HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-22-WSAGENDA ITEMS
North Heights Lutheran Church Concept Plan
Trident Development
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
ATTACHMENT E.PDF
ATTACHMENT F.PDF
ATTACHMENT G.PDF
Speed Limit Update
David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Food Truck Discussion
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Discussion
David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
Council Tracker
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:
David Grant
Councilmembers:
Brenda Holden
Fran Holmes
Steve Scott
David Radziej
City Council Work Session
Agenda
February 22, 2022
5:00 p.m.
*This meeting is remote. See
below for Zoom details.
Address:
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills MN 55112
Phone:
651 -792 -7800
Website :
www.cityofardenhills.org
City Vision
Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential
neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our
long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.
THIS MEETING CAN BE ACCESSED REMOTELY BY JOINING VIA ZOOM
To join the Zoom Meeting via your computer, click this link (or copy and paste it into a new
browser):
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84630211171
CALL TO ORDER
1.
1.A.
Documents:
1.B.
Documents:
1.C.
Documents:
1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
2.
AGENDA ITEMSNorth Heights Lutheran Church Concept PlanTrident DevelopmentMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFATTACHMENT G.PDFSpeed Limit UpdateDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Food Truck Discussion
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Discussion
David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
Council Tracker
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottDavid Radziej City Council Work Session Agenda February 22, 2022 5:00 p.m. *This meeting is remote. See below for Zoom details.Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.THIS MEETING CAN BE ACCESSED REMOTELY BY JOINING VIA ZOOMTo join the Zoom Meeting via your computer, click this link (or copy and paste it into a new browser):https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84630211171CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:
1.C.
Documents:
1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
2.
Page 1 of 7
AGENDA ITEM – 1A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 22-001 – Concept Plan Review
Trident Development Senior Housing Proposal – 1700 Highway 96 West
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$ $
Council Should Consider
Council should consider a request for a Concept Plan Review for a proposed 115-125 unit senior
apartment development on the northwest side of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at
1700 Highway 96 West. The Applicant is seeking feedback from the City Council on the
concept plan in advance of the full submission which would include a land use application for
items such as a Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
Planned Unit Development.
The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments
and questions regarding proposed developments. A concept review is considered advisory and is
nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal
action can be taken at a Work Session. A formal application will be subject to the full review
process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review.
Background
Trident Development is proposing a 115-125 unit senior apartment development (apartments
only, the proposed will not have an assisted living or memory care component) on the northwest
side of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at 1700 Highway 96 West. Prior to this
submission, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 29, 2021 in order to garner
feedback from the adjacent landowners on the proposed site development. The Applicant has
included a summary of the meeting comments as part of this submission. Public comments and
questions were primarily regarding traffic, access, impacts on neighborhood (i.e. property values
and Royal Hills Park), and noise.
Page 2 of 7
In 2017 and 2018, the City Council considered two Concept Plan Review applications for the
development of senior living housing which would have comprised of independent, assisted, and
memory care units on this same property. Both of those concept proposals had the placement of
the building on the south side of the property with the primary access to the site from Snelling
Avenue north of the intersection with Royal Hills Drive. At that time, the Council expressed
concerns about building height, massing, traffic, and the required property rezoning.
Additionally, the Council provided direction that the northwest corner of the property should be
considered for the development. The minutes from those two Work Sessions are included with
this report as Attachments E and F. The former Applicant evaluated this site and determined that
development would not be feasible due to the presence of several large wetlands and additional
construction costs. In the end, the former Developer made the decision not to move forward with
a formal land use application.
Discussion
Existing Conditions
North Heights Lutheran Church owns the approximately 41 acre parcel with an address of 1700
Highway 96 West located on the south side of Highway 96 and directly east of U.S. Highway 10.
The church chapel and education wing are located roughly in the center of the property. The
chapel of the North Heights Lutheran Church was constructed in 1986 and the education wing
was completed in 1998. Two large surface parking areas are located on the north and east side of
the chapel and educational wing. The remainder of the site is wooded and includes wetland
areas and stormwater infrastructure required for the existing development.
Aerial Map of Subject Property
The principal access to the site is from Highway 96 between Snelling Avenue and U.S. Highway
10. This access point is directly south of where the main roadway on the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) redevelopment site will be constructed. A secondary access is
located in the northeast corner of the site on Snelling Avenue. As part of the original approval
for the church campus, the City required that no right turns be permitted out of the Snelling
Avenue driveway so as to direct traffic to the north. Currently, the main entrance and the
Snelling Avenue intersection with Highway 96 are not signalized. A signal is planned for the
North Heights entrance with the construction of the main TCAAP roadway.
