MM SS UU T O LL A K E LL A N S I N G

TTR A I L FFE A S I B I L I T Y SST U D Y

C HARTER T OWNSHIP OF M ERIDIAN Approved and Adopted

March 3, 20

14

February 9, 2018

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Township Board Ronald J. Styka, Supervisor Brett Dreyfus, Clerk Julie Brixie, Treasurer Phil Deschaine, Trustee Patricia Herring Jackson, Trustee Dan Opsommer, Trustee Kathy Ann Sundland, Trustee

Staff Frank Walsh, Township Manager Derek Perry, Assistant Township Manager/Director of Public Works & Engineering Younes Ishraidi, Chief Engineer Nyal Nunn, Project Engineer

With the assistance of: The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page i

C ONTENTS

I NTRODUCTION Purpose & Process ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Public Outreach ...... 7 Trail Overarching Principle ...... 7

E X I S T I N G C ONDITIONS Environmental Considerations ...... 9 Endangered Species ...... 11 Trail Alignment Alternatives ...... 12 Phase 1 – Hagadorn Road to Park Lake Road ...... 12 Phase 2 – Park Lake Road to Marsh Road ...... 16 Phase 3 – Marsh Road to Lake Lansing ...... 19

R O U T E E VALUATION Estimate of Construction and Easement Costs ...... 23 Criteria for Project Evaluation ...... 29

P R E F E R R E D T R A I L A LIGNMENT Top Trail Routes ...... 35 Implementation Strategies ...... 36 MAP-21: Transportation Alternatives Program, Safe Routes to Schools, and Recreation Trails ...... 36 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality ...... 37 Michigan Transportation Fund (Act 51) ...... 37 Surface Transportation Fund (STP) ...... 37 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) ...... 37 Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) ...... 38 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ...... 38 Recreation Passport Grant ...... 38 Advocacy Advance Rapid Response Grant ...... 39 DALMAC Fund ...... 39 PeopleForBikes Community Grant Program (formerly Bikes Belong) ...... 39 Small Grant Programs ...... 39 Other Sources and Local Support...... 39

A PPENDIX Public Input ...... 43 Ingham County Trails and Parks Comprehensive Report ...... 43 MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Online Survey ...... 45 Stakeholder Meeting ...... 55 Second Meeting ...... 57 MDOT Environmental Screening ...... 59 MSG Wetland Delineation and Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Survey ...... 61

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page iii

L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1. Location Map ...... 1 Figure 2. The River Trail ...... 2 Figure 3. Heart-of-Michigan Trail...... 3 Figure 4. Regional Trail Priorities ...... 4 Figure 5. Meridian Township Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Map ...... 5 Figure 6. Red Cedar River Water Trail ...... 6 Figure 7. Phase 1 Wetland Delineation ...... 10 Figure 8. Phase 1 ...... 12 Figure 9. Phase 2 ...... 16 Figure 10. Phase 3 ...... 19

L I S T O F T A B L E S Table 1. Phase 1 Summary of Existing Conditions ...... 15 Table 2. Phase 2 Summary of Existing Conditions ...... 18 Table 3. Phase 3 Summary of Existing Conditions ...... 21 Table 4. Phase 1 Costs ...... 25 Table 5. Phase 2 Costs ...... 26 Table 6. Phase 3 Costs ...... 27 Table 7. Phase 1 Evaluation Matrix ...... 31 Table 8. Phase 2 Evaluation Matrix ...... 32 Table 9. Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix ...... 33

Page iv February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

I NTRODUCTION

In communities across Michigan and the nation, there is a growing need and responsibility to provide opportunities for people to walk and bike to more places and to feel safe while doing so. The benefits of walking and bicycling whether for commuting or for recreational purposes can lead to reduced traffic congestion and improved quality of life.

Trails and greenways promote outdoor recreation, catalyze economic development, increase adjacent property values, celebrate historical and cultural assets, promote conservation and environmental education and improve quality of life in a community. They provide an alternative mode of transportation which can also result in environmental and individual health benefits. They connect communities through a green way or green infrastructure for hiking and biking.

P U R P O S E & P ROCESS

The purpose of this feasibility study is to determine the best trail alignment for extending a shared use path from Michigan State University (MSU) to Lake Lansing in Meridian Township. This will specifically assist Meridian Township in evaluating the feasibility of various trail alignment alternatives to satisfy the construction of the MSU to Lake Lansing trail. The ultimate goal of the shared use path is to provide safe travel for all non-motorized users and connect to key destinations including MSU neighborhoods, schools, parks, places of employment and community facilities.

The study main tasks consist of: Figure 1. Location Map

Meridian Township  Developing alternatives for the trail route alignment;  Assessing the trail alternatives and documenting the potential benefits, challenges, costs, environmental impacts, easement needs, permits required, and other considerations;  Engaging community stakeholders and the public on the preferred trail route; and  Evaluating and recommending the best trail route.

Ingham County Michigan

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 1

B ACKGROUND

The proposed MSU to Lake Lansing trail is an extension of the Lansing River Trail which is a 16-mile regional shared use paved trail. The older portion of the River Trail was built in the late 1980’s along the Grand River through Downtown Lansing and connects a number of Lansing City Parks as well as Downtown Lansing. As shown in green in Figure 2, a segment of the Trail runs east from Potter Park along the Red Cedar River through the MSU campus in East Lansing. This segment terminates at Hagadorn Road, which is the point of beginning for the current proposed shared use path.

Figure 2. The River Trail

Source: City of Lansing, 2015

Page 2 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

The extension of the River Trail from MSU to Lake Lansing through Meridian Township has been envisioned for a number of years. It was a part of a larger, regional trail known as the Heart-of-Michigan Trail, which was planned as a 23-mile long trail connecting several Ingham and Eaton County communities as shown on Figure 3 below. Regionally, the Heart-of-Michigan Trail would serve as a spine for further trail development connecting Lansing east to East Lansing, Williamston, and Webberville and south to Holt, Mason, and Leslie. This spine includes connections to other regional destinations, one of which includes Lake Lansing.

Figure 3. Heart-of-Michigan Trail

Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2008

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 3

In 2016, the extension of the River Trail from MSU to Lake Lansing through Meridian Township was identified as the top priority for the Ingham County regional trail network. The responses received from this planning effort focus on determining how to allocate funds from the Ingham County Trails and Parks Millage. It offers insights on the public and stakeholder preferences for millage expenditures and new trail development. A tally of the responses relevant to this study is included in the appendix to this report.

Figure 4. Regional Trail Priorities

Source: Ingham County Trails and Parks Comprehensive Report, 2016

Meridian Township has a large amount of existing and proposed trails, side paths, bike lanes and other non-motorized transportation facilities supported in part by a pathway tax millage. The most recent Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway map is shown on Figure 5. It includes:

 About 5.5 miles of existing shared-use paths The Interurban Trail in Meridian Township including the Interurban Trail, a path in Nancy Moore Park and a path connecting residential areas in Section 32;  Approximately 18 miles of proposed shared- use paths including:  A path from MSU to Lake Lansing,  A riverfront trail along the Red Cedar River from Sylva Glen to Meridian Road, and  Paths connecting neighborhoods along utility corridors and other areas;

Page 4 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

 Over 70 miles of existing side paths or widened sidewalks along major roadways as well as over 21 miles of proposed side paths; and  Almost 34 miles of existing paved shoulders and another 37 miles proposed.

Figure 5. Meridian Township Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Map

Source: Meridian Township, 2017 - http://www.meridian.mi.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=3733

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 5

The study area for the MSU to Lake Lansing trail extension also contains a water trail along the Red Cedar River. This trail traverses Meridian Township and connects Williamston’s McCormick Park to the Grand River confluence at Sweeney’s Landing in Lansing, a distance of about 23 miles or a 14-hour paddle, as shown on Figure 6 below. Meridian Township contains approximately three miles of the water trail and three access sites including the MDOT roadside park launch site. Portion of the MSU to Lake Lansing trail extension could provide additional opportunities for water access sites.

Figure 6. Red Cedar River Water Trail

Source: Meridian Township’s website

A dedicated paddling group, Out Your Backdoor LLC, has identified a number of opportunities to improve the Red Cedar River as a water trail by making the river more user-friendly. This group has support from a variety of organizations including the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club, Grand Fish, Power of Water, Friends of the Red Cedar, Middle Grand River Organization of Watersheds, Project FISH, and others. To make the water trail more viable and popular, they envision improving existing access sites and developing several new boat launches either made up of white limestone gravel or, where the river bank is more pronounced, a stepped launch. They have identified several sites for improvements in the Meridian Township including:

 Possible new boat launches at VanAtta Road and Dobie Road,  A new boat launch and access site at the MDOT roadside park located at Grand River Avenue’s intersection with the Red Cedar River, and  Improvement to the boat launch at Ferguson Park.

Page 6 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

P U B L I C O UTREACH

The trail feasibility study included several opportunities for public participation which was accomplished through stakeholder meetings and an online opinion survey. More than 570 people participated in the planning effort. The online questionnaire was designed to solicit respondents’ preferences for the trail route alignment. A tally of the responses gathered is attached in appendix to this report.

A meeting with stakeholders also took place early in the planning process to provide input on any issues and technical advice related to the project. The group included Township staff and representatives of other agencies and organizations including MSU, Ingham County Road Department, the Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance, the MDOT Transportation Service Center, and Consumers Energy.

T R A I L O VERARCHING P RINCIPLE

The desired future for this trail is for a shared use path and the following principle guided the study:

The preferred alternative is a regional trail: a two-way, paved, shared use path separated as much as possible from roadway traffic and conflicts such as driveways. Where this was not possible, however, we offered other trail alternatives for consideration that minimize the level of investment and potential known conflicts and the need for on-road facilities.

Recommendations for potential alignments and facility types considered best practices as well as standards and guidelines included in the Ingham County Regional Trails and Parks Comprehensive Report (2016), the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 2012), and the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO, 2010).

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 7

Page 8 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

E X I S T I N G C ONDITIONS

This section describes the existing conditions found along the proposed trail extension. It also details the trail alignment alternatives examined. As mentioned, the River Trail currently ends at the intersection of Hagadorn Road and Shaw Lane. Three phases have been devised for the implementation of the trail extension, which consist of a total of approximately 5.5 miles. They include:

 Phase 1: Hagadorn Road/Shaw Lane to Park Lake Road/Grand River Avenue,  Phase 2: Park Lane/Grand River to Marsh Road/CN Railroad, and  Phase 3: Marsh Road/CN Railroad to Green Road/CN Railroad.

E NVIRONMENTAL C ONSIDERATIONS

Identifying the environmental resources in proximity to the trail extension project area is an important step of the planning process. Knowing the location of particular resources will also facilitate the permitting process required by regulatory agencies for project construction. The project is adjacent to areas of forested wetland and MDEQ permits will likely be necessary.

There are two waterways that intersect the trail extension: the Red Cedar River and the Pine Lake Outlet, an outflow of Lake Lansing originally known as Pine Lake. They are part of the Red Cedar River watershed which includes a total of approximately 461 square miles and which itself is part of the Upper Grand River watershed. The Red Cedar River originates in Livingston County, flows north and then west for approximately 51 miles until it enters the Grand River in Lansing. The locations where the trail meets water and wetland resources present scenic view points and educational opportunities. In addition to being valuable places of interest for trail users, special attention must be taken to protect these resources during trail construction and operation. The lakes, rivers and drains, along with their associated wetlands, are valuable ecosystems for fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection and water quality.

The Mannik & Smith Group (MSG) conducted a site visit on June 29 through 30, 2017 to perform a wetland delineation for selected corridors along the Red Cedar within Phase 1 and six wetlands (Wetlands A through F) were identified as shown on Figure 7. MSG did not delineate wetland areas outside of those corridors, but entire wetland boundaries were approximated when determining which wetlands would be subject to protection under the State of Michigan’s Goemere-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act (Part 303 – Wetlands Protection, Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act 1994, Public Act 451, as amended). All the following wetland areas would be regulated in the State Michigan because they are located within 500 feet of the Red Cedar River.

 Wetland A is 0.517 acre total with 0.308 acre present within the selected corridors. Dominant plant species consist of hydrophytic vegetation such as black willow (Salix nigra), sandbar willow (Salix interior), duckweed (Lemna minor), and willow aster (Symphyotrichum praealtum).

 Wetland B is 1.487 acres of delineated wetland that appeared to continue to the northwest and southeast off the site. Of the 1.487 acres delineated, there is 0.34 acre present within the selected corridors. Dominant plant species consist of hydrophytic vegetation such as silver maple (Acer saccharinum), spice bush (Lindera benzoin), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and skunk cabbage (Symphocarpus foetidus).

