Project Proposal Feasibility Study
RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE VILLAGE OF AUGUSTA
“The Walkable Village - Where the Trails
Meet”
ENGR 339
Team 15
12/10/2007
Jon Bruinsma
Andrew McBurney
Jon O’Brock
Charles Terpstra

Contents
5.5.1 Village Park and Downtown
Figure 1 - Location of the
Village of Augusta (Source: Google Maps)
Figure 5 - Augusta Creek through Augusta
Figure 6 - M-96 Highway Bridge from SE
Figure 7 – Van Buren Street Bridge from SE
Figure 8 – Pedestrian Detour Routes
Figure 9 – Augusta Canal from Washington Street Bridge
N
Figure 10 - Village Park from S, E
Figure 11 – North Country Trail
Figure 12 – Kalamazoo River Trail
Figure 13 Team Average Project Options Decision Matrix
The overarching goal of our project is to increase
the walkability of the Village of Augusta. This goal is the vision of the
Augusta Village Council as outlined in various documents. To attain this goal, several improvements
will be proposed including changes to current roads, trails, and other
recreational facilities, gone over in more detail later in this report. The goals and possible projects outlined by
the village council are not unified and lack engineering feasibility
analysis. Several of these ideas will be
integrated into a comprehensive long-range plan. After the completion of the overall plan, the
design of these proposed improvements will be done and presented to the Village
as part of a larger recreation plan.
This recreation plan will then be submitted to the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources for the purpose of obtaining recreational grant money,
money needed to make the proposed changes.
|
Project
Area |
Objective |
Solution |
Maximum
Cost |
|
Transportation |
Allow pedestrians to safely cross
M-96 |
To be determined |
$1,000,000 |
|
Riverfront |
Use
the river and flood plain for recreation |
Build Canoe landing Construct riverside path |
$ 25,000 ___ |
|
Bridges |
Improve access across and along the
canal Allow for recreational along the
canal |
Relocate historic bridge as a
pedestrian bridge Replace Van Buren Street Bridge |
$ 150,000 $150,000 |
|
Trout Stream |
Allow for recreational along the
canal |
Create pools and rapids, create cover
along the banks |
To be determined |
|
Other Projects |
Improve function of village park as a
community park Meet demand for a neighborhood park Provide direct access to the school |
Allow for multiple uses Village will design a park No recommendation |
___ ___ ___ |
|
|
|
Total Cost |
$1,325,000 |
|
|
|
Our Projects |
$1,025,000 |
Our project
involves various improvements within the Village of Augusta. The Village of Augusta is located in the
northeast corner of Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
Augusta is located approximately 12 miles east of the City of Kalamazoo
and 5 miles west of the City of Battle Creek.
Located approximately 4 miles southwest of Augusta is the Village of
Galesburg. A map showing the location of
the Village is shown in Figure 1. Augusta serves as a residential location for
many urban employees from Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. It is also home to various industrial and
commercial enterprises. A detailed
official map of the village is shown in Figure 2.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

Figure 1 - Location of the Village of Augusta
(Source: Google Maps)

Figure 2 – Village Map
The Village of
Augusta provided our group with a formalized list of projects, including the
following:
1.
Create a ‘walkable village’
2.
Improve Village Park (for children)
3.
Transform the millrace to trout breeding habitat
4.
Construct a landing for access to Kalamazoo River
5.
Reroute the Kalamazoo River Valley Trail through
the Village, North of Kalamazoo River.
In addition to
these, village officials provided many other ideas for potential projects.
So while project
ideas were readily available, we lacked a framework for assessing the degree to
which projects meet the needs of the community.
Therefore, it was
necessary for us to establish clear objectives.
These goals would
serve both as a way to generate a complete list of project ideas, as well as
judge which projects are necessary for meeting community needs. As a justification for our projects, our
objectives needed to be consistent with those required for a Recreation
Plan.
The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Guidelines for the Development of Community
Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Plans (Rec. Plan Guidelines)
articulates concepts that should guide the formation of a recreation plan. The first concept is that recreation occurs
as an interconnected system. Therefore,
it is useful if recreation planning take into account the community plan. While this recreation plan was developed
separately from the village community plan, it does refer to it and build upon
it. The second concept is that the local
recreational system is part of a regional one.
Because of this, it is beneficial to consider the larger system as well. In light of these concepts, the Rec. Plan
Guidelines require an inventory of existing recreation (Recreation Inventory)
facilities and encourage an optional assessment of ‘green infrastructure’ that
may be valuable to the recreation system (Resource Inventory).
In the Goals and
Policies section of the 1990 Community Strategic Plan for the Village of
Augusta (1990 Community Plan), the first two goals listed were to “Provide
a means to protect and enhance desirable qualities of Augusta’s Environment”
and “continue Development within Augusta with highest priority given to the
preservation of characteristics which make Augusta a desirable place to
live.” While the community plan focuses
mostly on zoning, these two goals can be seen as directives for Augusta’s
recreational system. Under these
headings the plan specifically mentions protecting the wetlands that constitute
part of the green infrastructure.
In the Goals and
Objectives section of the 1991 Community Recreation Plan for
Galesburg-Augusta community Schools, City of Galesburg, Village of Augusta
(1991 Rec. Plan), more specific recreational goals are established.
The first long
range policy it establishes “A comprehensive recreation plan must satisfy man’s
aesthetic and biological needs, as well as his physical needs.” Indeed, a recreation plan meeting this
requirement need be comprehensive. This
first item goes on to define recreation as including all things from simply
enjoying natural beauty to being involved in intensive sports events. As far as possible, both active and passive
recreation are to be accommodated not only in large open areas, but in smaller
urban open spaces.