Page 3 of 7
The majority of the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. Approximately 6
acres of land at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the Highway 96 and U.S. Highway 10
interchange is zoned B-1, Limited Business District. The property is also within 1,000 feet of
Round Lake and would be subject to applicable Shoreland regulations. The entire property is
guided for Public and Institutional use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the
surrounding area, the 427-acre TCAAP redevelopment site is located north of the property across
Highway 96, and there are primarily single family residential neighborhoods to the east and west.
Royal Hills Park borders the property to the south.
North Heights
Property North South East West
Zoning
R-1 (35 acres)
B-1 (6 acres)
Shoreland
TRC – Flex
Office, Retail
Mixed Use
Parks and
Open
Space R-1 R-1
Future
Land Use
Public &
Institutional
Flex Office,
Retail Mixed
Use (TCAAP)
Parks and
Open
Space
Low Density
Residential,
Very Low
Density
Residential
Low
Density
Residential
Concept Plan Proposal
For this project, Trident Development, LLC would be the Developer and project manager, and
LifeSpark Senior Living would be the long-term operator of the project. Both are stated to have
a number of years of professional experience for development within this marketspace and
would be ownership partners for this project. Trident Development has a mixed unit senior
living facility currently under construction in Arden Hills called Round Lake Senior Living at
1740 Parkshore Drive.
Trident Development is proposing to subdivide and purchase 10.27 acres (narrative also
references 10.24 acres) in the northwest corner from North Heights Lutheran Church. This
parcel would be developed with a 115-125 unit, age restricted 55+ senior independent living
apartment building. The units would be targeted at market-rate featuring high-end amenities.
The building is proposed to be 3-story with a pitched roof design estimated to be a height of 44’
from the highest roof peak. The principal exterior materials on the building would be stone, lap
siding, and board & batten siding. Elements of architectural design have been included to
enhance the exterior appearance such as a series of dormers, together with a variation of bump-
outs. Other amenities to the apartment community will include an outdoor patio and grill area,
rooftop sky lounge with outdoor fireplace, fitness center, and walking paths. Unit sizes will
range from 800 - 1,100 square feet +/- for a one bedroom apartment then up to 975 – 1,350
square feet +/- for two bedrooms. The proposed unit sizes exceed the minimum requirements for
multi-family dwellings which are:
• One-bedroom units shall be a minimum of seven hundred (700) square feet
• Two-bedroom units shall be a minimum of nine hundred and fifty (950) square feet
For new development in residential zoning districts, the city code does not reference a
requirement for a percentage of preferred materials to be used in the building design similar to
the business zoning districts. However, the City Council is directed in Section 1325.05 – Design
Standards, Subd. 6, for Aesthetics to evaluate the impacts on surrounding area due to the
Page 4 of 7
proposed design, scale, massing, materials, height and other aspects of the subject matter as to
whether the appearance will cause a substantial depreciation in the property values in the
surrounding area or to unreasonable detract from the appearance of the area or the city as a
whole.
Viewpoint facing North
Viewpoint facing Southeast
The proposed senior apartment building would trigger requests for rezoning from B-1, Limited
Business and R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4, Multiple Dwelling District and a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Public and Institutional to HDR, High Density
Residential. The maximum density allowed within the R-4 District and HDR District is 12 units
per acre. Using the lot size of 10.27 acres, the proposed density would be 11.19 units per acre
with 115 units or 12.17 units per acre with 125 units. As their development plans are finalized,
Staff would verify as part of a future land use application that the newly created lot and total
number of units complies with the maximum density requirements. The Applicant has not
expressed an intent to seek flexibility from this requirement in their concept review materials.
The building will include 1-story of underground parking that would be sufficient for
approximately 124 units with an additional 105 surface parking spaces as shown on the site plan
submitted. The table included in their narrative based on an approximate breakdown of units by
number of bedrooms indicates that they would need to establish between 178 – 215 parking
spaces. City Code for off-street parking requirements would be 1.1 parking stall per efficiency
and 1 bedroom units, and 2 parking stalls for each 2+ bedroom units. Furthermore, Section
1325.045 for Multi-family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria states that
“A minimum of one enclosed parking stall shall be provided per dwelling unit. Enclosed parking
structures shall be attached to at least one of the principal structures to which parking is being
provided.” At this stage in the concept plans, the Applicant has indicated that the unit count and
Page 5 of 7
parking space requirements would still subject to change. They have expressed an intent to
comply with the minimum requirements if the project moves forward.
The surface parking will be located on the east side of the building with curbing and landscaping
around the perimeter to create a separation of parking areas from the existing North Heights
Lutheran Church parking. The underground parking and surface parking each have one primary
access point that is intended to direct traffic towards Highway 96. The Applicant has shown in
the renderings that the access points will be identified as “Left Turn Only” with signage showing
“No Right Turn” movements to reinforce traffic patterns towards Highway 96. A turnaround fire
access lane is shown around the rear of the building for emergency service needs.
