HomeMy WebLinkAboutLick Creek Park Regional Nature Center Feasibilty Study June 2002TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences
August 27, 2002
Mr. Tom Brymer
City Manager
1101 Texas Ave.
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Tom,
Enclosed is a document that conveys ideas about development of a nature center
in Lick Creek Park. It is the result of the joint effort you helped to establish between the
College Station's Parks and Recreation Department and the Department of Recreation,
Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University. Thank you for helping to get this
ball rolling.
This report is based on input from a cross section of educators and citizens. The
results are intended to help the community consider developing a nature center in Lick
Creek Park. There are also issues addressed that relate to the need for renewed
management efforts in the park as development pressures increase in south College
Station. As the largest natural park in our region Lick Creek is an exceptional
community resource. With careful development and thoughtful management, Lick Creek
Park will offer multiple benefits to College Station residents and will attract visitors from
around central Texas.
Thank you again for your interest in this project. Copies have been sent to those
involved in the process and to City Council members. I would welcome the opportunity
to visit with you about the ideas presented here so contact me with your questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
~'
C. Scott Shafer
Associate Professor
-
Room 106 Francis Hall • College Station, Texas 77843-2261 • (409) 845-5411 ; FAX (409) 845-0446
http://wwwrpts.tamu.edu
•
•
Example of Post Oak Savannah Habitat in Northern Portion of Lick Creek Park
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 111
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
• Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1
• Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
• The Lick Creek Park Master Plan ....................................................................................................... 3
• Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4
Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 6
Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 8
• Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 8
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 13
• March 2, 2002 Focus Group Results .................................................................................................... 13
• March 27, 2002 Focus Group Results ................................................................................................... 14
• Primary Facilities Examined ............................................................................................................. 16
• • Secondary Facilities Examined ........................................................................................................... 24
• RPTS 402 Proposals ...................................................................................................................... 27
Funding....................................................................................................................................... 33
• Grants ....................................................................................................................................... 33
• The Astin Trust ............................................................................................................................ 34
• The Audubon Society................................................................................................................... 35
• Capital Funding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 •
• Fundraising ................................................................................................................................. 35
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 3 7
• General Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 7
• Possible Alternative Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
References ....................................................................................................................................... 43 •
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................... 45
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Riparian Areas Within Lick Creek Park Support Diverse Habitats
11
•
•
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
June 13, 2002
This document is the product of a partnership between College Station's Parks and Recreation Department and Texas A&M
University's Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Sciences Department.
Edited by:
Courtney Smith, Research Assistant
C. Scott Shafer, Associate Professor
Contributors included members of the Spring 2002 Park Planning and Design Class:
Lauren Borders Jonathan Mc Leroy
Joyce Burcaw Ashlei Meredith
Clint Carroll Ben Miller
Arouna Davies
Brian Davis
Luke DeFilippis
Ryan Demmer
Chris Duncan
David Garansuay
Amanda Gould
Amy Jones
Brian McDaniel
Special thanks to the following for their photographic contributions:
April Conkey
James Manhart
Brian McDaniel
Jane Packard
Hugh Wilson
lll
Tammy Renicker
Lacey Robison
Todd Rogers
Libby Samford
Caytie Sarandis
Shawn Simmons
David Snodgrass
Laura Statesir
Christian Stone
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of College Station, Texas, offers a wide range of
parks and recreation amenities; however, at this time the
city does not offer a nature center.
Located in South College Station, Lick Creek Park, the
city's 515-acre regional "wilderness" park would be a
suitable location for a nature center for two reasons. First,
Lick Creek Park's unique features would allow it to serve
as a showcase for the Brazos Valley's ecology and history.
Second, the Master Plan, adopted in March of 1998, and
Lick Creek Park's established goals suggest that the park
should serve as a resource for environmental education,
through the establishment of a nature center.
Therefore, this study attempted to determine the feasibility
of developing a regional nature center within Lick Creek
Park through gathering citizen input, surveying existing
nature centers, and incorporating these ideas into
recommendations which meet the goals and objectives of
Lick Creek Park.
Through focus groups, individual interviews, and email
correspondence, citizen input was received from a range of
individuals, including Texas A&M University faculty and
students, community members involved in developing
nature centers, and others. Gathering printed materials,
viewing internet sites, speaking with personnel, and visiting
nature centers provided a range of examples serving as
potential models.
The results of the citizen input, the nature center surveys,
and the Park Planning and Design class' research generated
several common ideas. These ideas, briefly listed below,
lV
A Participant at BioBlitz 2002 Held at Lick Creek Park
serve as the general recommendations of this study:
( 1) Form an advisory committee for Lick Creek Park and
for the nature center comprised of a range of people
representing a number of diverse interests and knowledge
bases,
(2) Utilize Texas A&M University and their resources,
especially as a source for staffing through internships and
leadership programs,
(3) Create a facility that can serve as a model for
sustainable development within the community, and
( 4) Emphasize experiential learning by providing
laboratory space and interactive programs that interpret the
"big pictures."
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
•
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
More specifically, two alternatives for the design of the
center were suggested, as was a location. Primary
alternatives included: a large kiosk structure providing self
directed interpretive materials and requiring minimal
staffing and cost and a full-service facility that would
provide laboratory, classroom, and exhibit space in which a
staff member, aided by interns and volunteers, could
conduct regular programs. The second alternative better
represents the desires of citizens who provided input on this
project; however, the second alternative would require
more initial and long term funding .
McKinney Roughs Environmental Learning Center Serves as an
Example of Alternative #2, a Full Service Nature Center
The yellow asterisk in the figure to the right shows the
recommended location for a nature center in Lick Creek
Park. This location, and the related road access, are
different from the master plan and were sited to mitigate
v
concerns about impacts to the Post Oak Savannah. The
location also offers good opportunities for education about
upland forests , edge habitat, and the Post Oak Savannah.
Proposed Location for a Nature Center
Funding for a nature center at Lick Creek Park would
involve combining money from a number of different
sources. These sources include grants from governmental
and private institutions, capital funding mechanisms, and
fundraising endeavors. The costs for constructing a large
kiosk structure, and for providing interpretive signage,
range from $10,000 to $30,000. The facility recommended
in the second alternative could be constructed at costs
ranging from $380,000 to $1 million, with continued
operating expenses which range from $35,650 for a facility
staffed mainly by individuals who have donated their time
and their abilities to $600,000 for a facility with a full-time
and a part-time staff .
•
•
•
Aerial View of the Northern Portion of Lick Creek Park
Vl
•
INTRODUCTION
•
I
Lick
--......i;:::::::~-Creek
Park
recreation/community center, and a regional "wilderness" park.
However, at this time, the city's Parks and Recreation Department
does not offer a nature center.
In a 1997 master plan created for the city's 515-acre Lick
Creek Park, goals and objectives for the regional park focused on
the park's values, which include its educational and recreational
opportunities. This study attempts to discover the feasibility of
establishing Lick Creek Park as a regional resource for
environmental education by meeting objectives a and b,
particularly emphasizing the accomplishment of the first objective:
• Objective a: Establish/develop a visitor center
area within the park
• Objective b: Establish an interpretive program
• to include trails and markers which relate to
•
•
•
OVERVIEW
The City of College Station, Texas, provides a wide array
of choices in regards to parks and recreational
opportunities. Within approximately 1260-acres of
parkland, the city offers mini-parks, neighborhood parks,
community parks, an athletic complex, a
significant cultural and natural sites.