The second item of
the 1990 Rec. Plan goals establishes the need for ‘recreation centers’ that
function as a meeting space for various age groups. Furthermore, it suggests that providing
convenient (pedestrian) access to recreation areas will make lives “more
healthful, pleasant, and satisfying.”
The third item
relates recreation with population concentration. It lays out the neighborhood as the basic
functional unit, with a minimal service radius, building upward to a regional
level.
Additional goals
laid out by the previous recreation plan include providing additional
recreation facilities for the elderly and encouraging private recreation
developments. Making more efficient use
of existing parks and recreation areas was a recurrent theme. In addition to this, a comprehensive
pedestrian and bicycle system was posed to connect users with the recreational
facilities available to them, in contrast to the isolation caused by high
vehicle traffic.
After looking at
common themes in project suggestions and the content required for the
Recreation Plan, the following matrix was created.
|
Objectives |
Access |
Facilities |
|
Local |
1 |
2 |
|
Regional |
3 |
4 |
Figure 3 – Objectives Matrix
In this matrix the local and regional levels
of concern were identified. Local
recreation concerns bringing refreshment to the lives of people immediately
living, working, and shopping within the village. On the regional level, varied and unique
facilities attract visitors from a broad geography and range of lifestyles to
engage in out of the ordinary experiences.
Also, a
distinction is made between needs for increased access and actual improvement
of existing facilities. Concerns of
access regard recreation not as occurring at isolated facilities, but as part
of an entire system. As a system,
recreational facilities can be better utilized simply by increasing their
accessibility, visibility, and interdependence.
Improvements to facilities are then made on the basis of satisfying
recreational needs in an effectively working system.
On the local level
it is important that recreation be integrated with everyday life. This requires that local facilities be easily
accessible and conveniently located.
Since walking is the natural mode of transportation, local recreation
facilities need to be within a comfortable walking distance. Moreover, routes to recreation facilities
need to be well defined and welcoming to pedestrians. (This may involve both safety improvements
and beautification.) By fostering an environment
where walking is part of everyday life, recreation becomes more natural. Thus a walkable village is essential to local
recreation plans.
Simple facilities
serve as an extension of home recreation into the community. These sites function as neighborhood and
village centers; public meeting places where individuals can learn about and
interact with their community. This
means providing recreational facilities proximate to the populous that have
basic comforts (like swings, tables, and garbage cans). Local recreation facilities that we found to
be lacking or nonexistent include riverfront access, access to the Kalamazoo
River, trout fishing, places to enjoy the scenery of the canal, a venue for
events in the village park, a formal entry to the village…
Augusta already
boasts many fine recreation facilities that draw visitors from all over
Southwest Michigan. However, since many
of these visitors are from out of town, they may be unaware of the other resources
at their disposal. By connecting tourists
to the community, they can make the most out of their trip to Augusta. Additionally, linking local business to visitors
allows better service to their needs.
Consideration of
the adequacy of regional recreation facilities is currently beyond the scope of
the village. Once Objective 3 is realized,
it may be possible for the village to realize what investments it might make to
the regional recreation infrastructure.
However, such an assessment seems more appropriate for a regional
authority with more information.
Design norms will
guide our group throughout the entire design process. Although the Village of Augusta is close by
to Kalamazoo and Battle Creek it has a unique ‘small-town’ character that our
group intends to protect. Therefore, our
first norm is cultural appropriateness. Second,
to ensure transparency, planning and design will include significant public
review. The Recreation Plan will be
written in a way that makes the decision process clear to a nontechnical
audience. After the final Recreation Plan
is submitted to the village it will go through a process of public revision before
it can be submitted to the Michigan DNR.
This benefits the project, as well as satisfies government requirements. These principles guide our criteria.
Seven specific guidelines
were set up to direct each solution. In
general, each project solution should consider the following:
Project must satisfy its objective(s) to a
reasonable degree (Objectives 1,2,3).
Projects which do not contribute to accomplishing the goals of the
overall Recreation Plan are considered to be unrelated.
Minimize cost over
the lifetime of the project. Costs
include construction, maintenance, and replacement. As all improvements are considered to be
lasting, a long life span should be considered.
This is consistent with the final goal in the 1990 Community Plan to
“keep capital improvements within the income range of village residents.” While outside funding may be available for
these projects (please refer to the Funding section), the Village would like
to make plans which are not dependent on outside sources. This gives incentive for the local population
to be involved with the project planning.
Even in projects that do receive funds, some village money may be
necessary.
Ease maintenance. Complex or
labor intensive maintenance is likely to be put off or avoided. Poor maintenance was listed in the 1990 Rec.
Plan goals and objectives section as a prime deterrent to use of recreation
facilities. Proposed
solutions will be evaluated for the complexity and frequency of maintenance and
the equipment required to perform such tasks.
Be feasible to construct. There
should be little ambiguity about how a project could be executed.
Consider safety and potential for crime or vandalism. Adequate lighting, freedom from debris, and compliance
with codes are all relevant.
Anticipate aesthetics, cultural appropriateness and generally how it
will be received.
Be equitable, considering costs and benefits to all stakeholders. The project should expand its benefits to as
many parties as possible, without significant cost to those who already have a
vested interest.
Lists of criteria
as relevant to specific projects are given with each.
Our group organized
the plethora of projects ideas into five distinct project areas. Each area is critical to meeting the
objectives.