Lastly i n review of the proposed senior apartment building, City Code Section 1325.045 includes
additional criteria that would be evaluated as part of the Conditional Use Permit review such as a
lighting plan, security plan, and bicycle parking. With the intent of this application only to seek
initial feedback from the Council on the proposed concept, the Applicant has not finalized all of
these items at this stage in their development planning. The Applicant would be required to
submit all of the requirements as referenced in this section as part of a future land use application
for a CUP.
Trident Development has provided a preliminary site plan, building elevations, interior floor
plans, a wetland delineation, and 3D conceptual renderings of the building from various
viewpoints. Based on an initial review, staff believes the proposal would require the following
land use requests:
• Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Subdivision
• Vacation of Easements (i.e. drainage/wetland)
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designation of development site from Public
and Institutional to High Density Residential
• Rezoning of the development site from B-1, Limited Business and R-1 – Single-Family
Residential District to R-4 – Multiple Dwelling District
• Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Dwelling in the R-4 District
Page 6 of 7
• Planned Unit Development for performance standard flexibility (Applicant’s narrative
indicates a request for FAR and building height)
The table below provides the performance standards for the R-4 District, Shoreland Regulations
and the preliminary analysis for the proposed development:
R-4 District Standards
Shoreland District
Trident Development
Proposal
Minimum Lot Area per
Unit 3,630 s.f./unit
11,000 s.f./unit
Approximately 3,568
s.f./125 unit
Maximum Building
Height 35 feet
35 feet
Approximate 39 feet –
43 feet
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio 0.3
N/A 0.3645
Maximum Structure
Coverage 25% of lot area
N/A 12.15%
Minimum Landscape
Lot Area 65% of lot area
65% of lot area
Not specified, but not
seeking flexibility
Maximum PUD Density 12 units/acre
N/A
11.19 units/acre (115) to
12.17 units/acre (125)
Minimum Front Yard
Setback 40 feet
Defaults to R-4 as
nonriparian lot Complies
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback 30 feet
Defaults to R-4 as
nonriparian lot Complies
Minimum Side Yard
Setback
5 feet (min)/15 feet
(total)
Defaults to R-4 as
nonriparian lot Complies
Off-Street Parking
1.1 stall/1 bedroom
2 stall/2+ bedroom
CUP 1 enclosed/unit
N/A
124 +/- enclosed
105 +/- surface
Flexibility would not be
requested
Stormwater & Wetlands
The Applicant has stated as part of the site grading that a stormwater retention pond will be
created on the south side of the proposed development. Additionally, they anticipate there may
be the need to construct an underground retention system due to space constraints of the site. At
this time, the Applicant has indicated no other details are known on the scope of this work, but as
the project progresses they will develop those engineered plans for the City Engineer to review.
As previously noted, the Concept Review submittal documents included a Wetland Delineation
Report. Similarly, to stormwater management, the Applicant has indicated they are working
through the logistics of the location of existing wetlands and impacts to placement of site
development. They’ve identified from the wetland delineation that the existing drainage/wetland
easements are no longer in alignment with actual wetlands. The Applicant recognizes that if they
decide to move forward with the project that existing easements will need to be vacated and new
easements shall be dedicated as part of the platting process.
Page 7 of 7
Traffic Analysis
For the Concept Review submittal, the Applicant has not included a traffic study for the
proposed project area. From their neighborhood meeting held in July 2021, the proposed use
from standard market apartments has shifted to age-restricted senior apartments. The Applicant
indicates this age-restricted demographic change will result in a reduced quantity of new
apartment residents with jobs which means an overall reduction in vehicular trip generation, and
reduced peak AM/PM trip generation. The Applicant would be required as part of the full
submission to include a traffic study in order for the application to be considered complete for
City Council consideration.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
A. Land Use Application
B. Project Narrative
C. Preliminary Development Plans and Renderings
D. Wetland Delineation, Kjolhaug Environmental Services
E. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
F. WS Minutes March 20, 2017
G. WS Minutes May 21, 2018
Attachment A
Page 1 of 14
3601 18th Street South ● Suite # 103 ● St. Cloud, MN 56301
Phone: 320.258.4438 ● 320.252.3603
January 31, 2022
Jessica Jagoe, City Planner
Members of the City Council & Planning Commission
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: HIGHWAY 96 SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING DEVELOPMENT—
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
Ms. Jagoe and Members of the City Council/ Planning Commission:
Trident Development, LLC is pleased to present this request for Concept Plan Review RE a proposed
senior independent living development located near the intersection of County Highway 96 and U.S
Highway 10.
OVERVIEW:
• 115-125 unit, age restricted (55+), senior independent living apartment.
• High-amenity market-rate product (not income restricted).
• 3-stories of habitable space above ground; wood framed-construction with a pitched-roof.
• 1-story of parking garage below ground; concrete construction.
