HomeMy WebLinkAboutNetwork of Greenways for College Stationk NETWORK C
GREENWAYS
FOR COLLEGI
STATION
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following individuals contributed to the preparation and adoption of
this document.
GITF Members
David Scott, Chair - Brazos Greenways Council
James Massey - Planning and Zoning Commission
Wayne Rife - Planning and Zoning Commission
John Crompton - Parks Board
Mike Manson - Parks Board
Mike McClure - Storm Drainage and Drainage Issues Representative
David Scarmardo - Development/Real Estate Community Representative
Sherry Ellison - Neighborhood/Home-owner Association Representative
Lynn Allen - Recreation Organization Representative
Don Mueller - Environmental Science Community Representative
Harlow Landphair - Landscape Architect
Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager - Staff Liaison
Mayor and Council
Lynn McIlhaney - Mayor
Steve Esmond - Place I
Ron Silvia - Place 2
Swiki Anderson - Place 3
Larry Mariott - Place 4
David Hickson - Place 5
Anne Hazen - Place 6
Planning & Zoning Commission
James Massey - Chair
Winnie Garner
Ron Kaiser
Steve Parker
Karl Mooney
Dennis Maloney
Wayne Rife
Supporting City Staff
Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager
Jane Kee, City Planner
Nanette Manhart, Mapping Specialist
Edward Broussard, Management Assistant
Jennifer Mixon, Planning Intern
Mark Smith, Director of Public Works
Ric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation
Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation
Carla Robinson, Assistant City Attorney
Other Contributors
Scott Shafer, Professor, TAMU RPTS
Michelle Brown, Graduate Student, RPTS
Texas A&M University Recreation & Parks Department
Brazos Greenways Council
Table of Contents
page
I. "Greenways" - What Are They?......................................................................................1
Ii. The "Greenway Idea" in College Station........................................................................1
III. The Greenways Implementation Task Force..................................................................2
IV. Greenways Defined............................................................................................................3
V. Inventory of Current Greenway Resources....................................................................3
VI. Natural Greenways Classification System.......................................................................6
VII. Natural Greenways Prioritization....................................................................................9
VIII. General Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of Greenway Trails ............13
IX. Implementation................................................................................................................14
X. Appendices........................................................................................................................18
e
List of Figures
page
Figure 1
Location of Floodplains and Creeks in College Station .......................4
Figure 2
Location of Other Floodplains and Creeks in College Station
............5
Figure 3
Table of Greenway 'Type, Functions, & Characteristics ......................
7
Figure 4
Natural Greenway Features in College Station.....................................8
Figure5
Greenways Prioritization Matrix..........................................................11
Figure 6
Greenways Ranked by Priority............................................................12
Figure 7
General Location — Carter Creek Floodplain.....................................20
Figure 8
General Location — Wolfpen Creek Floodplain..................................
22
Figure 9
General Location — Bee Creek Floodplain...........................................24
Figure 10
General Location — Lick Creek Floodplain.........................................26
Figure 11
Location of Additional Greenways in College Station ........................27
Figure 12
College Station Bike Loop.....................................................................
29
GreenwaysMatrix.....................................................................................................
32
CrossSections
............................................................................................................33
A Network of Greenways for College Station
A Master Plan Document
February 1999
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the implementation of those portions of
the City of College Station's 1997 Comprehensive Plan that address the development of
"greenways" within the City.
I. "Greenways" - What Are They?
Increased development in and around Texas cities is creating a variety of concerns for residents
and planners. The increase in hard surfaces created through development often leads to
drainage and flooding problems. Land use changes from rural agricultural to commercial and
residential create a landscape that has lost the rural charm for which Texas is known. The
pattern of land use is oriented toward the automobile making it difficult for people to walk or
ride bicycles. The designation and development of greenway systems in and around urban
areas can help with all of these concerns and enhance community quality of life in many ways.
Just what are greenways? Greenways are corridors that follow natural features like the
floodplain of creeks, or human -made features such as utility corridors, roads or railroad beds.
When designated along creeks and rivers, greenways help improve water quality and reduce the
effects of flooding in floodplains.
Besides providing floodplain control and improving water quality, greenways are becoming
increasingly recognized as ways to connect people and places. Greenways provide alternative
transportation choices , provide people a safe place to pursue different outdoor recreation
activities, including walking, bicycling, in -like skating, and jogging and provide an
aesthetically appealing contrast to asphalt and concrete. Greenways are also recognized as an
economic asset. Greenways have proven to increase real estate values of adjacent properties,
and to attract tourists, and to produce tourism revenues. Greenways also help protect flora and
fauna by preserving natural areas and facilitating movement along natural corridors.
Many Texas cities have greenways or greenway systems that are functioning in the ways noted
above. Houston has greenways along several of its bayous providing trails for recreation and
open space for flood control. Plano has greenways woven among its suburban neighborhoods
connecting them to schools and shopping areas. San Antonio has one of the country's most
famous greenways, The Riverwalk, which serves as a major tourist attraction. For many years
Austin has been developing a "hub and spoke" system of greenways that radiate off of Town
Lake near its central business district. These "spokes" integrate natural open space into the
community while providing trails for alternative transportation and recreation.
II. The "Greenway Idea" in College Station
The greenway idea is not new to College Station. In the late 1980's a group of forward looking
citizens and city officials saw potential in one of College Station's most important creeks. A
L5 mile section of Wolf Pen Creek became the focus of an urban development plan which
would have created a business district with a greenway at its heart. A public park was
developed as a part of the project but connections up and down stream were never realized.
This project has been revived in the last few years and appears to be moving forward. The
Wolf Pen Creek corridor has the potential to be one of College Station's centerpieces in the
future.
The 1995 Brazos 20/20 Vision process, which was a countywide initiative, also provided fuel
for ideas related to greenways in and around College Station. Citizen working groups charged
with developing visions for "infrastructure" and "the environment" in the region developed
numerous recommendations related to using open space floodplains for drainage and
recreation. One 20/20 idea proposed that floodplains along the Navasota and Brazos Rivers be
connected to those along area creeks to create a long distance trail system for transportation and
recreation.
The College Station Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in August of 1997,
included several goals and objectives that directly address the need for a system of greenways.
A summary of these goals follows.
Land Use Goals of the plan indicate that "College Station should encourage land use that is in
harmony with the environment." One of the key objectives that addresses this goal
recommends that College Station "prohibit reclamation of the floodway associated with Carter,
Lick and Wolf Pen Creeks and the Brazos River to prevent upstream flooding" and to provide
the city with a network of open space.
Community Appearance Goals in the plan say that "College Station should promote a beautiful
and safe environment." It goes on to say that one way to accomplish this is to "promote good
site design, provide a good appearance, minimize drainage impacts and increase pedestrian
safety".
Transportation Goals in the comprehensive plan say that "College Station should balance the
development of all modes of transportation to assure the fast, convenient, efficient and safe
movement of people and goods to, from, and within the community while continuing to protect
the integrity of neighborhoods." An objective set to help accomplish this indicates the
community should "develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle movement
among neighborhoods, schools, parks, retail/office areas and the University.
Goals for Parks and Recreation in the plan recommend that "College Station should enhance
its system of parks, recreation facilities and open space" and "encourage additional connections
by a system of linear parks/parkways which utilize creek beds, drainage ways, and other natural
features". The recommendation is also made to "develop greenbelts to connect park and
residential areas by "develop[ing] a donation/purchase policy to acquire elected portions of the
100 year floodplain to provide natural corridors of open space for passive recreation that will
link parks to one another and to residential areas." A Parks Master Plan is currently being
prepared that will reference and incorporate this Greenways Master Plan.
III. The Greenways Implementation Task Force
As part of this newly adopted plan, City Council appointed an 11 member Greenways
Implementation Task Force (GITF) to prepare a Greenways Master Plan for the City. The
charge to the GITF was:
To develop recommendations related to the implementation of the greenways portion of
the College Station Comprehensive Plan including:
• Define greenways as they relate to the CS Comprehensive Plan
• Identify potential uses for specific greenway areas
• Determine potential methods of land acquisition or reservation
• Prioritize specific areas to be dedicated and "developed" as greenways
2
• Develop one or more proposed projects for consideration in the 1999 capital
improvement program.
The Task Force met twice a month to discuss goals and objectives, inventory existing
greenways, develop a definition and classification system and prioritize greenways based on
specific criteria. The City had a successful bond election in November of 1998 where 3.5
million dollars were allocated for greenways acquisition.
IV. Greenways Defined
Part of the charge of the Task Force was to develop a definition of greenways specific to this
area. This definition includes more than just floodplains and creeks. It is broader and is meant
to allow the City to ultimately incorporate human -made corridors as part of an overall
greenways system.