State
route M-96 forms the main east-west street in the village, dividing the
residential north from the commercial south.
In the village’s 66 ft wide right-of-way, 40 ft are paved. This is divided by painted lines into two
standard 12 ft wide driving lanes (one in each direction), with an 8 ft wide
shoulder on each side. The speed limit
in this section is 35 mph. This section
of road is also especially busy, as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Traffic
With
most of the village’s residential area to the north, restaurants and government
buildings to the south, this road is necessarily a pedestrian crossing.
Unfortunately, the speed limit is widely ignored, the rise of the bridge limits
visibility, and crossing this road on foot is dangerous.
Primarily,
solutions to this problem should improve local access by creating safe
crossings and positively enforcing safe vehicle traffic speeds. Improved safety
in the Village will also improve regional access to the Village and its
resources, both existing and expected.
Any design seeking to meet this objective must follow the following criteria. These follow the pattern for design criteria set earlier in this document and are outlined to be specific to this problem.
All solutions must be effective at calming traffic.
This
project and its future maintenance should be affordable for the village. At
this time, the village has not determined a budget for this project, though it
will be discussing options. Outside funding such as federal and state grants
should be considered a benefit for the village and not a requirement for
construction. This was recommended by Glen Avis, who recognizes that approval
of village funding for projects requires the support of the residents for such
projects. As external funding is useful, a brief summary of available grants is
included in this document. For funding available for transportation and
pedestrian improvements, please refer to the Funding section of this report.
Solutions to this
problem will consider the impact of required maintenance. Some examples of
maintenance to consider are landscaping requirements, sign replacement and
maintenance frequency,
Any construction plans will need
to include viable detour routes and consider storm water drainage issues.
Consideration must also be given to
Solutions must consistently slow
traffic on M-96 to a speed appropriate for the safety of pedestrians and
traffic entering M-96. Solutions must provide a safe pedestrian crossing.
Safety is based on visibility, traffic speed, and crossing length.
The village would like this
project to beautify its main road as a method for improving walkability. Any
solution which diminishes the current aesthetics is clearly unacceptable.
Crosswalks should be accessible
for foot, bicycle, rollerblade, horse, and especially wheelchair traffic.
Traffic calming techniques must allow current traffic patterns to remain
minimally effected. Essentially, any improvements to village roads and walkways
must encourage pedestrian traffic without significantly discouraging commuting,
shopping, or shipping traffic.
Most people are familiar with
speed bumps and speed humps, which run across the road between intersections.
They are marked with paint or by varying the material of the formation from the
material of the road.
Depending on their height, speed
bumps can significantly decrease the speed of traffic. In many cases, cars are
required to brake to speeds well below the posted limit. Speed bumps have a
greater effect on larger vehicles, especially those transporting freight.
Because of this failure of equity, the Village will not consider speed bumps as
possible solutions regardless of how they meet the other required design
criteria.
A speed plateau is formed by
extending the length of a speed bump so that a car can have its entire
wheelbase on a plateau before the front wheels return to the original road
surface.
Speed plateaus can be
constructed simply as poured-asphalt speed bumps with more material. But more
often, the size of a speed plateau requires more attention to aesthetics.
Data displaying the effectiveness
of speed plateaus is not conclusive and cannot be provided here. One may
consider that they are a gentler form of speed bumps, which would have a lesser
effect of decreasing speed but cost more in material and labor. It may be that
they are more suited to this project, but more research will be necessary
before they can be a recommended solution.
Placing a plateau at an
intersection creates a raised intersection. This allows the plateau to affect
speeds from multiple approaches at a critical location. This method is
generally used at intersections which experience similar vehicle traffic flow
rates in all directions and high volumes of pedestrian traffic. These
constructs also employ aesthetic designs with material variation. Mosaic
bricks, pavement, and cement can be used to clearly mark crosswalks. Brickwork
produces the most appealing design, but is generally a more expensive option.
Because traffic volumes on roads
intersecting M-96 within the village limits are not high enough to warrant a
4-way stop, it is unlikely that a raised intersection can be considered as an
appropriate traffic calming technique for the village.
Most horizontal displacements force traffic from a
straight line of travel. Vehicles must reduce speed in order to follow the
movement of their lane. Other horizontal displacements “crowd” the drivers’
vision
Roundabouts are used at
intersections with similar flow in all directions where traffic would traditionally
be stopped with a traffic light or four-way stop. Their primary purpose is to
increase flow through the intersection and eliminate queue lengths and times.
They also control the velocity at which traffic moves through the intersection.
Roundabouts have a large circular island in the center of an intersection which
forces all entering traffic to enter concentric circular lanes around the
island. Traffic circles are similar, but use a smaller circular island in the
intersection. This technique focuses on visually slowing drivers entering the
intersection and does not create circular lanes to move traffic around the
island.
A roundabout is not a feasible
option for the village due to its size and cost. Also, none of the
intersections in the village need to be controlled in all four directions. A
traffic circle would be a better option for the village, although they are also
generally intended to effect multiple directions. A carefully designed traffic
circle would beautify the streetscape and effectively slow traffic. This in
turn would increase local and regional accessibility as well as traffic and
pedestrian safety. Costs for installing a traffic circle vary greatly,
depending on size and material used. Also, much consideration must be given for
large vehicles such as semi-trucks and fire engines.

Figure 5 Traffic Circle in Ft.
Lauderdale, FL with a larger truck apron. Splitter islands and yield lines have
been striped at each approach.