• Access to come from County Highway 96 only (no access to Snelling Avenue).
• Approximately 10.27-acres of land to be purchased/subdivided from the current landowner--
North Heights Lutheran Church.
• Project will fill unmet demand for Senior Independent Living units within the Arden Hills
Marketplace.
Trident Development will be the project manager and LifeSpark Senior Living will be the long-term
operator. Trident and LifeSpark have a long history of successfully developing, owning, and operating
senior multi-family living projects. Because Trident Development and LifeSpark are ownership partners,
additional care is given to: the design/ quality of the building, how it will last the test-of-time, how the
project fits within the community, and how well it will serve the needs of residents.
Attachment B
Page 2 of 14
REQUEST:
Trident Development, LLC is seeking review of the enclosed preliminary concept-level plans to guide and
generally inform future formal land use applications.
DEVELOPER
Trident Development, LLC is based in St. Cloud, MN and has considerable experience in the
development, construction, and ownership of high-quality developments. Trident’s team of real estate
professionals have over 40 years of real estate experience. Please visit Trident’s website for examples of
completed projects, information on projects currently under construction, and to learn more about their
team: https://www.tridentdevelopmentmn.com/. If desired, the developer would be happy to arrange
a tour of completed projects for elected officials or staff.
ENCLOSED
• Concept-level preliminary plans: visual rendering, elevation, box floor plan, site plan. Click this link.
• Concept-level civil site plan (overall parking plan, preliminary storm water plan). Click this link.
• Existing Conditions Survey. Click this link.
• Property Title Work. Click this link.
• Wetland Delineation. Click this link.
• Signed Concept Plan Application + required $1,050 check to the City of Arden Hills. Click this link.
• Supplemental Details – Exhibit A.
NOTE: changes to the enclosed concept-level plans will occur. Concept level plans are intended to provide
preliminary level information for discussion purposes. Formalized and detailed plans will be submitted by the
developer with future formal land use applications.
Your guidance and feedback are appreciated. We are available to answer questions. On behalf of our
development team, we are excited partner with this City of Arden Hills to bring a high-quality senior
independent living development to the community.
Respectfully,
Patrick E. Brama
Trident Development, LLC
(763) 412-7609, patrickb@tridentdevelopmentmn.com
3601 18th Street S., #103, St. Cloud, MN 56301
Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT A: SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS
[following pages]
Page 4 of 14
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
North Heights Lutheran Church currently owns approximately 41-acres of land situated on the southeast
corner of County Highway 96 and US Highway 10, of which the subject property (approximately 10.24-acres)
will be subdivided from and conveyed to the developer for this proposed project.
This proposed project will include a professional managed, high-amenity, market-rate, senior (age 55+),
apartment building. The building will be designed as a 115-125 unit, 3-story, wood-framed structure with a
pitched roof, and heated underground parking. The building will include wood-framed construction on a pre-
stressed concrete plank deck over an underground parking garage, with hydraulic elevator service. This
senior independent living building will include a wide scope of amenities and generous landscaping.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Exterior materials are anticipated to utilize a complimentary blend of cultured stone, lap siding, and
board/baton siding. An emphasis will be placed on the main building entry point by introducing additional
amount of cultured stone. The architectural design is expected to implement a series of dormers, together
with variation of vertical plane (bump-outs) providing visual interest. A variety of complimentary exterior
material colors are proposed to create visual appeal and soften the mass of the building size.
The developer will be utilizing HMA architects to design, draft, and submit building plans, elevations, and
visual renderings. Additional architectural detail will be provided when future formal applications are
submitted.
Page 5 of 14
DWELLING UNITS
This project will offer a variety of market-rate senior independent living apartment units. This project does
not include income-restricted units. Below are current preliminary unit projections. These specs will be
updated with the next submittal.
Unit Style Quantity Square Feet
1-bedroom units 7-15% 800 – 1,000 +/-
1-bedroom + den 25-30% 900 - 1,100 +/-
2-bedroom 35-45% 975 - 1,200 +/-
2-bedroom + den 17-25% 1,050 - 1,350 +/-
Each apartment unit is currently anticipated to be furnished with:
• Wall-to-wall carpeting
• Luxury vinyl plank flooring in kitchen, baths and laundry rooms
• High quality door hardware, light fixtures and faucets
• Complete kitchen appliance package including: refrigerator, electric range/oven, built-in micro-
waves, dish washers.