Definition: Greenways in College Station (and Brazos County) are defined as linear
open spaces that follow natural features like the floodplain of creeks and rivers or
human -made features such as utility, road or rail corridors. College Station's
floodplains will serve a variety offunctions, including but not limited to, floodplain
mitigation, provide trails to link neighborhoods, parks, public institutions and
businesses, provide for aesthetic beauty, recreation and alternative transportation and
protect wildlife and plants. Greenways along human -made corridors, associated with
facilities like roads and utilities, will provide trail connections for alternative
transportation and recreation. They will help link economic nodes, cultural/historic
areas, parks and residential areas. Greenways in College Station should form a
network and should be diverse in their form and function linking developed urban
corridors with undeveloped natural areas.
V. Inventory of Current Greenway Resources
College Station has a variety of linear features that could be designated and developed as part
of a greenway system. Several creeks run through its center and help to create its borders. The
floodplains associated with these creeks have the greatest potential to meet the goals of creating
natural greenways in College Station. They contain natural open space and run through
neighborhoods, past schools and shopping areas. Area creeks (Carter, Bee, Lick, Spring, Wolf
Pen and Alum) are key greenway resources. (Figure 1)
Peach Creek, South of College Station, White Creek to the west as well as the Navasota and
Brazos Rivers all offer future floodplain and trail connections in and around College Station.
(Figure 2) As suggested by Brazos 20/20 Vision, College Station and Bryan have the potential
to make these water features into a soft infrastructure of natural areas and trails for the benefit
of residents and tourists alike. There are also human made features like the Gulf States / C.S.
Utilities / Exxon right-of-way (ROW) in east College Station. This Utilities ROW extends
along the entire length of northeastern College Station as well as south to Navasota and north to
Hearne. The use of railroad rights -of -way for trails is also common throughout the United
States with over 900 trails currently in existence. Any current railroad rights -of -way that are
vacated in the future should be considered for conversion to rail trail based greenways. (For
additional detail concerning all of these existing linear features refer to Figures 7-11 in
Appendix 1)
Note: Floodplain data taken *on
Comprehensive Plan produced b,
survey done in 1994.
►p IL•,
FIGURE 3
..............
�. 1V
CAN ...... ..a......a......... ),......,.................. ��
. .... ...... . .. . : .... ].. .., a . ... ... . ..: :::.... ...:.:............. .... as �' :
..t ........ .............. .......... ...... ..... :......:
..:..:.:........:.
%:':::�.::;�:::isi?:i>i<5{>:':;:�;�)::;i
:•.:•:::..::::...� �..:� .::.� ::•::::: a:•::::: •::..::: �::: ::.n �::.�:::
:::::::.:::.:,:51`:.5::):�:i:::i>i5::>:::::fi:�5'ii::>�:rji:?<�j:j: S:
::.: ' :..:::M:?:;{S:iS.: ;.:.:::L::
Development within
S.::i..i� .i:i!::<:v:;:o::i:ivi:;••::
Development outside
Primary Secondary Connection
:5
Access
Corridor Width
Trail Type
the greenway
of the greenway
B,C,D,E,F A,G Many connections
-Highly
-F000dway critical
-Pedestrian
-Highest intensity of use
-Highest intensity use and
between commercial
visible
determinant of
traffic ffic only
-Channel improvements
in close proximity to
:< `> :>:> >::>::>> areas and " links to
-Variety of
width, plus some area
-Wide, hard
made only If necessary,
the floodway; sensitive to
surrounding areas
types
surface
using softest technique
the creek
-
feasible
mercial a!-P0ssib!Y
-Primri! com
arily
>a" <..' ::::«•;-:....::: >;::;;_:);,
separate trail
p
-Bridge structures
9
and -
multi family
for bike/blade
should provide separation of
p p
residential
--
grade o de t alto o fe and
allow r s��
_.:........... _:.:...
convenient passage of users
*A: Protect Wildlife
B: Flood Control
C: Recreation
D: Transportation
B,C,D,E,F
A,B,F
E: Economics
F: Aesthetics
G: Utility Corridor
A,G Between user and
destination
ex. neighborhood to:
-neighbm wod,
business, park,
school, etc.
C,D,E,G -Limited connections
to human -made
features; strongest
connections to
natural features
-Developed with
wildlife movement in
mind
Visibility
denotes
access (may
Include Nghting,
signage, pienio
area, playground
Minimal
access to allow
for a low level
of human use
Entire floodplain
(or if surrounding
development is
present, what can
reasonably be
obtained)
Entire floodplain;
possibly wider in
some areas to
Include key natural
and cultural areas
Multiple use,
relatively wide,
medium to
hard surface to
accommodate
recreational/
transportation
use
Trails with soft
surfaces,
designed for low
levels of human
use
-Trail itself is the focus
-Channel improvements
made only if necessary,
using softest technique
feasible
-Bridge structures
should provide separation of
grade to allow for safe and
convenient passage of users
-Limited trails developed
either for connections or for
access to/from
destination points
-Limited channel
improvements allowed
-Bridge structures
should provide separation of
grade to allow for safe and
convenient passage of users
-SF; low to medium
density MF
-Commercial, schools,
retail, mixed use
Some park -like
amenities located at
destination points
(Le parking, picnic areas,
Interpretive facilities,
restrooms, etc.)
7
VI. Natural Greenways Classification System
Having defined and inventoried the existing network of greenways, GITF began to develop a
system for classifying the different types of greenways. Individual greenway pieces must be
viewed as parts of a larger whole and prioritized based on criteria specific to all of College
Station. A greenway classification system should take several criteria into consideration. The
following are important ones for consideration.
• Level of development/improvements of the greenway
• The type of development (e.g., residential, industrial) that currently exists, or is
anticipated, along the greenway corridor.
• Potential for connections that the corridor can provide for human use and movement of
wildlife.
• The type of use the corridor is likely to receive (e.g., commuting to work or school,
recreation and exercise or nature study).
• The type of feature the corridor follows (e.g., a creek or an abandoned rail bed).
• Public ownership or private ownership
It should be noted that due to the linear nature of a greenway corridor it may contain different
combinations of these criteria along its length. One continuous greenway could be classified
several different ways as it moves from one area through a neighborhood and on to a rural park.
College Station's GITF devised a classification system containing three different types of
greenways based on function; Urban, Suburban and Rural and described characteristics for
each. Characteristics include connectivity, access, corridor width, trail type, development
inside the greenway and development surrounding the greenway (Figure 3). The description of
each type can be found below.
Urban Greenways:
Urban greenways will be the most highly developed of the three types of greenways. The
primary functions served by these greenways will be to provide for flood control, recreation,
transportation, economic and aesthetic purposes. Wildlife protection and service as a utility
corridor will serve as secondary functions. (Figure 4)
Characteristics:
Urban greenways will provide connections between commercial areas along the greenway and
surrounding areas. Highly visible access to the greenways will occur at frequent intervals
between the surrounding development and the corridor. The width of the corridor will be
determined by the floodway line, plus some additional area, to be determined for each specific
site. The trail, within the corridor, will be designed to handle primarily pedestrian traffic. It
will be a wide trail, having a hard, smooth surface. Urban greenways will be used quite
intensely, simply because of where they are located and the surrounding uses. Improvements to
the channel should occur only as needed using the softest technique possible. Development
surrounding urban greenways will occur at the highest intensity, will be in close proximity to
the edge of the corridor and should be sensitive to the creek. This development will be
primarily commercial and multi -family residential. Examples of urban greenways in College
Station are the main channels of Wolf Pen Creek and Bee Creek from Texas Avenue to SH 6
East ByPass.
G
N
0
T
T
N 0
Note: Floodpbdn dot
Comprehensive PIM
survey done in 1"4.
FIGURE 4:
1&T - A--- -- ` 7 !V
--� �--=Yay Features
)n
,end:
of Greenway
I Urban
I Suburban
Rural
8
Suburban Greenways:
As with urban greenways, the primary functions served by suburban greenways will be to
provide for flood control, recreation and transportation, and to serve economic and aesthetic
purposes. Wildlife protection and service as a utility corridor will be secondary functions.
(Figure 4)
Characteristics:
There will be moderate to high levels of use. These corridors will connect users and their
destinations such as neighborhood to other neighborhoods, to businesses, to parks or to schools.
Access points will be visible and may include lighting, signage, picnic areas or playgrounds.
The width of a suburban greenway should be the entire floodplain, or if surrounding
development is present, what can reasonably be obtained. The trails will serve a variety of
recreational and transportation uses and will be relatively wide with a medium to hard surface.
The trail itself, is the focus of the greenway. Channel improvements should only be made if
necessary and using the softest techniques feasible. Bridge structures should provide grade
separation for safe passage of users. Surrounding development will consist of low to medium
density single family, multi -family , mixed use, retail commercial and uses such as churches
and schools. Examples of what could someday be suburban greenways in College Station are
portions of Bee Creek and Wolf Pen Creek west of Texas Avenue and Lick and Spring Creeks
from their beginnings to the confluence with Alum Creek.