The Texas A&M Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism
Sciences (RPTS), together with the City of College Station's Parks
and Recreation Department (CSP ARD), has gathered background
information and citizen recommendations regarding Lick Creek
Park. Presented within the Lick Creek Park Regional Nature
1
INTRODUCTION
Center Feasibility Study, these recommendations provide
suggestions as to how to move fo1ward with the
establishment of a nature center within the city's existing
park system, specifically within its existing "wilderness"
park.
Entrance to Lick Creek Park
BACKGROUND
Lick Creek Park, located in South College Station, is a
largely undeveloped 515-acre city park acquired in 1987
for 3.2 million dollars under Mayor Gary Halter. At the
time of purchase, the total acreage equaled 2400; however, the
majority of the land was sold to Bill Fitch at a cost of 3 million
dollars to be used for what has become the Pebble Creek golf
course. The park was established:
"To provide a protected habitat for rare and endangered
plant species as well as other native flora and fauna; to
provide opportunities for living outdoor education and
rural life interpretation; to provide outdoor recreation
opportunities for hiking, camping, nature study, and
related activities; and to provide an outdoor laboratory
base for the study of natural science by local residents."
As a park established to provide outdoor education experiences,
and with the incorporation of the need to establish the park as a
center for environmental education in the region, Lick Creek Park
provides a unique opportunity for the establishment of a nature
center. A center offers a number of means through which
information can be disseminated, including the use of educators
from Texas A&M University. Furthermore, members of the
College Station community have expressed a desire for such a
facility, in order to provide education regarding the unique
qualities of the park and why it deserves protection, as well as
providing education regarding the uniqueness of the Brazos
County region.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
INTRODUCTION
THE LICK CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN
The master plan, created by Texas A&M University's
RPTS 402 class, Park Planning and Design, and originally
proposed in the fall of 1997, was adopted with minor
modifications by the CSP ARD advisory board and, in
March 1998, by the city council. The plan emphasizes the
cultural, biophysical, educational, and recreational values
of the park. Remnants of living areas, tools, old homestead
sites, roads, and bridges serve as evidence of Native
American habitation and European settlement.
Furthermore, the park serves as habitat for the endangered
Navasota Ladies ' Tresses, and encompasses areas of
alluvial hardwood forest, open marshland, oxbow
meadows, upland oak forest, and sandy prairies, all of
which are being reduced as development of the region
continues. Along with pressures from encroaching
development, other issues that threaten the park's sensitive
habitats include the need for clearer, more easily enforced
rules and the need for maintenance and repair of existing
park features.
In addition to providing goals and objectives, which aid in
protecting and enhancing Lick Creek Park's values (such as the
aforementioned goals and objectives for establishing the park as a
center for environmental education), the master plan designated
three management zones within the park. The first of these zones,
the habitat conservation zone, contains habitat conditions suitable
for supporting the Navasota Ladies' Tresses. Proposed access to
this zone would, therefore, be limited to educational and research
purposes pursued on foot. In contrast, the multiple use zone is less
sensitive to development and could be accessed by car in order to
use visitor facilities and a multiple use trail located within this
zone. The final designation, an educational conservation zone,
contains over 50% of the park's land. This sensitive floodplain
area would serve to protect a number of natural and cultural
features. The master plan states that this zone should remain
undeveloped and be accessible for pedestrian travel on unimproved
trails only.
The Lick Creek Park Master Plan also describes three
management issues facing the park: ( 1) the need to manage for
desired conditions in the park, (2) the need to educate and inform
the community by utilizing the resources of the park, and (3) the
3
INTRODUCTION
need to manage Lick Creek's unique values in the context
of bigger natural and social systems. In order to begin
creating solutions to some of these issues, the master plan
suggests controlling feral animals, maintaining the Post
Oak Savannah region through controlled burning,
consulting local school teachers on the development of
educational materials, providing new signage to better
direct park users, and establishing an advisory board to aid
in protecting Lick Creek Park.
• To gather information about a spectrum of visitor/ nature
centers that currently operate in local and regional park
systems to show possible alternatives,
• To gather input from stakeholders about what they envision
for a Lick Creek Park visitor/nature center,
• To review the input gathered and relate it to local resources
and needs in order to determine what programs, functions,
and design features would best meet the goals and
objectives of Lick Creek Park, and
• To synthesize a conceptual plan and provide
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES recommendations regarding feasibility.
Purpose:
The purpose of this project was to determine the feasibility
of developing a regional nature center within Lick Creek
Park.
Objectives:
The objectives were:
• To gather background information on the history of
Lick Creek Park and the development of its master
plan,
Blue-Eyed Grass
4
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
INTRODUCTION
! PROPOSED SIGNAGE
-PROPOSED TRAIL PROJECT
e PROPOSED BRIDGE
O PROPOSED VIEWING BLIND
FUTURE TRAIL IDQRS
PARK BOUNDARY
_, FOREST CANOIW BOUNDARY
CREEKS
The 1997 Lick Creek Park Master Plan Graphic Showing Management Zones
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW
In 1962, the National Audubon Society released three
publications focusing on nature centers and outdoor
conservation education. The first of these began with the
question, "Why be concerned?" (Shomon, 1962, pg. 7), and
continued with an answer which enumerated a number of
problems facing the natural environment at that time,
including population growth, the unwise use of natural
resources, the increased use of individual transportation
forms, and the increased pressure on national and state
outdoor areas (Shomon, 1962). Today, these concerns are
still facing us, and one solution, encouraging initiative and
action at the local level (Shomon, 1962), remains as
pertinent now as it was then.
According to Shomon (1962), the ideal nature center "is a
representative sample of the natural landscape of a
community ... designed to orient the community to
ecological realities and in this way to help its citizens plan
their uses of the land scientifically and responsibly" (pg.
11 ). By accomplishing this purpose, a nature center
provides an effective learning environment, a designated
6
and protected open space for the community, and an area of
renewal for the community members (Shomon, 1962).
More specifically, a nature center can accomplish a number
of goals found within four broad categories: educational,
scientific, cultural, and recreational.
Still, how does a community go about establishing its own
nature center and attempting to meet some of its desired
goals? The first step involves the formation of a
committee, vested with the authority to create an
organizational plan and structure for the facility.
Additionally, in the beginning stages, the committee should
evaluate the community and its resources in order to
determine the needs and the opportunities a nature center
has to meet the needs, a location suitable and available for
placement of a nature center, and information concerning
individuals who might have an interest in such a project
(Ashbaugh, 1963). The second step involves planning the
programs to be offered by the facility, which is intricately
linked to the third step -designing a building and other
facilities that accommodate the programming options. The
advantages of a nature center over other entities providing
t
•
•
J
•
•
•
•
•
LITERATURE REVIEW
environmental education opportunities include the idea that
"the center is a living, operating natural system"
(Ashbaugh, 1963, pg. 30).