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 9

Figure 7. Phase 1 Wetland Delineation

 Wetland C is 0.309 acre total with 0.121 acre present within the selected corridors. Dominant plant species consist of hydrophytic vegetation such as northern hawthorn (Crataegus dissona), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).

 Wetland D is 1.473 acres total with 0.19 acre present within the selected corridors. Dominant plant species consist of hydrophytic vegetation such as silver maple (Acer saccharinum), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).

 Wetland E is 0.282 acre total with 0.138 acre present within the selected corridors. Dominant plant species consist of hydrophytic vegetation such as silver maple (Acer saccharinum), boxelder (Acer negundo), and creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia).

 Wetland F is 0.081 acre total with 0.016 acre present within the selected corridors. Dominant plant species consist of hydrophytic vegetation such as bald spikerush (Eleocharis erythropoda).

Page 10 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Endangered Species The river is a thriving ecosystem and supports a variety of macroinvertebrate fish species. Over 30 types of fish have been found in the river, including bluegill, green sunfish, northern pike, largemouth bass and smallmouth bass. In 2013, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources stocked the Red Cedar with steelhead trout. Rare freshwater mussels have also been found in the Red Cedar as described in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

As with most urban rivers, water quality problems exist. Pressures on the Red Cedar River include agricultural land use (upstream, in the headwaters and middle of the watershed) and urban development (downstream). High levels of E. coli bacteria have been found in the Red Cedar and multiple tributaries, which are used to indicate the presence of pathogens that make waters unsafe for wading or swimming. Other portions of the watershed have degraded fish and macroinvertebrate habitat caused by excessive sediment and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is necessary for aquatic organisms to breathe underwater as low levels will not support aquatic life. A watershed management plan was developed to address these issues and other potential pollutants in the watershed. The plan was approved by the U.S. EPA in 2015.

The Site was surveyed for state-threatened and endangered species with records within 1.5 miles of the Site identified by the Michigan’s Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) Environmental Services Section in a preliminary environmental screening. The species identified by MDOT include the ellipse (Venustaconcha ellipsiformis, species of special concern), elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata, species of special concern), Barrens buckmoth (Hemileuca maia, species of special concern), goldenseal (Hydrastis Canadensis, state-threatened), red mulberry (Morus rubra, state-threatened), green violet (Hybanthus concolor, species of special concern), and ginseng (Panax quinquefolius, state-threatened). Since all state and federally threatened and endangered plants and animals are protected in the State of Michigan under the Endangered Species Act of the State of Michigan (Part 365 of PA 451, 1994 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act), MSG recommends a trained biologist survey the terrestrial portion of the corridor where disturbance is proposed. This should be accomplished during the growing season to accurately determine if any species are present. If listed species are identified, coordination with MDNR-MNFI will occur and species can then be re-located outside of the corridor prior to disturbance.

Suitable habitat for the ellipse, elktoe, Barrens buckmoth, goldenseal, red mulberry, green violet, and ginseng was present throughout the Site, but no specimens were observed. Note that only a qualitative visual survey for mussels was conducted. Since known populations of state-listed mussels are found within the Red Cedar River, it is considered a Group II Stream that requires surveyors to hold a Threatened and Endangered Species Permit from the Michigan Division of Natural Resources’ (MDNR) Endangered Species Program to conduct a presence/absence survey. MSG recommends a mussel survey if work is intended to be done below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Red Cedar River.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 11

T R A I L A L I G N M E N T A LTERNATIVES Phase 1 – Hagadorn Road to Park Lake Road The first phase of this project focuses on the connection from Hagadorn Road at Shaw Lane to the intersection of Park Lake Road and Grand River Avenue. Four trail alignment options with a couple of variations have been identified for this segment and are shown on Figure 8.

Figure 8. Phase 1

Page 12 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

View of Hagadorn Road Phase 1 Route 1 consists of a side path that would follow Hagadorn Road north along the east side, and Grand River Avenue west along the south side to Park Lake Road. It would involve the widening of existing sidewalks along both those roadways and be mostly within the road rights-of-way.

This route includes the crossing of six road crossings (Hagadorn Road at Shaw Lane, Northwind Drive twice at Grand River Avenue, Dawn Avenue at Grand River Avenue, and Park Lake Road at Grand River Avenue) as well as 21 driveways. It would also involve the View of Grand River Avenue construction of a separate pedestrian bridge over the Red Cedar River along the east side of Hagadorn Road because the existing one does not meet AASHTO guidelines for bridge width and clearance. It is estimated that only three easements would be necessary, assuming the pathway width expansion can be mostly accommodated in the road rights-of-way.

Phase 1 Route 3 consists of an off-the-road path that would follow the north side of the Red Cedar River and the north View of Red Cedar River side of the CN railroad tracks.

This route option would necessitate obtaining an estimated 14 easements from property owners along the way for its construction. The route would include the beginning and ending crossings of Hagadorn Road, Grand River Avenue, and Park Lake Road with no driveway or other road crossings. It would also involve the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Red Cedar River and the need for boardwalks along the way. Wetland and floodplain would largely be avoided but not entirely and necessitate permits. This route alignment would provide a much more direct access to MSU from the residential areas located south of Grand River. Conversely, access would be gained from MSU

to the many businesses located in this area.

A variation for this Option, labeled Route 2 on Figure 8, would connect to an on-street and side path route by following Northwind Drive along the north and east sides, and Grand River Avenue along the south side.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 13

This would reduce the need for estimated easements to seven as well as some of the impact on the environment. However, it would result in the crossing of 11 driveways and one additional road crossing (Dawn Avenue at Grand River Avenue) and also would not be as scenic, providing for fewer views of the Red Cedar River.

Phase 1 Route 4 consists of a combination View of River Terrace Drive side path and off-the-road path that would follow Hagadorn Road south along the east side, River Terrace Drive along the north side, and then cross the Red Cedar River along the north side of the CN railroad tracks. It would involve the widening of existing sidewalks along Hagadorn Road, the construction of a side path along River Terrace Drive, and construction of an off-the-road path along the north side of the CN railroad tracks.

The pathway would necessitate obtaining an estimated 21 easements, including along the north side of River Terrace Drive due to narrow right of way along that residential route. This is assuming the remaining portions of the path can be built within the road right-of-way. The route would include the beginning and ending crossings of Hagadorn Road, Grand River Avenue, and Park Lake Road with 24 driveway crossings. It would also involve the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Red Cedar River and the need for boardwalks along the way. Wetland and floodplain would largely be avoided but not entirely and necessitate permits.

Phase 1 Route 5 consists of a combination View of South of Railroad Tracks side path and off-the-road path that would follow Hagadorn Road south along the east side, the south side of the CN railroad tracks, crossing the Red Cedar to the south of the railroad, and Small Acres Lane to Grand River Avenue. It would involve the widening of the existing sidewalk along Hagadorn Road, the construction of a pathway along the remainder of the route, and the widening of the side path along Grand River Avenue.

This route would necessitate obtaining approximately 15 easements. It would include the crossing of Hagadorn Road and a mid- block crossing at Grand River Avenue, as well as the crossing of about 10 driveways along the way. It would also involve the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Red Cedar River and the need for boardwalks. Wetland and floodplain would largely be avoided but not entirely and necessitate permits. The existing topography is more challenging than for other route alignments, particularly as the path reaches the River and crosses the low-lying area between the railroad tracks and the River.

A variation on this route, Route 6, would consist of following the north side of Hannah Boulevard rather than the railroad tracks and circle back to Route 5 trail alignment by following the east side of an open

Page 14 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

drain. This would result in the crossing of additional driveways for a total of 21, and would potentially require additional easements along this crowded commercial and multi-family residential corridor.

Table 1. Phase 1 Summary of Existing Conditions Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Hagadorn + Red Cedar River Red Cedar River Hagadorn + Hagadorn + Hagadorn + PHASE 1 Grand River + Northwind Dr Route River Terrace Dr Railroad + Red Hannah Blvd + Route Route Route Cedar River Red Cedar River Route Route Potential Type of Side Path Off-the-road Off-the-road Side Path + Side Path + Side Path + Facilities Shared Use Shared Use Shared Use Shared Use Shared Use Pathway + Side Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Path Traffic Volume High Medium None Low Very Low Low Road Crossings 5: 3: 2: 2: 3: 3: Hagadorn at Hagadorn at Hagadorn at Hagadorn at Hagadorn at Hagadorn at Shaw + Shaw + Shaw + Shaw + Shaw + Shaw + Northwind Dr two Dawn Ave at Grand River at Grand River at Hagadorn at Hagadorn at times at Grand Grand River + Park Lake Park Lake River Terrace + River Terrace + River + Grand River at Grand River at Grand River at Dawn Ave at Park Lake Small Acres Ln Small Acres Ln Grand River + (unsignalized) (unsignalized) Grand River at Park Lake Driveway 2 on Hagadorn + 4 on Northwind Dr None 8 on Hagadorn + 10 on Hagadorn 12 on Hagadorn + Crossings 19 on Grand + 7 on Grand 16 on River 9 on Hannah Blvd River River Terrace Dr

Bridge Existing- Over Over Cedar River Over Cedar River Over Cedar River Over Cedar River Over Cedar River Crossings Cedar River to be widened Railroad None None None None 1 1 Crossings Possible Need 3 - assuming 7 - assuming 14 21 - assuming 15 16 - assuming for Easements widening remains remainder within remainder within widening remains within ROW ROW ROW within ROW Tree Removal + Very little Some Impact Some Impact Some Impact Some Impact Some Impact Environmental anticipated Impact Boardwalks yes yes yes yes yes yes

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 15

Phase 2 – Park Lake Road to Marsh Road The second phase of this project focuses on the connection from Park Lake Road at Grand River Avenue to Marsh Road at the intersection with Haslett Road. This segment presents three options with one variation which are illustrated on Figure 9.

Figure 9. Phase 2

Phase 2 Route 1 consists of a side path that View of Park Lake Road would follow Park Lake Road north along the east side and Burcham Drive west along the north side and connect to the existing Interurban Trail. This route would involve the widening of the existing sidewalk and the building of side paths along both those roadways and be mostly within the road rights- of-way. A pedestrian-activated signal would be installed at the Okemos Road crossing.

Page 16 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Easement needs are expected along 12 properties with potential for additional easements depending on available right-of-way along this congested residential collector street. This alignment would include the crossing of two road intersections (Heather Circle and Burcham Drive), as well as at least 45 driveways.

Phase 2 Route 2 consists of a combination off- View from Okemos Road Looking Southeast of Railroad Tracks the-road and side path that would follow an easement north of Grand River Avenue along the north side of the CN railroad tracks on the adjacent property, Okemos Road north along the west side, and connect to the existing Interurban Trail. This route would involve the construction of a path, the widening of a side path, and a pedestrian-activated signal at Okemos Road. This option would require construction of an ADA access route from the north side of Grand River, down to the existing grade north of the CN Railroad crossing, we have estimated approximately 1000 square feet of retaining wall and some additional work to create this connection.

Easement needs are expected for 13 properties. The route would include the crossing of two road intersections (Banyon Trail and Quarry Road) and five driveways along Okemos Road. This route would not directly connect to Nancy Moore Park without an additional crossing of Okemos Road or additional widened side path on the east side of Okemos Road.

Phase 2 Route 4 consists of a combination side View of Nancy Moore Park Existing Pathway path and off-the-road path that would follow the north side of Grand River Avenue, south of the CN railroad, through the Township Services Center and Nancy Moore Park, and connect to the existing Interurban Trail. This route would involve the widening of a side path, construction of a path, and the installation of a pedestrian- activated signal at Okemos Road.

Easement needs are expected for three properties. The route would include the crossing of one roadway (Okemos Road) and the railroad tracks at an un-signalized crossing. This type of crossing has been allowed on other trail projects recently such as the Lakelands Trail south of Zukey Lake in Hamburg Township.

It should also be noted that this route utilizes a significant amount of existing 10’ to 12’ wide pathway within Nancy Moore Park, reducing the estimated overall cost for this alternative.

A variation on this route, Route 3, would consist of following Okemos Road north along the west side rather than the going through the Township property to connect to the Interurban Trail. This would avoid crossing the railroad tracks at an un-signalized intersection; however, it would result in the crossing of

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 17

additional roadways for a total of two roadways (Banyon Trail and Quarry Road) and five driveways, in addition to not providing a connection to Nancy Moore Park without the addition of another crossing of Okemos Road or additional side path on the east side of Okemos Road.