Rural Greenways:
The primary functions of rural greenways are to control flooding, to protect wildlife and to
increase aesthetic value. Recreation, transportation, economics and. service as a utility corridor
will serve as secondary functions. (Figure 4)
Characteristics:
This type of greenway would exist in a mostly "natural" state with connections made for
wildlife movement and some trails developed for public use. The surrounding land use would
be primarily agricultural, undeveloped open space or low density residential. Riparian areas
would see very little, if any, modification. Trails would be more primitive, designed for lower
levels of use and may connect larger nature oriented parks or preserves. User amenities would
be less common and found only at destination points. The corridor width would contain the
entire floodplain and possibly more in some areas to include key natural or cultural areas.
There would be limited channel improvements allowed and bridge structures would be grade
separated to allow safe passage of pedestrians and bicyclists. As it currently exists, much of
the Carter Creek floodplain would be an example of this type of greenway. Lick Creek also
provides an example.
VII. Natural Greenways Prioritization
Once the classification was complete and various characteristics described for each greenway,
the Task Force identified several criteria to be used in evaluating the various greenways for
acquisition priority. The criteria are (1) whether structural flooding problems exist, (2) whether
there are existing CIP projects or plans impacting the greenway, (3) the immediacy of
development near the greenway, (4) the amount of undeveloped land surrounding the greenway,
and (5) whether the greenway provides a link to existing schools, parks, residential and
commercial areas. Criteria (3) and (4) indicate the potential to gain greenspace in areas where
development is imminent.
0
As there were already projects underway addressing the areas where flooding had occurred,
criteria one was not as critical to this process as others at this time. (Figures 5 & 6 describe
and locate greenways by priority. Appendix 2 provides scoring method)
10
Ranking
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
9
FIGURE 5
Greenways Prioritization Matrix
Creek
Section
Location
Description (Approximate)
Lick
South Fork
E. of Wellborn (start) to confluence with Main channel (E of Hwy 6)
.Wolf Pen
Main
Texas Ave. east to Trib. B
Wolf Pen
Main
Trib. B to Trib. A.
Wolf Pen
Main
Trib. A east to Holleman/Dartmouth intersection
Wolf Pen
Main
Holleman/Dartmouth intersection to Hwy 6 Bypass
Bee
Main
Texas Ave. to Hwy 6 Bypass
Spring
South Fork
W. end of Crowley tract to confluence w/ N. Fork & Main channel
Spring
Main
lConfluence w/ N & S Forks (Crowley tract) to Hwy 6
Spring
Main
I Hwy 6 to confluence wl Lick Creek (Greens Prairie Road)
Carters
Mike Davis tract
University to Harvey
Bee
Trib. B - S. Fork
lWellborn (start) to confluence w/ Trib. B & N. Fork (Welsh)
Lick
North Fork
Btw. Graham & Rock Prairie to confluence w/ Main (E. of Hwy 6)
Spring
North Fork
E. of Wellborn to confluence w/ S. Fork & Main channel (Crowley tract)
Bee
Trib. B - N. Fork
W. of Wellborn to confluence w/ Trib. B & S. Fork (Welsh)
Lick
Main
Confluence of N. & S. Forks (E. of Hwy 6) to confluence w/ Spring Creek
Alum
Un-Named Trib
Hwy 6 to confluence w/ Lick Creek (Lick Creek Park)
Alum
Main
Confluence w/ Un-Named Trib to confluence w/ Lick Creek
Wolf Pen
Main
Hwy 6 to confluence w/ Carters Creek
Lick
Main
lConfluence wl Spring Creek to confluence w/ Alum Creek
Bee
Main
J Confluence w/ Trib. B (Southwood) to Texas Ave.
Bee
Trib. A-2
ITexas Ave. to SH 6 Bypass
Bee
Main
IHwy. 6 Bypass to confluence w/ Carters Creek
Lick
Main
I Confluence w/ plum Creek Lick Creek Park to c ity limits
Carters
Confluence w/ See Creek to confluence w/ Lick Creek
Wolf Pen
Trib. A
Lincoln (start) to confluence w/ Main channel (Harvey)
Bee
Trib. A-1
Rio Grande to Texas Ave.
Carters
Harvey to confluence w/ Bee Creek
Bee .
Main
Jersey (start) to confluence w/ Trib. B (Southwood)
l
Wolf Pen
Trib. B-1
Francis (start) to confluence w/ Main channel (Harvey)
I Wolf Pen
Trib. B-2
Dominik to Harvey
Wolf Pen
Trib. C
JCampus (start) to confluence l Main channel (W.-of Texas Ave.)
Bee
Trib. B-2
12818 to confluence w/ Main channel
# of Points
Matrix
Reference #
10
I
21
9
! 5
9
6
9
7
9
8
9
16
9
26
9
' 27
9
28
9
31
8
I 12
8
20
8
25
7
11
7
I 22
7
i 29
7
30
6
9
6
23
5
15
5
18
5
19
5
24
5
33
4
i
1
4
17
4
32
2
10
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
I 14
IM
VIII. General Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of Greenway Trails
Since one of the objectives of greenways is to provide open space, development of these
corridors should be kept to a minimum. The cross sections included in Appendix 3 (from
Appendix C, Wolf Pen Creek Siltation Study, Turner Collie & Braden, Jan. 1998) vary in intensity
from no development in rural greenways to masonry or gabion lined channels in urban
greenways. The general guideline to use in selecting a cross section is to select the least
intensive, least structural, most natural section that will work.
Though each trail should be individually designed to take full advantage of its unique natural
surroundings, there are a few general guidelines that should guide all decisions in proper trail
planning, construction, and maintenance:
Desivn for Sustainabilitv: A trail that is well constructed can almost take care of itself. After
surveying the area for topography, soil types, and drainage patterns, one should:
Find the most stable, well -drained soils which can bear the intended traffic.
Layout the trail so that it will be resistant to deterioration both from rain and use.
Techniques such as climbing turns, in which a trail curves up a slope rather than going
straight up, can greatly lessen the physical stress to the user and prevent erosion. Straight
trails perpendicular to a slope become channels for rainfall.
The most frequently flooded areas should be avoided for trail development to minimize silt
and debris clean-up.
Minimize Environmental Impact: Learn about the area where the trail is planned. Aim to
disturb the environment surrounding the trail as little as possible, especially in ecologically
sensitive areas. Educate users through educational signs and brochures to respect the land and
the life it supports.
Harmonize with the Environment: Whether in the forest or urban environment, the trail should
blend and harmonize with its environment. Use natural construction materials, place signs only
where necessary, and choose unobtrusive colors for signs and trail features.
Scenic Views and Special Features:. Take advantage of all the trail corridor can offer. Summits,
streams, scenic views, historic features, and other interesting features can all add to the
experience. Pick viewpoints along the trail and make getting there as interesting as possible.
User Eniovment: Arrange appropriate trails and related access points within the greenway
system to provide good access for all residents. The smoothness of the trail and installation of
guide rails will contribute to the accessibility of the trail. Plan and arrange trails that provide a
great view, an interesting historic, cultural or ecological feature to make the trip more
enjoyable. Identify intersections and connections that are especially important for alternative
transportation within the community and integrate them into the system. For mountain bikers or
equestrians, trail width, height, and sight distance are considerations. Enhance the usefulness
and safety of greenway trails by providing well designed, grade separated crossings at high use
intersections with roadways.
Adjacent Landowners: A buffer between the trail and neighboring landowners protects both the
integrity of the user's experience and the privacy of the local residents. Work carefully with
property owners as partners.
FRA
Construction and Maintenance Guidelines
Any development that occurs in or near the greenway should comply with the characteristics
outlined in Figure 3 as well as the following:
Construction Techniques: Trails should be built in dry areas to minimize siltation and erosion
damage. Where this is not possible, elevate the trail tread above the existing terrain using
appropriate methods.
A well designed and constructed trail takes into consideration drainage. Rolling dips involve a
leveling of the trail every 50-100 feet as it climbs a slope. This leveling for a short distance
helps drainage. Waterbars, made of rocks or logs should be a last resort. They are obstacles to
users and are hard to maintain.
Signs: Signs can indicate the trail name, landmarks and points of interest, educational
information, warnings, distances, public facilities, the location of nearby potable water, and the
location of other trails. Blazes are painted marks on trees or small signs with trail logo placed
to reassure trail users they are still on the right trail. Before placing the first sign or blaze,
travel the trail and not locations where signs and blazes should be placed. Map the location of
signs for ease of finding when doing future maintenance.
Maintenance: Trails should be maintained at least twice a year to clear downed trees, debris,
and repair water damage. It's a good idea to schedule maintenance before each heavy use
season to make the trail safe and enjoyable for the majority of users. Routing maintenance can
be performed by trail -adopter groups. These are volunteers who want to help agencies maintain
the trails they use most.