The Maryland State Board of Education defines
environmental education as "the process of preparing
people to make decisions and take actions which will create
and maintain optimal relationships between themselves and
the environment which sustains them" (Latham, Addy &
Lott, 1974, pg. 4), a definition which matches closely to the
previously described ideal nature center. A definition of
environmental education typically includes: gaining natural
resource knowledge, developing an understanding, interest,
and awareness of natural resources from that knowledge,
forming and modifying attitudes, and developing a desire
within an individual to take action (Shomon, 1964;
Schmieder, 1977). Similarly, the objectives of
environmental education focus upon including the above
elements (Latham, Addy & Lott, 1974; Schmieder, 1977;
Bohn, 1997). Four criticisms have been aimed towards
environmental education, including "doomsday oriented,
fear generating, geared towards activism, and devoid of
7
science teaching" (Kwong, 1997, pg. 87). However,
according to Kwong (1997), the major failure of
environmental education is the failure to achieve
environmental literacy. This "knowledge of natural and
environmental systems and application of that knowledge
towards problem solving" (Kwong, 1997, pg. 87) has not
been achieved because of a reliance upon
environmentalists, rather than educators. One of the
simplest remedies to the above problems with
environmental education is to allow children to spend time
outdoors (Kwong, 1997). Furthermore, by teachers
incorporating science facts into the learning process and
encouraging appropriate actions, environmental education
can truly encourage environmental literacy.
This study provides suggestions as to how to move forward
with the establishment of an environmental education
center within Lick Creek Park. Hopefully, community
members will become aware of the potential for a center
within their vicinity and will perhaps become interested in
forming an organized body to continue on with the creation
of an environmental education center.
METHODS
INVENTORY
Before beginning an inventory of citizen input and a survey
of existing nature centers, two initial interviews were
conducted with Steve Beachy, director of the CSPARD,
and with Dr. Ronald Kaiser, faculty member in the RPTS
Department at Texas A&M University. Beachy and Kaiser
were chosen for this role because of their affiliations with
the project and because of their knowledge regarding others
who had a history with the park or who would have an
interest in a nature center at Lick Creek Park. During these
initial interviews, each was asked to suggest the names of
citizens they were familiar with who had a history with the
park or who would have an interest in a nature center at
Lick Creek Park. These names formed the initial contact
list, with other names added when those on the list
suggested additional people for interviewing. A similar
method was employed to develop an initial list of nature
centers to survey.
Citizen Input
• Focus groups were conducted with selected College
Station community members to:
8
Identify key park issues which need to be
addressed,
Identify possible nature center user groups,
Identify programming options which would meet
the needs of the user groups,
Identify facility and staff needs based upon the
possible programming options, and
Identify possible locations within Lick Creek Park
appropriate for placement of a facility.
• Approximately 32 people were contacted via email and/or
telephone to participate, including:
The president of the local chapter of the Audubon
Society,
City of College Station employees, including the
Director and the Assistant Director of CSP ARD the '
Senior Park Planner, the Recreation Supervisor for
Special Events , and a Neighborhood Services
Representative,
City of College Station Independent School District
employees,
Local business managers from Academy and Wild
Birds Unlimited,
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
METHODS
Past employees of nature centers,
Texas A&M University faculty, representing
a number of departments including
Anthropology, Architecture, Biology,
Botany, Entomology, Rangeland Ecology
and Management, RPTS, and Wildlife and
Fisheries Sciences, and
Texas A&M University students.
Participants at BioBlitz 2002
• The first focus group was held Saturday, March 2,
2002, from 10:00 a. m. until 12:00 p.m., at the Teen
Center at Southwood Park, with 1 7 attending.
9
The 17 attending included: the president of the local
chapter of the Audubon Society, a neighborhood
services representative, a past employee of the
Austin Nature and Science Center, and Texas A&M
University faculty and students.
The first focus group served as an open discussion
during which participants generated two general
lists. The first list enumerated concerns about Lick
Creek Park and the second list detailed concerns
regarding a nature center at Lick Creek Park.
• The second focus group was held Wednesday, March 27,
2002, from 7:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m., at the College Station
Conference Center, with 13 attending.
The 13 attending included: the Assistant Director of
CSP ARD, Texas A&M University faculty and
students.
The second focus group answered five specific
questions: (1) What about the landscape should be
interpreted, (2) Who will use the nature center, (3)
What programs will be provided by the nature
center, (4) What will the nature center look like, and
(5) What sort of staff might be needed?
METHODS
Attendees were divided into two groups,
with each group generating solutions to the
above questions. These ideas were written
on flipcharts and reviewed by the entire
group for additional comments.
• Input regarding the issues discussed at the two focus
groups was further supplemented by requesting that
the original 32 contacts review the minutes from the
second meeting and provide their comments. In
addition, 9 individual interviews were conducted
with contacts unable to attend the focus group
meetings.
The 9 individuals contacted included: the
Director ofCSPARD, a City of College
Station Independent School District
employee, a former employee of the Austin
Nature and Science Center, and Texas A&M
University faculty.
Specifically, the individuals were selected
because: (1) they expressed an interest in
conveying their ideas about a nature center
and were unable to attend the focus group
10
meetings, (2) because of their previous experiences
they were able to contribute more specific
information regarding nature centers, or (3) they
were suggested as a contact person following the
completion of the focus group meetings.
The questions asked by the interviewer varied;
however, two questions were generally asked of all
interviewees: (1) what do you envision a nature
center within Lick Creek Park would look like and
(2) what would you like to see interpreted about the
region's history, culture, and environment and how
would it best be interpreted within Lick Creek Park?
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
4
I
•
•
•
I
•
METHODS
Surveyed Existing Nature Centers
• Based on suggestions of nature centers given by several
of those interviewed, the following were chosen to
provide a range of options, both in facility design and in
programming options:
Oregon Trail Interpretive Kiosks,
Wild Basin Wilderness Preserve,
The Austin Nature and Science Center,
River Legacy Living Science Center,
--McKinney Roughs Environmental Leaming
Center, and
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center.
• Web sites and brochures were used to gather general
information regarding the center's background, staff,
• facilities, programs, and budget.
•
• Interviews were conducted with several staff members
to obtain additional information regarding the centers:
Teresa Bichard, Long Distance Trails Office,
Oregon Trail Interpretive Kiosks,
Cindy Giedraitis, former employee at the Austin
Nature and Science Center,
Brian Trusty, Environmental Programs and Facilities,
McKinney Roughs Environmental Leaming Center, and
Julie Choffel, Group Sales Manager, Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center.
• In addition, several centers were visited (Wild Basin
Wilderness Preserve, Austin Nature and Science Center,
McKinney Roughs Environmental Leaming Center, and Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center) and their characteristics and facilities
were noted, including: site layout, ecosystems featured, trail
systems, number of buildings, floor plans, interpretive exhibits,
signage, and special features.
Navasota Ladies' Tresses
11
• .. 4 • • • Texas A&M University Students Preparing for On-site Inventory Work in Lick Creek Park (Photo Taken in Existing Parking Lot) • • 12
•
•
•
RESULTS
MARCH 2, 2002 FOCUS
GROUP RESULTS
Summary: Following an open discussion which highlighted
concerns of those attending, several key park issues and
several key nature center issues were identified.