Curb extensions slow traffic by
visually narrowing the road. They take many shapes and by placing them
carefully, have varying effects on traffic. Alternating chicanes can force
traffic to follow a serpentine route. Aligned extensions create “chokers,” or narrowed
sections which can be placed near intersections for critical slowing. The cost
range for chicanes is very large due to their versatility of design. The land
gained by extending the curb is commonly used for beautification. Chicanes
increase traffic and pedestrian safety by slowing traffic and decreasing
crosswalk length. This option will be considered for the village.
Center islands can affect
traffic by forcing a lane to dodge to the right. Placing a long center island
along the entire width of a road creates a boulevard. Center islands slow
traffic by forcing lateral movement and by visually closing the road. They also
divide crosswalk lengths in half, allowing a pedestrian safety island. Center
islands will be considered for the Village of Augusta because they allow for
landscape beautification and effectively slow traffic. Unfortunately, strict
state code may not allow such a significant change to be made on M-96.
Signage is very important for
safety and traffic management. While designing the improvements for M-96, all
current signage and pavement markings will be recorded. These will be checked
against the current code and modified as necessary. When crosswalks are
designated, specific signs and pavement markings will be used. While the
primary objective will be to create a design that meets traffic codes, some
consideration will be given for the effectiveness of the recommended signage as
well as for the effect of the signs on the streetscape beautification.
Digital and radar combined speed
signs consist of a traditional pole mounted speed limit sign with a computer
box mounted below. The computer box contains a radar speed detector, a hard
drive, and an LED screen. The sign records the speed of oncoming vehicles and
is able to display that speed to drivers as they pass. These are considered
effective with drivers who do not realize they are speeding because the posted
speed is below the speed allowed by visibility and pavement conditions. The
computer box is capable of recording data for extended periods of time,
allowing for studies of the effectiveness of the sign and for studies of daily
and seasonal traffic patterns. Many models of these signs include solar panels
to decrease the maintenance required.

The northeast
quadrant of the Village of Augusta is dominated by swampy, low lying land. According to the 1990 Community Strategic
Plan for the Village of Augusta, 123.5 acres, or 20.4% of the village lies
within the floodplain and is undeveloped.
Originally platted as a grid of residential streets similar to the
northwest quadrant of the village, it was never developed. In years past the land had been used for
agriculture (one resident recalls a pig farm), but has since grown up into a
stand of trees, valuable only for logging.
Village purchased a portion of this land from the existing owner simply
at the cost of logging rights. When
combined with the village wells and land originally intended for roads the
village holds much of the land in this area.
The (new) wells are located on a rise above the floodplain, just off
Augusta Drive. Jefferson Avenue, on the
north of the flood plain, provides street access to the more remote parts of
the tract.
The land is
located within the 100 year flood plain of the Kalamazoo River, as delineated
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and is a registered Michigan
State wetland, essentially prohibiting all forms of commercial development. Wetlands are protected by state as a valuable
link in the ecological system. Not only
are wetlands a unique and essential habitat, they play a vital role in
filtering out contaminants and mitigating non-point source pollution. FEMA has determined that in order to protect
against devastating flooding, the area’s function of storing and conveying
water must be maintained. Therefore this
land is a permanent and essential part of the ‘green infrastructure’ in the
village.
Furthermore, this
land is particularly valuable to the village as it is the only riverfront
property and the only access to the Kalamazoo River. Access to the river on the south side of the
village is blocked by the railroad tracks.
While access to the river from the opposite shore is possible, it is not
direct. Already programs like
KanoetheKazoo, run by Binder Park Zoo in Battle Creek encourage use of the
Kalamazoo River for recreation and education.
Easing access to the river helps accomplish this. Also, the Kalamazoo Heritage Waterway program
ties together boating with local history in a way that benefits businesses and
communities along the route. As the
Kalamazoo River is a regional recreational destination (for fishing, boating),
access from the river would be valuable to village business. Furthermore, access from the village to the
river would be beneficial to those in and around the village wishing to make
the most of the asset. Providing access
along the shore would also be beneficial to local users, allowing them to take
in the landscape, or fish along the bank.
Under the implementation section of the 1990 Community Strategic Plan
for the Village of Augusta, it was proposed that a recreation plan be drafted
to get state funding for a park and boat launch along the Kalamazoo River.
Valuable
riverfront property is not being used to its full potential.
Provide boat
access to the Kalamazoo River for regional users.
Allow the local
public to recreate along the river bank.
The design solution must meet the two objectives
listed above. It must provide access to
Kalamazoo River for whole region. This
will require it comply with all boat launch standards, as well as all
appropriate ADA code. Also, the site
must provide vehicular access. Local
users should find the site to be easily accessible by foot, and attractive to
visit.
The designed solution must be cost effective in the short term, so it
can be easily implemented, and the long term, so it can be sustained.
The designed solution must be reasonable for limited village resources
to maintain. It must not cause erosion
of the river banks. With simple steps
all built structures must be able to withstand or escape damage caused by
flooding.
Constructability should be considered with any design solution. Potential limitations on available space,
soil bearing capacity, and environmental standards associated with work in a
wetland are all considerations.
Safety is a concern. Considerations
include risk of crime due to isolated location, vandalism, and littering. Safe entry and exit to the site from M-96 by
vehicle or foot should be considered.
Determination of liabilities associated with public waterfront should
also be made. Function under flood
conditions should also be considered.
Aesthetics and cultural appropriateness are major factors in determining
how the project is received by the community.
Improvements should be simple, but attractive. They should be visible, but not
overbearing. Efforts should be made to
keep existing trees and vegetation where possible. Improvements should be at a pedestrian scale,
in keeping with the rest of the village.