IX. Strategic Implementation Actions
Implementation of the Greenways Plan is a long term process involving several areas within the
City organization as well as City/community partnerships. The cooperative efforts of the
Brazos Greenways Council, citizens on the GITF and city staff in the preparation of this plan is
an example of the kind of partnership possible. The adoption of this plan and the passage of
bond funds in 1998 for greenways acquisition are a very positive start. There are additional
actions over the long term that should be taken to insure the successful implementation of this
plan.
Strategy #1: Acquisition
1. Action: The City should accept dedications that are consistent with the greenway
characteristics specified in this plan.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Supporting Party: Parks
2. Action: Encourage voluntary conservation, preservation, and dedication of greenways
by landowners. The Brazos Greenways Council and other similar groups, in
cooperation with the City should meet with local developers to educate and
discuss the value and benefits of conservation and preservation to their
particular property.
Responsible Party: Brazos Greenway Council
14
3. Action: Develop a program for acquisition of greenways corresponding with the 5-year
capital improvement program and the prioritization in this plan. Coordinate
this acquisition program with other City projects requiring acquisition, such as
parks, streets, and utility projects.
Responsible Party: Public Works
Supporting Parties: Public Utilities, and Parks
4. Action: Utilize City funding sources, including bond funds if necessary, to acquire land
acquisition services. Preference should be given to funding a staff position for
FY99-00 that could be supplemented with outside contracts for acquisition
services, if necessary.
Responsible Parties: Parks, Public Works, and Fiscal Services
5. Action: Pursue and acquire external funding sources such as grants for continued
greenway acquisition. Refer to Appendix 4 for a list of possible funding
sources.
Responsible Parties: Parks and Public Works
6. Action: Develop guideline incentives that encourage developers to voluntarily dedicate
lands that promote greenway connections between developments.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Strategy #2: Regulation
Refer to Appendix 5 for a summary of existing regulations as they relate to greenways.
1. Action: Amend the City's subdivision regulations to include greenway definitions and
classifications with reference to the Greenways Master Plan. Guidelines should
encourage street layout to maximize access, visibility and connections to and
within the greenway network. Develop guidelines for greenway preservation
through land dedication, conservation easements and/or fee simple acquisition.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Supporting Party: Parks
Timeline:
Develop ordinance language - Summer 1999.
Review with internal departments - Summer 1999.
Present to focus group - Winter 1999.
Consideration by P&Z and City Council - Winter / Spring 1999-00.
2. Action: Monitor the recently revised parkland dedication ordinance as it is used to
determine if additional changes are necessary to support the Greenways Master
Plan.
Responsible Party: Parks
Supporting Party: Development Services
15
3. Action: Amend the City's drainage ordinance to reflect the greenways definition and
classification in terms of corridor width and channel guidelines (level of
alteration, structural/nonstructural).
Responsible Party: Public Works
Timeline:
Develop ordinance language - Summer / Fall 1999.
Review with internal departments - Fall 1999.
Present to focus group - Winter 1999.
Consideration by P&Z and City Council - Winter / Spring 1999-00.
4. Action: Investigate overlay zones that aid in greenway protection and prepare zoning
ordinance amendments if appropriate.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Timeline:
Research other conununities and literature - Summer 1999.
Develop ordinance language - Summer / Fall 1999.
Review with internal departments - Fall 1999.
Present to focus group - Winter 1999.
Consideration by P&Z and Council - Winter / Spring 1999-00.
5. Action: Amend the Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 1638) to reference the Greenways Master
Plan in Planned Development Districts and elsewhere as appropriate.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Timeline:
Develop ordinance language - Summer / Fall 1999.
Review with internal departments - Fall 1999.
Present to focus group - Winter 1999.
Consideration by P&Z and City Council - Winter / Spring 1999-00.
6. Action: Service Plans for future annexations should require dedication of greenway
resources that are important to the overall greenways system.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Strategy #3: Construction, Maintenance and Operations
1. Action: Acquire adequate funding for greenway development from various sources.
Refer to Appendix 4 for a list of possible funding sources.
Responsible Parties: Parks and Public Works
2. Action: Design and construct trails by following the development and maintenance
guidelines found in Section VIH. of this plan.
Responsible Party: Parks
Supporting Party: Public Works
3. Action: Develop a program for long term maintenance of publicly held greenways.
Responsible Party: Parks
Supporting Party: Public Works
4. Action: Incorporate maintenance costs into budgets of future years.
Responsible Parties: Parks and Public Works
16
5. Action: Design greenways in floodplains to handle flood water, while preserving other
natural resources. Use the expertise of outside resources as well as city staff.
Responsible Party: Public Works
Strategy #4: Coordination / Promotion
1. Action: Allocate additional resources for coordinating the Greenways Master Plan and
its implementation. Preference should be given to funding a staff position for
FY99-00 that could be supplemented with outside contracts for acquisition
services, if necessary.
Responsible Party: City Management / City Council
2. Action: Coordinate with other agencies when greenways out across jurisdictional
boundaries.
Responsible Party: Development Services
Supporting Parties: Parks, Public Works, and Public Utilities
3. Action: Monitor and continue to advocate a greenways system in College Station.
Responsible Party: Brazos Greenways Council and/or other appropriate
groups
4. Action: Engage neighborhood associations to promote greenways in currently
developed areas and to assist with upkeep (by adoption) of those areas after
designation.
Responsible Party: Brazos Greenways Council and/or other appropriate
groups
5. Action: Encourage interested outside groups to develop and maintain a detailed
inventory of the wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and other important natural
features that exist along area creeks so that creek based greenways can be
designated and developed to enhance wildlife and plant habitats.
Responsible Party: Brazos Greenways Council and/or other appropriate
groups
6. Action: Provide for access to unique areas along greenways where people can enjoy
and study natural processes.
Responsible Party: Parks
7. Action: Develop and maintain public information relative to greenways in College
Station,
Responsible Parties: Development Services, Parks, Public Works
Supporting Parties: Public Relations, Public Utilities, and Brazos Greenways
Council, College Station Library
17
APPENDIX 1
Existing Creeks in College Station
The primary creeks described below are considered to be those with high potential for
greenway designation in the near future. They are creeks that have either been developed, and
are thus accessible to much of the current population, or in areas where development is
proceeding at a rapid pace.
Carter Creek (Figure 7)
This creek enters College Station just north of University Drive (Hwy 60) and flows several
miles along the city's northeastern border. It represents approximately a 7 mile corridor
between the northern city limit and Lick Creek Park to the southeast. Carter Creek is a primary
drainage for much of southeastern Brazos County. Most of the other creeks in College Station
flow into Carter. As the map indicates Carter Creek currently provides a large floodplain
boundary for eastern College Station. The floodplain area gets broad (over 1 nine wide in
places) as it flows towards its confluence with the Navasota River. The land along Carter
Creek is mostly undeveloped but is bordered on the west by several large subdivisions.
Windwood, Raintree, Emerald Forest, Fox Fire and Wood Creek subdivisions are all close to
the Carter Creek floodplain. Bee, Lick and Wolf Pen Creeks each flow into Carter Creek from
more developed areas in west College Station. Carter Creek has the potential to be a greenway
system "backbone" in College Station with several other creeks forming the "ribs" that connect
to it.
A greenway designated along the floodplain of Carter Creek offers opportunities to maintain a
rural character in the landscape along College Station's eastern boundary. The Comprehensive
Plan indicates that land along the northwest end of Carter Creek (for about 2 miles) is primarily
medium density residential due to the subdivisions mentioned. The northeast end and the
remaining length of the creek to the Navasota River (about 5 miles) is recommended to be kept
as agricultural land to support rural or low density residential development.
The northern end of College Station's section of Carter Creek holds important potential for
connections with several current or future use areas. The Brazos Center (approximately 1 mile
north of the Bryan/College Station border at Carter Creek) and its associated nature park are
one such area. A new 150 acre athletic park located adjacent to Carter Creek between
University Drive (Hwy 60) and Harvey Road (Hwy 30) includes a portion of the Carter Creek
floodplain in its boundary and could be joined to the greenway via a trail system. On the
opposite end of the athletic park a new interpretive trail has been developed and is maintained
by Texas A&M University's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science. This trail could
also be connected to a Carter Creek trail, via the athletic park, providing better access.
At its southern end, the Crater Creek floodplain links to the Lick Creek floodplain within a few
hundred yards of Lick Creek Park. With over 500 acres of minimally developed land, Lick
Creek Park is the county's premier natural area. The park provides habitat for most species of
indigenous animal and plant life that exist in Brazos Count including an endangered plant
known as the Navasota Ladies Tress. The park is also a popular place for bike riding, walking,
and wildlife watching. A Carter Creek floodplain and trail connection to this park would help
maintain a valuable wildlife corridor while enhancing public access and recreational use. In
between these north and south points, Carter Creek could be linked to the neighborhood areas
(currently 5) that have been developed along its edge.
