub of electrical distribution, which will provide capacity for Elephants, AfriCafe, Band Shell
and Predators. The new Elephant service will extend PGE primary infrastructure along the
south perimeter of the Zoo campus, helping create the looped primary infrastructure. Also
as part of the Phase 1 project, primary conduit and vaults will be added within the service
road from the new Elephant exhibit heading northwest, terminating at the end of the service
road on the north side of the Polar Bear exhibit.
Fortunately, at the completion of Phase 1, much of the looped primary system infrastructure
will be implemented. In order to complete the loop, connection from the service road
primary conduit infrastructure to the Veterinary Medical Center PGE equipment is required.
Then, utilizing the pathway infrastructure that the Zoo has provided, PGE can pull primary
feeder cable from the Elephant exhibit to the Veterinary Medical Center and finalize the
implementation of a more reliable and serviceable primary distribution system.
Once the looped primary distribution is in place, padmounted services within the Zoo
campus can be removed, added or modified to suit development over time. The primary
routing within the service road will help protect the distribution from construction related to
changing exhibits or buildings. It also provides relatively easy access, outside of guest
areas, for maintenance or repair of the PGE infrastructure.
As mentioned previously, some portions of the existing underground PGE primary are
direct-buried conductors; in particular, primary feeder routed form the Haybarn to the Train
Roundhouse. As construction occurs in these areas and direct-buried cable is discovered,
an underground conduit system should be provided to accommodate PGE primary routed in
conduit. This will increase the reliability of their system and reduce the risk of failure.
Page 10
complete the implementation of the new east hub of secondary distribution at the Zoo
campus.
Refeeding the east campus loads from the new Elephant service provides many long-term
benefits to the Zoo electrical distribution. It allows for the replacement of aging 480V
feeders that currently travel a significant distance from the Haybarn to AfriCafe.
Additionally, the location of AfriCafes main electrical room and the configuration of the
feeder conduit entrance into the building result in a periodic flooding of this room through
the conduits, creating a significant electrical hazard for Zoo personnel. Lastly, the Haybarn
distribution equipment is in disarray and is need of replacement, presenting the opportunity
to redistribute loads in a more logical way.
Haybarn
The Haybarn service currently has a peak demand of approximately of 530kW (637Amps at
480V) and serves most of the south Zoo campus including Service/Maintenance,
Administration Building, Hoofstock, Hippo/Rhino, Penguin, Swamp, Bats, Sankuru, AfriCafe,
Elephant, Predators, and Band Shell. The location of the Haybarn service is ideal in that it is
within a service area and at the perimeter of the Zoo campus, therefore relatively
unaffected by changing exhibits or buildings.
With the removal of AfriCafe, Predators and Bandshell from the Haybarn distribution, spare
capacity will be created to establish a suitable southwest hub of electrical distribution. The
Haybarn distribution equipment should be replaced and located indoors either within a
building to remain for a long time, or in a dedicated structure. Capacity should be provided
to serve all of the existing loads except AfriCafe, Predators and Bandshell; additional
capacity should be provided to serve Primates. The existing Primates exhibit is currently
served from the Veterinary Medical Center distribution, but should be reserved from
Haybarn service via the Middle Service Road.
Additional capacity should also be allocated in anticipation of a redevelopment of the
southwest portion of campus, including the Service Yard, Commissary Building and the
Administration Building.
The Administration, Maintenance Bldg, Hoofstock, Hippo/Rhino and Penguins are served via
exterior sub-distribution equipment located along side the Middle Service Road. The
equipment is in serious disarray and should be removed. The loads served from this
distribution should be redirected back to the Haybarn distribution i.e. the Middle Service
equipment should be removed and not replaced.
Like the perimeter Service Road discussed in relation to the Elephants, the Middle Service
Road presents a great opportunity for conduit routing within a service road outside of guest
areas. Existing feeders are currently routed within the Middle Service Road to Penguin,
Hoofstock and Hippo/Rhino; the integrity of the conduit paths and the feeders contained
within should be closely evaluated and replaced if necessary.
Page 11
Train Roundhouse
The Train Roundhouse service, currently the largest on campus, will be modified as part of
the Train Roundhouse project. The utility transformer will be relocated to accommodate the
build-out of the train turn-around. The transformer will continue to serve the existing
switchgear within the Train Roundhouse, which provides power to Cascade Crest and Steller
Cove. The transformer will also serve the Conservation Discovery Zone (CDZ).
With an existing peak electrical demand of 580kW (700Amps at 480V), and even after the
addition of the CDZ with a projected peak demand of approximately 175-225kW (210270Amps at 480V), the Train Roundhouse service has ample spare capacity to react to
changing loads over time. With proper maintenance, this existing distribution should be
able to remain in service for many years to come.
Veterinary Medical Center
The Veterinary Medical Center utility service will remain in its current condition. The service
equipment has been replaced with the construction of the new Veterinary Medical Center
and it will have sufficient capacity to support the north side of campus, including the
Cascades Exhibit, Polar Bear, Center for Species Survival and the Veterinary Medical Center.
This equipment currently serves the Primates exhibit, but as described above, this load
should be refed from the Haybarn distribution.
General Secondary Distribution Guidelines
The following are a few general guidelines to consider when making future distribution
revisions:
Page 12
backup power, the emergency load represents a very small percentage of the total campus
load (~<2%). Taking this into the consideration, for the vast majority of their backup
power needs, the Zoo has the opportunity to move away from diesel-fueled generators and
the fuel storage and maintenance issues that accompany them.
Diesel-fueled generators offer the benefit of having an on-site fuel supply so the campus
can operate if both the electrical and natural gas utility services are interrupted. The
disadvantage of reliance on an on-site fuel supply is that the duration of backup is limited
by the amount fuel being stored. The other main disadvantage with diesel fuel generators
is the complications associated with storing diesel fuel on site, such as real estate
requirements, containment apparatus and alarms, refueling, fuel treatment and
conditioning, aeshtetics, etc.
It is recommended to eliminate on-site diesel fuel storage and as generators are replaced,
provide natural gas units. Natural gas units eliminate the need for on-site fuel storage and
refueling, and they provide virtually endless runtime in the event of a electric utility outage.
Of course, if there is an interruption to the natural gas service coincident with an electric
utility outage, then the generator would not operate.
Utilizing a natural gas generator in lieu of a diesel generator requires either prior approval
from the local building officials to use for emergency loads, or a supplemental emergency
power supply in the form of central or distributed battery equipment. A strong argument
should be made to the building officials early in the design process to obtain approval to use
a natural gas fueled generator as the emergency source.
Once a generator is in place, segregation of the emergency system must be provided in the
form of separate automatic transfer equipment and wiring systems.
All new generator units shall be provided with weatherproof and sound-attenuated
enclosures.
A new generator will be provided as part of the Elephants exhibit to provide 100% backup
power to not only the Elephant exhibit, but AfriCafe, Bandshell and Predators as well.
The Haybarn and Middle Service Road generators provide backup power to all loads served
from the Haybarn utility service. Both units are old and beyond their useful lives. These
two units should be replaced with a single larger natural gas unit to interconnect to the new
distribution equipment to be provided at the Haybarn. If a natural gas emergency source is
not accepted by the local building officials, then the egress illumination within each of the
buildings served from this distribution should be reconnected to a central battery inverter
unit or individual battery units.