Table 2. Phase 2 Summary of Existing Conditions Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Park Lake + Grand River + North Grand River + South Grand River + South PHASE 2 Burcham + Interurban Side Railroad + Okemos Side Railroad + Okemos Side Railroad + Trail Route + Interurban Trail Route + Interurban Trail Route Interurban Trail Route Potential Type of Side Path + Side Path + Off-the-road Shared Use Side Path + Facilities Off-the-Road Existing Off-the-road Shared Use Pathway + Off-the-Road Shared Use Shared Use Pathway Pathway + On-Street Bike lanes or Pathway Side Path + Side Path Off-the-Road Existing Shared Use Pathway Traffic Volume Medium Low Low None Road Crossings (New) 2: 2: 2: 1: Heather Cir at Park Lake+ Banyon Trail + Banyon Trail + Okemos (unsignalized) Burcham at Park Lake Quarry Rd Quarry Rd Driveway Crossings 44 on Park Lake 4 on Okemos Rd 4 on Okemos Rd 1 on Marsh Rd 1 on Marsh Rd 1 on Marsh Rd 1 on Marsh Rd Bridge Crossings None None None None Railroad Crossings None None 1 1 Possible Need for 12 - assuming widening 13 - assuming widening 13 - assuming widening 3 - assuming widening Easements remains within ROW remains within ROW remains within ROW remains within ROW Tree Removal + Some Impact Some Impact Some Impact Some Impact Environmental Impact Boardwalks no yes yes yes

Page 18 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Phase 3 – Marsh Road to Lake Lansing The third phase of this trail extension project focuses on the connection from Marsh Road to County Park trails at Lake Lansing Park North and terminates at Green Road, the Township’s eastern limits. Three route alignment options were considered as shown on Figure 10.

Figure 10. Phase 3

Phase 3 Route 1 consists of a combination side path View of Lake Drive and off-the-road path that would follow Marsh Road along the west side, Lake Drive along the south side to a point north of the Township Recycling Facility, then meandering on Meridian Township and Ingham County properties in a northeast direction to Green Road. This route would involve the widening of a sidewalk on Marsh Road, the construction of a side path, the construction of a path, and a pedestrian- activated signal on Marsh Road at Lake Drive.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 19

The need to obtain easements is expected for at least 4 properties, assuming the side paths can be built within the road rights-of-way. The route would include the crossing of six intersections (Haslett Road, Marsh Road, Edson Street, Potter Street, Saw Street, and Carlton Street), and 12 driveways along Marsh Road and Lake Drive.

View of the Interurban Trail Potential Future Phase 3 Route 2 consists of an off-the-road path from the Connection to Option 2 Interurban Trail north along the north side of the CN railroad tracks to Green Road, essentially being an extension of the Interurban Trail. This route would involve the construction of a path on a property which largely follows Consumers Energy property. This would necessitate construction of the pathway between the column line and the slope paving adjacent to the railroad under Marsh Road.

Potential Concept Design for Path under Marsh Road

The need to obtain easements is expected for at least 10 properties. The route would include the crossing of two roadway intersections (Haslett Road at the railroad tracks and Carlton Street), and one driveway crossing. The crossing of Haslett Road would require either pedestrian activated flashing beacon.

Phase 3 Route 3 consists of side paths that View of Haslett Road would follow Marsh Road north along the west side, Haslett Road east along the north side, and Green Road north along the west side. This route would involve the widening of sidewalks, the construction and/or widening of side paths, on-street bicycle accomodations in Haslett, and a railroad crossing improvement.

The need to obtain easements is expected for over 40 properties. The route would include the crossing of 14 roadway intersections (Haslett Road, Marsh Road, Edson Street, Potter Street, Shaw Street, Carlton Street, Ridgeway Drive, Pine Ridge Drive, Academic Way, River Knoll

Page 20 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Drive, Buttonwood Drive, Maple Hill Drive, and Oakdale Drive), approximately 88 driveways, and two railroad crossings within the road right-of-way.

Table 3. Phase 3 Summary of Existing Conditions Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 PHASE 3 Marsh + Lake North Side of Railroad Marsh + Haslett + Green Potential Type of Facilities Side Path + Off-the-road Shared Use Side Path + On-Street Off-the-Road Shared Use Pathway Bicycle Accommodations Pathway Traffic Volume Medium None Medium Road Crossings 6: 2: 14: Haslett at Marsh + Haslett at Railroad Crossing Haslett at Marsh + Marsh at Lake Dr + + Marsh at Haslett + Edson St at Lake Dr + Carlton St at Lake Dr Edson St at Haslett + Potter St at Lake Dr + Potter St at Haslett + Shaw St at Lake Dr + Shaw St at Haslett + Carlton St at Lake Dr Carlton St at Haslett + Ridgeway Dr at Haslett + Pine Ridge Dr at Haslett + Academic Way at Haslett+ Woodside Dr at Haslett + River Knoll Dr at Green + Buttonwood Dr at Green + Maple Hill Dr at Green + Oakdale Dr at Green

Driveway Crossings 1 on Marsh + 1 on Haslett 53 on Haslett 11 on Lake Dr 35 on Green Bridge Crossings None None 2 Railroad Crossings None None 2: on Haslett (existing) + on Green (existing) Possible Need for 13 - assuming widening 10 >40 - assuming widening Easements remains within ROW remains within ROW Tree Removal + Some Impact Some Impact Some Impact Environmental Impact Boardwalks yes yes no

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 21

Page 22 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

R OUTE E VALUATION

To determine the recommended alignment, costs for each trail option were developed and a decision matrix was developed using evaluation criteria.

E STIMATE OF C ONSTRUCTION A N D E A S E M E N T C OSTS

Based on the existing conditions, costs were estimated for each alternative route. The estimated construction costs by phase and route options are listed in Tables 4 through 6. These costs include the material and installation costs. In addition, for comparative purposes, costs were estimated separately for the purchase of permanent easements. The costs for easements was separated into acquisition costs (by each easement) and area cost (estimated square feet for each type of easement) to account for both the fixed costs related to negotiating an easement and the variable cost associated with the size of each easement.

Construction costs were estimated based on a linear foot price for each type of trail or boardwalk, and area cost based on an estimated disturbed width during construction and lump sum estimated costs for large unique items (signalized crossings, bridges, etc.). In addition, costs associated with the complexity of a route were estimated based on looking at the number of roadway and driveway crossings.

The costs are not meant to be true Engineering Estimates for construction, due to the minimal design information and many variables that are as of yet unknown. Instead, these costs are to be used more for comparison between the various alternatives. Once an alternative is chosen, a more extensive analysis and design can be completed in order to determine more accurate costs for budgeting and funding purposes.

The cost for design and construction engineering is typically between 20 and 30% of the construction costs with variation being attributed to the complexity of the design and extent of required permitting.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 23

Page 24 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Table 4. Phase 1 Costs PHASE 1 UNIT UNIT COST ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 ROUTE 4 ROUTE 5 ROUTE 6 Grand River Ave. Red Cedar + Northwind Dr Red Cedar River River Terrace Dr S. of Railroad Hannah Blvd + S. Railroad Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Cost

Length of concrete path to be widened (by 2') LF $50 2,365 $118,250

Length of concrete path to be widened (by 3') LF $70 2,305 $161,350 1,700 $119,000 1,070 $74,900 1,690 $118,300 2,330 $163,100 Length of concrete path to be widened (by 5') LF $100 200 $20,000 790 $79,000 2,640 $264,000

Length of Asphalt paved trail (10' wide) LF $100 2,890 $289,000 3,970 $397,000 4,385 $438,500 4,710 $471,000 2,890 $289,000

Length of Boardwalk (14' wide) LF $1,000 480 $144,000 1,200 $1,200,000 200 $200,000 1,260 $1,260,000 1,260 $1,260,000

Bridge and Abutment Widening SF $500 900 $450,000

Bridge + Abutment SF $340 3,520 $1,196,800 3,520 $1,196,800 3,520 $1,196,800 2,400 $816,000 2,400 $816,000

Retaining Wall SF $150 1000 $150,000 1,000 $150,000 1,000 $150,000 2,000 $300,000 2,000 $300,000

Grading and Site Preparation SF $2 27,255 $54,510 59,870 $119,740 59,550 $119,100 75,195 $144,390 80,790 $161,580 78,450 $156,900

Driveway Crossing EA $10,000 21 $210,000 11 $110,000 8 $80,000 10 $100,000 21 $210,000 Roadway Crossing (minimal traffic control required) EA $20,000 3 $60,000 1 $20,000 1 $20,000 1 $20,000

Roadway Crossing (signalized traffic control required) EA $200,000 1 $200,000 1 $200,000

Roadway Crossing (modify existing at Hagadorn/Shaw Ln) EA $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 Roadway Crossing (modify existing at Grand River/Park Lake) EA $60,000 1 $60,000 1 $60,000 1 $60,000 1 $60,000

Railroad Crossing EA $20,000 1 $20,000 1 $20,000

Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs $1,359,110 $2,698,540 $3,197,900 $2,269,590 $3,521,880 $3,754,000

Permanent Easements (Acquisition Cost) EA $10,000 3 $30,000 7 $70,000 14 $140,000 21 $210,000 15 $150,000 16 $160,000 Permanent Easements - Front Yard (Area cost) SFT $10 9,000 $90,000 4,500 $45,000 39,450 $394,500

Permanent Easements - Rear Yard (Area Cost) SFT $5 31,500 $157,500 71,250 $356,250 23,250 $116,250 72,750 $363,750 44,250 $221,250

Permanent Easements - Commercial (Area cost) SFT $15 2,625 $39,375 950 $14,250 3,750 $56,250 3,750 $56,250 5,070 $76,050 15,933 $238,995

Subtotal Estimated Easement Costs $69,375 $331,750 $597,500 $777,000 $589,800 $620,245

Contingencies (10%Construction) $135,911 $269,854 $319,790 $226,959 $352,188 $375,400

Total Estimated Cost $1,564,396 $ 3,300,144 $4,115,190 $3,273,549 $4,463,868 $4,749,645

1: Total construction costs include x% contingencies.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 25

Table 5. Phase 2 Costs PHASE 2 UNIT UNIT COST ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 ROUTE 4 Park Lake North of RR South of RR + Okemos Rd South of RR + Okemos Rd Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Qty. Cost Cost Qty. Cost

Length of concrete path to be widened (by 2') LF $50 460 $23,000 Length of concrete path to be widened (by 3') LF $70 1,495 $104,650 650 $45,500 650 $45,500 Length of asphalt path to be widened (by 4') LF $50 360 $18,000 Length of concrete path to be widened (by 5') LF $100 2,150 $215,000 Length of Asphalt paved trail (10' wide) LF $100 6,000 $600,000 5,200 $520,000 8,600 $860,000 7,270 $727,000 Length of Boardwalk (14' wide) LF $1,000 3,000 $3,000,000 200 $200,000 200 $200,000

ADA Access down from G.R. LSUM $20,000 1 $20,000 Retaining Wall SF $150 1,000 $150,000 Grading and Site Preparation SF $2 98,970 $197,940 81,900 $163,800 150,100 $300,200 113,870 $227,740 Roundabout Modifications at Park Lake & Burcham LSUM $20,000 1 $20,000

Driveway Crossing EA $10,000 45 $450,000 5 $50,000 5 $50,000 1 $10,000 Roadway Crossing (Minimal traffic control required) EA $20,000 2 $40,000 2 $40,000 2 $40,000 Railroad Crossing EA $20,000 1 $20,000 1 $50,000

Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs $1,412,590 $3,989,300 $1,710,700 $1,205,740

Permanent Easements (Acquisition Cost) EA $10,000 12 $120,000 13 $130,000 13 $130,000 3 $30,000 Permanent Easements - Front Yard (Area cost) SFT $10 17,500 $175,000 21,900 $219,000 21,900 $219,000 Permanent Easements - Rear Yard (Area Cost) SFT $5 35,700 $178,500 40,700 $203,500 30,700 $153,500

Subtotal Estimated Easement Costs $295,000 $527,500 $552,500 $183,500

Contingencies (10%Construction) $141,259 $398,930 $171,070 $120,574 Total Estimated Cost $1,848,849 $4,915,730 $2,434,270 $1,509,814

Page 26 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Table 6. Phase 3 Costs PHASE 3 UNIT UNIT COST ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 Park Lake North of RR South of RR + Okemos Rd