Improvements should not compromise the silvicultural value of the
land. Also, improvements should not
impair the ecological function of the land to store and convey floodwaters, or
filter out pollutants. Pathways may need
to be ADA compliant, to accommodate all users.
A boat launch should be able to accommodate a foreseeable variety of
boats. Restrooms may need to be provided
for users. Since a major use of the site
will likely be for fishing, a fish cleaning station may be desirable.
Doing nothing is a
viable option. It is the cheapest and
easiest. Without a trail, the river
banks will remain unused. Needs for
water access may be met by an existing boat launch in the Fort Custer
Recreation Area. A with concrete ramps,
this boat launch can accommodate a wide range of craft, and is handicap
accessible. However, it is located a
mile downstream and on the opposite shore from the village. To do nothing means that the village will
still not be connected to the river.
A small grassy or sandy
area adjacent to the river would allow access for a variety of purposes. However, this function of this area would not
be clear to the public. Moreover,
erosion may be a concern.
Installation of a
floating dock would provide a visible means of access to the river. However, it would likely need to be removed
for winter ice or spring floods.
A fixed dock or a
solid river wall would provide a clear point of access to the river. However, a fixed structure needs to be
durable, and account for varying water elevations. A unique approach used in Illinois uses 4
concrete steps. A conservative cost estimate
based on similar projects would be no more than $25,000 (www.openlands.org).
A concrete boat
ramp would be the most obvious and functional.
It would allow even trailered boats access to the water. However, it would be costly (estimated $250,000),
and construction may prove difficult due to site constraints. Safe access for trailers onto M-96 may not be
possible. Also, it may prove redundant with
the existing boat ramp in the Fort Custer Recreation Area.
No parking would
be the easiest option. This would limit
use of the landing to boats already on the river. However, some users may occupy parking at
adjacent businesses while they put in.
Parking on the
site is virtually impossible due to site constraints, unless the boat launch is
moved north, away from the center of town.
Parking offsite is
a promising alternative. This may
involve buying parking rights from adjacent businesses, or creating a parking
lot at the nearest available village property.
Offsite parking may also be useful in other village plans. Still, any access directly off of M-96 could
prove unsafe.
An optional trail
along the river bank may include all of the following features: Exercise stations or mile markers for those
using the trail for cardiovascular workouts;
a series of signposts describing local flora and fauna, land forms,
history, and so forth; clearings along the river bank with benches for resting,
fishing, or bird watching.
Material options
for the pathway include boardwalks, asphalt, gravel, wood chips, or even
earth. The use of these materials
depends on a site specific design, considering the swampy conditions and
routine flooding.
Other amenities
may be desirable in this location.
Outhouses or public restrooms may enhance the visibility and usability
of this site. However, there may be
major difficulties with placing these in a wetland and flood plain. If there proves to be sufficient use, a fish
cleaning station may be desirable.
In consideration
of these options in regard to our criteria, it seems evident to recommend a
stepped river wall ($25,000) and a simple riverside trail. The details of these improvements will be
determined during in a site specific design stage during the spring of
2008.
The millrace canal
is the relocated channel of Augusta Creek which drains approximately 38 square
miles from north of the village. It was dug
in the mid 1800’s for a saw milling operation.
The canal runs north-south dividing the east and west halves of the
village. The canal is crossed by three bridges. Two of these bridges are historic in nature
and have limited weight capacities. A
map showing the canal and its previous path is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 6 - Augusta Creek through Augusta
The millrace canal
has several deficiencies. First it is
relatively unattractive. Second, it is underused
and underdeveloped for recreation. Third,
there is a problem with access across the creek within the village. There are three bridges that cross the canal
within the village. The bridges located
at Van Buren and Washington Streets, are historic in nature and have limited
weight capacity. The bridge at Van Buren
Street has an especially low weight limit of 2 tons due to deterioration, but it
is frequently used by large delivery vehicles according to village residents. The third bridge is the M-96 Highway Bridge
over the canal. This bridge serves a
busy highway and is inconvenient for intra village traffic as the only high
capacity bridge. This bridge is in poor
condition and is scheduled for replacement by MDOT in 2010. The reconstruction of this bridge will significantly
increase the use of the other bridges across the canal for overweight
applications because they will be the only crossings in the area.
The three main
objectives of this portion of the project are
·
Encourage
recreational use of the millrace canal.
·
Improve
accessibility across the canal without jeopardizing historical bridges.
·
Improve
the look and feel of the canal and surrounding area.
Any
design seeking to meet this objective must follow the following criteria. These
follow the pattern for design criteria set earlier in this document and are
outlined to be specific to this problem.
Meet them.
Since the canal is currently
underused for recreation a study of projected future use will be necessary.
During construction, access must
be maintained to all houses along the Millrace Canal.
Any project in this area must be
safe for everyone. For example railings
will be installed in areas with a steep drop-off into the canal such as around
bridge abutments.
The village would like this
project to beautify its canal as a method for improving local and regional
access. Any solution which diminishes the current aesthetics is clearly
unacceptable.
Any work in this setting will need to be
done with the input of residents, particularly the residents who live along the
canal. Another consideration is handicap
accessibility. Currently handicap
accessibility in this area is poor; we plan to improve it with our
project.