• Each unit is equipped with a washer and dryer
• Heat and A/C is provided by gas-fired “magic pack” equipment
• Mini-blind window treatments
• Generous closet space
• Balconies or private patios
FEATURES & AMENITIES
This apartment community is anticipated to include the following amenities and features:
• Spacious entry lobby with seating attractive design
• Community room for resident parties, resident happy hours, and family gatherings
• Commercial kitchen with limited meal services
• Spacious outdoor patio and grill area
• Rooftop sky lounge with outdoor fireplace and game room; including a golf simulator
• Indoor pool and/or hot tub
• Fitness center with gym-quality equipment
• Private tenant storage lockers
• Centralized mail delivery area, with automated parcel handling system
• Security and surveillance camera system; controlled access entry system
• Extensive open space and trail system
• Activities and events programing
• Professional on-site management
Page 6 of 14
ZONING
The subject property currently includes three zoning district assignments: R1 Single Family Residential,
Planned Unit Development, and B-1 Limited Business District. The subject property’s designation within the
2040 Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, is P/I Public and Institutional. The current
zoning designations conflict. Outside of expanding the existing church use—any proposed development on
this site will require a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment. Listed below are the
anticipated formal land use applications/approvals that will be required for this proposed senior living
apartment project:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment – change to High Density Residential
• Zoning Amendment – change to R4 Multiple Family District (“base zoning district”)
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) – including a release from the previous PUD
• Condition Use Permit (CUP) – including a release from the previous CUP
• Subdivision/Plat – including a release and reestablishment of various easements
• Project will trigger review by: MnDOT, MnDNR, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the
Ramsey County Highway Department
LAND USE
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District does
allow for multi-family apartment buildings. Developer is proposing an age-restricted, multi-family, apartment
building. Developer is not aware of any required deviation to City Zoning Code for this proposed use.
NOTE: Developer is utilizing the R4 Multi Family Zoning District as the “base district” for this
proposed project. As mentioned in the above Zoning section, this will require a Zoning Amendment.
Page 7 of 14
LOT SIZE & DENSITY
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for
a maximum lot size of 3,030 sf per dwelling unit. The subject property is approximately 10.24 acres, or
446,054 sf. 446,054 sf / 3,030 sf = 125 maximum units. The Developer is proposing 115-125 units.
Developer is not aware of any required deviation to City Zoning Code for lot size and density.
NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City’s Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a
minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. It is the Developers interpretation that this proposed project complies
with said section of City Zoning Code (lot is 446,054 sf).
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for
a maximum FAR of 0.3. The proposed building footprint is approximately 54,200 sf and includes three floors
of dwelling/habitable space, for an approximate total of 162,600 sf (note: garage not included in calculation).
162,600 sf of dwelling/habitable space / 446,054 sf total lot size = .3645 FAR. Developer believes a deviation
to City Zoning Code for maximum FAR is required.
NOTE: if providing flexibility to this requirement is not available to the Developer, alternative
solutions to meet this requirement will be explored. Examples include a combination of expanding
the size of the parcel the Developer is purchasing from the church and/or reducing the size of
proposed apartment building footprint.
BUILDING & IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for
a maximum building lot coverage of 25%. The proposed building footprint is approximately 54,200 sf. 54,200
sf building footprint / 446,054 sf total lot size = 12.15% building lot coverage. Developer believes a deviation
to City Zoning Code for maximum building lot coverage is not required.
NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City’s Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a
maximum impervious surface coverage of 35%. It is the Developers interpretation that this proposed
project complies with said section of City Zoning Code (project will include approximately 25-35%
impervious surface).
LANDSCAPING LOT COVERAGE
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District requires
a minimum landscaping coverage of 65%. The subject property is approximately 10.24 acres in gross size.
About half of the property is physically buildable (the remaining portions include wetlands, drainage,
lowlands, steep slopes, or are inaccessible). Assuming this requirement is based on areas that are buildable,
the Developer does not believe a deviation to City Zoning Code for minimum landscaping coverage is
required.
NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City’s Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires
Developer generally dedicate a portion of property for public open space. Developer will need
assistance from City staff to further define this requirement. Developer anticipates sufficient
opportunity exists to provide open space to the public (assumption: public trail within wetlands
areas).
Page 8 of 14
BUILDING HEIGHT
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for
a maximum building of 35’. Which is based on the average height between eaves and the peak of a pitched
roof. The proposed building includes an approximate eave height of 32’, and an approximate highest roof
peak height of 44’. Developer believes a deviation to City Zoning Code for maximum building height will be
required. The exact requested building height request will be known upon submittal of a formal PUD
application. Developer currently estimates a deviation to 4'-8’ will be required.
NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City’s Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a
maximum building height of 35’. The Developer is unsure how this section of City Zoning Code
defines height. If height in this section of code is to the roof eave—this proposed project is in
compliance (32’ eave proposed by Developer). If height is defined as the roof peak and/or average
roof peak then this project may not be in compliance.
NOTE: if providing flexibility to this requirement is not available to the Developer, alternative
solutions to meet this requirement will be explored. Examples include utilizing a flat roof. The
developer is proposing a pitched roof to better compliment the surrounding single family
residential neighborhoods.
BUILDING SETBACKS
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District requires
the following minimum building setbacks: 40’ front yard, 30’ rear yard, 10’ side yard, 40’ side yard corner.