Cost Qty. Cost Qty. Qty. Cost Cost

Length of concrete path to be widened (by 2') LF $50 Length of concrete path to be widened (by 3') LF $70 740 $51,800 120 $8,400 8,100 $567,000 Length of concrete path to be widened (by 5') LF $100 Length of Asphalt paved trail (10' wide) LF $100 6,220 $622,000 8,190 $819,000 5,750 $575,000 Length of Boardwalk (14' wide) LF $1,000 7,513 $7,513,000 5,380 $5,380,000

Retaining Wall SF $150 960 $144,000 Grading and Site Preparation SF $2 97,740 $195,480 123,570 $247,140 134,850 $269,700

Driveway Crossing EA $10,000 12 $120,000 1 $10,000 88 $880,000 Roadway Crossing (Minimal traffic control required) EA $20,000 4 $80,000 1 $20,000 11 $220,000 Roadway Crossing (Signalized traffic control required at Marsh/Lake) $200,000 1 $200,000 Roadway Crossing (Modify existing at Haslett and Marsh) EA $20,000 1 $20,000 2 $40,000 Roadway Crossing (Modify existing at Haslett/Railroad Crossing) EA $60,000 1 $60,000 Railroad Crossing EA $20,000 2 $40,000

Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs $8,802,280 $6,688,540 $2,571,700

Permanent Easements (Acquisition Cost) EA $10,000 13 $130,000 4 $40,000 43 $430,000 Permanent Easements - Front Yard (Area cost) SFT $10 6,000 $60,000 81,000 $810,000 Permanent Easements - Rear Yard (Area Cost) SFT $5 10,000 $50,000 10,000 $50,000 Permanent Easements - Commercial (Area cost) SFT $15 6,000 $90,000 5,000 $75,000 4,000 $60,000

Subtotal Estimated Easement Costs $330,000 $90,000 $1,240,000

Contingencies (10%Construction) $880,228 $668,854 $257,170 Total Estimated Cost $10,012,508 $7,447,394 $4,068,870

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 27

Page 28 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

C RITERIA FOR P R O J E C T E VALUATION

A literature review of trail plans was conducted to gain an understanding of the evaluation criteria considered when prioritizing trail projects. The plans examined varied from statewide plans, to regional or countywide plans and to city and village plans (1). While the scale to the trail systems was varied, these plans reveal similar considerations in determining which trail projects may be more valuable than others.

The considerations can be organized under four fundamental conditions:

1. Connectivity and access: does this trail route promote connectivity? 2. Support: is the trail route based on public demand and does it have support? 3. Design: is the trail route presenting a high-quality experience? 4. Constructability: what is the trail route’s ease of implementation?

Using these five fundamental conditions, specific evaluation criteria were developed and decision matrix prepared to evaluate each trail route alignment and determine the top route alternative.

1. Connectivity and Access: Trails that improve connectivity and access throughout the region and the community should be given a high priority. To determine whether a trail route alignment improves connectivity or access, the trail should:

 Improve local community trail connectivity/gap closure;  Expand transportation options as well as provide for recreation;  Improve access to important destinations including parks, schools, places of employment, and neighborhoods; and  Create access to sites of natural, scenic or historic interest (including water access).

2. Support: Trails that responds to public demand and have significant support should be scored and ranked positively. To determine whether a trail route alignment has support, it should:

 Serve a high population number and located in a high density population area;  Be based on public demand;  Have stakeholder support; and  Have been prioritized in an adopted plan.

Note 1: Plans consulted included: State Plans: Update & Prioritization of the Recreation Trail Opportunity Maps, FL; Regional Plans: Southwest LRT Regional Trail, MN; County Plans: Chisago County Parks and Trails, MN; Fairfax County Trail Development Strategy Plan, VA; Howard County Prioritization & Screening the Bikeway Network, MI; Linn County Trails, IA; Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan, CA; Marine County Road and Trail Management Plan, CA; Lancaster County Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, NE; Orange County Trails Master Plan, FL; Cook County Trail Master Plan, IL; Lake County Trails Master Plan, FL; Pierce County Regional Trails Plan, WA; Local Plans: City of Aberdeen Recreation Trails Master Plan, MD; City of Chapel Hill Greenway Master Plan, NC; City of Eugene Trail Plan, OR; City of Philadelphia Trail Plan, PA; City of Clearwater Master Plan, FL; City Wide Trail Plan Orlando, FL; Village of Corrales, NM.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 29

3. Design: Trails should be able to meet or exceed design standards. To determine whether a trail route alignment meets minimum design standards and is the best option, it should:

 Be physically separated as much as possible from streets and roadways;  Provide a variety of experiences for a diversity of users, including people of all ages and abilities;  Present value because of nearby ecological and/or scenic features; and  Present the potential to become a catalyst for economic development.

4. Constructability: Trails that are ready to be constructed and/or implemented should receive high priority. To determine whether a trail project is ready and feasible, the project should:

 Traverse land in public ownership or in public right-pf-way (limit the need for obtaining easements);  Demonstrate ease of construction engineering (with fewer bridges, boardwalks, and retaining walls);  Minimize drive/road/railway crossings; and  Be less expensive.

The criteria were used to evaluate, compare, and weigh each route alignment. The route options were scored and ranked comparatively within each phase from 0 to 6 depending on the phase or criteria where 0 is the least desirable score and the highest number, the most positive score. The trail alignment final scores are based on a tally of all the scores, with possible additional points from other considerations. Tables 7 through 9 summarizes the overall ranking and score of each alternative based on all the criteria considered

Page 30 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Table 7. Phase 1 Evaluation Matrix PHASE 1 ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 ROUTE 4 ROUTE 5 ROUTE 6 Grand Red Cedar Red Cedar River S. of Hannah River Ave. + River Terrace Dr Railroad Blvd + S.

Northwind Railroad Dr Connectivity and Access

Improves local community trail connectivity/gap closure 1 2 2 2 2 2 Expands transportation options as well as provides for recreation (currently lacks bicycle/pedestrian 1 4 4 2 3 3 accommodations) Connects important destinations including parks, 1 4 4 2 3 3 schools, places of employment, neighborhoods Creates access to sites of natural or scenic interest 1 4 4 2 3 3 (including water access)

Support

Serves a high population number (located in a high 1 3 3 2 4 4 density population area) Is based on public demand 1 3 6 5 4 2 Has stakeholder support 1 4 4 2 3 3 Has been prioritized in an adopted plan 1 3 3 2 3 3

Design

Is physically separated from streets and roadways 0 2 3 1 3 1 Provides a variety of experiences for a diversity of users 0 1 1 1 1 1 Presents value because of nearby ecological and scenic 1 3 4 2 3 3 features May become a catalyst for economic development 1 4 4 2 3 3

Constructability

Traverses land in public ownership and public right-of- 1 0 0 0 0 0 way (limits need for private easements) Demonstrates ease of construction engineering (fewer 6 4 5 3 1 2 bridges, boardwalks, and retaining walls) Minimizes drive/road/railway crossings 1 5 6 2 4 3 Lessens cost (lowest cost receives 6 pts, highest cost 6 5 3 4 2 1 receives 1pt)

Total 24 51 56 34 42 37

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 31

Table 8. Phase 2 Evaluation Matrix PHASE 2 ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 ROUTE 4 South of South of North of RR + RR + Park Lake RR Okemos Okemos Rd Rd Connectivity and Access

Improves local community trail connectivity/gap closure 2 2 2 1

Expands transportation options as well as provides for recreation 1 2 2 3 (currently lacks bicycle/pedestrian accommodations) Connects important destinations including parks, schools, places 2 1 1 2 of employment, neighborhoods Creates access to sites of natural or scenic interest (including 1 2 3 3 water access)

Support Serves a high population number (located in a high density 3 1 1 2 population area) Has public support 1 2 3 4 Has stakeholder support 1 2 3 4 Has been prioritized in an adopted plan 1 2 3 4

Design Is physically separated from streets and roadways 0 1 1 2 Provides a variety of experiences for a diversity of users 0 1 1 1 Presents value because of nearby ecological and scenic features 1 2 3 4 May become a catalyst for economic development 1 2 3 4

Constructability Traverses land in public ownership and public right-of-way (limits 1 2 3 4 need for private easements) Demonstrates ease of construction engineering (fewer bridges, 4 3 2 1 boardwalks, and retaining walls) Minimizes drive/road/railway crossings 1 3 2 4 Lessens cost (lowest cost receives 4 pts, highest cost receives 3 1 2 4 1pt)

Total 23 29 35 47

Page 32 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Table 9. Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix PHASE 3 ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 South of RR + Park Lake North of RR Okemos Rd Connectivity and Access

Improves local community trail connectivity/gap closure 2 2 1

Expands transportation options as well as provides for recreation 2 1 2 (currently lacks bicycle/pedestrian accommodations) Connects important destinations including parks, schools, places 2 2 1 of employment, neighborhoods Creates access to sites of natural or scenic interest (including 2 2 1 water access)

Support Serves a high population number (located in a high density 2 1 3 population area) Has public support 2 3 1 Has stakeholder support 2 3 1 Has been prioritized in an adopted plan 2 3 1

Design Is physically separated from streets and roadways 1 2 0 Provides a variety of experiences for a diversity of users 1 1 0 Presents value because of nearby ecological and scenic features 2 2 1 May become a catalyst for economic development 1 1 1

Constructability Traverses land in public ownership and public right-of-way (limits 2 3 1 need for private easements) Demonstrates ease of construction engineering (fewer bridges, 2 1 1 boardwalks, and retaining walls) Minimizes drive/road/railway crossings 2 3 1 Lessens cost (lowest cost receives 3 pts, highest cost receives 1 3 2 1pt)

Total 28 33 18

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 33

Page 34 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

P R E F E R R E D T R A I L A LIGNMENT

Based on the route evaluation results, the top routes are as follows:

 Phase 1: Route 3, Red Cedar River route;  Phase 2: Route 4, South of Railroad;  Phase 3: Route 2, North of Railroad;

T O P T R A I L R OUTES

The Red Cedar River route for Phase 1 ranked exceptionally well on connectivity and access, support, and trail design. This trail route would improve local and regional connectivity, link important destinations, and create access to sites of natural and scenic interest in addition to providing opportunities for river access. It would serve a high density population area, and has public, stakeholder, and community support. The route would be physically separated from streets and roadways, provides a variety of experiences for a diversity of users, and presents value with the nearby ecological and scenic features and as a catalyst for potential economic development. While not the lowest in cost, it is the highest in terms of constructability. It scored high for limiting the need for private easements, ease of construction engineering, and minimizing driveway, road, or railway crossings.

The route following the south side of the railroad tracks for Phase 2 ranked well on connectivity and access, support, and trail design. This trail route would improve local and regional connectivity, expands transportation options, provides for recreation, links important destinations such as the Township Central Park, and creates access to sites of natural and scenic interest following the Pine Lake Outlet and associated wetlands and nature preservation areas. It has public, stakeholder, and community support. The route would be physically separated from streets and roadways, provides a variety of experiences for a diversity of users, and presents value with the nearby ecological and scenic features and as a catalyst for potential economic development. While not the lowest in cost, it scored well in terms of constructability, specifically for limiting the need for private easements and minimizing driveway, road, or railway crossings.

The route following the north side of the railroad for Phase 3 ranked well on connectivity and access, support, and trail design. This trail route would improve local and regional connectivity, expands transportation options, provides for recreation, links important destinations such as Lake Lansing County Park and Township properties, and create access to sites of natural and scenic interest. It has public, stakeholder, and community support. The route would be physically separated from streets and roadways, provides a variety of experiences for a diversity of users, and presents value with the nearby ecological and scenic features and as a catalyst for potential economic development. It is the highest in terms of constructability. It scored high for limiting the need for private easements, ease of construction engineering, minimizing driveway, road, or railway crossings, and lessening costs.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 35

I MPLEMENTATION S TRATEGIES

The following programs are some potential funding opportunities for developing pedestrian and non- motorized transportation facilities. The type of projects allowed depend on the program, however, the categories range from planning and construction of pedestrian or bicycle facilities to design of public spaces, educational programs, research, and methods for reducing air pollution.

MAP-21: Transportation Alternatives Program, Safe Routes to Schools, and Recreation Trails MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act) is the most recent federal transportation funding law. It consolidates transportation funding programs that were available under the previous funding law including the Transportation Enhancement program, the Safe Routes to School program and the Recreation Trails program into a program called Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). This singular program is the largest federal source for trail funding.