The Train Roundhouse generator is in good condition and will be relocated as part of the
Train Roundhouse project. This is the only distribution on campus that has a truly
segregated emergency system serving Steller Cove and Cascade Crest.
The Veterinary Medical Center generator is old and beyond its useful life. This unit should
be replaced with a new natural gas unit to interconnect to the modern distribution
Page 13
equipment provided as part of the Veterinary Medical Center. The emergency systems
within the Veterinary Medical Center are provided with battery backup, so no further
automatic transfer equipment or wiring segregation is required. For Polar Bear, battery
units will be provided for egress illumination as part of that bond project. For the Cascades
exhibit and the Center for Species Survival, the egress lighting systems should be retrofitted
to include battery backup.
The replacement generator at the Veterinary Medical Center would function only as a
standby generator and would not be considered the emergency source for the buildings
served by this distribution.
Renewable Interconnection
An important component of the Zoos carbon reduction goals is the implementation of onsite renewable energy over time, which would provide a percentage of carbon-free energy
for Zoo operation. Suitable technologies include photovoltaics, solar thermal and wind
energy. The Zoo also has the unique potential for some form of biomass energy generation.
Refer to the renewable energy section of this report for additional information.
No matter what the technology, if on-site electrical energy generation systems are to be
implemented now or in the future, the Zoo electrical distribution system must be able to
accommodate the interconnection of these systems with little modification to existing
equipment.
All new electrical distribution equipment shall be provided with sufficient capacity to accept
a renewable interconnection downstream of the main service disconnect. A spare circuit
breaker section should be provided that is able to accommodate a circuit breaker of roughly
25% of the ampacity of the distribution panel rating. This circuit breaker should be located
as far from the utility connection point to the equipment as possible, in accordance with
code requirements.
Lighting Systems
Exterior Lighting
A goal of the master plan is to unify lighting equipment and light source selections to
minimize maintenance issues and unify the Zoo campus.
Unify Color: White light sources of 3,000K or 4,000K and Color Rendering Index (CRI)
exceeding 75 are recommended as the campus standard. This can currently be achieved
with Metal Halide, Pulse-start Metal Halide, fluorescent, LED and induction lamps. Each
lamp type has benefits and liabilities. Future campus design should choose lamp types
based upon efficacy, maintenance and lumen output.
Reduce Glare: Outdoor lighting can be seen at great distances, so glare reduction is a
priority for the lighting system. This need must be balanced against guest needs for
enhanced facial recognition and clear wayfinding provided by higher vertical illumination
levels.
Page 14
Interior Lighting
Lighting Controls
A campus-wide, networkable, low voltage lighting control system should be provided,
complete with astronomical time clock, programmable time schedules, occupant warn-off
and overrides, and low voltage inputs including but not limited to exterior photocell devices,
occupancy sensors, etc. A lighting control panel should be provided at each building or
exhibit to control the associated lighting equipment.
Generally, exterior lighting should be controlled based on time of day and system photocell
input. Interior lighting should be controlled based on time of day and occupancy.
Implementing a campus-wide lighting control system and appropriate control strategies will
greatly reduce the energy costs associated with campus illumination.
Energy Metering
You can only improve what you can measure! The Zoo has committed to a significant
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and as part of that, a significant reduction in campus
energy use. In order to track progress and identify areas in need of improvement, a
campus-wide energy management system
(EMS) should be installed. The system
should be capable of accepting inputs
related to electricity use, natural gas use
and water use. The system should be
networkable to allow for communication
across the campus network and viewing of
instantaneous and trended data from the
internet or any PC on campus.
By connecting the EMS to the Zoo campus
data network, remote access and energy
use display will be possible. The
measurement and display of energy use
data provides interpretive and educational
Page 15
opportunities at the Zoo campus, in addition to operational and financial benefits of system
optimization and energy use reduction.
Page 16
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
The Oregon Zoo at its present location is over 60 years old and while it is a modern facility
with common modern technology systems, the majority of its infrastructure to support
those systems is as old as the facility itself leaving much to be desired in terms of efficiency,
security and growth potential. Presently, there are a host of systems in place to help the
Zoo maintain connectivity and its necessary link to the outside world. Currently signals for
Voice, Data, Building management, Security, Fire Alarm, Animal Life safety and a host of
other disparate systems all travel through a system of underground pathways and supports.
While there is a backbone at present to support these, there are strategies we can use to
strengthen the existing infrastructure, build in security from disasters, flexibility for growth
and efficiency for emerging technologies.
The Master Plan presents us with a rare opportunity to redesign much of the infrastructure
not only for the needs of today but also looking forward as to what the needs to Zoo in the
years and decades to come. By taking a look at each of these systems; Communications
Infrastructure, Communications Cabling and Electronic Security, we can examine the needs
and propose solutions which can meet or exceed industry standards and build a better Zoo.
Campus Infrastructure
The Zoos existing infrastructure presently consists of underground pathways and a mixture
of support structures like splice cases, handholds and vaults. With over 40 conduit-bank
systems and approximately 25 underground supports, on the surface the facility is not
lacking pathways to service the campus. The majority of these buried pathways originate in
the Service yard area and empty into the Commissary which houses the Main Distribution
Frame (MDF) for the facility.
The conduit system carries all communications cabling from the MDF to the outlying
buildings and connection facilities throughout the campus. However, as with most prestandard communications systems, the Zoos underground pathways were never sized for
calculated growth. Nearly all of the 1st Level, (from the Commissary to a close building or
splice point) conduits are full. This means that even the normally simple act of adding a new
phone line or data connection to an outlying building presents the staff with numerous
issues.
The final piece of the Zoos existing infrastructure is the link to the outside world. Mounted
to the top of the Cascade Crest building, a microwave transceiver relays data signals to and
from the Zoo to an identical unit mounted to the top of the Washington Park Tri-Met station
where data is converted back for electronic form and transmitted back to one of Oregon
Metros data centers. At present this is the only connection to the rest of Oregon Metros
data systems. While Microwave systems are relatively reliable they like all wireless systems
have downsides. Intermittent operation, easily susceptible to misalignment, interference
from adjacent systems and limited bandwidth are all issues which could jeopardize reliable
connectivity at the Zoo.
Page 1
The Zoos backbone cabling infrastructure consists of both copper and optical cabling at
present. This combination allows the facility to utilize a best of both worlds system and build
a relatively cost effective network for communications. Looking at the current topology,
copper cabling is used for voice systems and short-haul control signals and optical cables for
long-distance transmissions and data signals. This allows the Zoo the capability to get the
most from their existing infrastructure.
The cabling and underground pathways which transport the cabling throughout does not
allow for growth of great efficiencies. The large trunks for copper cable which perform the
voice transmission duties for the facility clog the conduit systems which lead to the MDF and
do not allow for any flexibility with future systems like VoIP. Another fault of the copper
system may be that more is actually needed to support the Zoo in its current configuration,
yet with the conduit capacity issues the system cannot support some needs. For instance,
there are some outlying campus buildings with no phone capability and no physical way to
get voice services to them, and other buildings where the available phone lines seem to be
over utilized, with no way to correct the issue. As the Zoo continues to grow and add new
exhibits, the needs of cabling infrastructure will grow exponentially.