19
1.- '�i�' r- i if+,4 ,r' ° i,f. A •' O, a e *av�9Q
.\Y�� �, `` �4 � f� ''r'�-''� � +o t�<�� �• e•�"D� l�� .'+� .� � �n•...i.. if ,
• yea, ti �. • a ri� { `� r� Z o L ° a {
DA
I > y r,.�```t T• to .A..! ,+� % � tet � � t� `b r~ ..<\� � ,'t � >,�`.-, �q� � ° o
� .r' S tY` � t ` � 1 a d F.} '?.1 t � i +.3e'e If ,� �ti (• r,.g
� �. i _ `' ',,>^ �, �< �' ' � 1�w�' ter/ >'t�t� •, �� � 1-�.. � � ,� t �Z,, '
. •',4. 3Vh { �• •�..� r33 j^'�- tit &r/•.r.r,. ,,-'r-•-�
� � �p^d �. . j '��\\... •�C; i 11 } ^ � l 13.f yiS � t4^/ l
+ ,60-.- �.f .'G',� �t (•" �yanaa ��-L,-^o �,",� 4\���. `L ,� 1 ' � i lq,rr...�-„�'-4
w., p OQ 1 L � t �,� f �,,..w.^t.. �1�••Af
• ','� ,- -,r• "q .+� - 1'v tea. /
'~�O� ,�Q�,., �� �� //„Y�\_l ) r`r � ��✓-1J�$v � � �i�i ,,,�•.; `F ....w,�'�•�Y���'t.'.+�.
A. /� rCl V +h Y••(/ I.f'" ✓ y r � jr„��xaaff*)" ` ^^ i S\
., r.... » ,y'1'n a `•a o• ., c ti• i \ ,,.
FIGURE 7:
GENERAL LOCATION
CARTER CREEK
FLOODPLAIN
Note: Floodplain data taken from City of College Station
Comprehensive Plan produced by HOK and based upon an aerial
survey done in 1"4.
< } +; fj�¢' rt �fj�•_+. _
, 1 ''� {{ ( fist`.-. It '% jam'' •` Vry 'Z'„-
•r � 9' "� ���� Yrrr�7 rf"'l ' I � �,4 (� ( ' f f � t} ..J,``,
r`^F����,. � � ��(�`�• "yf^yti�.'�ST I• Si�}�/t}�+ ir' 3 �..� ti'\„•„'�� /"•�..1� '.,`%'
r•-.� � "' ,,,,� ^� �. -'�l c �r'(J t ii� t y6�+¢g, J/p� � 4 � • t ;.M,._,J "•--- �`"..
�.� �' i � � f � ° Y �f F`��.-.-„� � /"',`��,-• �w Fes}' j �
�f.,.�`F1'' � `1t",$L)�w5`� d rir'`S ;h\•'1..,�.., ..dam-�/ r''�i �t\, ��J.. 1
.....r^'"'.•.^,�' �,,,�Kly"• �'''�'�t j_� i'"_r �.,,,. ti, •"�•w`..- •... <a �� ,Fv�{ � �' `•J a +� �'t�C. `R
.-% � n[� FI � �r nj N` j' ''� frj �•�^••l�" ww1` °" �F "� ..�"'�-+'rT• \'�R
20
N
0
I T
T
fJ 0
S
A
A
L
E
Wolf Pen Creek (Figure 8)
Wolf Pen Creek originates on the campus of Texas A&M University and flows easterly into
Carter Creek approximately 2.5 miles downstream. The creek's headwaters have become more
and more developed as TAMU has grown over the past 25 years. Roof tops and parking lots
shed a large percentage of rainfall as runoff directly into the creek. The main channel and one
Wolf Pen tributary enter College Station from the campus. Wolf Pen Creek forms a corridor
approximately 0.5 mile in length as it flows between George Bush and Texas Avenues. It
passes through CSISD property before running through a residential area and intersecting
Tributary C coming off the TAMU Golf Course and behind the Redmond Terrace Shopping
Center. At this point the creek flows under Texas Avenue and into a Wolf Pen Creek Special
District. This district forms a corridor approximately 1.3 miles long and was established in the
late 1980's as a part of a plan to develop a public space that would have included a hike and
bike trail, arboretum, library, arts center and several other civic facilities. A community park
and amphitheater were developed as phase 1 of this project and exist on the creek today but a
majority of this greenway was never developed as intended. Most of the existing park is
directly in the floodplain and its facilities were designed to withstand flood conditions. The
creek exits the special district as it passes under the Highway 6 freeway. Wolf Pen Creek then
flows along the edge of the Raintree subdivision before its confluence with Carter Creek at the
subdivision's northeast corner (approximately 0.7 mile from Hwy 6 to the confluence).
At present, Wolf Pen Creek is a more central feature in College Station than Carter Creek. Past
plans for the development of a special district between Texas Ave and Highway 6 are again in
motion. The Recreation and Parks Department conducted two citizen workshops in 1997, the
outcome of which indicated strong support for moving ahead with the intent of the original
master plan for the area. This history suggests that the section of Wolf Pen Creek between
Texas and Highway 6 continues to offer potential as a more developed, or urban, greenway.
This greenway would provide for commercial development while putting the creek and
associated floodplain at the heart of the area. Businesses would face onto, rather than back up
to, the creek, its trees and trails.
There are important potentials for connections at several points along the central section of
Wolf Pen. The earlier Wolf Pen Creek Plan suggested that TAMU and residential areas to the
west be connected by trail under Texas Avenue. This connection would likely require
redevelopment from current box culverts to a configuration that would provide a more "open"
feel with better natural lighting. The reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) as TEA21 and the widening of Texas Ave to 6 lanes in the next three
years present funding and engineering opportunities to make this connection a reality. The
"College Station Bike Loop" (Figure 12) which was funded through ISTEA in 1994, is
currently under final design. This facility was laid out to intersect and possibly share trails
developed in the Wolf Pen Creek area. Plans indicate the bike loop will intersect the area at its
eastern end near the University Commons apartments, follow the creek through the Wolf Pen
District and depart the west end at the new "George Bush East" road extension. Finally, Wolf
Pen could also be connected by protected floodplain and associated trails to Carter Creek at the
confluence of the two creeks behind the Raintree subdivision. Currently Highway 6 poses a
barrier to an uninterrupted connection, much as Texas Avenue does to the west.
21
r
x
N
0 T
T
0
C
A
L
E
Vt.r,
;� Fjo,
40
0
ry t ✓4) 0 14?
>
41,
1p
01"
17
46,
4D 17
44
4 . �r ! �y,,� �,,rf-.AI•.. ��. „Y , a n49 0$� pp'�� apC���� & b p � �OOODa aOOOp �� � � Q� �p Q ��
IL,
10
V.0
V
.5R
A<
Note: Floodplain data taken from City of CoReP Station
Comprehensive Plan produced by HOK and based upon an aerial
survey done In 1"4.
U
10
INN
43
JY-
-A ell,
FIGURE 8:
GENERAL LOCATION
REEK
"
WOLFPEN C
�`� FLOODPLAIN 22
Bee Creek (Fieure 9)
Bee Creek generally flows southeast from TAMU to a confluence with Carter Creek covering
approximately 4.2 miles along its main corridor (tributary A and remaining channel). However,
three primary tributaries, each of which runs through different parts of the community, form the
creek. Tributary A forms on the TAMU campus a second, tributary B, forms in the Southside
Area and the third, tributary C, forms in Southwood Valley. As with Wolf Pen, development
has occurred along the upper reaches of these tributaries. The Upper Bee Creek tributaries are
largely characterized by the neighborhoods that border them and by the parks that each runs
through. Tributary A runs from campus through the eastern portion of the Southside Historic
Area and through Brison, Lemon Tree, and Bee Creek Parks. Tributary B originates in the
western portion of the Southside Historic Area, through the Wayne Smith Park/Lincoln Center
area, by A&M Consolidated High School, behind the College Station Library, through Georgie
K. Fitch Park and finally through additional neighborhoods before converging with tributary A
in Bee Creek Park. After converging, these two tributaries form the main channel which flows
through the Anderson Arboretum, under Texas Avenue, and along side College Station
property and undeveloped agricultural property before converging with tributary C. Tributary
C forms in Southwood Valley and runs through Brothers Pond Park, CSISD property at
Southwood Elementary, behind neighborhood homes, through Longmire Park and finally
through an undeveloped area to its confluence with the main creek at Highway 6 and Emerald
Forest Drive. After the convergence of this third tributary at Highway 6, Bee Creek moves
through the Emerald Forest subdivision and to its confluence with Carter Creek.