TAP activities are projects that "expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by integrating modes and improving the cultural, historic and environmental aspects of our transportation infrastructure.” Activities which may apply to the Ingham County include:

 Construction, planning and design of on-road and off-road facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety-related infrastructure and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and  Construction, planning and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a competitive grant program that supports both infrastructure and non- infrastructure projects. It begins with a school-based comprehensive planning process. Of the 4,000 elementary and middle schools in Michigan, nearly 500 have committed to developing SRTS action plans. TAP and SRTS (K – 8th grade) funds are distributed through a partnership between Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) and MDOT. Projects are jointly evaluated by Tri-County Regional Planning and MDOT staff to determine eligibility, consistency with TAP program requirements and how well the project meets TCRPC’s goals.

The Recreation Trails program (RTP) provides funds to the States to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. The RTP is an assistance program of the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration. Federal transportation funds benefit recreation including hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, cross- country skiing, snowmobiling, off-road motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, four-wheel driving, or using other off-road motorized vehicles. MAP-21 reauthorized the RTP as a set aside from the Transportation Alternatives Program.

Approximately $375,000 a year is available through the TCRPC for Ingham, Clinton, and Eaton County. Funds administered through MDOT amount to about $17 million a year for the entire state. Applications must be submitted through the MDOT’s online grant system (MGS). While a minimum 20 percent local match is required for projects, the average match rate for projects awarded statewide in 2018 was 42%

Page 36 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

and made up of a variety of funding sources such as local, MNRTF and other funds. Applications are accepted year-round; however, grant decisions are made quarterly.

Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality This funding is provided to areas that are not in compliance with air quality standards or are in a maintenance area for air quality nonattainment issues. Projects do not have to be within the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway, but must demonstrate an air quality benefit. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) projects are awarded competitively and jointly between MDOT and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Approximately $1.8 million has been available per year for the Tri-County area. Applicants must demonstrate that they reduce emissions in order to be considered eligible for funding as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The Lansing area is a designated non-attainment area.

Michigan Transportation Fund (Act 51) Revenues from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) are generated from state gas and value taxes. The funding is divided among MDOT, road commissions, cities and villages. Each Act 51 agency is required by law to spend at a minimum an average of one percent of their Act 51 dollars on non- motorized improvements for 10 years subsequent to Act 51 award. Any improvement in a road, street, or highway, which facilitates non-motorized transportation by the paving of unpaved road shoulders, widening of lanes, or any other appropriate measure is considered a qualified non-motorized facility for the purposes of this requirement.

Surface Transportation Fund (STP) The STP is one of the main sources of flexible funding available for a wide variety of projects on any federal-aid highway. The funds are used for road construction, improvement, and maintenance projects. However, they can also be used for bicycle and pedestrian facilities including on-road facilities, off-road trails, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. There are three types of STP programs: urban, which includes the urbanized portions of Meridian; and rural, which includes the remaining areas. There are no project limits for the urban and rural STP programs. Tri- County gets about $1.5 million a year under this program.

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) The “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” (FAST Act) was signed into law in December 2015 which replaces MAP 21. The bill provides five years of funding—starting in 2016—for Federal highways and transit programs at slightly increased funding levels from prior years and uses essentially the same funding programs mentioned above.

Since 1991, the biggest sources of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects have been the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. In 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) combined the TE, SRTS and RTP programs into one Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The biggest change to these programs in the FAST Act is that the STP is renamed the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program and the TAP becomes a set-aside program of this block grant. Walking and bicycling projects remain an eligible activity for the larger STBG as well as CMAQ and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 37

TAP is now the “Surface Transportation Block Grant Set-aside Program.” Just as with the TAP, funding in the STBG Set-aside Program is available for more than just bike and pedestrian projects.

The most significant change about the FAST Act is that it provides five years of certainty for State and local agencies that depend on this funding for critical transportation infrastructure projects. Effectively, very little has changed in the funding programs and structure compared to MAP-21 and prior years— bicycling and walking projects remain broadly eligible in all the major funding categories and the funding for more targeted programs—now known as the Surface Transportation Block Grant Set-aside Program— remains at a similar level.

Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) MNRTF grants are available to local units of government for acquisition and development of land and facilities for outdoor recreation such as shared-use paths. The shared-use paths located on Meridian Township and Ingham County Parks properties would meet eligibility provided they are part of the Township and County Parks and Recreation Master Plans. Current priorities of the MNRTF program include trails including water trails, wildlife/ecological corridors and projects located within urban areas. The MNRTF provides funding for the purchase and development of land for natural resource-based preservation and recreation. Program goals are to:

 Protect natural resources and provide for their access, public use and enjoyment,  Provide public access to Michigan’s waters, particularly the Great Lakes and facilitate their recreation use,  Meet regional, county and community needs for outdoor recreation opportunities,  Improve the opportunities for outdoor recreation in urban areas, and  Stimulate Michigan’s economy through recreation related to tourism and community revitalization.

Grant proposals must include a local match of at least 25 percent of the total project cost. There is no minimum or maximum for acquisition projects. For development projects, the minimum funding request was $15,000 and the maximum was $300,000 for 2018. Applications are due at the beginning of April.

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The LWCF is a federal appropriation to the National Park Service, who distributes funds to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for development of outdoor recreation facilities. The focus of the program is community recreation needs such as playgrounds, picnic areas, athletic fields and walking paths. Minimum grant requests are $30,000 and maximum requests are $300,000 for 2018. The match percentage must be 50 percent of the total project cost. Applications are due at the beginning of April.

Recreation Passport Grant The Recreation Passport grant program is another state grant which offers funding for the development of public recreation facilities for local units of government. Minimum grant requests are $7,500 and maximum requests are $150,000 in 2018. The local match obligation is 25 percent of the total project cost. Applications are usually due on April 1st as well.

Page 38 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Advocacy Advance Rapid Response Grant Advocacy Advance is the partnership of the Alliance for Biking and Walking and the League of American Bicyclists. They work to boost local and state bicycle and pedestrian advocacy efforts. This grant is intended to help advocacy organizations take advantage of unexpected opportunities to win, increase, or preserve funding for biking and walking. These grants are available to non-profit groups; however, partnerships with local governments are encouraged. Eligible activities include campaigns centered on transportation bonds or ballot initiatives, campaigns to attain and spend public funding, campaigns to preserving existing allocations of public funding at risk of being cut and development of specialized tools and materials to reach targeted audiences who may influence the decision for increased funding.

DALMAC Fund The goals of the DALMAC Fund are to expand and improve the bicycling environment in Michigan, increase bicycle safety and promote goodwill toward bicycling in the community. Eligible activities include construction and design of bicycle facilities, bicycle education programs, bicycle promotion activities, purchase of bicycles and related equipment and developing bicycle routes or maps. No specific match is specified and applications are typically due in March.

PeopleForBikes Community Grant Program (formerly Bikes Belong) The PeopleForBikes community grant program is funded by members of the American Bicycle Industry. Their mission is to put more people on bikes more often. The program funds projects in three categories: facility, education and capacity building. Requests for funding can be up to $10,000 for projects such as bike paths, trails, lanes, parking, transit and safe routes to school. Applications are reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Small Grant Programs Kodak, the National Geographic Society and the Conservation Fund provide small grants to stimulate the planning and design of greenways. The grant program was instituted in response to the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors recommendation to establish a national network of greenways. The application period typically runs from March 1st through June 1st. Program goals are to develop new, action-oriented greenways projects, assist grassroots greenway organizations, leverage additional money for conservation and greenway development and recognize and encourage greenway proponents and organizations. While the maximum grant amount is $2,500, most grants range from $500 to $1,500.

Other Sources and Local Support Public support for pedestrian and bicycle facility development will be crucial in determining non-motorized transportation success in Meridian Township. Additional sources of funding should be investigated. For example private foundations, as nonprofit organizations having a principal fund of their own, are established to maintain or aid charitable, educational, religious, or other activities servicing the public good. This can include trail projects. The Guide to Foundation Grants for Rivers, Trails and Open Space Conservation, 2nd edition, Prepared by the National Center for Recreation and Conservation, National Parks Service may be consulted for foundation funds. In addition, the Michigan Foundation Directory and The Foundation Directory and The Foundation Grants Index provide information about the programs of hundreds of Michigan foundations and numerous corporations. Seeking donations, attracting sponsors, holding fund-raising events and seeking out other revenue sources are other methods that should be pursued aggressively to raise funding for walk and bike way development.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 39

Page 40 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

A PPENDIX

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 41

P U B L I C I NPUT

The planning process for the trail study has considered and included multiple forums for community and stakeholder involvement. The following details the relevant input received.

Ingham County Trails and Parks Comprehensive Report The 2016 work effort had included extensive public outreach with input received through six public meetings, an online survey, and a stakeholder meeting. Audience feedback over the course of the six meetings resulted in a cumulative list of over 50 characteristics that comprise a high quality regional trails and parks system. Participants were asked to select and rank their top ten preferences for millage priority expenditures. The second activity was to vote on their top three preferred new trail projects as part of their review of a draft regional trail system map. The map highlighted potential priority trails from recent regional nonmotorized trail planning efforts and local master plans, but the exercise allowed for selection of any desired trail connection in the County.

Highest preferences for Millage expenditures included: New Trail Preferences Number of votes

1. Long term trail maintenance (e.g., crack-sealing, surface repair, invasive species and dead tree 209 removal, bridge maintenance, etc.) 2. Construction of regional trail arteries to regional destinations and adjacent counties 179 3. Rehabilitation of trails where needed (total surface replacement and upgrade of trail segments) 173 4. Integration with on-road non-motorized facilities 172 5. Connection of trails from county and local parks to existing trail system 156

The top 5 new trail preferences included: New Trail Preferences Highlighted Route Number of votes

1. MSU to Lake Lansing Parks M 178 2. Holt to Mason J 131 3. Lansing River Trail North Extension P 95 4. Lansing River Trail South Extension Q 94 5. Lansing River Trail to Northern Tier Trail N 91

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 43

New Trail Preferences Map for Public Input

Note: Refer to Table x for the highlighted corridor descriptions and preferences

Page 44 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Online Survey An online survey took place during the month of November 2017 in regards to the current feasibility study. A total of 557 responses were received. Community stakeholders and residents were invited to provide opinions and ideas for selecting their preferred route with all feasible alternatives provided. The survey was advertised through a flyer and postings on both the Township websites and Facebook pages. A complete tally of the responses gathered follows:

Question 1: Several route alignments are being considered for Phase 1 of a trail to connect MSU to Lake Lansing. Please indicate your top three preferred route alignments for developing a walking/running/bicycling path connection from Hagadorn Road/Shaw Lane to Park Lake Road/Grand River Avenue. Generally, when the route alignment follows a road, a side path would be developed along one side of the roadway; when the route alignment is not shown along a road, the trail would be developed as an off-the-road shared-use trail.

3rd choice 2nd choice Top choice Route 1. Hagadorn Rd and Grand River Ave 57 8 41 Route 2. North Bank of Red Cedar River + Northwind Drive 76 122 54 Route 3. North Bank of Red Cedar River + North Side of Railroad 57 94 309 Route 4. Hagadorn Rd + River Terrace Dr + North Side of Railroad 149 172 47 Route 5. Hagadorn Rd + South Side of Railroad + North Bank of 135 113 83 Red Cedar River Route 6. Hagadorn Rd + Hannah Blvd + North Bank of Red Cedar 64 36 37 River

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 45

Question 2: Several route alignments are being considered for Phase 2 of a trail to connect MSU to Lake Lansing. Please indicate your top three preferred route alignments for developing a walking/running/bicycling path connection from Park Lake Road/Grand River Avenue to Marsh Road/CN Railroad.

3rd choice 2nd choice Top choice Route 1. Park Lake Dr + Burcham Dr + Existing Interurban Trail 58 26 101 Route 2. Grand River Ave + North Side of Railroad + Okemos Rd + 235 127 93 Existing Interurban Trail Route 3. Grand River Ave + South Side of Railroad + Okemos Rd + 119 286 52 Existing Interurban Trail Route 4. Grand River Ave + South Side of Railroad + Existing 81 97 313 Nancy Moore Park Trails + Existing Interurban Trail

Page 46 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Question 3: Several route alignments are being considered for Phase 3 of a trail to connect MSU to Lake Lansing. Please indicate your top three preferred route alignments for developing a walking/running/bicycling path connection from Marsh Road/CN Railroad to Green Road/CN Railroad.

3rd choice 2nd choice Top choice Route 1. Marsh Rd + Lake Dr + Township & County Properties 62 304 155 Route 2. North Side of Railroad (Extension of the existing 32 158 356 Interurban Trail with some meandering into Park) Route 3. Marsh Rd + Haslett Rd + Green Rd 404 61 45

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 47

Question 4: Is there anything else you would like us to consider?