In order to build a more resilient, highly flexible and scalable Zoo, the backbone of the
facility must be revamped. The Zoo continues to grow and continues to need greater
bandwidth and flexibility within its own network. The inherent agility of a Fiber Optic
backbone not only allows simple growth but also allows nearly unlimited bandwidth to the
facility. While all Oregon Metro facilities are developing standards for more IP (Internet
Protocol) connected devices, which help save on energy usage, labor and procurement
costs, the value of an Optically connected Zoo becomes even greater.
The Zoo Bond projects present a great opportunity to build in this new flexibility and give
the facility some breathing room in their connectivity needs without the expense of a
solitary project. In each phase of the Zoo Bond projects, another portion of the new optical
network can be built and made operational. This way the existing infrastructure can be still
be utilized until a phased switchover can take place. The main feature of the new
infrastructure is a new Redundant Ring communications pathway around the facility. The
Ring as its called would stretch from the Service Yard around the perimeter and through
several exhibit areas and administration buildings back to the Commissary ending where it
begins. Along the way the new pathway will enter the site interior at strategic locations and
utilize the existing underground support structures and vault systems. From there new
cabling and services could be delivered anywhere on the campus with little to no disruption
of already running systems.
The pathways would consist of both hard pipe conduits and Air Blown Fiber tubes. The pipe
conduits would be traditional underground conduit systems for pulling copper, coaxial or
fiber optic trunk cables, while the air-blown tubes will be strictly used for fiber optic cable
installations. Air-Blown fiber systems consist of direct-buried pathways which hold up to 19
discrete tube ducts inside.
Compressed air is applied to the selected tube and a
specialized fiber optic trunk is pushed through the tube to
Page 2
its destination. Each optical trunk may hold up 24 strands of high bandwidth glass cable.
Since air blown systems are made for campus environments or systems where frequent
changes are made to the network, the Oregon Zoo would finally get a system which would
allow for complete flexibility and growth.
The pathway system will consist of four (4) 4 conduits and three (3) 19-tube ABF systems.
In practice a system this large could supply connectivity to a campus twice the size of the
current Zoo. Since goal is future flexibility and scalability, a pathway system gives the
facility the opportunity to grow without worry.
The phasing of the infrastructure upgrade would coincide with three of the bond project
phases. In which each phase the Ring would grow and extend to a new portion of the
campus.
Phase One: Service Road For phase one of the Zoo's renovations a Service Road is
being installed which will stretch from the Service yard area along the south perimeter of
the Zoo past the Elephants exhibit. Once past Elephants, the road is planned to cut in
between the Asia and Elephant Meadow areas and end to the north of Polar Bears. With the
Service Road there will be new Electrical and Mechanical services routed below ground and
extended to new service transformers and mechanical houses. The new telecommunications
services will run right along with the other new services. Along the way several new
supports will be installed to act as diversion points for cabling. This allows the new cabling
to be inserted into the campus system at strategic points and run to distribution rooms in
certain buildings like Africafe and Snowshed.
Phase Two: CDZ With the construction of the Conservation Discovery Zone (CDZ) we
are presented with the second leg of the Ring system. The pathways will route along the
perimeter fence past the Administration building and connect into the Commissary MDF.
Phase Three: Polar Bears The portion of the pathway which would take place during
the Polar Bears bond project is the shortest leg of the Ring as well as the final connection
finally joining Phase one and two portions of the system. The pathways will travel from the
Phase one stub point just north of Polar Bears to along the train tracks and end at the
perimeter fence just south of Cascade Crest. From here one ABF tube will divert north and
continue to the Washington Park Tri-Met station. This link is vitally important as it allows the
facility to have a direct connection back to the rest of the Metro Network. This will not only
provide higher reliability and greater access speeds, but the facility now has greater
protection as the present microwave link is now the redundant or backup connection.
Page 3
Wireless
In order to support new features throughout the campus a new type of network will be
added to the site. A wireless mesh network (WMN) is a communications network made up
of radio frequency nodes organized in a mesh topology using light poles and existing Zoo
buildings to communicate with each other. Wireless mesh networks often consist of clients,
routers and gateways. The mesh clients are often Mobile devices such as laptops, cell
phones and other wireless devices while the mesh routers forward network traffic to and
from the gateways, which route traffic internally or to an outside network. The mesh cloud
(as the Zoo now becomes) has the ability to connect outlying buildings and structures
without the expense of additional cabling being run to the building. This network will
ultimately support security devices and communications services like additional information
at Exhibits, digital signage, Amber alerts and public Internet connectivity.
As with most large-scale wireless networks the Mesh system requires line of sight for
reliable connections to the radio nodes. Because of the geographic topology of the Zoo, lack
of line of sight between some buildings and light poles may present issues with the system.
In cases where line of sight would be hindered by trees and other obstructions, the system
may get connectivity from ground based nodes.
Page 4
Page 5
The ideal location for the new MDF location would be Cascade Crest. With a higher
elevation, 24/7 security personnel and a seismically secure foundation the space is better
suited to hold what is arguably the most important space on the campus. However, with
holding a room like an MDF the building requires greater attention to space requirements. A
typical telecommunication distribution rack requires 6.5 cubic feet of clearance and Server
racks require even more. If the MDF were to be relocated, its present configuration would
require much more space than what is available in the building today.
Security
The Oregon Zoo covers an area of 64 acres. Within this area, there are a great many items
and creatures which need physical protection from the outside world. Presently a 10-12
fence encircles the facility topped with barbed wire in some sections however, this fence
isnt 100% secure. There are sections of the fence which land erosion and other natural
events make the perimeter porous and open to intrusion. As with any fenced property there
must be purposeful openings; gates, doors and other openings also for traffic to pass as
needed.
Further inside the Zoo we find a great many buildings secured with typical keyed locks.
While tiered keying systems are the defacto standard for building security, if not carefully
managed they are less than useful. When a contractor or temporary worker comes to the
Zoo they are issued keys to spaces to which theyre working and use them as needed. When
that person is done with their assignment they should return the keys to the
security office or their issuing party. However, in practice this rarely happens.
Zoo facilities staff says that keys are rarely turned back in, and there is no
way to quantify just how many are out in the general public. On the internal
side, some Zoo staff carry a multitude of physical keys for just as many
spaces, making it cumbersome and highly inefficient to complete everyday
tasks.
The new systems planned for the Zoo on the Electronic Safety and Security
front are Electronic Access Control, IP Video Surveillance and Master
Intercommunication systems. The Zoos security systems are one area where
the greatest level of gain can come with the least amount of expenditure.
The most important part of any security system is how well it integrates into
the facility operations structure. The Security system implemented by the
Zoo should be integrated into the way the facility works presently to make
TypicalGateIntercom
systemwith
integratedAccess
the most of it and make sure that all employees and guests can still access the site and
authorized spaces within with the least amount of disruption.