The initial vision
for this project, derived from public and local government input, was to
develop a walking path on both sides of the Millrace Canal between the village
park, located just south of the M-96 highway, and Washington Street. Due to their steep and narrow character, locating
paths on top of the banks is undesirable unless a larger bank raising/flood
control project is included. At this
time no such flood control project is proposed or anticipated. A more desirable solution is to put the paths
at the base of the canal banks next to the existing street. In the long term this could involve
decorative lighting and brick pavement as the village would like to encourage
this type of access along the creek. In
the short term is there is not sufficient pedestrian volume along the canal to
warrant these paths and thus we recommend that nothing be done at this
location. If pedestrian traffic along
the existing roads bordering the canal increases in the future this type of
project may be justified.
The village would also
like to install benches along the canal.
In order to have a good view of the canal, the benches would have to be
located on the bank and not at the base of it like the walking paths. There are portions of the bank that are wide
enough to allow room for benches on top, although some earthwork would be
necessary on the back side of the bank to construct ramps for handicap access
to these benches. The benches would make
for more convenient viewing access to the canal while keeping the main path off
the bank. As with the paths, there is
not enough information to recommend benches be installed at this time.
Access across the canal will be a problem during the
reconstruction of the M-96 highway bridge.
The M-96 bridge is shown in Figure
6. The historic bridge
located at Van Buren Street is in especially poor condition. The bridge is shown in Figure 7. A suggestion from Fleis and Vandenbrink
Engineering was to relocate the historic bridge from Van Buren Avenue to the
site of a previous bridge at Clinton Avenue directly south of the village
park. This would mean converting it to a
pedestrian only bridge. A new bridge
would then be constructed at Van Buren Street.
This would serve two purposes.
First it would allow a second crossing in addition to the M-96 Highway
within the village capable of high loads for local traffic while not removing
the historic Van Buren Street Bridge from the village. It would also greatly improve pedestrian
access across the canal during and after the M-96 bridge construction. The relocated
bridge will allow pedestrian access to several businesses on the south side of
M-96 and east of the canal as well as improved access Fort Custer Recreational
Area located across the Kalamazoo River.
Figure 8 shows a layout of
the pedestrian access routes across the relocated bridge.
The Van Buren
Street Bridge could also be utilized as a crossing for the Kalamazoo River
Trail that the village would like to bring through the village. According to the most recent bridge
inspection report, the second historic bridge located at Washington Street, is
still in adequate condition to remain in service as a roadway bridge.

Figure 7 - M-96 Highway Bridge from SE

Figure 8 – Van Buren Street Bridge from SE

Figure 9 – Pedestrian Detour Routes
5.4 Trout Stream
The mill race
running through the town _ used to be teaming with trout but is now devoid of
them. Trout need certain conditions in order to survive. They are a cold water fish, which means they
prefer water temperatures between 50 and 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Thus bank cover is essential. There should be shade from brush, fallen
trees, or tree roots along the banks.
They can tolerate pH levels between 4.1 and 9.5. Trout like slow flowing streams which allow
them to exert less energy to stay in place, but they cannot handle stagnant
water because they need plenty of dissolved oxygen. The most productive trout
streams have a gradient from 0.5 to 2 percent (drop of 25 to 100 ft per
mile). If the slope is above the
aforementioned 0.5 to 2 percent, stream impediments can be used to slow water
flow. If gradient is below 0.5 percent the stream is likely to have a silty
bottom and water temperatures too high for trout.

Figure 10 – Augusta Canal from Washington Street Bridge N
There are trout
further north, but the current conditions of the canal through Augusta are not
fitting for trout to make their habitat.
Change the
conditions of the canal in order to meet the needs of trout.
Any
design seeking to meet this objective must follow the following criteria. These
follow the pattern for design criteria set earlier in this document and are
outlined to be specific to this problem.
The design should require little maintenance and be
inexpensive to implement.
The design must render the canal livable for
trout. It must fit in with the overall
look of the village.
The grass along the banks could be allowed to grow
wherever there is little brush cover. The slope of the canal is 0.2 percent
which is shallower than the minimum slope of 0.5 percent necessary to maintain
trout stream velocity.
Brush cover along the banks of the Canal would not
be aesthetically pleasing, nor would it fit into the overall appearance of the
village. Doing nothing would retain the
village’s current visual appeal and is, of course, the least cost alternative.
It has been decided that changes will be made in order to increase the stream velocity, add calm pools, and add brush cover for shade.
The Augusta
village park is located at the center of the village next to the Mill Race
canal. At 1.5 Acres, it is currently the
only developed park in the village. A picture
from the park is shown in Figure 10. The
park is used in the summertime for many different events, such as the rubber
duck race sponsored by the Kalamazoo Regional Chamber of Commerce. The park contains the village museum, located
in an old train depot relocated to the park.
The museum is currently not open to the public on a schedule basis due
to a lack of funding. The park is
located next to the historic park theater, a designated Michigan historical
site since 2001. The theater, built in
1949 by D. Eli and Dorothy Frank, discontinued regular operation in 1996 but is
opened several times a year for special events.
The park also contains the village library. The library utilizes the park in the
summertime for speakers and events for children.
One of the goals
presented by the Village Council is to develop a streetscapes project along
Michigan Avenue. The goal of developing
a downtown area is also presented in the Community Strategic Plan for the
Village of Augusta for 1990 to 2010.


Figure 11 - Village Park from South, East
The park, like the
rest of the downtown area, is not being utilized to its fullest potential. Along The Park is one of the few parts of
Augusta that many people see. The sidewalks
that exist are deteriorated and overgrown with grass. Furthermore, The Park is not handicap
accessible.
The village park is
the center of the downtown area.