The proposed project includes building setbacks that well-exceed the City’s required minimums—please see
enclosed site plan for details. The Developer does not believe a deviation to City Zoning Code for minimum
building setbacks is required.
NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City’s Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a
minimum building setback from streets and highways of 40’. It is the Developers interpretation that
this proposed project complies with said section of City Zoning Code.
Page 9 of 14
PARKING
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District requires
the following minimum parking provisions: 1.1 per studio, 1.1 per 1-bedroom, 2 for 2-bedroom. The finalized
unit mix and parking count for this project has not been determined. The following is the current
approximate assumption. The Developer will update/finalize within the next submittal.
Example, based on 120 Units % of Units # of Units City Req. Stalls Proposed
1 Bbd/ 1 Bbd + Den Proposed = 35-45% 42- 54 46.2 - 59.4 xx
2 Bbd/ 2 Bbd + Den Proposed = 55%-65% 66 - 78 132 - 156 xx
178.2 - 215.4 216
The Developer does not believe a deviation to City Zoning Code for minimum parking stalls will be
required.
VEHICLE ACCESS
Based on informal input obtained from two neighborhood meetings RE this proposed project—the developer
believes access should come from County Highway 96 exclusively—and no access to this proposed project
shall be allowed internally, through the existing North Heights Lutheran Church campus (to Snelling Avenue).
In an effort to accomplish said goal, the Developer has made the following adjustments to the proposed site
plan:
• The apartments parking lot, and the North Heights Lutheran Church parking lot, are now separated
by a physical barrier (raised boulevard with landscaping).
• Access to the apartments garage and apartments surface parking lot are located at furthest northern
possible location—against County Highway 96.
• Provisions of exiting restrictions have been added to both apartment exit points. The developer has
added: a left turn only arrow to be painted on the pavement, at both apartment exit points; a no
right turn sign has been added at both apartment exit points; concrete curbing will be bumped (as
much as allowed by City Engineer) to help force left only exits—and help physically restrict right-out
exits—at both apartment exit points.
Internal to the site, care will be placed in the design of the parking lot to allow for the flow and circulation of
both residents’ vehicles and larger vehicles; such as fire apparatus and delivery trucks; which allow delivery
trucks to safely and efficiently enter the site. The developer has included a 24’ wide internal circulation dive
lane for parking areas, and a 20’ wide fire department access road around the rear of the building—which
includes a turn-around provision.
Page 10 of 14
FIRE SAFETY
An automatic fire suppression system is provided throughout the building (NFP 13), which will be monitored
24 hours a day. The developer will work with Fire Department and Building Official to properly locate a riser
room, mechanical room, fire suppression controls/ systems, and a lock box. Fire hydrants will be included
within the future detailed design.
TRASH/ RECYCLING
Trash collection is expected to occur in designated trash rooms located in the underground parking garage.
Trash rooms are anticipated to served by trash chutes accessible to all floors of the building. No trash/refuse
area will be proposed outside of the building.
TRAILS
This project will include pedestrian trails on the northwest side of the proposed apartment building.
Pedestrian trails will be connected to the regional county trail system located along the south side of County
Highway 96. Exact trail layouts have yet to be determined and will be formalized and updated upon the next
submittal for this project.
Page 11 of 14
WATER & SANITARY SEWER
Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer services will likely be accessed from U.S. Highway 10. City water
services will likely be accessed from County Highway 96. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain to
provide civil engineering/design services. An existing conditions survey is included within this submittal. As
this project progresses, the Carlson McCain will provide additional details and updates.
STORM WATER & GRADING
Today, the existing site grade generally flows from the northeast to the southwest—towards Round Lake.
The developer anticipates creating a large storm water cell located directly south of the proposed apartment
building. Additionally, due to space constraints, the Developer anticipates the potential need to construct an
underground stormwater storage tank. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain to provide civil
engineering/design services. As this project progresses, the Carlson McCain will provide additional details.
WETLANDS
The Developer has engaged Kjolhaug Environmental Services to conduct a wetland delineation for the subject
property. Results are included within this submittal. Important notes:
1. The City has existing drainage/wetland easements in place today. Said existing easements are no
longer in alignment with actual wetlands. There are now delineated wetlands located outside of the
existing easement areas; and there are also areas within the original easements that no longer
contain delineated wetlands.
2. The Developers proposed building plans require the above-mentioned item #1 will be addressed
through this project. Specifically, the original easements will be officially vacated by the City; and a
new replacement easement will be recorded based on the recently completed wetland delineation.
Page 12 of 14
PARK DEDICATION
Based on Developer’s review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, Section 1130.08 Public Use Dedications
requires the following land/cash dedication is required for City parks: 20% of land or a Cash Contribution of
equating to the fair market value of the land that would have otherwise been dedicated.