Stay close to nature and avoid streets wherever possible, to keep with the rest of the river trail's goal. Dedicated Pedestrian paths not on shoulders of roads. Improvements to bike travel along Bennett Road Is there a way to make a bike path along Bennett Road from Chippewa Middle School to Farm Road at MSU? There are a lot of bicyclists on that road and I worry for their safety. We need a bike and walk trail from the interurban path to Okemos to Grand River. Parts of Okemos Rd is dangerous to walk or bike Include signage. Choose ease of maintenance over cheapest materials. Keep trail in greener areas not along heavily traveled roads I'm not sure the highest needs for students, or the implications for safety, nearby businesses, or other factors - but I support any efforts to increase accessibility for our students. Beneficial to stay away from busy intersections such as Hagedorn/Grand River & Haslett/Marsh. Trails are best when they're not alongside the road. Put in bike lanes and signage to protect bicycle riders! Safety and lighting along path Please be careful about putting the trail under bridges. Flooding would be likely, as in the Delhi Twp. trail. Please make this happen!! On the railroad tracks, stay away from the railroad as much as possible, like the current interurban pathway. The more outdoorsy the better. For segment 3 I’d love a tie in to the blue and/or black trails at Lake Lansing Park North (LLPN)...it'd be a minor add. I would prefer this not open up LLPN to bikes. If we must add bikes to LLPN I’d prefer we do a season basis, no bikes during Fall, Winter, Spring when bike damage is the worst. Even with bikes not allowed, we get so much trail damage during wet seasons from bikes! I also assume this reopens the Green Rd access parking lot! Just thanks for building it and asking for our input! Can't wait to use it! How else can we help? Yes. Why wouldn’t phase three ends up at lake Lansing north? We don’t see the value in ending at green road unless there are future phases This is great. I hope it happens soon. I am a bike rider; both of us are. We are in favor of off road riding on trails or sidewalks. Though legal for bikes to be on roads, it is dangerous and not a smart way to ride. No, just want to thank you for doing this. I’ve been using the Interurban since it opened (5 years ago?), year-round, commuting on bike from Haslett to MSU. Interpretive signs of historical, ecological, or geographical significance or those that may show the benefit of outdoor exercise of all forms. Thanks for sending out this survey!! I'm very excited for any extension of the river trail as I bike on it daily! Kudos to folks working to make this happen. Highest priority for me is to separate the path from incursions by distracted drivers of motorized vehicles. I prefer the most scenic routes! Thank you for this transparency and opportunity to participate! Cost vs. speed of getting it done. It would be amazing if this trail could extend all the way to Shoeman and Barry. There is no safe passage on Shoeman Road and it would be great to provide a safe passage into town. The more "off-road" portions of the trail, the better! No, this plan would be great for us Keeping it wide enough that if there are five fat women walking next to each other people can still pass them when running or biking. A bike lane that is part of the road just seems intuitively far less safe than one further off the road. I refuse to ride on a road- based trail like here in Lansing; it’s scary dangerous.

Page 48 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Safety, which I know you are. Trails alongside roadways... not so much. Neighborhood connector routes to these trail extensions would be nice. For example, a bike route from the Shoals subdivision to the trail. Just want off the main, busy roads as much as possible. This is such a fantastic idea!! I prefer the routes that are as far away from car traffic as possible for as much of the distance that it can be. Just my preference, as I tend to take these trails for leisure and not for a commute. Thanks! If you were running/walking solo, how safe would doing so be. Route should be safe (as much as possible) to do so during daylight hours. I picked my choices based on balancing scenic areas but also for using the trail practically for getting from Lansing (where I live) to businesses in Haslet and Okemos. I am really excited about this trail because it will give me a more direct route to this part of the county. Wheel chair paths I would love for every Board member to walk the section of Okemos rd. from Nancy Moore Park toward the fire station. People walk, ride bikes, and push strollers that section non-stop. It is a very dangerous narrow section of the road. Someone is bound to be hurt there. I like the scenic routes and away from the roadway and where there are the least times to have to deal with traffic or crossing of traffic. More protection for bikers and runners from vehicles Options 2 & 3 of Phase 2 also address a current safety issue along the stretch of Okemos road between Central Park Drive and Gaylord C Smith Court that currently has no sidewalk or safe shoulder for pedestrians and bikers. Wayfinging signage. Try to stay off sidewalks! Bikes, pedestrians and driveways don’t mix well. Contact Tim Potter at MSU bikes for insight on what cyclists want and need. safety of being near railroad This would be awesome! I don't know if it is possible, but I would love to see this community be innovative in incorporating soft and hard paths into the same system. Dirt is great for running. Black top is great for bikes. Connectivity to the Northern tier trail in East Lansing makes sense and I did not see that as a part of this proposal. Future to include the river bend parks out to Meridian Rd. Stay off main roads Please avoid grand river and marsh. Too many lights and intersections Ensuring connection to Meridian township habitrail that runs east and west, just north of Nancy L Moore park. The sooner the better! :) Roads with bike paths on the side concern me, as it appears more drivers are distracted. Families prefer large paved paths, separate from the road. As a runner, hiking type wooded paths are great too. Proper lighting and emergency phones (like on MSU campus) as well as benches would be great too!! I do not have strong opinions about this matter. I would recommend keep the Trail as close to parks as possible on the way to/from Lake Lansing. Consider not putting in anymore bike paths assuming people will use them to commute, it doesn’t happen. We have more than enough for recreational purposes. I LOVE this idea. I think it's important to enable mobility/access to campus from parts of the community as well as to enable healthier lifestyles for students, faculty, staff, etc. Safety and lighting on the routes Having a separate sidewalk and bike path around Lake Lansing would be great. I do not really feel comfortable as car driver if walkers or parents with children are in the bike lane, but they really have no other option along Lake Drive. Having trash cans, benches and bike racks in locations appropriate and to coincide with restaurants, points of interest Excited about this! Should step back and take another look -- the great thing about the Lansing River Trail is that it's nearly all non-road with few crossings. The goal for all connectors should be the same look and feel. Have you looked a Pine Lake Outlet as a potential route? Doing this Hillbrook Park could connect to LL South through the Natural areas, etc. and by routing through public drains/easements you keep the trail surroundings more natural and meandering, more inviting for families and exercisers (think River Trail at Scoot Woods), plus it might be cheaper. Also, might look at large land purchases that could be supported by this

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 49

effort (Park Lake and Grand River), and should be basing the trail on destinations that could be connected, rather than just end points (Like how about getting into LLN, instead of ending the trail at Green Road and a railroad track? What good does that do anyone? Or could focus on connecting key community amenities along the way, like LL South, Parkwood YMCA, etc.) One of the great things about the Lansing River Trail is that it's not solely and end-to-end route, but connects communities (Old Town, Downtown, REO Town) and natural features and destinations (Potter Park, Hawk Island, etc.) along the way. This Northern Trail could and should do the same, focusing on places you want to be, not just like a highway for bikes. Please consider resurfacing portions of RT between MSU and Aurelius as well as producing flood mitigation measures along flood prone stretches Please consider adding a bike lane and a pedestrian lane to keep people in their proper lane to avoid accidents. There is only one public lake in this area and you don't have a safe bike path around it! It has been unsafe for years!! You need a bike path around Lake Lansing. You need to use as much of the lake as possible and you should have a bike path to Lake Lansing North Park. Thanks for the chance to give input. I wish you luck and Godspeed to make this all happen. I love biking and look forward to using this when it's done. Busy streets are going to benefit more from parallel running trails. Biking the city is difficult right now because it seems this factor was not taken into consideration, and there are still parts of the city inaccessible by bicycle. Routes along roads should consider safety with traffic volumes. For example, the many driveways along grand river can make it dangerous due to motorists not paying attention when entering or exiting businesses and residences. This is a great idea! I use the Haslett Rd to Burcham Rd interconnect for bicycle commuting between my home and MSU. One problem area is crossing Okemos Rd, where there is no driver incentive to slow down. As a driver, I'd not like another stop light, but as a walker / bicyclist, I'd think a blinking yellow light would be great (perhaps with an option for a pedestrian push button to change it to red if necessary). Thanks! The safety of runners and cyclists should be a top priority. since this is a large investment, creating a pleasant trail, one not running along major roads or too close to blight, should be a top priority. the idea is to encourage residents to exercise and get outside. The trail should be positioned with further expansion and access to parks and other recreational locations. THANK YOU for planning this trail! thank you, also, for asking for our input. Views, maps, directional signage This is nice to connect the trails up to MSU and thus the lansing river trail. But don’t forget about us in south Meridian (Okemos south of Mt Hope. We do not have any lengthy trails. Possible one under the power lines???? Space is already there, and a partial trail has been started. I have lived in East Lansing and Okemos all my life and am saddened that it has taken this long to get to even this point. EL paid for its own trail and we have always been paying for trails we have to drive to access. southeast of campus to farm lane, along Bennett, Beaumont, Forest!! nope - thanks for what you do. Definitely encourage more trails to connect Meridian to River Trail network. A trail parallel to Cornell would be much safer than Cornell. Paved pathways would be a bonus. Be wary of the path near the river. While scenic flooding can make this impassable for many times of the year. Such a problem with the Holt trail and river trail. My wife and I live in Ottawa Hills. We walk and bike in these areas quite often. Having a set of trails like this would be wonderful! crosswalks with functional buttons for easier crossing of busy intersections like grand river and Haslett road. crosswalks not at intersections such as Okemos road should have flashing lights Route to front side (entrance) to Lake Lansing North Park. Overall, try to balance easy access for nearby residents with a route that travels through natural, less developed spaces. Safety is most important to us so staying away from roads would be best There is already a good trail system, sidewalks and bike lanes in place. I support filling in gaps over creating brand new trails. Funds to maintain need to be considered. I work on Northwind drive. Believe me...it is so congested now with more building planned that I can't imagine it would be an enjoyable route to anywhere. Quiet zone for the railroads on Okemos road. I have not been to these areas. My preference would be highest for routed which have more natural beauty, quiet, and least amount of traffic. The safer and more convenient for bikers the better! It's important to consider that cars can still be dangerous even with bike

Page 50 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

lanes and what routes will be the easiest to maintain. safety near busy roads More accessible for families when trail isn’t directly on the road. Especially with all the traffic Georgetown subdivision on Cornell south on Cornell to Grand River Shade for part of the trail is necessary, or of would be too hot in the summer. I would like to see as little side path as possible. Side paths look nice; however, they can be quite dangerous, particularly for cyclists. A boardwalk path along Okemos Rd between Grand River and Haslett Rd. There is limited shoulder space in that area for bikers. Light at Park Lake does not change for north south traffic unless there is a car present. Neither Crosswalk button or bike at intersection will trigger. That will kill use of Oak lake if not fixed Generally, I think paths that don't follow major roadways are much more attractive. Keeping the path away from major roads is best to minimize bike/car contact and make the route more peaceful. Thank you so much for working on this project. It will be a tremendous enhancement for our community. I am a bicyclist. I completed this survey with the assumption that all routes are equally safe. Riding on the sidewalk on Grand River is not safe. Safety would be my number one selection in all circumstances. Try to avoid Grand River especially, because too many driveways to stores, etc. Maximizes interaction with walkers, runners, and CARS. On the first leg, if the option must be going south from Shaw/Hagadorn, it would be better to go south on one of the existing lanes/paths on campus before reaching Hagadorn, rather than trying to put a bike path next to busy Hagadorn. Seems like Phase 3 options could all assume going under the Marsh Rd. bridge and getting to Haslett Rd. as going up on the current pathway to Marsh Rd. and to the Haslett Rd. intersection is very dangerous and I see no way to improve that situation. In other words, going under the bridge to avoid going up to Marsh Rd. should be the primary objective w/ each option to greatly improve the safety for users of the Inter-Urban Pathway - MSU-Lk. Lansing Pathway. Option 3 appears to be a "do nothing" option as it's just using the existing roadways. Main concern is the safety for those who choose to use the trails. So many of these routes appeal as an urban cyclist 'getting to the lake Lansing park north system for a concert or activity on the lake' type of thing, but a few more - and probably the ones I selected as my top choices view these as "journey" not destination routes - that the more pleasant (river, meandering) is nicer for that. As a road cyclist with kids, I'm slightly more likely to view this use as a 'journey' not 'destination' route. But connecting the parks via MSU together is really awesome. Also for students (MSU ones, that is,) a bridge over the RR and river off Hannah where the apartments are (using either southern Phase I Hannah route) would be ideal - - there's also the Ellison Brewery there off Dawn Ave that would be a great route to take there via bicycle. I think as much path not directly on or adjacent to the street is ideal. I would love to be able to bike from our home in Okemos to East Lansing with our kiddos in the bike trailers all on paths, the more nature the better! Would be great if part of this path could extend down Okemos road to fill the gap where there is currently no sidewalk. This is an extremely dangerous area for pedestrians. Follow s bank of red cedar r from Hagadorn to Park Lake rd. HAWK signal at Interurban crossing of Okemos Road as well as crossing at Haslett Road With children riding their own bikes (young children, my son is 5), it is so much nicer for me to have limited access trails. The less interaction with vehicles and road crossings, the better. Yes, he does ride on his own for 8-10 Miles a day. Bathrooms and water fountains please! It would be great if they trail separate markings for pedestrians and cyclists to separate the uses on the path I think it highly important to extend the Interurban under the March Rd. viaduct to make exiting the Interurban by bike safer and more bike friendly. It is always a hassle and against generally accepted cycling practice to have to ride that segment of sidewalk on the west side of Marsh road until a cyclist can safely get to another path or roadway. The great thing about the River Trail is how much one can travel without being on the road. I hope the stretches that are shown along the road will still have their own dedicated pathway and not just be bike lanes along already busy stretches of roadway like Grand River, Marsh, etc. Cleaning of Road edges where grit, rocks & glass collect. More cleaning and request for funds to safely clean these areas. Realign sewer covers, grates and monitor potholes along bike paths (coming upon them on bikes can cause accidents and cause bike riders/runners to veer suddenly into traffic.) Thank you