Key Park Issues:
-Existing features of the park which are in need of plans
for maintenance and repair: boundary lines, gullies,
existing erosion, and drainage at the sewer line
-Reconsideration of the designations of the three different
management zones found within the park's master plan.
Specifically, concerns were raised about the discovery that
the multiple-use zone contains habitat suitable for the
Navasota Ladies' Tresses; therefore, it was felt that
portions of this zone would be more suited for inclusion in
the preservation zone
-Need for the construction of trails, which would provide
clearly defined paths for use, and for the closure of already
existing trails, which run through sensitive habitat
-Need for the formation of a Lick Creek Park Advisory Board (in
conjunction with faculty from Texas A&M University and others)
in order to clarify the rules of the park and to focus efforts on
correcting the other concerns regarding the park
-Need for new signage and/or other ways to convey the rules of
the park in a clear, concise, and effective manner.
-Need for long-term habitat and vegetation management plans in
order to ensure the preservation of threatened ecosystems and
species.
-Control of bikes, horses, and pigs in accordance with existing
rules, as well as a need to possibly change these current rules to
better meet the goals of the park.
Society for Conservation Biology Member Examines a Turtle
13
RESULTS
Key Nature Center Issues:
-Placement of the facility in relation to the originally
planned location of the parking lot within the Post Oak
Savannah. Concerns were raised regarding the threats to
this habitat type and the need to protect it by placing both
the facility and the parking lot away from this area, perhaps
by placing them within the Post Oak Forest.
-Design materials for facilities (in reference to conveying a
particular theme or to serving as an example of ecological
design)
-Possible funding sources for the construction of the nature
center and for the continued costs of staffing and facility
maintenance
-Identification of the demographics of potential users for
use in determining programming possibilities
MARCH 27, 2002 FOCUS GROUP
RESULTS
Summary: As a result of the initial focus group meeting,
five questions were devised to specifically address the role
a nature center at Lick Creek Park would play. The second focus
group began discussion regarding these questions.
1. What about the landscape should be interpreted?
-Key features of the landscape
-Key community/habitat types
-Community and habitat connections
-Ecological processes of the park
-Cultural history of the area
-How to take the environmental values of the park home
Two Schoolboys Examine a Caterpillar at the Lady Bird Johnson
Wildflower Center
14
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESULTS
2. Who will use the nature center?
-Surrounding communities
-University students and faculty
-Public and private schools
-Community members
o Bikers
o Hikers
o Wildlife watchers
o Others
-Clubs
o Audubon Society
o Boy Scouts/ Girl Scouts
o Brazos Greenways Council
o Master Gardener/ Master Naturalist
o Others
3. What programs will be provided by the nature center?
-Educational
-Long -term monitoring program
-Teach er training
-Volunteer/ docent program
-Quarterly/ monthly topical walks
-Demonstrations of ecological processes
-Displays of flora and fauna types
-Cultural/ ecological/ historical panorama
-Weather station
-Water education
-Wildfire protection program
-Recreational
University Students Outside the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center's
Visitors Gallery
4. What will the nature center look like?
-Reflect local cultures through design
-Open air connections
15
RESULTS
-Energy efficient, low impact
-Native/ simple materials
-Facilities
-Outside gathering spot/ outdoor classroom
-Inside classroom( s)
-Storage areas
-Lobby with changing displays
-Porches
-Gardens with local flora
-Trails connecting the building to the park
-Protection from vandalism
5. What sort of staff might be needed?
-Nature center director
-Volunteer coordinator
-Enrichment coordinator
-Interpretive staff
-On-site maintenance/ security staff
-Student internships
-Management advisory committee
PRIMARY FACILITIES EXAMINED
OREGON TRAIL INTERPRETIVE KIOSKS
www.nps.gov/oreg/
• Government funded, large kiosk 4
• Location: various locations along the Oregon Trail, which
begins in Independence, Missouri, and ends in Oregon
City, Oregon • • Length of trail: approximately 2100 miles
• Facilities: kiosk structures
• Cost of structure: approx $18,000 (as pictured below)
•
•
•
Oregon Trail Interpretive Kiosk, http://www.zga.com/high/oregon.htntl
16
•
RESULTS
WILD BASIN WILDERNESS PRESERVE
Travis County, Texas
www.wildbasin.org
• Private foundation's medium sized building
• Founded: By
seven female
members of
t the environ-
mental
group "Now
•
•
•
or Never" in
1974
• Vision: "To
preserve and
maintain the
Wild Basin
Wilderness
preserve,
encourage
and support
scientific
research, develop and evaluate interpretive and
environmental education programs in order to serve the needs
of the general public."
• Staff: 5, including a Caretaker/Ranger and a Weekend Ranger
• Size of property: 227-acres
• Ecosystems featured: Texas Hill Country
• Trail systems: 2 and Yi miles of hiking trails
• Buildings: Environmental Education Center (office and gift
shops)
• Program examples:
School groups -A volunteer introduces students to
the Hill Country habitat through a guided walk,
which costs $2 per student
Interpretive Sign Along a Wild Basin Wilderness Preserve Trail
17
RESULTS
• Number of visitors: over 5,000 students a year and
numerous other participants
• Membership dues:
Full-time student/senior: $20
Annual trail user: $25
Individual: $35
Family: $50
• Funding sources: Approximately four-fifths of Wild
Basin's operating expenses are raised through
membership dues, corporate donations, fundraisers, and
grants. The remaining one-fifth of its budget comes
from a contract between Wild Basin Wilderness, Inc.
and Travis County
AUSTIN NATURE AND SCIENCE CENTER
Austin, Texas
www.ci.austin.tx.us/nature-science/
• City run, medium scale, full-service facility
• Vision: "To provide individuals, families, and groups
from the surrounding Central Texas area with
educational and recreational opportunities which
increase each person's knowledge, awareness, and
appreciation of the Central Texas natural environment and its
connection to other world ecosystems."
• Staff: 12 full-time; 8 part-time; volunteers
• Size of property: 80-acres
• Ecosystems
featured:
Central
Texas
• Buildings:
historic
Trailhouse, a
museum
with
traveling and
permanent
18
exhibits, classrooms, a pond for wetland study, the Eco-
Detective Trail, the Small Wonders exhibit, 120 resident
injured and orphaned wildlife, and the Birds of Prey area
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESULTS
• Program examples:
• Costs:
"Babies and Beasties" -Introduce babies to
creatures through live animals, stories, and
hands-on-activities
"Bat Basics and Beyond" -Teachers can
learn about the 1.5 million Mexican Free-
Tail bats Austin is home to through the facts
and folklore associated with bats and a visit
to the Congress A venue Bridge
Construction: $1 million
Staffing: $400,000 annually
MCKINNEY ROUGHS ENVIRONMENTAL
LEARNING CENTER
Bastrop, Texas
www.lcra.org/lands/roughs/diamonds/mrelc/
• State organization's medium scale, full-service facility
• Founded: Around 1995 by the Lower Colorado River
Authority
• Vision: "To provide the opportunity for interaction with
and interpretation of the natural world through hands on
science education, field studies, demonstrations, and
educational purposes and to provide a premier regional facility
dedicated to the preservation and understanding of biological
diversity, the health of the Colorado River watershed, and the
cultural history and resources of the site."