Developing the village park is the first step to developing a downtown
area. The park will tie in with improvements
along M-96 (Michigan Avenue) to create a unified downtown feel with decorative
sidewalks and decorative lighting. The
project will strive to create an environment that encourages economic growth in
the downtown area. In this environment
more local money will be kept in the village and more outside money will be
brought into the community. The park
needs to be brought up to current standards for handicap accessibility and
safety. As with any project, the park will
be designed with input from the residents of the village. The village is too large for the single
downtown park to serve the entire village.
Elsewhere in the report the construction of several other mini-parks on
village owned land is proposed to meet the 1/2 mile service radius guideline
for a community park and to account for any loss in local use of the downtown
park from increased non-village use.
Any
design seeking to meet this objective must follow the following criteria. These
follow the pattern for design criteria set earlier in this document and are
outlined to be specific to this problem.
Any project in this area must be
safe for everyone. Adequate lighting
will be included to deter crime.
Any work in this setting will need to be
done with the input of residents. Another
consideration is handicap accessibility.
Currently handicap accessibility in this area is poor; we plan to
improve it with our project.
The layout and
functionality of the proposed park will be completely detailed during the
design phase. Due to the small size of
the park it will only have limited play equipment. The park will be set up for as many uses as
possible. The design for the downtown
area should tie into the park so that the entire downtown area feels like it is
part of the park. The park is a perfect
starting point for all the improvements around the village.
There are several
other properties that the village owns throughout the village limits. The land where the village water tower is
located at the northwest corner of the village is one section. This parcel currently has some picnic tables
and trash barrels. This parcel has an excellent
view of the Kalamazoo River Valley in the fall and winter. The village also owns a parcel of land on the
east side of the village.
The recommended
service area for a community park is 1/2 of a mile. This puts much of the village outside the
range of the existing village park. The
range of the village park is shown in Figure 11. Also, a trip to the village park from the
major residential section of the village requires a crossing of M-96. Thirdly, as the village park is developed
into a downtown park its use may shift towards more outside recreation making
it less available for residents.

The village would
like to develop these largely unused parcels of land into additional park space
to serve the local recreational needs.
They would be a place where children could come to play close to home
without having to cross any major roads.
The parks would minimally have some play equipment and picnic tables or
benches.
Any
design seeking to meet this objective must follow the following criteria. These
follow the pattern for design criteria set earlier in this document and are
outlined to be specific to this problem.
Any project in this area must be
safe for everyone. Adequate lighting
will be included to deter crime. All
play equipment and associated groundcover will meet all requirements for
safety.
The village would like this
project to provide additional recreation for residents. Any solution which
diminishes the current aesthetics is clearly unacceptable. The project must also be culturally
appropriate, fitting well into the existing village.
Any work in this setting will need to be
done with the input of residents.
Another consideration is handicap accessibility. These sites are currently undeveloped so
accessibility is currently non-existent.
Project options and available budget will be determined by the Village Council
The village park project designs will be left to the Village. The designs required for these projects are not sufficient for the intentions of this course.
The village
currently owns a parcel of land west of the cemetery in the north-west corner
of Augusta. This land is to be used for expansion of the cemetery, but at the
current mortality rate the present cemetery will be sufficient for 100’s of
years to come. The people of the village would like to put a trail continuing
along the path of Jefferson St. which would allow people in the north-west
quadrant of the village easy access to the school west of the village.
There is no
pathway between the residential neighborhood and the school (and the associated
local recreation).
Build a path which
allows access to school.
Any
design seeking to meet this objective must follow the following criteria. These
follow the pattern for design criteria set earlier in this document and are
outlined to be specific to this problem.
The path should be well marked and well lit.
The path must be accessible to all who want to use it. If federal funds are used, the pathway must
be American Disability Act (ADA) compliant.
This would regulate the slope and material of the pathway.
In order to be ADA compliant, the path over the
hill must be of a certain slope. One
option would be to cut a path through a section of the hill and put retaining
walls on either side to stop erosion.
There would be a cost for excavation and materials such as concrete
block. These will be evaluated in the design stage in spring of 2008.
A retaining wall would only be required on one side
if a switchback was used. This would, however, increase the overall length of
the trail.
While it would be quite convenient to have paths
here, it may not be economically feasible.
More information will be needed in order to make a
final decision on the layout of the proposed path. This will be gathered early
2008 and we will design accordingly.
There is currently one trail running through the
village. This is the North Country trail which extends across several states,
including Michigan. The section of trail
passing through Augusta is shown in Figure 11. Also, the Kalamazoo River Trail, part of the Michigan
Airline Trail, is planned to be extended between Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. Figure 12 shows the present
and future route of the Kalamazoo River Trail. The
Village of Augusta expressed an interest in having this trail pass through the
village in order to increase business to the shops and restaurants in town, however, current
plans route the trail south of Augusta through the Fort Custer Recreation Area
along existing trails.

Figure 13 – North Country Trail

Figure 14 – Kalamazoo River Trail
Augusta is poorly linked to the regional trails passing through it.
Make the services
of Augusta more accessible to people passing through on regional trails.
The village would
like a low cost and minimal maintenance solution which is also aesthetically
pleasing. In addition, the solution
should be accessible to all and safe.
There are existing trails in the Fort Custer
Recreation Area which the planning committee for the Kalamazoo River Trail plan
to incorporate. Thus, it may not be
feasible to divert these trails through the village.
Having well-marked and attractive trail access
routes to and from the Kalamazoo River Trail as well as the North Country trail
could increase business to the village shops and restaurants. Information centers could be placed around
trail access routes to provide more details about Augusta and the surrounding
attractions.