While each of the buildings on campus needs an individual assessment, the Zoo can
implement a system of Electronic Access Control and Security in a phased operation and
cover the facility from the outside in. By starting with the gates and other intentionally
porous openings followed by moving inside the campus to cover building entrances and
important openings inside buildings, the system can be scaled to meet their needs as they
deem necessary with little additional expense. On the perimeter of the facility,
intercommunication systems can be installed which will interface with the facility phone and
Page 6
security staff radio system. At each gate an intercom system would allow guests to ring into
the security office and alert the staff as to guest arrivals. From there, the staff can both
speak to the guest and see them through the integrated cameras within the system to
verify identities and grant access.
The next portion of the new security system is the electronic access control system (ACS).
This is a system that can control access to selected openings of buildings or the perimeter.
The Access Control system can also be integrated into the Intercommunications system
allowing those that have the proper credential access to the select openings as deemed
necessary. The ACS can hold a multitude of access levels as well. Through a central server
which each user (temporary or employee) is enrolled and granted rights, the system
controls access to the facility and each opening, thus giving Metro administrative staff the
ability to monitor openings, resources and guests as they deem necessary. Temporary users
and contractors can be enrolled on a temporary basis in which the credential is
automatically deactivated once their time at the Zoo has expired.
On the interior spaces, card readers and other electrified door hardware can be added to
existing building openings and each space would be added to the campus-wide security
plan. To make integration even easier into the Zoos infrastructure, the new door hardware
and systems may be procured as a Wireless system. By using the new backbone
infrastructure and strategically located radio frequency nodes the new ACS can be added to
the facility without the added expense of cabling each door added to the system.
The final piece of the Zoos security system is quite possibly the most visible, IP Video
Surveillance. While the Zoo presently has a multitude of cameras in operation presently, the
current system leaves much to be desired in the way of gaining actionable intelligence
from it. Actionable intelligence is defined as having all the necessary information
immediately available in order to deal with the situation at hand. In the case of a missing
child or trespassing, it means understanding where the participants were physically when
they committed the offense, what they were wearing, what they look like and what direction
they were headed. All of this gives the correct personnel the ability to judge the best
course of action to rectify the situation. As analog surveillance systems are based on
capturing the scene and participants, digital or IP (Internet Protocol) systems provide
additional information on the subjects. IP systems can be configured to automatically alert
security personnel when someone breaks a barrier or crosses a certain plane. Some
systems even be configured to Zoom into still footage to gain additional information about
the subjects within, allowing the Zoo to indemnify itself against frivolous or destructive acts.
In all, the Bond projects present us with a significant opportunity to build a better Zoo; One
that operates and grows efficiently, and one that can protect itself and visitors from those
that mean harm. The systems and ideas laid out within this document are the start of a
better Oregon Zoo.
Page 7
CH4 to CO2
N2O to CO2
Electricity
CH4
lbs/GWh
N2O
lbs/GWh
NWPP
902.24
0.01913
Source for NWPP Emissions: http://cfpub.epa.gov/egridweb/ghg.cfm
0.0149
Total lbs
MT
CO2/MWh CO2e/kWh
907
0.000411
Cooling
Heating
Calculation of Effective Heat Pump Efficiencies Accounting for Central Pump Power
Condenser Loop
Well Pump
Well Pump kW
Capacity of Heat
Compressor
EER/COP
Flow required for
Static
Attributable to Heat
Pump
kW
heat pump (GPM)
(ft)
Pump
266,600
17.6
15
53
200
3.3
220,000
3.35
19
44
200
2.7
Overall Heat
Pump COP
4.23
2.93
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
Estimated Building Peak Load Summary for Possible Condenser Loop Connections
Peak Cooling
(Btuh)
Peak Heating
(Btuh)
840,000
297,000
2,400,000
176,000
989,000
686,000
39,000
402,000
-
1,693,000
536,000
1,785,000
857,000
239,000
2,670,000
563,000
582,000
Total
5,829,000
9,324,000
Polar Bear
Elephants
Africafe
Steller Cove Chiller
Penguinarium Chiller
Cascade Crest
Administration Building
Veterinary Hospital
Existing Primates
New Primates
Basis
Estimated chiller size from TJP
Preliminary heating energy calcs
Assumed Btu/sf
Exisiting equipment capacity
Designed chiller capacity
Exisiting equipment capacity
Square footage
LEED energy model
Existing Equipment Capacity
Preliminary heating energy calcs
Preliminary heating energy calcs
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
168,000 Btuh
2,904,000 Btuh
0 Btuh
3,072,000 Btuh
4.0
3,840,000 Btuh
5,790,000 Btuh
9,085,000 Btuh
Printed on 9/6/2011
53%
42%
96%
82%
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
Polar Bear
Elephants
Africafe
Steller Cove Chiller
Penguinarium Chiller
Cascade Crest
Administration Building
Existing Primates
Train Roundhouse
New Primates
Conservation Discovery Zone
Total
Elephant Boilers
Africafe Boilers
Train Roundhouse Boiler
Polar Bear Chiller
Penguinarium Chiller
Cascade Crest Boilers
Admin Boilers
Primate Boiler
Steller Cove Chiller
Steller Cove Cooling Tower
CDZ Boilers
Total
Peak Cooling
(Btuh)
Peak Heating
(Btuh)
Supplemental
Cooling Capacity
(Btuh)
Supplmental
Heating Capacity
(Btuh)
840,000
0
297,000
2,400,000
176,000
989,000
686,000
402,000
0
0
0
5,790,000
0
1,693,000
536,000
0
0
1,785,000
857,000
2,670,000
399,000
563,000
582,000
9,085,000
394,000
0
139,000
1,127,000
83,000
464,000
322,000
189,000
0
0
0
2,718,000
0
977,000
309,000
0
0
1,031,000
495,000
1,541,000
230,000
325,000
336,000
5,244,000
Quanity
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Units
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
Quanity
6
6
2
2
1
6
3
8
6
2
2
2
3500
3500
0
5
4,037
227
5,244
Units
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
lf
lf
ea
acres
gallons
Tons
MBH
5%
Notes
Notes
900 MBH boiler
530 MBH Boiler
400 MBH Boiler
60 Ton Chiller
15 Ton Chiller recently installed
900 MBH Boiler
900 MBH Boiler
2700 MBH Boiler
200 Ton Chiller
200 Ton Cooling Tower
600 MBH Boiler
Notes
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
30 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
20 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
35 Ton Florida Heat Pump
50 hp basemounted (1000 gpm each at 120' of head)
20 hp close coupled end suction (500 gpm each at 80' head)
12" HDPE DR 11, 25% for valves and fittings
8" HDPE DR 11, 25% for valves and fittings
Vertical Bore Wells (1.5 Tons/well)
Horizontal Slinky Well Field (900 sf/Ton)
15% Glycol
Supplemental Cooling Tower(s)
Supplemental Boiler(s)
Added control points, valves, other