• Staff: 10
• Size of property: 1900-acres
• Ecosystems featured: pine forest, pocket prairies, riparian, oak
woodland, and wetland
19
The Eco-Detective Trail at
the Austin Nature and
Science Center (left) and
the Demonstration Trail at
McKinney Roughs
Environmental Learning
Center (below)
RESULTS
McKinney Roughs Environmental Leaming Center
• Trail systems: 18 miles of equestrian and hiking trails;
interpretive trail (ADA accessible); demonstration trail
("green living" demonstrations)
• Buildings: Environmental Learning Center (1-3 meeting
rooms, large meeting area, kitchen facility, and covered deck)
and nature store (book and gift shop); currently constructing a
dining facility and three dormitories
• Special features:
Building oriented to maximize natural light and
minimize solar heat gain
Recycled materials compose ceiling tiles, carpet,
and toilet partitions
Constructed wastewater treatment wetland
• Number of visitors: 29,000 per year
• Program examples:
• Fees:
20
"Creepy, Crawly Critters" --A chance for 5 to 10
year olds to learn about insects through bug hunts
and nature hikes
"Early Morning Bird Walk" -A presentation and
identification clinic precede a guided bird
identification walk
Fourteen years of age or older: $3
-Thirteen years of age: $1
-Equestrian users: $10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESULTS
• Meeting rooms available for rental or educational
purposes:
-LCRA wholesale customers, local, state, and
federal agencies and nonprofit
organizations: $50 per day
-Businesses and other groups: $350 per day
and $200 per half day
• Other funding sources:
-TPWD Community Outdoor Outreach
Grant: $20,000 for education of at-risk
children
-TPWD Trails Grant: $40,000 for the
building of trails
-Texas Workforce Commission Grant:
$9,000 for three summer teacher interns
-Texas Association for the Gifted and
Talented: $1,000 for at-risk student day
camp
• Costs (current; following completion of addition):
-Construction: $1.8 million; $2 .5 million
Operational expenses: $725,000; $1.3
million
LADY BIRD JOHNSON WILDFLOWER CENTER
Austin, Texas
www.wildflower.org
• Privately supported, large scale, full-service facility
• Founded: By Lady Bird Johnson and Helen Hayes in 1982
• Vision: "To preserve and restore the natural beauty and
biological richness of North America by inspiring people to
love the land. We want people to understand the role of
native plants in a healthy ecosystem, to value the beauty of
the natural landscape and to take action to protect,
conserve, and restore their natural ecological heritage."
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Visitors Gallery
21
RESULTS
• Staff: 75; volunteers: 450
• Size of property: 179-acres
• Ecosystems featured: Midwestern Prairies,
Chihuahuan Desert, Tamaulipan Thom Scrub, and
Southeastern Woodlands
• Trail systems: Savanna Meadow Trail (1/4 mile),
Woodland Trail (1/4 mile), John Barr Trail (1/4
mile), and
Restoration
Research Trail
(1 mile)
• Buildings:
auditorium,
visitors gallery
and
classrooms,
children's little Display in Visitors Gallery
house, library/administration building,
and research building
• Special features:
-Native species plantings
-Rainwater collection
22
-Passive solar heating and breezeways
-Recycled materials
• Number of visitors: 82,000 in 2001
• Program examples:
-"Nature at Night Adventure" -All ages, along with
the wildflower center staff, explore the beauty and
mystery of nocturnal nature
-"Bloom Time -Big Stories and Adventures" -
Preschool children listen to nature stories in an
outdoor setting and then continue their
exploration with a hike or an outdoor game
• Fees:
-Adults: $7
Students and senior citizens: $5.50
-Children 4 years and under: free
• Other funding sources:
-$5 million endowment from Houston's Brown
Foundation
• Cost:
-Construction: $10 million
-Maintenance: $90,000 per year
-Labor: $200,000 per year
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
RESULTS
RIVER LEGACY LIVING SCIENCE
CENTER
Arlington, Texas
www.riverlegacy.org/livingsciencecenter.html
• Founded: 1996
• Vision: "All
aspects of
the Living
Science
Center
reflect River
Legacy Foundation's commitment to protecting the
earth's resources. Just as the Living Science Center
embraces the art of sustainable design, it will also
educate so that future generation may understand,
love, and conserve this great gift."
• Staff: 13 full-time; 10 part-time
• Size of property: 1300-acres of park land
• Buildings: 12000-square foot building featuring a
multi-purpose room, an exhibit hall, four
classrooms, an animal room, a resource library, a
23
riparian viewing room, outdoor observation decks and '
administrative offices
• Special features:
Site selection outside of floodplain
Parking lot constructed of porous materials
Gray water system of plumbing
Native vegetation
• Program examples:
Nature hikes
"After Dark in the Park"
• Fees:
•
Adults: $2
Children 3-18: $1
Children 2 and under: free
Funding: The majority of the Center's funding comes from
special event fundraisers and from fees paid for
participation in programs. The City of Arlington
contributes only a small percentage of the overall funding
needs.
• Costs :
Construction: $1 .5 million
Payroll: $750,000
RESULTS
SECONDARY FACILITIES EXAMINED
• Aldo Leopold Nature
Center, Wisconsin,
http://www. naturenet. com/
alnc/bldg.html
20-acres
Uses renewable
energy systems
and photovoltaic
cells to cool the
building
Recycled wood used for building materials
Natural-wool carpeting and natural stone
countertops
Water conservation devices
• Miller Spring's Belton Nature Center, Texas
Nature center and informational kiosk
Recycled asphalt parking lot
Sustainable architecture
o Recycled building materials
o Passive and active solar design
o Efficient heating and cooling
o Integrated water management system
• Moose Tree Nature Center, Michigan
5454-square feet
Science lab, multipurpose room, workroom, mudroom,
storage, and administration
Lab: workstations, interactive video conferencing, and live
camera
Multipurpose room: interactive/ movable exhibits, holds 75
people
Natural building materials
$1 ,180,000 to build the nature center
• City of Arlington
Total construction costs for a 12000-square foot nature
center with a
pond
estimated to
be $1
million.
River Legacy Living
Science Center, Texas,
http://www.riverlegacy.
org/livingsciencecenter.
html
24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESULTS
• Jesse H. Jones Park and Nature Center, Humble, Texas
225-acres
Approximately 10000 visitors per month in the
spring and fall
Educational programming and displays and
recreational activities
9 staff members and numerous volunteers
$520,000 to build the nature center
Funding sources:
o Houston Endowment, Inc .
o Texas Parks and Wildlife
o National Park Service
o Harris County
Jesse Jones Nature Center, http://www.cp4.hctx.net/jones/
25
RESULTS
Nature Center Facilities Examined as Potential Models
Name of Location Operator/ Facility Size of Staff Number of Cost Funding
Facility Manager Type Property Visitors Sources
Oregon Trail Various Approximate
locations National Kiosk -ly 2100 Approximate Interpretive along the Park Service structures miles of the N/A N/A -ly $18,000 N/A
Kiosks Oregon Trail Oregon Trail
Over 5,000 Membership
Wild Basin Travis Medium students per dues,
Wilderness County, Private sized 227-acres Five year and N/A corporate
foundation donations, Preserve Texas building numerous fundraisers, others grants
Austin Medium $1 million
Twelve full-for Nature and Austin, City of scale, 80-acres time; eight N/A construction; N/A Science Texas Austin numerous part-time $400,000 for Center buildings staffinq
McKinney $1.8 million
Lower Medium for Roughs En-Bastrop, Colorado scale, 29,000 per construction; Fees and vironmental 1900-acres Ten
Learning Texas River numerous year $725,000 for grants
Authority buildings operational Center expenses
•
$10 million
for
Ladybird construction;
Large scale, $90,000 per Johnson Austin, Private 179-acres Seventy-five 82,000 in year for Fees and
Wildflower Texas foundation numerous 2001 endowments
Center buildings maintenance
; $200,000
•
per year for
labor
River Legacy $1.5 million
Thirteen full-for Living Arlington, City of Large 1300-acres time; ten N/A construction; Fees and
Science Texas Arlington building part-time $750,000 for fundraisers
Center staffing
•
•
26 •
..