The Developer is purchasing the subject property for $2,250,000. 20% of $2.25M is $450,000. As a result,
the Developer is anticipating providing the City a $450,000 Park Dedication Fee for this project. The
Developer is happy to share a copy of the in-place purchase agreement directly with City staff to verify the
purchase price.
INCENTIVES & PROPERTY TAXES
This project is not seeking any local government incentives. This project does not include any low-income
units.
The subject property is currently tax-exempt; and pays no annual property taxes. Upon completion of
construction, the new project/subject property will convert from tax-exempt to fully taxable; and will pay
between $300,000 and $400,000 in gross total annual property taxes.
In addition to property taxes, this project will generate an estimated $1,000,000+ of 1x development fees
(park dedication, water, sewer, stormwater, building permit); including an estimated $450,000 park
dedication fee.
Page 13 of 14
NORTH HEIGHTS CHURCH CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS
This senior living apartment project includes improvements located offsite—not within the primary subject
apartment property. Offsite improvements will be located on the existing/remaining North Heights Lutheran
Church campus. Improvements generally include:
• Re-seal and re-stripe existing church parking lot.
• Expansion of church parking lot in three areas:
o (Area 1) approximately 72 stalls directly northeast of the existing church building
o (Area 2) approximately 15 stalls directly east of the existing church building
o (Area 3) approximately 56 stalls directly south of the existing church building.
o The net result for North Heights Lutheran Church is to maintain its existing total surface
parking stall count, prior to this apartment project—as the apartment building requires
taking of land currently utilized by the church for parking.
• The above-mentioned parking lot expansions will require the creation of a new storm water cell
located directly south of the church building. Additionally, other existing stormwater cells located on
church property may need to be slightly expanded to account for new nearby church parking stalls.
• Attached is a concept level civil site plan that generally identifies these improvements (link). This
information is preliminary/draft-form and will be modified when a full/formal civil and stormwater
plan is completed.
Page 14 of 14
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
As requested by City Staff, the Developer conducted a public neighborhood input meeting on 7/29/2021. At
the time, the developer was proposing a standard market apartment building (not senior, not age restricted).
Please follow this link to view a summary of feedback received. As a result of said meeting, the Developer
made the following adjustments to the proposed project:
1. Adjusted the proposed use from standard market apartments to age-restricted senior apartments.
Most residents will be 65+ (and will be retired). The Developer anticipates this will result in:
o Reduced quantity of new apartment residents with jobs; resulting in reduced overall
vehicular trip generation, and reduced peak AM/PM vehicular trip generation.
o No new apartment residents with children; resulting in minimal and/or no demand on Royal
Park. Conversely, this project will provide the City $450,000 of Park Dedication fees—
benefiting existing residents, with children, that do utilize Royal Park.
2. Adjusted apartment access points to come from Highway 96 only. The Developer anticipates this will
result in:
o Reduced ability/incentive for apartment residents to drive through the North Heights
Lutheran Church parking lot to utilize Snelling Avenue.
o Details provided in “Vehicle Access” section of this document.
3. Increased on-site amenity-package. The Developer anticipates this will result in:
o For senior residents that have grandchildren as guests—there will be a strong preference to
utilize convenient on-site amenities. Examples: pool and hot-tub, game room, party room,
outdoor patio area, trails, gym, commercial kitchen and dining room.
o This will result in little/no demand on Royal Park.
4. Noise-study now included within project scope. Developer will make necessary changes to the
building materials to address any potential noise issues.
5. No income restricted units are programmed for this development. This will be a 100% market-rate
senior independent living apartment building.
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!123423565527% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)- !"#$%&'%$!("")*"+"),,-.,*6789:98;<=;8> <6>?9;7@??>8A>BCD;6>698E8D? A6>77<#$?@$A B#26-;C:7B#$?@$AB#DE#A>F;G9;6HB:@8B:G978DI9>8B:@8B:?8C;6HB:@8B:?8C;6H?89D>69 ?8C;6H??87FJ KLM G9<<GG978DI9>8NO KKPQNO KRLQNO STSQNO MLQ NOULQNVULQNO WXQXLQXRQOLYXWQOLYSWQOWYMRQOTYXRQOLYAttachment C
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!123423565557% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-#%/0&1"2!3!$'%$!("")*"+"4,-.,*Z><7I H8A> ?8C;6H G9<<G8D?A7I697 ?8C;6HG9;8G9;8G9;8><>[J><>[JD\>D\>6789:
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!123423565547% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-5/6 "2!3!$"5$77/"#$%&'%$!("")*"+"4,-.,*A;6;6H \ C;9B7DD@6;9E<7ZZE=;97==G\D\>G\D\>6789:D;6>698EG9;8G9;8G9;8
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655F7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-!'7&8"2!3!$"5$77/"#$%&'%$!("")*"+"4,-.,*@??>8<7ZZEG\D\>G\D\>6789:
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655(7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-9:/8"2!3!$"5$77/"#$%&'%$!("")*"+"4,-.,*51((%/+!+)] "+) #"+#G\D\>G\D\>6789:877= 97?A>BCHD>
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655E7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-GH8%H&#>.I8J#<&!+H8%."GH8%H&#<H'8#<&!+H8%."G?:<9G:;6H<>GD>9< <?G;A;6H^<9 =78 Z78A\Z99>6_D>9< G:C>G?;69>AD>9< A>BCG[;6E< ?9;7A778G 6A I;6A7IGGD>9< B67?E><>D>69I:;9> D>9< =<G:;6H6A 98;D G976>[>6>>8??87FJ RRQD>9<B67?E ><>D>69??87FJ SXQ
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655K7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-GH8%H&#>.I8J#<&!+H8%."GH8%H&#:.8J#<&!+H8%."