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
Total
OUTDOOR TEMP
MIDPOINT
105 to 100
95 to 100
90 to 95
85 to 90
80 to 85
75 to 80
70 to 75
65 to 70
60 to 65
55 to 60
50 to 55
45 to 50
102.5
97.5
92.5
87.5
82.5
77.5
72.5
67.5
62.5
57.5
52.5
47.5
ANNUAL COOL
LOAD (KbTU)
52,110,000
57,900,000
108,957,273
240,021,818
696,379,091
770,596,364
863,236,364
1,179,054,545
1,432,235,455
1,086,414,545
525,837,273
0
7,012,742,727
Faction of Load
Met by
Geothermal
0.53
0.58
0.65
0.73
0.83
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.96
27,648,000
33,792,000
70,656,000
175,104,000
580,608,000
749,568,000
863,236,364
1,179,054,545
1,432,235,455
1,086,414,545
525,837,273
0
6,724,154,182
24,462,000
24,108,000
38,301,273
64,917,818
115,771,091
21,028,364
0
0
0
0
0
0
288,588,545
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
MIDPOINT
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
Total
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5
57.5
62.5
NUMBER OF HOURS
PER YEAR IN
TEMPERATURE RANGE
2
58
336
1047
1517
1441
999
1032
907
7339
TOTAL HEATING
LOAD (BTUH)
ANNUAL HEAT
LOAD (kBTU)
9,085,000
7,949,375
6,813,750
5,678,125
4,542,500
3,406,875
2,271,250
1,135,625
0
18,170
461,064
2,289,420
5,944,997
6,890,973
4,909,307
2,268,979
1,171,965
0
23,954,874
Faction of
Load Met by
Geothermal
0.42
0.48
0.56
0.68
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.82
7,680
222,720
1,290,240
4,020,480
5,825,280
4,909,307
2,268,979
1,171,965
0
19,716,651
10,490
238,344
999,180
1,924,517
1,065,693
0
0
0
0
4,238,223
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
1,534
0
450
6,475
432
1,500
1,508
31
276
Total
Area
Cooling
EUI
Baseline Efficiencies
No Loop
Cooling
Efficiency
No Loop
Heating
Efficiency
With Loop
Cooling
Efficiency
With Loop
Heating
Efficiency
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
0.80
4.23
2.93
2,821
4,304
2,151
34,461
670
4,304
-34,461
14,000
0.7
31
34,074
34,500
19,134
276,240
14,940
34,500
23,000
5.1
150
3,375
19,966
30,000
3.0
11
3.2
117,079
866,162
45,000
106,373
42,594
35,930
287,691
35,930
40,000
0.0
90
4,125
31,197
33,029
13,803
4,125
-33,029
10,500
14.6
39
-
Bin Calc
Master Plan Gas Calc
501,902
448,863
53,039
44,986
29,940
15,046
150,000
13,750
103,991
110,096
46,009
13,750
35,000
14.6
39
150,800
17,150
104,546
137,319
46,254
17,150
35,000
14.7
49
288
26,393
12,494
10,914
1,104,943
27,024
6,427
3,375
-27,024
937,446
238,780
117,079
-937,446
Assumed EUIs
Geothermal Efficiencies
Heating
EUI
3.0
2.9
3.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.2
2.4
148,967
2,874
330
Engineering Checks
Load Basis
1,100
1,372
344
2,760
1,548
270
New Primates
Conservation Discovery Zone
Heating
Project Name:
Project Number:
Created By:
Date Modified:
Net Present Value of 30 Year Energy Savings and Incremental Cost of Loop
Elec Virtual Rate
Gas Virtual Rate
Cost of Carbon
Elec Escalation Rate
Gas Escalation Rate
Carbon Escalation Rate
Rate of Return
Incremental Cost of Loop
Year
Elec Rate
Gas Rate
0
1
29
Total
$0.076
$0.08
$0.21
$1.02
$1.06
$2.77
5 acres
wells
53%
42%
96%
82%
28 years
CO2e Savings
(MT)
313
313
313
Carbon Cost
Savings
$4,701
$4,866
$12,749
Total
Savings
$60,249
$62,357
$163,387
Present
Value
$60,249
$58,828
$30,154
$1,306,160
LEVERAGED FINANCING
OPPORTUNITIES:
SOLAR
LENDERS
Wells Fargo
Hannon Armstrong
United Fund Advisors
Obsidian Financial
Piper Jaffray
JPMorgan
US Bank
Cascadia Capital
PAGE 1
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
VIABLE SCENARIOS:
For comparison, the Zoo could buy a 205 kW system for $1.1MM
and realize a savings of $801,000 over 30 years..
KEY VARIABLES:
TIMING
At the end of 2011, the federal ITC (30% tax credit) reverts to a
cash grant and 100% bonus depreciation ends; this will narrow the
pool of interested investors.
PROJECT SIZE
INCENTIVES
SAVINGS
O&M
PAGE 2
Memorandum
To:
Re:
A summary of the relevant issues surrounding solar PV and solar hot water were
presented to the Zoo on June 6th during Workshop #4. The slides for that presentation
have been provided for reference. The following is a summary of the salient points
covered in that meeting and specific conclusions of the financial analysis that was
performed for several different size arrays under several different financial structures.
Summary:
Until recently, third-party financing for solar has been very viable in Oregon due
in part to incentives at the State level.
Several key incentives at the federal level that make tax credit equity investor
model viable - the 30% federal tax credit and 100% bonus depreciation - will
change by the end of 2011 and during 2012; this will affect investor interest.
The federal tax credit will no longer be available as a cash grant and the 100%
bonus depreciation will change to 50% bonus depreciation in year 1 and the
remaining 50% spread out years 2- 5. Uncertainty about the future of the state
of Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) program has made most investors
unwilling to proceed with financing projects in Oregon.
Last year, the utilities launched a pilot Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program that provides
an alternative to the ETO/BETC incentive combination. The FIT is a productionbased incentive that is in effect for 15 years. There are two pathways - a net
metering program for installations 10 - 100 kW and a volumetric program or
competitive bid for installations between 100 kW - 500 kW. Applications are
accepted twice a year for net metered projects and once a year under the
volumetric program.
Due to high demand, rates under both FIT programs have been declining with
each round, making it very difficult to make projects viable without an owner
contribution in an investor-owned scenario.
Investors typically become interested in financing projects at the 500 kW level.
Multiple 100 kW projects under different ownerships can be combined to reach
an aggregate total of 500 kW but single 100 kW projects are virtually impossible
to finance alone.
Financial analysis was performed for several different ownership scenarios and copies of
the proformas are attached to this memorandum for reference. Assumptions are
consistent across iterations unless noted.
Analysis - 100 kW and 500 kW Feed-in-Tariff
Zoo financed
o 100 kW under the FIT program
Installed costs are shown as $5.50/watt (current market rate)
FIT rate is assumed to be $.36/kWh (in keeping with rate trend)
Operating reserve is estimated at $2,500 annually and
maintenance is included at $1,000 annually
Current Zoo electricity rates are shown as $.80/kWh
Full system cost is shown as an equity contribution; there is no
debt payment assumed in this scenario
IRR at 15 years: -.94%.
o 500 kW under the FIT program
Installed costs are shown as $5.00/watt (current market rate)
FIT rate is assumed to be $.25/kWh (in keeping with rate trend)
Operating reserve is escalated to $12,500 annually and
maintenance is escalated to $3,000 annually
Full system cost is shown as an equity contribution; there is no
debt payment assumed in this scenario
IRR at 15 years: -4.43%.
Investor financed
o 100 kW under the FIT program
Legal work and a developer fee bring the total installed cost to
$6.22/watt
A contribution by the Zoo is shown at $185,000. This is required
to reach the return threshold for the investor (as noted below).