Bee Creek and its tributaries offer a suburban feel with connections between neighborhoods,
schools, parks, civic areas and commercial developments. Some of the upper reaches of the
creek corridor have been developed close to the creek making trail connections difficult and
creating flooding problems. However, existing parks present opportunities for trail connections
and flooding can be avoided if development is kept out of the downstream floodplain. As with
Wolf Pen, parks associated with Bee Creek have been included on the route of the College
Station Bike Loop. If the trail portions of this loop are developed as planned they will connect
Lemon Tree, Bee Creek, Cy Miller and Central Parks each of which is located in or along the
corridor. An important consideration along this corridor is the Texas Avenue crossing which
represents a significant barrier to bike and pedestrian traffic. Plans call for a separation of
grade between trail and road (trail underpass) at this intersection. The Bee Creek corridor east
of Texas Avenue is relatively undeveloped in comparison to its upper tributaries. More open
"natural" areas exist along this stretch. Highway 6 at Emerald Forest creates a potential barrier
to bike and pedestrian traffic but could possibly be accommodated with the existing underpass
at Emerald Forest Drive.
23
Oc "
a e; rt
A
r p
00
Note: Mo ftlain data tam ham City of College Station t
Comprehonslve plan proda" d by HOK and based upon an aerial
survey done in M4.
` iJ f ir-•% Jr wCit �yw ' a.� t3 OyYa 'l r'tti Y% d
a
46
o�
>F.
Icy
er^ f Y
�� '�, aO" "• �! 1, .ni p fi.8 _r""' � �� ,rr `� � may..
� C
�" o. •a�� -'a Aa! flflvyr, �o�• `'t4•� �f � �p v Q�q �
`Mad... Q• b rrl 1)
o
9 — � _F' •. � .>- 1 _� .:art
f o-1 WIF"
1 ;.. o
_/.
A
�� 1-� �• �s�`' �!`�'�f 'tip �� 't �` t � < �1, � ���,
j-'"
ID
f ~ � �J �.. EQ• 4 9 OCP, 'Us
���`• �:,8' � �') � � { 0 �t • �-.•.,./•.j-. . "c� � {tea` _ice o �{ ��IrE b• ' ,.
n$'"'vNERAIj LOCATION �-
BEE CREEK
FLOODPLAIN
Lick Creek (Figure 10)
Lick Creek flows southeast from south central College Station into Carter Creek. The creek's
primary corridor is approximately 4.3 miles from its western origin, in a developing suburban
area, to where it enters Lick Creek Park southeast of Pebble Creek. Much like creeks and
floodplains described above, roads and other development have separated Lick Creek into
distinct sections. The upper section has two tributaries, both of which lie west of Highway 6 in
land rapidly developing as medium density residential. Immediately west of Highway 6 the
Springbrook Homeowners Association owns a 0.5 mile stretch of undeveloped corridor along
Lick Creek's primary tributary. The homeowner's corridor has been left undeveloped. A
proposed subdivision plat for the upstream area includes protected floodplain/storage which
will connect to the existing Springbrook area. Lick Creek's other tributary, located to the
north, is somewhat smaller and remains in an undeveloped area. The College Station Public
Utilities Center is the only development adjacent to this tributary. Once the creek moves across
Highway 6 the tributaries converge and form the main channel which extends for
approximately 2 miles before intersecting Greens Prairie Road. The creek's floodplain corridor
along this stretch is well forested and little development exists. A defunct landfill, a health care
facility, and an active landfill are present along this reach of the creek. Just prior to Greens
Prairie Road, Spring Creek flows into Lick Creek and extends southwesterly back across
Highway 6 and into the "Crowley Development," a mixed use development planned at the
intersections of Highways 6 & 40. After passing under Greens Prairie Road, the creek follows
the northern boundary of the Pebble Creek Country Club Golf Course for approximately 1 mile
before flowing into Lick Creek Park. It is important to note that College Station Parks and
Recreation administers land in a right-of-way (ROW) that runs through Pebble Creek
subdivision, and connects the Lick Creek floodplain to the westernmost edge of Lick Creek
Park. This ROW could provide a connection for bike and pedestrian use between these two
areas.
Lick Creek and its tributaries (including Spring Creek) offer opportunities to keep several miles
of floodplain undeveloped, reducing flood danger, and providing trail connections among the
neighborhoods, schools and business development that appears eminent. On the upper end of
the creek, the primary tributary offers connections between neighborhoods (existing and new)
and a CSISD middle school which is under construction. Through the midsection Lick Creek
offers connections between future neighborhoods, the existing Pebble Creek area, and two
regional recreation areas (the future park to be developed at the landfill site and Lick Creek
Park). The Crowley Development area, west of Highway 6 on Spring Creek, has been planned
to include greenway areas that offer potential connections to floodplains and trails along lower
Lick Creek.
25
f
4Y�
FJ
"Ll o
-,X
fj
K"
``lam
_91
1J.
v,r,
�J
rr
<
ZN
$is e-1
'v T'l
/4P
"j
rx.
A4
'A
,t « �"�r x � f }rr• r>r �i r �'�1 t 4 � )•i f�-'�! . y'++i.`.-.C,i 1� � �• {,N ���` Y�j � •e � St`^�.,u° : +.� ` CIJ
j
4 Is
.4
Note: InoodplWn data taken from City of College Station
Comprehensive Plan produced by BOK and band upon an aerial
survey done In 1994.
a
V�
FIGURE 10:
r.:, GENERAL LOCATION
��. _ �r�ti, r;r; LICK CREEK
ODPLAIN 26
J II/P 11
PAM
Other Potential Greenwav Areas (FiLyure 11)
The Gulf States Utilities right-of-way
The Gulf States Utilities ROW extends along the entire length of northeastern College Station.
It runs for approximately 7.5 miles within the city limits and intersects each of the 4 creek
floodplains described above. This ROW runs from the new athletic park in northern College
Station to the Pebble Creek subdivision at the southern end of town. Parts of the ROW are
integrated into Raintree Park in the Raintree subdivision, it runs through the existing landfill
(soon to be parkland) and finally it abuts Lick Creek Park at its southernmost point. In the
future this ROW has the potential to connect three major community parks and one
neighborhood park with many residential areas. Because it intersects each of the primary
creeks it also has the potential to connect to trails that might be developed along those
floodplains. The Gulf States ROW was specifically noted in the city's Comprehensive Plan as
a possible future corridor for bike travel to provide alternative transportation between north and
south. Parts of this ROW are already designated public areas and are officially under the
jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Rail Ways
Though College Station was founded based on a rural college, and the rail line that served it,
there has been talk for many years of significantly altering the latter. College Station's only
rail line runs along Wellborn Road for its entire length. This location also represents the
geographical "ridge line" through the twin city area. In recent years it has been seen as an
impediment to growth in western College Station because it impedes automobile traffic.
Concerns for potential toxic chemical spills in the center of one of the country's largest
universities also arise from time to time. The upshot of these concerns has been a concerted
effort to reconfigure the way trains run through the city. If a relocation of the rail occurs, then
a potential will exist for the abandoned line to be designated as a "rail trail." Much like the
Gulf States Utilities ROW, this rail ROW extends along the entire length of western College
Station and then through the heart of historic Bryan. As a greenway trail, the rail corridor
could connect many student apartment complexes in southwest College Station to the
university. The trail might also be developed as a link between the George Bush
Library/TAMU and historic Bryan to promote tourism between these two areas.
28
1�
--- � d I FIGURE 12
dill
GMI OF 00LLMGF38 STATION
� � O
- - —� - - o�. call
I 0 COLLEGE
Zt
d CENT
RA PARK LN '; STATION
MUNSON 6 ..
J� Z DARTMCJ D 4BIDE LOOP
C/TY OF B I YAN o _
— TARROI PRELIMINARY
WALTON 8
I
P �; , , _ Statewide Transportation
S. KYL z Enhancement Program
w
i I I 7 co
FOSTCR
Bryan streets nt shown. -
i
TEXAS AVE.
o
°p ANDERS NI1
� O
GLADE
f I
1 I
w
, ELLBO/dN ROAD
+_
04
U m
Uj
III
Legend:
11
1X\
Proposed Concrete Trail
—■ — Existing Concrete Trail
�- ■� Proposed Bike Lane
—.a—� Existing Bike Lane
' Proposed Bike Route
• Proposed Bridge
Box Culvert
® Crossing
Crosswalk Signal
4 Low Water Crossing
City Park
(� Segment Limits
Exhibit 1 Location Map
29
GITF Scoring of Criteria for Greenway Prioritization
Criteria I — Linkage
Existing Link (E) = 5 points
Future Link (F) = 3 points
None (N) = 0 points
Criteria 11— Immediacv of Development
On -going current development = 4 points
Development projected to occur in 1 to 5 years = 3 points
Development projected to occur in 5 to 10 years = 2 points
Development projected to occur after 10 years = 1 point
Criteria III — Amount of Undeveloped Land Surroundin>4 the Greenwav
Substantial = 3 points
Moderate = 2 points
Minimal = 1 point
Not Applicable = 0 points
31
Greenways Matrix
CREEK
SECTION
LOCATION
(TYPE
DESCRIPTION (approximate)
1
Wolf Pen
Tdb.A
Lincoln (start) to confluence:,with Main channel (Harvey).