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 51

The best route will be one that has the right balance between having good access from local residential streets, and being away from heavy traffic roads with as few road crossings as possible (ideally through wooded areas just like the River Trail is in most of Lansing) In Question 2, Route 4 crosses the railroad tracks. This is often depicted as a crossing, but it is not safe or legal to cross here. Does this plan propose a way to cross the railroad here? This would be very convenient and would make the most sense for the connection from park properties to the interurban trail. Wayfinding and road markings to guide to Lake Lansing Park South. Route this off busy streets as much as possible and allow for residents to enjoy the open space as much as possible. Routes that utilize space other than sidewalks provide enhanced value to the community. Routes for bikes on streets also have a higher instance rate of auto-bike collisions. Paths connecting Okemos preserve trails to other trails in the area, especially near msu. The most heavily wooded route should always be the top option. I'm very excited about this! This is the first I've heard about it. Please publicize it more! I think the goal needs to be for these trails to use existing roads and pavements as little as possible. The beauty of MSU trails as well as the Interurban Parkway is the fact that you are not walking/biking/running beside traffic, away from the traffic noise, smog, and dangerous drivers. It's difficult to imagine the topography of the proposed trails, and as a wheelchair/ tri wheeled bike user, a flat grade would be of great importance to me. As much as possible, separate trail versus lane on a busy road. No - glad to hear you are doing this! Glad to see interest in a trail extension! We love the bike path from Burcham to Marsh! There are a lot of people who run bike walk around the lake. The scariest part is next to where option one would go because we are on the road and cars have blind curves. We would LOVE a safe spot off the road for such activities. Please connect option 1 to the road at some point to accommodate these people. Plan based on both scenic and transportation factors This is truly a fantastic idea. Bringing more access to MSU without the use of a car is going to be much more convenient, and allowing students to get out of campus and blow off some steam. When trails go near neighborhoods (I live in Ottawa Hills, Meridian Township) look to have connectors from streets/sidewalks in the neighborhoods to the pathways for easy access. We desperately need a safe area for non-cars on Okemos Road between Central Park and Nancy Moore Park. It is needed more than any of the proposed routes. People tend to enjoy scenic, natural, and interesting trails, not straight shots from point A to point B. Going along roadways makes it more difficult with young children. Do not raise our taxes to provide for this extended path. Use existing township funds. Do not raise the budget of parks and red when taxes were just raised because our fire department is broke. Sizeable barriers where the trail will run along an existing road Prefer away from major roads. Love this proposal Off major roads. Near nature. I live by Cornell. When are you going to use my taxes to get me a bike path to MSU or lake Lansing? There are NO safe North- South rides to use by Cornell and Marsh Road. We need a bike path to Harris Nature Center from Cornell. Start thinking about the whole Township, not just one community! Please keep us off the main roads and sidewalks as much as possible to avoid the heavy traffic and loud noise-the more the trail can be in the woods/parks the better. Avoiding grand river is probably a good idea. Yes, I have survey data from bike commuters at MSU. The number one determinate and most significant choice for route choice is travel time. This choice supersedes, availability of bike parking, amount of motor vehicles, road condition, the presence of bike paths or bike lanes among other choices. If you pick the fastest route for bike infrastructure you will see more users and higher mode share for bike commuters. I would advise direct routes and advertise the advantages of riding over sitting in traffic. Also, finish the river trail from Farm lane to Bogue. Please keep us as far away from cars as possible. I use all parts of the River Trail and much prefer to be away from vehicular traffic. The train always follows the same path -

Page 52 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

humans in cars tend to run things over. 1. Like use of existing trails where possible. Hopefully, 2. Lake Lansing Trails will be open to biking. 3. This trail would let us ride our bikes from Delhi Township to Lake Lansing completely on trails. That would be a great ride! I'd like to use existing trails as much as possible to reduce the cost and try to stay out of traffic as much as possible. Please pave a path around Lake Lansing! It is so dangerous for runners to run on Lake Road! I am very strongly against so-called multi-use “trails” that are basically wide sidewalks running parallel to the roads. They are very unsafe for bikes, and unpleasant for pedestrians. Meridian is sorely lacking off-road walk/bike trails, particularly safe bike routes for commuters. This will be an excellent path! Please keep the trails in as scenic areas as possible and away from busy mainstream roads Off street preferred This will be a great thing. Don't cheap out and run along the roads. Another thought: it will never be cheaper to construct than right now. (labor costs never decrease) This trail should take advantage of the natural scenery as much as possible. Sadly, our road commission isn’t great about providing on road bike facilities, or with connections to off-road trail facilities, and I worry about this not being well used with the side path approach — This has been discussed to death over the last 25 years (thanks to the vision/foresight of the late county commissioner/Meridian trustee John Veenstra). Please get off your arses and just do it. This trail network is an incredibly good idea. After this consider a river trail connection to Williamston Stay near water

Question 5: How old are you? % # Under 25 6.31% 35 25 to 34 12.43% 69 35 to 44 23.60% 131 45 to 54 26.31% 146 55 to 64 20.00% 111 65 and over 11.35% 63

Question 6: Including yourself, how many adults 18 and over live in your household? % # 1 16.09% 89 2 62.57% 346 3 13.20% 73 4 6.33% 35 5 1.08% 6 6 0.54% 3 7 0.00% 0 8 0.18% 1

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 53

Question 7: How many children under 18 live in your household? % # 0 61.73% 342 1 13.90% 77 2 15.88% 88 3 6.32% 35 4 1.99% 11 5 or more 0.18% 1

Question 8: Do you own or rent your home? % # Own 85.92% 476 Rent 14.08% 78

Question 9: In what zip code area do you live? % # 48805 0.00% 0 48823 28.78% 160 48840 21.04% 117 48864 26.26% 146 48910 5.40% 30 48808 0.36% 2 48824 0.36% 2 48825 0.36% 2 48826 0.00% 0 48906 1.08% 6 48912 4.14% 23 Other 12.23% 68

Page 54 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Stakeholder Meeting A stakeholder meeting took place on June 12, 2017 to receive input, concerns, ideas, and suggestions on the possible route alternatives for each of the phases. Attendees included:

 Don Lowell Consumers Energy  Nyal Nunn, Meridian Township  Bob Wilson, Michigan Trails and Greenways  Younes Ishraidi, Meridian Township Alliance (MTGA)  Derek Perry, Meridian Township  Jami Trudelle, MDOT TSC  LuAnn Maisner, Meridian Township  Steve Troost, MSU Campus Planning  Lucie Fortin, MSG  Bob Peterson, Ingham County Road  Kevin McDevitt, MSG Department  Ken Hall, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

The following is a summary of the discussion:

Introduction: Project Description and Goals

Phase 1 Discussion:  Historically, the River Trail access to Hagadorn was studied for the stretch located between the River and Shaw Lane and judged not feasible.  The intersection of Grand River Avenue and Hagadorn Road has the highest frequency of vehicle crashes compared to other road intersections in the County (69 crashes in 2016). With high traffic (5 traffic lanes in each direction), it is one of the most dangerous road intersection for pedestrians in the County.  Steve Troost, MSU Planning, indicated that the Hagadorn Road crossing at Shaw Lane has been identified as the safest location. MSU has safety concerns for any other crossing north of Shaw Lane because of traffic congestion. Another potential Hagadorn Road crossing opportunity south of Shaw Lane exists at the new reconfigured Wilson Road with a future crossing at the Railroad (See plan attached).  Safety is and should be an important consideration for this study.  Steve Troost noted that MSU is supportive of a shared-use path (Option 2) across the northern portion of the MSU Music School property along Hagadorn Road opposite the eastern terminus of Shaw Lane.  Meridian Township has a wetland ordinance which is more restrictive than the State and should be consulted in regards to potential wetland impact and mitigation need.  Option 2 has a lot of existing support from property owners along the route (apartment buildings). Some have expressed a desire to provide connectors and/or trail access.  Option 3 could potentially present the most push-back, due to the low-density residential development and narrow roadway (River Terrace Drive) with no existing sidewalks. The building of a separate pathway would mean a lot of tree removal and front yard impacts.  With the number of apartment buildings and student housing along and in close proximity to their routes, Option 2 and 4 would serve a large student population group thereby increasing and providing access to low cost transportation and recreation options in this high use area.  Option 2 would also serve and increase access to businesses including grocery store, restaurants, fitness, and many other businesses thereby promoting economic development.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 55

 Bob Wilson, MTGA Director, expressed the need to emphasize the scenic aspects of the trail and the design alternative that present the best user experience. He would like Meridian Township to not lose track that this is the extension of the River Trail. The options following more closely the Red Cedar River present, in his opinion, the most benefits.

Phase 2 Discussion:  An off-the-road shared-use-path along the east side of Park Lake Road (Option 1) presents a lot of challenges due to number of small residential lots along that side and the limited front yards.  Option 3 would require a railroad crossing, which may be a lengthy process. It was suggested to initiate communications with CN representatives to understand the process and consider the challenges.  An important boardwalk connector from Gaylord Smith Circle to the existing side path south of the Pine Lake Outlet along Okemos Road is scheduled to be built in a near future. The completion of this important gap will be an important Township connection providing access to the Township municipal buildings, the Meridian Mall and the important Town Center generally located at the intersection of Grand River and Marsh Road.  It was suggested to explore the historical aspects of the routes. Bob Wilson suggested naming the Trail “Pine Lake/River Trail”. Lake Lansing was formerly named Pine Lake.

Phase 3 Discussion:  There was a discussion on the appropriate terminus for this phase. Williamstown Township non- motorized and other relevant plans will be consulted.  The Township’s idea has always been to terminate the path in Lake Lansing North County Park so that a connection could be established.  It was noted that the trails in that section of the Park are mostly rustic nature trails and may not be compatible with a 10-foot paved pathway. As a property owner, Ingham County Parks will be consulted to identify the best potential terminus and connection.  There is an existing access to the Lake Lansing North trails from Woodland Trail and the existing residential subdivision.  Option 1 presents an opportunity for a connector along Shaw Street to Lake Lansing Park South.  The interurban trail was planned (there is currently the beginning of an off-shoot from the Interurban Trail) and can be extended under the Marsh Road viaduct adjacent to the railroad right-of-way.  An off-the-road shared-use-path (Option 3) along the north side of Haslett Road and the west side of Green Road could present a lot of challenges and pushback due to number of small residential lots along the roads and the limited front yards.  Don Lowell, Consumers Energy, indicated that they have a process in place and are receptive to the building of a pathway along their property. Their property is located along the north side of the railroad track along the entire length of Phase 3.  As noted by Don Lowell, Consumers Energy also owns a north-south piece of property crossing Haslett Road just west of Green Road. Don Lowell mentioned that a connection along that property may make more sense than following Green Road. However, it should also be noted that this property extends across the Meridian Sun Golf Club so occupying this property is likely not an option.  The long-term maintenance of the trail was discussed. The Township has a trail millage which has been in place since 1974 and has a long successful history with Township residents. This source of funding will be used for maintaining the trail.