Accelerated depreciation is taken as 100% bonus depreciation
Federal and state income tax effects are accounted for
The 30% Investment Tax Credit is taken as a cash grant in Year 1
The Zoo realizes no energy savings during the FIT period
IRR at 15 years: 11.82%. This is attractive to investors but
requires the up-front contribution by the Zoo noted above.
o 500 kW under the FIT program
Legal work and a developer fee bring the total installed cost to
$5.53/watt.
A contribution by the Zoo is shown at $1,100,000. This is
required to reach the return threshold for the investor (as
noted below).
IRR at 15 years: 11.64%. This is attractive to investors but
requires the up-front contribution by the Zoo noted above.
(Note: a 500 kW analysis assuming the BETC was not conducted given
the lack of investor interest in these projects due to the uncertainty
surrounding the BETC program).
Given the financial results in these scenarios, we took the savings out another 15 years
(since solar panels typically last 30 - 40 yrs.) to show the savings that would accrue to
the Zoo once the 15-yr. FIT ends. These savings were compared in a Zoo financed
scenario to an investor financed scenario, where an up-front contribution is required.
The results are shown on the attached Tables 1 and 2. The information shown in this
manner is not focused on a rate of return but rather compares the first cost investment
to the benefit (reduction in electricity costs) received over a 30-year period. This
analysis shows that, in a feed-in-tariff scenario, the Zoo will see much greater savings
over a 30-year period with self-financed systems than investor-owned systems where an
up-front Zoo contribution is required.
Analysis - 33kW and 205kW Feed-in-Tariff
Taking the above analysis one step further, we determined the size of array the Zoo
could buy with the same up-front contribution the Zoo would be required to make in
either investor financed scenario:
With the $181,000 contribution required in the investor owned 100 kW
scenario, the Zoo could self-finance a 33 kW array and realize immediate
savings.
o The IRR at year 30: -.8%.
With the $1,100,000 contribution required in the 500 kW investor owned
scenario, the Zoo could self-finance a 205 kW array and realize immediate
savings.
o IRR at year 30: -2.08%.
Change to the BETC
Originally, we looked at a Zoo financed structure assuming the BETC and ETO incentives
to see if the returns were more favorable. We updated the results to reflect the recent
changes to the BETC. The BETC program has been completely reconfigured, and over
the next biennium, there will be $3 million available for renewable energy projects.
Projects will be eligible for cash grants on a competitive basis, up to $250,000 per
project. The returns in a Zoo-financed scenario with the BETC and ETO are as follows:
LEVERAGED FINANCING
OPPORTUNITIES:
GEOTHERMAL
PAGE 1
VIABLE SCENARIOS:
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Even with the available incentives, investor returns appear to be
met only under the most favorable of circumstances, e.g. where the
system consists of the well field, piping and supplemental boiler
equipment only and excluding building-level heat pumps.
Otherwise, the Zoo would pay higher rates for heating and cooling
of these exhibits than they would in a self-financed scenario.
KEY VARIABLES:
PROJECT SIZE
Given the small size of a potential system at the Zoo, it will be very
difficult to attract investor interest and make it financially viable
for the Zoo. Combining this project with another third-party
owned system, such as a wastewater treatment facility, could
create economies of scale and result in more favorable terms for
the Zoo.
PROJECT PHASING
SOIL CONDITIONS
FINANCIAL PREDICTABILITY:
OPERATIONS:
MARKETING/VISIBILITY:
PAGE 2
Memorandum
To:
Re:
geothermal system (condenser water loop and heat pumps). Our initial financial
analysis was based on this information. At the request of the Zoo, the system was
downsized to serve only those buildings/exhibits associated with the bond projects, or
five, since funds for connecting the other exhibits are not currently identified. This
became the basis of the second round of analysis.
This issue of phasing is one of the main challenges with considering a third-party
financed geothermal system. The infrastructure upgrades will be completed near the
end of the bond project phasing. This means that the only exhibit that will be
connected to the geothermal system prior to the end of the bond projects is the
elephant exhibit. The remaining bond projects will be converted to heat pumps and
connected to the condenser water loop only after the condenser water loop piping is
installed with the electrical conduit and other infrastructure components in the service
road. The system will therefore be underperforming economically until it is able to
serve all of the exhibits and this presents a real challenge for a third-party investor.
Market Overview
There are a number of investors, engineers and turn-key facility plant providers for
geothermal energy systems. Most of the investors in geothermal specialize in
geothermal as opposed to also investing in solar PV or biomass. These investors focus
on very large facilities; they look for projects in the $10 - $20 million range with returns
of between 8% - 12%. Agreement terms can be longer than for other renewable energy
systems, or up to 30 years. Veolia and Corix are both energy and wastewater treatment
specialists who provide turn-key geothermal plants. They, too, are interested in larger
projects and indicated that a $5 million project is typically their minimum threshold.
This presents a challenge in the case of the Zoo installation given that the total cost for
the smaller system is in the $1 million range.
Deal Structure
Both Veolia and Corix finance, design, build and operate systems for clients through
long-term agreements. (For the purposes of this analysis, we will refer to these longterm owner/operators as "investors"). The investors enter into a land lease with the
client to build the facility on their property and in return the client enters into a longterm agreement to purchase heating and cooling from them at a stated rate over a
stated period of time. Because they own the system and are at risk financially for its
performance, the investor will want to manage the plant. They would manage the
design/engineering, construction and eventual operation of the treatment plant.
Various components, such as site/civil work, condenser water loop distribution piping
from the well field to the individual buildings and the individual building-level heat
pumps may or may not be included in their scope. If the investor does not provide
some of those system components as part of the project, they would need to be
procured and installed by the Zoo.
The rate structure for a geothermal system is less straightforward than establishing a
rate for solar, for example, and consists of several different components. The rate is
negotiated between the parties and will be a reflection of the investor's cost of capital,
initial capital cost, return requirements, term of the agreement, current utility rates and
anticipated future utility rates. By entering into a relationship with an investor, the Zoo
is essentially using them as a source of financing for the up-front capital costs and
transferring what would have otherwise been a debt payment into an operational cost.
The charges the Zoo would pay the investor would consist of fixed charges and variable
charges. The fixed charges would essentially be an amortization of the up-front cost of
the equipment, just like a debt payment. The variable charges would consist of the cost
for the heating and cooling provided, pass-thru utility costs related to the plant's
operations, and O&M.
Other Special Considerations
In considering how a third-party owned geothermal system might be integrated into the
bond projects, there are a few special items to consider:
The Zoo's cost of capital is likely to be much less than that of a third-party
investor. For the Zoo's operational costs, this will make a third-party deal less
attractive than a Zoo-financed project.
The size of the project is critical to securing investor interest. Given the
relatively small size of a potential geothermal installation at the Zoo, it will be
very difficult to attract investor interest for this system alone. However, if a
biomass or wastewater treatment facility were also moving forward and being
financed by the same investor, that could make the economics of the project
more attractive.
Operational costs are considered comparable to those for conventional systems.
This means the system can easily be managed by Zoo personnel in a Zoofinanced scenario.