•
•
•
RESULTS
RPTS 402 PROPOSALS
In addition to the two focus groups and the nature center
surveys, four groups of RPTS 402 students presented
proposals for a nature center at Lick Creek Park. In
addition to determining potential sites, the groups also
proposed designs, programming options, funding
possibilities, and example case studies .
Location of the Na tu re Center
The following four sites were chosen by the students as
potential sites for a center for various reasons .
• Alternative one advantages: easy access, no
impact to the Post Oak Savannah
• Alternative two advantages: easy access, no
impact to the Post Oak Savannah, buffer from
road
• Alternative three advantages: central to park,
buffered, protects Post Oak Savannah
• Alternative four advantages: buffered, better
protects Post Oak Savannah than master plan,
cost effective, allows interpretation of Post Oak
Savannah and Post Oak Forest Alternative Two
27
RESULTS
Alternative Three
Design of the Nature Center
In addition to possible locations, the RPTS 402 students
proposed a number of suggestions regarding the design
features of the nature center and the facilities to be offered.
• Design features:
Size
o 5000-square feet
o 9000-square feet
Natural building materials
o Limestone, sandstone, wood
o Celloboard Plastic Lumber, Eco Timber, Homasote
o Native vegetation
o Reflection of local culture (i.e. ranch or
sharecropper)
Alternative Four
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESULTS
Sustainable building and architecture:
o Indirect lighting
o Low slope roof
o Roof ventilation system
o Permeable brick walkways
o Recycled asphalt pavement
o Circular driveway with crushed granite
surface, bus and handicap parking, and
vegetation buffer
o Energy efficient
o Photovoltaic cells
Proposed Site Design One Proposed Site Design Two
29
•
RESULTS
• Facilities: 4
Lobby
Meeting areas
Classrooms/ laboratories
Storage room
Cafe
Restrooms
Wrap-around porch •
Gazebo
Amphitheater
Gardens •
•
•
•
30 •
,.
•
•
•
•
•
RESULTS
• Staff
Director
Maintenance/ security
Docents/ interpreters
Enrichment coordinators
Student interns
Proposed Site Design Four
Programming Possibilities
Following the generation of ideas regarding the placement and
design of a facility, the student groups began to consider the
possible programs their facilities could accommodate and the
potential sources of funding that could make a nature center a
reality.
• Potential user groups:
Elementary, middle, and senior high school educational
programs
Senior citizen groups
Special interest groups
• Educational uses
31
Sciences (environmental and ecological)
College research programs
Monthly/ quarterly interpretive walks
Insect collections
Panorama
Interpretive exhibit depicting Lick Creek Park's species
Demonstrations
Interactive computers/ database
Three dimensional map of the park
Kids Center (designed on a small scale)
RESULTS
Proposed Facility Design Two
Proposed Entrance Design
Funding Possibilities
• The Audubon Society
• City of College Station
• Land and Water Conservation Fund
• TEA 21
• Texas A&M University
• Texas Department of Transportation
• Texas Historical Commission, Brazos Valley Historical
Commission, and/ or the College Station Historic Preservation
Committee
• Texas Parks and Wildlife Grant Programs
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• Local contributors
32
Buy-a-Plant, Buy-a-Display
Kiosk and sign donations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FUNDING
The funds necessary for the establishment of a nature
center in Lick Creek Park will most likely come from a
variety of different sources, including private organizations,
grants, capital funding mechanisms, and fundraising. The
suggested sources listed below are only a few of the
funding opportunities available to the CSP ARD and they
can be combined into various groupings in order to create
the most appropriate funding package .
GRANTS
National Park Service
• Certified Local Government Program
Through State Historic Preservation Offices, the National
Park Service can provide technical assistance and small
matching grants to communities whose local governments
are attempting to preserve for future generations that which
is significant from their community's past.
Http://www2.cr.nps.gov/clg/clg p.htm
• Land and Water Conservation Fund
This program "provides matching grants to States and local
governments for the acquisition and development of public
outdoor recreation areas and facilities."
Http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/programs/lwcf/index.html
The Texas Historical Commission
• Heritage Tourism Grants
Counties within an active Texas Heritage Trails Program region
may apply for matching grants to be used for heritage tourism
projects, such as interpretation, signage, and cultural heritage
events and exhibits.
Http://www.thc.state.tx.us/grantsincent/graht.html
BioBlitz 2002 Participants Return to the Exhibits Along One of Lick Creek
Park's Numerous Trails. A Number of Grants Exist for Trail Work as well.
33
FUNDING
Texas Parks and Wildlife
Http://www.towd.state.tx.us/grants/grants.htm
• Outdoor Recreation Grants
The Outdoor Recreation Grants provide 50% matching
funds to acquire and develop parkland or to renovate
existing public recreation areas.
• Indoor Recreation Grants
This grant provides 50%
matching funds for the
construction of recreation centers
and other facilities.
• Regional Park Grants
"This program provides 50% matching fund grants to local
governments in order to create large, intensive-use
recreation areas, regional systems of parks, and
conservation areas with trail linkages, as well as linear
greenways between parks and other community amenities
in Texas' urban areas. Another important element of these
grants is to encourage partnerships and leverage
development between the private sector, non-profit
organizations, and among local governments."
The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Received an Endowment from
Houston's Brown Fund for Their Work
THE ASTIN TRUST
Contact information: Donna Paine, 979-776-323 7
The Astin Trust provides funds to non-profit organizations within
the Brazos Valley for a number of different projects, including
34
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FUNDING
research projects and building projects. In order to receive
funds, a packet must be submitted including an application,
a purpose statement, and any additional supporting
information .
THE AUDUBON SOCIETY
Http://www.audubon.org/educate/
The 2020 Vision
• 1000 Audubon Centers
• Reaching 1 in 4 children
• Protecting 1,000,000 acres
• Growing membership to 1 % of the population of the
United States
Defining an Audubon Center
"Audubon Centers are places in their communities that
include natural open space, permanent facilities, and
people. They are important nature and conservation
resources in their communities."
Partnering with Audubon
If a local Audubon Chapter would like to start a new
Center, "it will need to work closely with the State Office
to determine the level of support and involvement the State
Office can provide." "They should identify a site for the Center,
develop a common vision, and define the roles of each party in
establishing the Center."
CAPTIAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Revenue bonds
Revenue bonds rely upon the generation of funds from the project
itself in order to cover operating and maintenance costs, as well as
the annual principal and interest payments.
Tax-increment bonds
Tax-increment bonds rely upon the increase in property taxes,
which result from improvements paid for by the bonds, in order to
redeem themselves.
FUND RAISING
The buy-a-bench program is one example of a
possible fundraising opportunity. This
innovative method, as well as more traditional methods, can be
incorporated to meet the goals of Lick Creek Park. However, the
keys to successful fundraising are to be direct and to ask (you will
not receive the funds unless you are willing to ask for them).
35
•
•
•
•
Viewing Blinds with Interpretive Signage Help Educate Visitors about Wildlife •
36
•
•
I
•
•
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughout the process of gathering citizen input, a number of
ideas and/ or issues were continually raised. These thoughts
have been collected below and serve as the initial
recommendations for beginning to create a nature center within
Lick Creek Park.
1. Form an advisory committee for Lick Creek Park and for
the nature center comprised of a range of people representing a
number of diverse interests and knowledge bases. Ashbaugh
(1963) suggests that an advisory committee is an important
first step and could serve to create a clear vision for the park
and could create goals to meet this vision. Additionally, an
advisory committee is needed in order to meet the requirements
of a number of different funding sources for projects.
2. Through this committee, create a clear, simple vision for a
nature center at Lick Creek Park. In addition, use the
committee to guide the development process, including
programming, design, and staffing issues .
3. Conduct a more thorough study to discover the
demographics of the current users of Lick Creek Park, as well
as discovering why others do not currently use the park, in
37
order to better meet the needs of the users in programming
options.
4. Utilize Texas A&M University and their resources,
especially as a source for staffing through student internships
and leadership programs, in order to minimize the needs for a
large payroll. Tasks which student interns could be responsible
for include caretaking and maintenance, administrative duties,
and interpretation, among other things. Furthermore, faculty
could be utilized for their expertise, both in developing
programs and in conducting on-site classes, as well as for the
continued monitoring of the park's ecosystems. By relying on
educators, one of environmental education's greatest problems
-the failure to achieve environmental literacy -can be
corrected (Kwong, 1997).
5. Create a facility that can serve as a model for sustainable
development within the community through its use of
sustainable building techniques. Permeable surfaces, rainwater
catchments, and the use of existing vegetation within the
design, as well as creating an energy efficient facility by use of
solar power and recycled materials, are a few of the ways in
which a "soft footprint" can be made. Additionally, through
the materials used and through the architectural style chosen
RECOMMENDATIONS
(i.e. ranch house or sharecropper dwelling), the local culture
can be reflected.
As Part of Their Commitment to
Sustainable Building
Techniques, the Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center
Makes Use of a Unique
Rainwater Collection System
6. Site the facility at the edge of the Post Oak Savannah (see
Alternative 4, page 28). This location is seen as optimal
because: ( 1) it is a compromise between the original siting of
the facility as shown on the master plan and the desires of a
number of researchers wishing to maintain the Post Oak
Savannah, (2) it allows for continued controlled bums, (3) it
provides a unique edge habitat for interpretation, and (4) it
provides easy access and views into both the savannah and the
forest.
38
7. Provide laboratory space to meet the needs of current users
(Texas A&M University faculty and staff, as well as visiting
specialists) and potential future users (College Station
Independent School District). Additionally, spaces for exhibits
and models, audio-visual aids, visual aids, and other forms of
information contribute significantly to an environmental
education experience and provide alternatives when outdoor
discovery is prohibited (Shomon, 1964). In order to provide
these activities, a larger facility would be necessary.
8. Focus interpretative programs and materials on the "big
picture," i.e. ecological processes or historical changes and
their effects on Brazos County, such as the use of fire in habitat
management. Conveying the larger story, developing systems
thinking, and stressing ecological relationships are all
intricately linked to the goals and objectives of environmental
education (Krapfel, 1999; Shomon, 1964).
9. Emphasize experiential and "hands-on" learning in order to
meet the needs of school districts and to further encourage the
use of the park by children. Spending time outdoors and letting
the participants use all of their senses encourage discovery
about natural and environmental systems and application of
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
that knowledge towards problems (Kwong, 1997; Shomon,
1964).
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE STYLES
After considering the above general recommendations, two
alternative design styles are proposed for a facility at Lick
Creek Park. These represent points on a spectrum ranging
from a low cost self guided orientation/interpretation kiosk to a
more expensive, staffed, programmed, nature education
facility .
Alternative One
• Type of structure: large kiosk
• Example: a structure similar to those being incorporated
into Wolf Pen Creek's trail systems
• Design features: simple, natural materials
39
Oregon Trail Interpretive Kiosk, http://www.zga.com/high/oregon.html
• Location: edge of the Post Oak Savannah adjacent to
parking lot
• Staff: none
• Programming: interpretive signage, brochures, and
maps
• Cost:
-Kiosk construction: $10,000 to $20,000
Interpretive panels: approximately $10,000
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative Two
• Type of structure: full-service, 3 to 5,000 sq. ft.
building
• Rooms: lobby, classroom/laboratory, restrooms,
office
• Design features: sustainable architecture and
landscaping
McKinney Roughs Environmental Learning Center Serves as an
Example of Sustainable Architecture and Landscaping
• Location: edge of the Post Oak Savannah
(alternative 4, p.20)
40
• Staff: one full-time staff member, supplemented by
internships and volunteers
• Programming: interpretive signage, brochures, and
maps; interactive exhibits; staff facilitated programs
Austin Nature and Science Center's Interactive Laboratory
• Cost:
-Construction: $380,000 to $1 million
-Refurbishing costs: $27,700
-Operating expenses: $35,650 to $600,000
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative One provides a low cost option for
environmental education. By incorporating native materials
and a cultural design, as well as by providing interpretive
materials, users of Lick Creek Park would still be offered the
opportunity to learn about the region. According to Kwong
(1997), one of the most important characteristics of
environmental education is its ability to allow people to spend
time outdoors. However, Kwong (1997) also states that in
order to correct the wrongs of environmental education,
educators must play an active role in disseminating knowledge.
Additionally, educators participating in environmental
education through programs and other similar activities are
more capable of encouraging participants to fully immerse
themselves in the experience and can better encourage systems
thinking (Krapfel, 1999; Latham, Addy & Lott, 1974; Shomon,
1964)
Alternative Two reflects the desires of focus group
participants and subsequent interviewees and is thus
recommended if College Station pursues the development of a
nature center in Lick Creek Park. Information collected
suggests that a partnership between the city, local school
districts, the university, and citizen interest groups would
41
provide a facility ·that could act as a regional resource for
research and learning about the local environment.