The Kalamazoo River Trail planning committee will
have to be contacted to discuss options further. This will be done early 2008.
In the 2005-2006
fiscal year there was an estimated $25 million in awards and grants to local
units of government for acquisition and development for outdoor recreation
properties and to protect Michigan’s significant natural resources.
In 2008 there will
be $5 million available for this program. In 2009 there will be an estimated
$6.26 million available. This is a federally funded program which governmental
entities that receive fuel tax revenues are eligible to apply for. Other
conditions for eligibility are listed in Appendix F of the Michigan’s Safe Routes to School Handbook. Two of
the listed activities are “Provision of facilities for pedestrians and
bicycles, pedestrian and bicycle safety education activities," and the
"conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails."
This is money
available to operate, maintain, and develop recreational trails and restore
land damaged by off-road vehicles. Local projects must be sponsored by a DNR
division. In the 2005-2006 fiscal year there was $1.7 million available.
This is money
available to maintain and develop trails as well as associated facilities.
This is grant
money available to design and construct recreational boating facilities if the
project improves access to boating. In the 2005-2006 fiscal year there was
$21,187,600 available.
A summary of the six project areas and our proposed solutions are given in Table 1 on the next page. In order to determine which of the projects our group will continue to design, we developed the decision matrix shown below in Figure 14 below. A map showing our proposed improvements is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Team Average Project Options Decision Matrix
Table 2 – Project Summary (to be designed
next semester)
|
Objective |
Solution |
Maximum Cost |
|
|
Transportation |
Allow pedestrians to safely cross M-96 |
To be determined |
$1,000,000 |
|
Riverfront |
Use the
river and flood plain for recreation |
Build Canoe landing Construct riverside path |
$ 25,000 ___ |
|
Bridges |
Improve access across and along the canal Allow for recreational along the canal |
Relocate historic bridge as a pedestrian bridge Replace Van Buren Street Bridge |
$ 150,000 $150,000 |
|
Trout Stream |
Allow for recreational along the canal |
Create pools and rapids, create cover along the
banks |
To be determined |
|
Other Projects |
Improve function of village park as a community
park Meet demand for a neighborhood park Provide direct access to the school |
Allow for multiple uses Village will design a park No recommendation |
___ ___ ___ |
|
|
|
Total Cost |
$1,325,000 |
|
|
|
Our Projects |
$1,025,000 |

Figure 16 – Project Areas
The recreation
plan will be very similar to this document.
It will give background data, explain the planning process, assess
needs, and answer them with a list of goals and objectives. Our group will complete the Recreation Plan by
January 1, 2008. Following its
completion it will then go through a process of public review for at least 30
days. After public reaction has been
accounted for the village council will then officially adopt the plan and send
it to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for review.
In addition to traffic data, our group has recently acquired crash data. We are beginning to research MDOT and federal highway standards to determine what traffic calming methods would be permitted. Studies will also involve applying Highway Capacity Methods to each traffic calming technique. Once this is completed in March, this will determine which ones would be most effective for our project area. Using computer software available to the Engineering Department, we will test our designs. Our group will develop a medium to present our final design to the village.
The bridge designs will not be performed as part of our project. Although an important project, it may not fit our time constraints.
The Village of
Augusta is located at the junction of the Augusta Creek and the Kalamazoo
River. A large portion of the village
limits to the east are located in the 100 year floodplain of the Kalamazoo
River. There is also a history of minor
flooding within the town due to ice dams forming in the Augusta Creek. Any proposed bridge work crossing a
watercourse or recreation development in the floodplain will require a thorough
hydrologic analysis. A Federal Emergency
Management Agency flood insurance study was performed for this community around
1980. The survey data used for this
study was available from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The hydraulic model is not yet complete but
the survey data was used to calculate slope for a preliminary analysis.
As mentioned
earlier, the Recreation Plan will be completed by January 1, 2008. It will then
go through a public review process for a minimum of 30 days. At this point, it
can be submitted to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for review.
The research for
transportation design is complete. It
remains to be decided exactly which options are compliant with state design
specifications as M-96 is a state-owned road.
Several contacts have been established in the design department of the
Michigan Department of Transportation in Lansing who agreed to assist in this
process. At this time it is estimated
that the transportation design will be completed by early April of 2008.
The aforementioned
bridge designs will not be incorporated into our project due to time
constraints.
The hydraulic
modeling was not completed this semester due to the excessive amount of
research needed to decide which projects to include in the scope. The HEC-RAS model has been started and will
be completed by early February of 2008.
Once this model is done, some experimenting with stream elements can be
executed. The current goal is to
complete the trout stream design by early March of 2008. Design of the Landing can be completed by the
beginning of April.
The final report
will be compiled as each individual project is completed.
www.blackfootchallenge.org. “Trout Habitat.”
http://www.blackfootchallenge.org/adoptatrout/trouthabitat.htm
www.doi.gov. “ADA Compliance.”
http://www.doi.gov/diversity/civil_rights.html
Galesburg-Augusta Community Schools, City of Galesburg, Village of Augusta. Community Recreation Plan. June, 1991.
The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Grants Management. Guidelines for the Development of Community
Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Plans. January 27, 2006.
www.openlands.org. “Canoe Launch Costs.” <http://www.openlands.org/template.asp?pgid=204>.
www.stolaf.edu. “Trout Stream Requirements.”
Village of
Augusta. 1990 Community Strategic
Plan for the Village of Augusta.
1990.