Since the bond projects will be phased in over time, the challenge in a thirdparty financed scenario becomes the economics of serving the initial exhibit(s)
during the period prior to the remaining exhibits connecting to the system.
The new elephant meadow is the ideal site for the horizontal well field.
Elephants like to dig up the ground and the coils are typically buried within 12"
to 18" from the surface. Careful coordination will be required to ensure that
the coils are safe from damage by the animals. This may be perceived as an
additional risk factor to an investor that may end up being reflected in the rate
structure for the heating and cooling.
Soil conditions appear to be amenable to a geothermal system, however, more
detailed geotechnical studies will need to be conducted to confirm this. This
will take place during the development of the elephant bond project.
Financial Analysis
A variety of proformas were prepared to analyze the viability of third-party financed
geothermal at the Zoo under different scenarios. The analysis includes scenarios where
the investor either is using equity only or a combination of equity and debt, and with
and without the individual heat pumps at the buildings. This is important because
including the individual heat pumps at the buildings and reserve costs for their
replacement greatly affects the first cost of the system and hence the financial return.
Larger system:
$250k BETC, with debt: 6%
$250k BETC, no debt: 4.5%
To get to an investor return in the 9% - 10% range, additional charges of around
$30,000/year would be required. This would be in addition to the amortized
capital costs and pass-through utility costs and is therefore not a viable option
for the Zoo.
Zoo-financed scenarios:
Smaller system:
$250k BETC, no debt:
No BETC, no debt
Larger system:
The larger systems has significant negative returns given the large additional
cost associated with the building-level heat pumps and the replacement reserve
they require.
The net financial impact on the Zoo's operating costs is more beneficial under a Zoofinanced scenario. Assuming the Zoo's cost of capital is 4%, it will cost the Zoo roughly
$42,000 more to go with the third-party financed option.
It is important to note the difference between this type of "total cost of ownership"
analysis and a simple payback analysis, which simply looks at how long it take the
efficiency improvement to pay for itself:
Conclusion
A third-party geothermal system at the Zoo would be a challenge to implement.
Projected investor returns are met only under the most optimum of assumptions, and
the cost to the Zoo is greater than if the Zoo's own capital were used. The most
significant challenge is the size of the system. Even when serving a greater number of
buildings, total project cost is under $2.5MM which is well under the typical threshold
for investor interest.
We recommend the Zoo proceed with a self-financed system. In the event project the
incremental cost for the geothermal system becomes one that can no longer be
supported by the bond project budgets and the Zoo makes a commitment to move
forward with another third-party system, there may be an opportunity to negotiate a
more favorable financial arrangement between the parties due to economies of scale
for a geothermal system.
LEVERAGED FINANCING
OPPORTUNITIES:
WASTEWATER
PAGE 1
POTENTIAL INVESTORS
There are two primary wastewater treatment developers, Veolia
and Corix. Both have very large balance sheets and typically
finance systems themselves although they sometimes structure
projects with outside equity or debt. There are also equipment
vendors, such as Phoenix, who may be able to provide financing in
addition to designing, building and operating the facility. All are
looking for returns in the 8% - 12% range, typically over a 20-year
term. They ship the membrane treatment facility pre-assembled
and would use local contractors for the installation and all
electrical, plumbing and other connections. Both Veolia and Corix
specialize in developing smaller installations as well as large,
utility-scale projects.
BASE SCENARIO:
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
A system capable of treating between 100k - 130k gallons/day
would cost between $3MM - $4MM. Including replacement
reserves and costs for O&M, water quality testing, power
requirements and equipment replacement costs, investor returns
are generally met if:
UTILITY RATE
The Zoo pays its current water and sewer rates and agrees to an
annual rate increase of between 0% - 6%. For reference, actual
rate increases the past two years for the Zoo's combined
water/sewer charges have been 9% and 8%, respectively. If
market rates increase more than the established rate over time, the
Zoo could realize significant savings during the lifetime of the
agreement.
OTHER COSTS
The Zoo may need to cover some up-front installation costs that
may not be financed by the investor and provide some facility staff
time to assist with the day-to-day maintenance of the facility. The
latter would effectively be an ongoing Zoo contribution to the
system of between $25k - $50k annually. The up-front cost will
depend greatly on site conditions, final system size and layout and
has been estimated between $250k - $500k.
KEY VARIABLES:
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
There are several key variables that affect the financial outcome in
the analysis, most notably the total amount of water being treated
and reused and the utility rate escalations assumed (electricity &
water/sewer).
Given that larger systems do not come at an incrementally larger
cost, it appears feasible for the investor to hit the required return
with the Zoo paying close to current rates over the term of the
agreement if a 70MM gal/yr. system (190k gal/day) were installed.
The current rate structure with a built-in escalation closer to 6%
appears to work for smaller systems (100k - 130k gal/day).
PAGE 2
FINANCIAL PREDICTABILITY:
OPERATIONAL RISK:
LEARNING OPPORTUNITY:
MARKETING/VISIBILITY:
PAGE 3
Memorandum
To:
September 9, 2011
Re:
water to be reused for non-potable uses such irrigation, toilet flushing and mechanical
equipment make-up, in addition to using it for wash down and in exhibit pools. This
equates to "Level IV" water quality which is just under drinking quality standards.
Meeting the treatment requirements would require the use of secondary and perhaps
tertiary treatment (ozone and/or UV) which is a requirement for many facilities. Zoo
staff also indicated that real-time monitoring and regular testing to ensure these water
quality standards are being met would be required which is standard in the operating
contract for these facilities.
Identifying the actual volumes of water to be treated and reused is extremely important
and will have a significant impact on the financial outcome. The Zoo's latest baseline
year is 2009 and indicates a total water use of approximately 84.8MM gal/yr., 78MM of
which is attributable to non-potable uses. Data for 2012 is anticipated to show a
reduction to approximately 70MM gal/yr., largely due to adding the filtration and
recirculation at the penguin exhibit. kpff has projected out the quantities of water likely
to be needed for all uses at the Zoo through completion of the bond projects. Based on
assumptions they have made relative to water use requirements for new and renovated
exhibits and reducing water loss due to leaks, for example, they estimate total nonpotable demand will be approximately 41.5MM gal/yr. upon completion of the bond
projects. This equates to roughly 110,000 gal/day of potable water that can be offset by
treated water.
The first cost of a wastewater treatment system is greatly affected by the quantity of
water it is designed to treat and it is very important to size the facility to treat only as
much water as can be reused.
Other Special Considerations
In considering how an onsite wastewater treatment system might be integrated into
either the current bond projects or the master plan, there are a few special items to
consider:
Financial Analysis
A variety of proformas were prepared to anticipate the rate the Zoo would need to pay
for the treated water over the life of the agreement with the investor. The analysis
includes scenarios where the investor either is using both debt and equity or just debt,
and with and without the site work preparation being financed as part of the project.
Straight line depreciation over 15 years was used in each scenario and no other
incentives were assumed.
The table below shows the annual rate escalation factor (percentage over previous year)
estimated to be required to meet the investor's financial return. For most scenarios, the
return threshold in the analysis is between 9% - 11%.