ISuburban
2
Wolf Pen
Trib-6 -1
Francis (start) to Dominik '
Suburban
3
Wolf Pen
Trib B - 2
Dominik (start) to Harvey
Urban
4
Wolf Pen
Trib C
Campus (start) to confluence with Main channel (W. of Texas Ave)
Urban
5
Wolf Pen
Main
Texas Ave. east to Trib. B
Urban
6
Wolf Pen
Main
Trib. B. to Trib. A.
Urban
7
Wolf Pen
Main
Trib. A east to Holleman/Dartmouth intersection
Urban
89
Wolf Pen
Main
Holleman/Dartouth intersection Highway 6 Bypass
Urban
Wolf Pen
Main
to
Highway 6to confluence with Cartersk
Suburban rban
10
Bee
Mail)
George Bush (.start) to confluence with Trib B (Southwood) _
Stiburb:m
11
Bee
Trib B - N Fork W of Wellborn (start) to confluence with Trib B and S Fork (Welsh)
Suburban
12
Bee
Trib B - S Fork Wellborn (start) to confluence with Trib B and N Fork (Welsh)
Suburban
13
Bee
Trib B - 1
Welsh to 2818
Suburban
14
Bee
Trib B -2
2818 to confluence with Main
Suburban
15
Bee
Main
Confluence with Trib B (Southwood) to Texas Ave.
Suburban
16
Bee
Main
Texas Ave. to Highway 6 Bypass
Urban
17
Bee
Trib A - 1
Rio Grande to Texas Ave.
Suburban
18
Bee
Trib A - 2
Texas Ave. to SH 6 East By -Pass
Suburban
19
Bee
Main
Highway 6 Bypass to confluence with Carters Creek
Suburban
20
Lick
North Fork
Btw. Graham & Rock Prairie (start) to confluence with Main
Suburban
channel (E. of SH 6 East By -Pass)
21
Lick
South Fork E of Wellborn (start) to confluence with Main channel (E of Hwy.6)
22
Lick
Main Confluence of N and S Forks (E of Hwy 6) to confluence with
Spring Creek (Greens Prairie Road) -
23
Lick
Main Confluence with Spring Creek (Greens Prairie) to confluence
with Alum Creek (Lick Creek Park)
24
Lick
Main Confluence with Alum Creek (Lick Creek Park) to city limits
25
Spring
North Fork E of Wellborn (start) to confluence with S Fork and Main
channel (Crowley tract)
26
Spring
South Fork W end of Crowley tract (start) to confluence with N Fork and
Main channel (Crowley tract)
27
Spring
Main Confluence with N and S Forks (Crowley tract) to Hwy. 6-
28
Spring
Main Hwy. 6 to confluence with Lick Creek (Greens Prairie Road)
29
Alum
Un-named Trib Hwy. 6 (start) to confluence with Lick Creek (Lick Creek Park)
30
Alum
Main Confluence with Un-named Trib (Lick Creek Park) to confluence
with Lick Creek (Lick Creek Park)
STRUCTURA EXISTING IMMEDIACY OF AMOUNT OF I LINK
FLOODING CIP/PROJEC DEVELOPMEN UNDEVELOPED LAND
PROBLEMS
PLAN
IN YEARS
(MIN./MODJSUBST.) I
N
N
MIN. I
F
N
N. . `
MIN.
N
N
N
MIN.
N
Y
N
MIN.
N
Y
Y
ON -GOING
MOD. I
F
N
Y
ON -GOING
MOD.
F
N
Y
ON -GOING
MOD.
F
N
Y
ON -GOING
MOD.
F
N
N
10+
MOD.
F
Y
N
MOD.
N
N
N
10+
SUB. I
F
N
N
1-2
MOD.
F
N
I N
MIN. I
F
Y
Y
MIN. I
N
Y
Y
NA- I
E
N
N
3-5
SUB. I
F
Y
N
MOD.
F
N
Y
5-7
SUB.
F
Y
N
10+
MIN. I
F
N
N
5-7-
SUB.
F
Suburban N
Suburban N i
Suburban N I
N 1-3
N 10+
N ( ON -GOING
Rural
N I
N I
Suburban
N
N
Suburban
N I
N
Suburban
N
N
Suburban
N
N
Rural
N
N
Rural
N
N I
31 Carters Mike Davis trac University to Harvey Rural N
32 Carters Harvey to confluence with Bee Creek Rural Y
33 Carters Confluence with Bee Creek to confluence with Lick Creek ( Rural N
I
Y-PRIVATE
N
N -
NA
- 5-7
3-�
MOD.
SUB.
MOD.
NA
SUB.
SUB.
E
E
F
I N
E
I F
I
I F
2-4
SUB. F
1-2
SUB. I F
10+
SUB. I F
10+
SUB. I F
- - -
I
SUB. I F
20+
MIN. I F
20+
MOD. I F
32
APPENDIX 3
Cross Sections
33
Exhibit 1 — Typical Section For Alternative 1
Vegetated Channel Lining and, Channel Enlargement Combination
Water Surface
Natural Ground
6
TumerCollle( Braden Inc.
Engineers • Ptarrers • Project kbnagers
Exhibit 2 - Typical Section For Alternative 2
Geosynthetic Reinforced Vegetation Lining
Geosynthetic Lining ----/
Natural Ground
//X\ 1
Turner Collie Braden Inc.
Englneera • Planners • Project Managers
w
a
Exhibit 3 - Typical Section For Alternative 3
- Concrete Slope Paving or Rip -Rap
Concrete Slope Paving
Natural Ground
/A\\
TurnerCollie c' Braden Inc.
Engineers • Plamers • Project Af3iWs
w
14
Exhibit 4 — Typical Section For Alternative 4
Stone Masonry
Stone -Masonry
Natural Ground
X\Y✓/X\\\
TumercomeOBraden Inc.
Engineers • Planners • Project Managers
APPENDIX 4
Funding Sources
38
TRAILS & GREENWAYS FUNDING SOURCES
A. State and Federal &nding/Assistance Opportunities
State and federal transportation dollars for bicycle and pedestrian related trail projects
may become a viable source of funding for some trail segments. A mix of government
and private grants and local fundraising may be necessary to implement a local trails
and greenways system. The following are several state and Federal programs which
may provide a source of funds:
1) ISM Transportation Enhancement Rinds
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
established the Transportation Enhancement Program which is an 80:20 cost -
share reimbursement program. In Texas this program dispersed approximately
$180 million for non -motorized commuter trails, scenic beautification along
highways, historic preservation and rehabilitation, rail -trail conversions,
mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff, and archaeological
planning and research. This program is currently going through a
reauthorization process, which should be completed during fiscal year 1998
(October 1, 1997). The College Station Bike Loop project was funded through
this program and is now in the design process.
Contact: Texas Department of Transportation
Design Division
125 E. 11 th St.
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 416-2748
2) Nafional Park Service
The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program of the National
Park Service, provides direct technical assistance to non-profit groups and state
and local governments in planning community -based conservation of river and
trail corridors. RTCA may serve as a link to trail resources, expertise and
funding opportunities for the College Station greenways project. RTCA staff
may also provide planning strategies and products to guide and advance the
project.
Contact: National Park Service
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
P.O. Box 5888 or P.O. Box 718
Arlington, TX 76005-5888 Sante Fe, NM 87504-0728
(817) 695-9228 (505) 988-6723
W
3) Texas Recrcational Trails fund
This funding program requires the sponsor (cities, counties, eligible special
districts, state agencies, federal agencies, and eligible private organizations) to
pay for 50% of the total project costs. Federal dollars from the Symms National
Recreational Trails Fund cover 50% of the total project costs. This program will
provide funds to construct new trails, improve/maintain existing trails,
develop/improve trailheads or trailside facilities, and acquire
corridors/easements.
Contact: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
(512)389-4737
4) National Bicycle & Pedesfrian Clearinghouse
Contact them for a copy of An Analvsis of Current Funding Mechanisms for
Bicvcle and Pedestrian Prozrams at the Federal. State and Local Levels, (#FHWA-
PD-93-008).
Contact: National Bicycle & Pedestrian Clearinghouse
1506 21st Street, NW Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
800-760-NBPC
e-mail: nbpc@access.digex.net
8. Private and Non -Profit Rending Opportunities
1) Amcnaan Green ways DuPont Grant Program
The idea behind this small grant program ($500-2,500) is to encourage action -
oriented greenway projects. Keys to determining which projects will receive
grants are the importance of the project to local greenway development efforts,
how likely the project is to produce tangible results, and the extent to which the
grant results in matching funds from other sources. Applications must be
received by the end of December to be eligible for funds in the following year.