Lick Creek Park offers a remarkable piece of land,
currently in the Department's possession, on which the
CSP ARD could pursue the placement of a facility similar to
that presented in Alternative Two. Along with being the only
"nature" park within the city's park system, Lick Creek Park
combines what is unique about the Brazos County -including
its flora and fauna, its various ecosystems, and evidence of its
culture and history (Dering & Mason, 2001) -within one
location, which also is near to the new growth of the city. By
placing an environmentally friendly building within this region
of new growth, the city can ensure a permanent protection for
this unique landscape. Furthermore, a center can offer an
example to a community which has expressed an interest in
learning more about what makes them unique, as well as how
to preserve the very things which offer them their uniqueness,
much like the Evans' community learned what makes them
unique through the Cibolo Nature Center (Evans & Chipman-
Evans, 1998).
By creating a larger, full-service facility, the CSP ARD
can provide a wider range of education programs. In so doing,
RECOMM ENDATIONS
a facility such as this can serve a more diverse group of users -
ranging from young schoolchildren, to members of Texas
A&M University's community, to local homeowners, as well
as members of surrounding communities and visitors to the
region. The needs of each of these groups could better be met
by a larger facility providing, not only interpretive materials,
but also programming led by staff members, interactive
exhibits addressing issues such as the workings of a floodplain,
and rotating exhibits featuring applications of ecological
principles visitors can use within their own homes (Shomon,
1964).
42
The recommended scenario for moving forward with
such a center would be to:
1) Create the desired park advisory group, and decide what
level of funding is needed to proceed with the desired facility
(as suggested by Shomon, 1963 and by Evans and Chipman-
Evans, 1998),
2) Determine at what level the City of College Station will
participate (e.g., bond election to finance construction),
3) Organize local interest groups to write grants and raise funds
to meet some construction and/or operational costs, and
4) Develop programming and staffing.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
REFERENCES
Ashbaugh, B.L. (1963). Planning a nature center. New York, NY: National Audubon
Society.
City of College Station (2002). College Station development guide -Section 4: Park and
open space plan. Retrieved April 18, 2002, from http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us/appletMessages/devguid4.htm .
City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department (1993). Lick Creek Park.
College Station, TX: College Station Park System.
Crompton, J.L. (1999). Financing and acquiring park and recreation resources. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Dering, J.P. & Mason, J.B. (2001). Prehistoric and historic occupation in central Brazos
County: Archaeological investigations of two city parks: Veterans Park and Athletic Complex and Lick Creek Park, College
Station, Texas. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University .
Evans, B. & Chipman-Evans, C. (1998). How to create and nurture a nature center in
your community. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Hill, S. (1998). Texas A&M parks students work at helping people play. AgNews, May
5, 1998. Retrieved April 18, 2002, from http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/RPTS/May0598a.htm
Krapfel, P. (1999). Deepening children's participation through local ecological
investigations. In G.A. Smith & D.R. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and
the environment (pp. 47-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kwong, J. (1997). An American perspective on environmental literacy: A new goal for
environmental education. In B. Aldrich-Moodie & J. Kwong (Eds.), Environmental education (pp. 87-126). Westminster,
London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
Latham, J.W., Addy, J.A. & Lott, H.H. (1974). Environmental education: A Maryland
approach. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education.
43
REFERENCES
Lick Creek Park Master Plan (1997).
Shomon, J. J. (1962). A nature center for your community. New York, NY: National
Audubon Society.
Shomon, J.J. (1964). Manual of outdoor conservation education. New York, NY:
National Audubon Society.
44
-
•
•
•
•
411
•
•
•
APPENDIX A
Meeting Contacts
Academy -Outdoor recreation business
Clark Adams -Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences
John Aguiar -Texas A&M University student
Lee Battle -City of College Station planner
Steve Beachy -Director of College Station Parks and
Recreation Department
April Ann Torres Conkey -President of the Society for
Conservation Biology
Sherry Ellison -Vice-president of the Brazos Greenways
Council
Winnie Gamer -City of College Station council member
Cindy Giedraitis -Former employee of the Austin Nature
and Science Center
Larry Griffing -President of the local Audubon Society
chapter
Ron Kaiser -Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism
Sciences
Judy LeUnes -Middle school teacher and equine
recreationist
Jim Manhart -Associate Professor of Biology
James Massey -City of College Station council member
Bob Osborn -Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences department
Jane Packard -Associate Professor of Wildlife and
Fisheries Sciences
Ric Ploeger -Assistant Director of College Station Parks
and Recreation Department
Jane Rankin -Director of Curriculum
Monique Reed -Biology department faculty
Ed Riley -Entomology department
Jon Rodiek -Professor of Landscape Architecture and
Urban Planning
45
Duane Schlitter -Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
department
David Scott -Associate Professor of Recreation, Park, and
Tourism Sciences
Susan Scott -Recreation, Park, and Tourism faculty
Val Silvy -Program Coordinator Texas Water Resources
Institute
Doug Slack -Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Fred Smeins -Professor of Rangeland Ecology and
Management
Alston Thoms -Center for Ecological Archeology
Sheila Walker -Special Events Supervisor for Parks and
Recreation Department
Robert Wharton -Professor of Entomology
Larry White -Professor of Rangeland Ecology and
Management
Wild Birds Unlimited -Outdoor recreation business
Hugh Wilson -Professor of Biology
David Woodcock -Professor of Architecture
Thomas Woodfin -Professor of Landscape Architecture
and Urban Planning
Meeting One Attendees
John Aguiar -Texas A&M University student
Lee Battle -City of College Station planner
Steve Beachy -Director of College Station Parks and
Recreation Department
April Conkey -President of the Society for Conservation
Biology
Sherry Ellison -Vice-president of the Brazos Greenways
Council
Cindy Giedraitis -Former employee of the Austin Nature
and Science Center
APPENDIX A
Larry Griffing -President of the local Audubon Society
chapter
Bob Osborn -Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences department
Ric Ploeger -Assistant Director of College Station Parks
and Recreation Department
Monique Reed -Biology department faculty
Tammy Renicker -Texas A&M University student
Ed Riley -Entomology department
Lacey Robison -Texas A&M University student
Susan Scott -Recreation, Park, and Tourism faculty
Fred Smeins -Professor of Rangeland Ecology and
Management
David Snodgrass -Texas A&M University student
Bob Wharton -Professor of Entomology
Meeting Two Attendees
April Conkey -President of the Society for Conservation
Biology
Sherry Ellison -Vice-president of the Brazos Greenways
Council
Ron Kaiser -Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism
Sciences
Jim Manhart -Associate Professor of Biology
Jonathan McLeroy-Texas A&M University student
Jane Packard -Associate Professor of Wildlife and
Fisheries Sciences
Ric Ploeger -Assistant Director of College Station Parks
and Recreation Department
Monique Reed -Biology department faculty
Ed Riley -Entomology department
Doug Slack -Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
David Snodgrass -Texas A&M University student
Laura Statesir -Texas A&M University student
46
Larry White -Professor of Rangeland Ecology and
Management
Individual Interviews
Clark Adams -Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Steve Beachy -Director of College Station Parks and
Recreation Department
Cindy Giedraitis -Former employee of the Austin Nature
and Science Center
Larry Griffing -President of the local Audubon Society
chapter
Ron Kaiser -Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism
Sciences
Jane Rankin -Director of Curriculum
Susan Scott -Recreation, Park, and Tourism faculty
Alston Thoms -Center for Ecological Archeology
David Woodcock -Professor of Architecture
-
•
•
•