100,000gal/day
6% - 9%
6% - 10%
5% - 8%
4% - 6%
130,000gal/day
4%
5%
2%
1%
190,000gal/day
1%
2%
0%*
0%*
*freezing rates at current Zoo rates appears to provide adequate returns in these scenarios
It is important to note that water and sewer rates have been increasing year to year and
increases are projected to be even greater next year. Zoo records show that the annual
combined increase for water/sewer rates has been 8% and 9% over the past two years.
Should rates continue to escalate at 9% annually and the Zoo were to lock in a 4%
annual escalator in an investor agreement, Zoo savings over 20 years would be $13.2
million.
Typically, the agreement with the investor is in effect for 20 years, although longer
terms may also be possible. Once the investor has reached their return, there may be
an opportunity for the Zoo to purchase the system at fair market value. The Zoo would
become financially responsible for the plant and could retain the original investor to
operate the plant.
Conclusion
There is a real opportunity for the Zoo to enter into a partnership with an investor for a
third-party owned wastewater treatment facility on the campus. We recommend the
Zoo interview several firms, such as those mentioned herein, and select one to
complete a detailed feasibility study or investment grade audit. This will cost in the
range of $20,000 - $50,000 depending on who is selected, and can be financed as part of
the project should it move forward.
LEVERAGED FINANCING
OPPORTUNITIES:
BIOMASS
SCENARIOS:
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Waste to energy systems operate most efficiently at high volumes
and investors look to finance projects in the $25MM range, with a
20% return.
PAGE 1
SMALLEST SIZE
OPTIMAL SIZES
A system with a first cost of $3.5 million that would provide savings
in the range of $150,000 annually, assuming incentives currently in
place, would result in a 20-yr. IRR of -1%. In order to reach a 20%
return, savings would have to increase by a factor of 6 with first
costs remaining the same.
KEY VARIABLES:
In addition to the issue of project size, there are several other key
variables that affect project viability:
PROJECT SIZE
INCENTIVES
WASTE STREAM
Higher content waste (food waste, grease) will yield more energy
than yard debris, for example. Also, consistency in the content of
the waste stream is also important to keep the units at optimal
performance.
O&M
PAGE 2
Memorandum
To:
September 9, 2011
Re:
Market Overview
There are investors and developers who specialize in biogas energy such as Colony
Energy Partners, Innate Energy and Meridian Capital. Many of the investors are the
same ones who are interested in other renewable energy systems such as solar PV.
However, for this higher-risk technology, investors require much higher returns typically 20%+.
There are also turn-key biogas specialists such as Bioferm Energy Systems and Biogas
Energy. Bioferm Energy installed a 40 kW or 3.2 ton/day system at the Munich Zoo,
which is approximately double the Oregon Zoo's waste volume. The total project cost
was approximately $2.5MM. That system is processing animal waste, bedding and
organic food waste and is owned by the City of Munich, not a third-party. The electricity
is fed to the grid, the heat generated is fed into the heating network of the Zoo, and
resultant materials ("digestate") goes to an external composter. According to Bioferm,
this project was unique and the smallest they have ever completed; most of their
projects are in the 500 kW+ range. They do have a small-scale digester in prototype
development that will be as small as 18 kW. Also, Bioferm has developed a "dry
fermentation" approach which they claim allows for mixing different waste streams to a
greater degree, is less costly, takes up less space and uses less water and energy in
operations. This is the type of system in place at the Munich Zoo.
Financial Feasibility
The smallest anaerobic facility that could still be financially viable and attractive to an
investor is one that processes around 20 tons per day and is using high-quality waste,
such as food waste, grease trap waste and manure. This would cost around $3.5MM.
An ideal size for an anaerobic digester is one that processes 100 tons/day and produces
1 MW. This would cost approximately $5MM.
A gasification system sized to process 200 - 300 tons/day of dry waste and produce 10
MW is still considered a small system in this industry. Systems in the range of 20 MW,
which are basically utility-scale, are financially viable and reach returns required to
attract investor interest. A 5 ton/day gasification system would run approximately the
same cost as the 100 ton/day anaerobic digester.
As mentioned above, investors look for returns in the 20% range for these types of
projects. Also, due to high transaction costs, they prefer to finance projects in the
$25MM cost range.
Financial Analysis
The estimates provided to the Zoo and bond/master planning team from the Denver
Zoo were used as the basis for the financial analysis. The Denver Zoo has a similar waste
stream - approximately 2 tons/day - and they are planning to install a gasification unit
that will cost roughly $3.5 million and result in a total annual savings of $150,000. It
appears they have developed a highly customized gasification unit - a prototype - to
handle their unique mixed wet and dry waste stream and that they may be interested in
providing consulting services to other organizations about the system and what they
have learned in the process of its development.
A system with a first cost of $3.5 million that would provide savings in the range of
$150,000 annually, assuming incentives currently in place, results in a 20-yr. IRR of -1%.
This assumes the 30% federal grant is secured (which reverts back to a tax credit at the
end of this year) and includes accelerated depreciation.
In order to reach a 20% return, annual energy savings would have to increase by a factor
of 6 with first costs remaining the same. As is always the case with renewable energy
projects, incentives are key.
Other Considerations
Veolia and Corix invest in biomass systems in addition to wastewater treatment
systems. The two strategies can be synergistic - in an anaerobic process, wastewater is
generated that could be treated in the wastewater treatment plant; likewise, the
wastewater treatment plant can be outfitted with special features to remove the leftover sludge material so it can be used in a biomass application. However, the small size
of the waste stream is a significant barrier. While both firms would likely entertain a
slightly lower return on a biomass system if they were also providing a wastewater
treatment or geothermal plant, it is highly unlikely they could underwrite the system
based on the current parameters.
The estimated residual sludge from the wastewater treatment plant that could be
added to the biomass plant is approximately 250 tons, which equates to half a ton per
day. This is a very small incremental increase in volume.
One thing to consider is augmenting the waste stream by having neighboring properties
or facilities provide waste. It would be interesting to evaluate the potential quantities of
waste that are generated by the Hoyt Arboretum and Forest Park, for example, in
addition to other business (e.g. restaurants) in the area. It may be more financially
viable for them to dispose of their waste at a reduced cost from what they currently pay
and the income received from these tipping fees would help support the financial
viability of a waste to energy plant at the Zoo. Another consideration is how a potential
waste to energy system dovetails with the geothermal strategy that is currently moving
forward. That system is geared to handle up to 80% of the campus heating load
(assuming the majority of the exhibits/buildings connect to the system), therefore, it
would be important to carefully analyze where best to use the waste heat generated by
a waste to energy system. The geothermal strategy provides significantly more benefit
per dollar invested and is a much easier system to maintain and operate long-term than
a waste to energy system; as a renewable energy solution, it makes sense for
geothermal to be the priority for the Zoo at this time.
Conclusion
Given the current waste volumes at the Zoo, a waste to energy system will not attract
third-party investor interest. Our recommendation is to focus efforts on the wastewater
treatment and geothermal strategies as part of the bond projects and wait until
completion of the bond projects to revisit this strategy. The technology will have
matured by then, the equipment may be more efficient and less costly, and there may
also be greater financial support for these types of projects at that time. The Zoo may
also be in a position where self-financing a small demonstration-type waste to energy
project is feasible.