Contact: The Conservation Fund
1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1120
Arlington, VA 22209
(703)525-6300
40
2) Home Depot
Horne Depot is committed to giving back to the Communities where their
employees and customers live and work. They provide small grants that can be
used to buy tools and supplies at Home Depot or they can provide volunteers
(Team Depot) to work on a project. They concentrate on affordable housing,
at -risk youth, and the environment. Since there is not a local outlet this may not
be feasible.
Contact the local District Manager.
3) National Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocacy Campaign Grant
Grants are available to state and local pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups
in three grant types: Minimum Support Grants ($1,000) for routine
membership activities and improving contact with the Bicycle Federation of
America; Growth Grants ($1,000-5,000) to enhance membership acquisition
and development programs and to fund advocacy projects; Model Program
Grants ($5,000-15,000) to develop and implement projects and programs of
more than local significance.
Contact: Bicycle Federation of America
1818 R. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202)332-6986
4) National Rivers Coalition REI Seed Grant Program
Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) donated $70,000 in 1997 to support
grassroots river conservation. The funds are administered by the National
Rivers Coalition, which consists of. American Canoe Association, American
Rivers, American Whitewater Affiliation, National Wildlife Federation, River
Management Society, River Network, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.
The program seeks protection of the national's river resources and the public's
access to them. This is one of the few funding programs designed to support
direct grassroots, lobbying. the program does not support general education,
scientific research, or. water quality monitoring, despite their importande to
river conservation. Grants range from $20041,000 and can cove. project -
specific expenses such as printing, mailing, travel, phone, and meetings.
Grants cannot pay for salaries or for hiring outside consultants. This might be a
source for the publication and distribution of the final greenways plan.
Contact: Chad Smith, American Rivers
1025 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 720
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 547-6900
41
activities. These grants may not be used for general institutional support;
capital costs of purchasing land, building or equipment; travel funds for
attending conferences; academic research; or political activities. grants are for
one year only and for a maximum of $10,000. This may be something
appropriate to the greenway links with Lick Creek Park.
Contact: World Wildlife Fund Innovation Grants
Executive Director
The Sonoran Institute
6842 East Tangae Verde Road, Suite D
Tucson, AZ 85715
(520)290-0828
C. Additional flinding and Assistance Resources
1) Texas National Guard
A number of Texas National Guard units are located in Texas. These units may
be willing to perform various civic services in their local community such as
constructing trail bridges and trails. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has
a "Guard" program which may be able to provide similar types of assistance.
This type of assistance will be limited to those projects that are related in some
way to the particular unit's combat mission (is: engineer units constructing
trails, etc). Most Texas National Guard units do not have these types of missions.
2) Developer Impact Fees
Impact fees may be used as a funding source provided they meet the requirements
of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
3) '7i7iends" Groups
Establishing a "Friends of the Trail" group may be the best asset in developing a
trail. This group could be responsible for fund raising, building projects,
education projects, and some of the maintenance and implementation, Recruit
assistance from existing local community services programs to accomplish
similar projects. The "Brazos Greenways Council" is one local organization that
may assist with this type of project and may become more of an asset in fund
raising as the actual projects are identified and prioritized.
4) Hotel/Motel Tax
42
Using a portion of the existing Hotel/Motel Tax may be preferable to new tax
measures for trails and greenways; this is money primarily collected from
tourists and other visitors to the region. Use would have to comply with
existing state statues regarding the use of these funds and would be limited to
those areas that are deemed to be tourism related. This funding source is
unlikely due to the current and projected commitments for this revenue source.
43
5) Leasing Sub -Surface Utility Rights beneath Green way Corridors
Several trail efforts have been successful in funding their entire trail
development efforts through the leasing of sub -surface rights to
telecommunications firms. The Northern Virginia Regional Parks Authority
sold a 20-year lease for a fiber optics cable beneath one of their trail corridors
for $250,000 annually. Other utilities such as water, sewer, and natural gas
may also be interested in discussing opportunities for s hared use of corridors.
This may be limited in our community due to the fact that water, sewer and
electric utilities are city -owned. However, alinement and acquisition of future
ROWS could be a coordinated effort with a greenways and trails plan.
Currently, the best opportunity for this type of trail is along the Exxon/Gulf
States Utilities ROW that is located on the communities east side and has the
start of a trail system in two areas.
6) Local Bond Issues
A local bond can be used as the sole source of funding for trail or greenway
acquisition and development, but it is preferable to leverage these local dollars
with funding from additional sources. $3.5 million is being recommended for
greenway acquisition in the next bond election scheduled for November 3,
1998. This is the most promising source for the acquisition of large tracts of
land in undeveloped areas.
7) Pn vale fundraising
In -kind contributions or donated materials: labor, equipment, advertising
space/support, printing, signs, picnic tables, benches, trees, etc.
Cash contributions: individuals, businesses/corporations, civic organizations,
foundations, family trust/foundations, memberships, special events, bake or T-
shirt sales, adopt -a -mile (-foot,-bridge, -bench, -stream, -etc.) This option is
difficult and not suitable for large scale projects. It is more practical for small,
dsignated items and is a good way to generate more grass roots support.
8) Scout Troops
Scout troops throughout the state have bcen involved in the adoption and
construction of trails. They are more suitable for small "one-time" projects
than large scale development. Eagle scout projects are one good example of -this
and include things like construction of trails, small bridges, etc.
44
9) Spacial Sales Tax
The local option sales tax could be increased a small amount - less than 1 cent -
to provide capital for a trails or greenways system. if adopted, these revenues
would reduce the amount currently available to the general fund and other
existing commitments. This would actually be a special reserve of a portion of
the existing sales tax and would not generate any additional revenue.
10) Drainage Utility District:
SUMMARY
The city currently use the existing revenue from the drainage utility district for
capital construction projects that improve drainage. This revenue is due to end
after five years, however, it could be extended through city council action. it is
a flat fee system and could be used for acquisition of floodways and floodplains
in areas that would be a direct benefit to drainage -related problems. This would
be a viable approach to long term mitigation of future drainage problems. The
current rate generates approximately $850,000 on an annual basis.
Due to the anticipated size of the project and the need to act quickly in
acquiring key tracts of land in advance of development, the most viable option
is the use of general obligation bond and drainage utility district funds. This
method provides adequate funds" up front" to acquire the land. Other sources
of revenue listed above can then be explored for specific needs associated with
things such as trail development, promotion of the trails and greenways system
and planning functions,. Care must be given to the amount of resources
expended if obtaining specific grant funds to ensure an adequate return. An
overall strategy should be developed at an early stage to designate what funding
sources will be utilized for the various components of the trails and greenways
systems and responsibilities assigned to specific departments or agencies
charged with the implementation process.
45
APPENDIX 5
Current Regulations
Drainage Ordinance
Greenways are not addressed under the City's current drainage development policies. However,
floodplain development is addressed and that is where most of the greenways are proposed. The
current floodplain development policies follow FEMA's guidelines for floodplain development.
There are no prohibitions to development in floodplains and there are no incentives to keeping
floodplains or floodways undeveloped or accessible. There are no aesthetic or land use guidelines
in current policies. The City does require that residential structures in the floodplain be elevated
to I foot above the 100 year floodplain elevation, that non-residential structures be floodproofed
and that any improvements to or encroachments on the floodplain not cause more than a 1 foot
rise in the 100 year floodplain elevation. 'These requirements come from FEMA. In addition to
FEMA's ioquirements, the City sets some design standards for channel improvements; most of
which are geared toward preventing erosion and minimizing maintenance cost.
Drainage development policies require the dedication of drainage easements or rights of way.
The following minimum standards are currently used to determine the limits of the area to be
dedicated.
• The minimum width of any drainage easement is 15 feet.
• The minimum width for any easement on an open channel will be the top width of the channel
plus 20 feet.
• Access from a public street must be provided to all drainage easements.
• All easement widths shall be sufficient to cover drainage pathways (100 yr. flood)
Subdivision Regulations
The City's current regulations address subdivision layout relative to greenways and open space
with only a few broad statements. It is stated that regard shall be shown for natural features such
as trees, watercourses, historical spots, and similar community assets. Land subject to flooding
or topographically unsuitable shall not be platted for residential purposes and such land should be
set aside for uses that will not be endangered by periodic or occasional flooding.
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
The City has, as part of its Subdivision Regulations, a parkland dedication section that requires a
land or monetary dedication for neighborhood parkland. The ordinance states that typically areas
within the 100 year floodplain are unsuitable for neighborhood park development. However,
policy has been to accept some floodplain land for parkland as long as there is a reasonable
amount of non-floodable land that can be developed with park improvements. A revised parkland
ordinance approved by Council in January, 1999, states more definitively that consideration will
be given to floodplain or floodable lands as long as, due to its elevation, it is suitable for park
development. This statement encourages the location of neighborhood parkland adjacent to or
along greenways.
46