Page 56 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

Second Meeting

A second stakeholder meeting took place on November 15, 2017 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm to receive input, concerns, ideas, and suggestions on the possible route alternatives for each of the phases. Invitations were sent to each of the property owners along the alternatives for Phase 1. Flyers were also posted on the Township’s website. Very few people attended. The MDOT grant coordinator who is also a resident of Meridian Township and the Ingham County Trail and Parks coordinator, Melissa Buzzard attended. The list of attendees included:

 Melissa Buzzard, Ingham County Trails and  Nyal Nunn, Meridian Township Parks Program Coordinator  Younes Ishraidi, Meridian Township  Alexander Nikoloff, MDOT Office of Economic  Lucie Fortin, MSG Development, Program Coordinator, University  Kevin McDevitt, MSG region

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 57

MDOT E NVIRONMENTAL S CREENING

The following are the results of a preliminary environmental screening for threatened and endangered plants and animals, wetlands and coastal zone. These results identify some potential environmental constraints within the project corridor and should be considered during the project planning process. The Environmental Services Section of MDOT prepared this report for the Transportation Alternative Program application:

TA 2016025.01 • Ingham County Road Department • MSU to Lake Lansing Connector Trail - Phase I

Animals A 1958 record for Ellipse (Venustaconcha ellipsiformis) State Special Concern exists 1.5 river miles west of the project in the Red Cedar river, East Lansing; T4N, R1W, Section 18. The ellipse is found in small to medium sized streams with firm sand and gravel substrates. The survey window is from June 1st to September 30th.

2001 records for Ellipse (Venustaconcha ellipsiformis) State Special Concern and Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata) State Special Concern exist 1.35 miles west of the project, in the Red Cedar river, East Lansing; T4N, R1W, Section 18. Elktoe prefers small to large sized streams and small to medium rivers with clean, clear water and swifter currents over packed sand and gravel substrates. The survey period is June 1st - September 30th. The ellipse is found in small to medium sized streams with firm sand and gravel substrates. The survey window is from June 1st to September 30th.

A record (1939-1953) for Barrens buckmoth (Hemileuca maia) State Special Concern exists .1 miles west of the project, Sandford Woodlot, T4N, R1W, Section 18. This species is associated with upland sandy oak openings such as oak barrens, oak-pine barrens and other associated habitats as well as open wetlands such as lowland shrubby fens and nearby fields and roadsides. The larvae of this species have been found feeding on black oak, other oaks, willow, aspen, Spiraeas and even birches. Survey May 1st to June 30th.

If suitable habitat for these species exists within the project area then field surveys may be required to determine potential impacts to these species and their habitats. If the species will be impacted then, the MDNR will need to be notified and a Michigan Endangered Species Permit may be required.

Plants A record (1894-1968) for Goldenseal (Hydrastis Canadensis) State Threatened exists .28 miles west of the project, On the N part of the MSU campus, just S of the Red Cedar River b/t Bogue St & Hagadorn Rd. T4N, R1W, Section 18. Goldenseal Prefers shady, rich, mesic southern forests, and usually is under a canopy of beech-sugar maple or red oak-sugar maple. It frequently occurs in moist microhabitats near vernal pools, along forested streams, and also in southern floodplain forests, often in moist sandy loam, clay loam, or even organic soils. The survey period extends from June 15th to August 1st.

A record (1969-1986) for Red mulberry (Morus rubra) State Threatened exists .25 miles west of the project, on the bank of the Red Cedar River, the NW portion of the woods, MSU campus. Also, an 1890 collection from 'S of Botanical Garden.' T4N, R1W, Section 18. Red mulberry is almost always found within or near riparian areas, typically in floodplain forest communities or in mesic to dry-mesic forests in close proximity to river and stream drainages, especially along fertile slopes. The survey period is May 20th to October 10th.

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 59

A record (1982-2007) for Green violet (Hybanthus concolor) State Special Concern exists .3 miles west of the project, The MSU campus S of the Red Cedar River between Bogue Street and Hagadorn Road. Grand River to Bogue St. south to parking lot behind Van Hoosen Hall. First colony located in woodlot just behind building. T4N, R1W, Section 18. Green violet is found in floodplain forests, usually in lower bottoms, as well as mesic forests and rich hardwoods in southern Lower Michigan. Survey May 10th to July 31st.

A record (1973-1980) for Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) State Threatened exists .97 miles southwest of the project, Baker Woodlot, T4N, R1w, Section 19. Ginseng is found in rich shaded forests with loamy soils and heavy canopies. This species is highly threatened from collection of the root, commonly used in herbal remedies. Large colonies have completely vanished due to illegal poaching. Survey June 1st to October 31st.

A record (1968-2006) for Goldenseal (Hydrastis Canadensis) State Threatened exists 1 mile south of the project, MSU campus. SE of the corner of Farm Lane & Service Rd in the SE part of the woods, near a vernal pool. T4N, R1W, Section 19. Goldenseal Prefers shady, rich, mesic southern forests, and usually is under a canopy of beech-sugar maple or red oak-sugar maple. It frequently occurs in moist microhabitats near vernal pools, along forested streams, and also in southern floodplain forests, often in moist sandy loam, clay loam, or even organic soils. The survey period extends from June 15th to August 1st.

If suitable habitat for these species exists within the project area then field surveys may be required to determine potential impacts to these species and their habitats. If the species will be impacted then, the MDNR will need to be notified and a Michigan Endangered Species Permit may be required.

Wetlands The project is adjacent to large areas of forested wetland. If there will be impacts to wetland habitats the MDEQ will need to be notified and Wetland, Stream, Floodplain Permits may be required.

Coastal Zone The project does not fall in any CZM zones therefore a Coastal Zone Permit will not be required. If you have further questions or concerns regarding this review, please contact:

David W. Schuen Endangered Species Specialist Michigan Department of Transportation Environmental Section 425 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, Michigan 48909 Office - (517) 373-3075 Email - [email protected]

Page 60 February 9, 2018 | MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study

MSG W E T L A N D D ELINEATION AND T H R E A T E N E D & E N D A N G E R E D S P E C I E S H A B I T A T S URVEY

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Trail Feasibility Study | February 9, 2018 Page 61

October 30, 2017

Younes Ishraidi Meridian Charter Township 5151 Marsh Road Okemos, Michigan 48864

Re: Wetland Delineation and Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Survey for Meridian Charter Township, Ingham County, Michigan

Dear Mr. Ishraidi:

The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. (MSG) is pleased to present you with the results of a wetland delineation and threatened and endangered species habitat survey for Meridian Charter Township, located in Ingham County, Michigan (Site) (Figure 1). MSG visited the Site on June 28 through 30, 2017 and performed a wetland delineation on the 34.88 acre Site. Note that the ‘Site’ (as shown on Figure 1) was limited to five corridor areas provided to MSG prior to completion of field activities. MSG did not delineate wetland areas outside of the corridors, but entire wetland boundaries were approximated when determining which wetlands would be subject to protection under the State of Michigan’s Goemere-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act (Part 303 – Wetlands Protection, Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act 1994, Public Act 451, as amended).

Prior to completing the field activities, MSG reviewed publicly available resources on the Site in order to better focus field activities. Resources reviewed were the Ingham County Soil Survey Map, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map and recent aerial photography. The soils survey revealed the presence of 15 soil types on the Site; Cohoctah silt loam (Ch), Urban land- Marlette complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes (UtB), Urban land-Boyer-Spinks complex, 0 to 10 percent slopes (UeB), Oshtemo- Spinks loamy sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes (OtB), Oshtemo-Spinks loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes (OtC), Ceresco fine sandy loam (Ce), Houghton muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes (Hn), Colwood-Brookston loams (Co), Kibbie loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (KbA), Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes (OwB), Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes (OwC), Boyer sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (BrB), Oshtemo-Spinks loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes (OtC), Oshtemo- Spinks loamy sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes (OtB), and Spinks loamy sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes (SpB). Of the 15 soils surveyed, seven were listed as hydric or as having hydric inclusions (Ch, UtB, UeB, Ce, Hn, Co, and KbA). A review of NWI maps indicated multiple wetlands present either on or in close proximity to the Site (Figure 2).

Nine wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I), comprised of 4.374 acres, were identified on the Site (Figure 3). Wetland A was 0.517 acres total with 0.308 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: black willow (Salix nigra: OBL), sandbar willow (Salix interior: FACW), duckweed (Lemna minor: OBL) and willow aster (Symphyotrichum praealtum: FACW). Wetland A would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being within 500 feet of Red Cedar River.

M4150005_MSU-LLTrailFeasStudy.docx

Wetland B was 1.487 acres of delineated wetland that appeared to continue to the northwest and southeast off the Site. Of the 1.487 acres delineated, there was 0.34 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: silver maple (Acer saccharinum: FACW), spice bush (Lindera benzoin: FACW), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides: OBL) and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus: OBL). Wetland B would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being within 500 feet of Red Cedar River.

Wetland C was 0.309 acres total with 0.121 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: northern hawthorn (Crataegus dissona: FACU), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana: FAC), glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus: FAC), creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia: FACW) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans: FAC). Wetland C would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being within 500 feet of Red Cedar River.

Wetland D was 1.473 acres total with 0.19 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: silver maple (Acer saccharinum: FACW), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra: FAC), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis: OBL), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides: OBL) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans: FAC). Wetland D would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being within 500 feet of Red Cedar River.

Wetland E was 0.282 acres total with 0.138 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: silver maple (Acer saccharinum: FACW), boxelder (Acer negundo: FAC) and creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia: FACW). Wetland E would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being within 500 feet of Red Cedar River.

Wetland F was 0.081 acres total with 0.016 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: bald spikerush (Eleocharis erythropoda: OBL). Wetland F would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being within 500 feet of Red Cedar River.

Wetland G was 0.074 acres of delineated wetland that appeared to continue to the north off the Site. Of the 0.074 acres delineated, there was 0.059 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: black willow (Salix nigra: OBL), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides: FAC), blunt broom sedge (Carex tribuloides: FACW) and Dudley’s rush (Juncus dudleyi: FACW). Wetland G would not be regulated in the state of Michigan because it is isolated, less than five-acres in size; and greater than 500-feet from an inland lake, pond, river or stream.

Wetland H was 0.157 acres total and was completely on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: red maple (Acer rubrum: FAC), American elm (Ulmus Americana: FACW), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica: FACW), fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea: OBL), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea: OBL) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans: FAC). Wetland H would not be regulated in the state of Michigan because it is isolated, less than five-acres in size; and greater than 500-feet from an inland lake, pond, river or stream. Wetland I was 5.2 acres of delineated wetland that appeared to continue to the northeast off the Site. Of the 5.2 acres delineated, there was 3.045 acres present on the Site. Dominant vegetation consisted of hydrophytic vegetation such as: silver maple (Acer saccharinum: FACW) and creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia: FACW). Wetland determination data forms are included in Attachment B. Wetland I would be regulated in the state of Michigan due to it being over five acres in size.

The Site was surveyed for state-threatened and endangered species with records within 1.5 miles of the Site identified by the Michigan’s Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) Environmental Services Section in a preliminary environmental screening. The species identified by MDOT include the ellipse (Venustaconcha ellipsiformis, species of special concern), elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata, species of special concern), Barrens buckmoth (Hemileuca maia, species of special concern), goldenseal (Hydrastis Canadensis, state-threatened), red mulberry (Morus rubra, state-threatened), green violet (Hybanthus concolor, species of special concern), and ginseng (Panax quinquefolius, state-threatened).

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 2 M4150005_MSU-LLTrailFeasStudy.docx

Suitable habitat for the ellipse, elktoe, Barrens buckmoth, goldenseal, red mulberry, green violet, and ginseng was present throughout the Site but no specimens were observed. Note that only a qualitative visual survey for mussels was conducted. Since known populations of state-listed mussels are found within the Red Cedar River, it is considered a Group II Stream that requires surveyors to hold a Threatened and Endangered Species Permit from the Michigan Division of Natural Resources’ (MDNR) Endangered Species Program to conduct a presence/absence survey. MSG recommends a mussel survey if work is intended to be done below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Red Cedar River.

In summary, MSG completed a surface water delineation at the Site on June 28, 29, and 30, 2017 and nine forested wetlands totaling 4.374 acres on the Site (Figure 3) were identified. At your request, MSG will submit this report to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in order to request concurrence with our findings. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the results of this surface water delineation.

Sincerely,

Katie L. Simon Natural Resources Team Leader

Attachments

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 3 M4150005_MSU-LLTrailFeasStudy.docx

FIGURES

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Feasibility Study | Draft January 2018 Page 57

MERIDIANTOWNSHIP MSU to Lake Lansing Feasibility Study | Draft January 2018 Page 59