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655267% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655227% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655257% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!1234235655247% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!12342356552F7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!12342356552(7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!12342356552E7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!12342356552K7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
!"#$%&&'#(()#*%+%",#-./0&!12342356552D7% !"8#9!+!&.0/!"8:;7<=# !"#$%&'( ()*+,#-%) #- -*%( (-#'+ #&! #"+ (./0+)- -1 ,%&1" ,1!%2%)#-%1&(#( "+3.%"+! !."%&' 2."-*+" !+4+15,+&- 12 -*+ 5"10+)-
ofTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC3601 18th Street S, Suite 103St. Cloud, MN 56301ARDEN HILLS APARTMENTSArden Hills, Minnesotaf:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\engineering\9327_concept d.dwgSave Date:10/20/21REVISIONSDRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:ISSUE DATE:JTRJTR10/20/211. 1CONCEPT PLAN D1NOTES
ofEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC3601 18th Street S, Suite 103St. Cloud, MN 56301REVISIONS1.2.3.4.5.6.DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:bjs1/07/22f:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\alta 2021\9327_title-overall.dwgSave Date:01/06/22FILE NO:2273PART OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23,AND LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 1, LAKESHORE HOMESITES,EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA~ of ~51– 910111217192022232426Thomas R. BalluffName:Signature:Date: XX/XX/XX License #: 40361I hereby certify that this survey, plan orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Land Surveyor under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.131416NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERANCHURCH SITEArden Hills, Minnesota
ofEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC3601 18th Street S, Suite 103St. Cloud, MN 56301REVISIONS1.2.3.4.5.6.DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:bjs1/07/22f:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\alta 2021\9327_title-overall.dwgSave Date:01/06/22FILE NO:227352NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERANCHURCH SITEArden Hills, Minnesota
ofEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC3601 18th Street S, Suite 103St. Cloud, MN 56301REVISIONS1.2.3.4.5.6.DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:bjsf:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\alta 2021\9327_insets 3-5.dwgSave Date:01/06/22FILE NO:227353111713141/07/22NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERANCHURCH SITEArden Hills, Minnesota
ofEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC3601 18th Street S, Suite 103St. Cloud, MN 56301REVISIONS1.2.3.4.5.6.DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:bjsf:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\alta 2021\9327_insets 3-5.dwgSave Date:01/06/22FILE NO:227354171314171726261717171/07/22NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERANCHURCH SITEArden Hills, Minnesota
ofEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC3601 18th Street S, Suite 103St. Cloud, MN 56301REVISIONS1.2.3.4.5.6.DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:bjs1/07/22NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERANCHURCH SITEArden Hills, Minnesotaf:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\alta 2021\9327_insets 3-5.dwgSave Date:01/06/22FILE NO:2273551713261717261426261717
1700 Highway 96 Site
Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared for
Trident
by
Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc.
(KES Project No. 2021-063)
June 22, 2021
$WWDFKPHQW'
1700 Highway 96 Site
Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1
2. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 2
3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 2
3.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................... 2
4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 3
4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 4
4.3 Other Areas ........................................................................................................................ 6
4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 6
5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................. 7
FIGURES
1. Site Location
2. Existing Conditions
3. National Wetlands Inventory
4. Soil Survey
5. DNR Public Waters Inventory
6. National Hydrography Dataset
APPENDICES
A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota
B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms
C. Precipitation Information
D. Reference Photos
1
1700 Highway 96 Site
Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY
• The 41.2-acre 1700 Highway 96 Site was inspected on May 5, 2021 for the presence and
extent of wetland.
• The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed eleven wetlands mapped within the
site boundaries.
• The soil survey showed Bluffton loam (Hydric) and Dundas fine sandy loam
(Predominantly Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the site.
• The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed Round Lake (MN DNR Public Water 62-70
P) approximately 470 feet west of the site.
• The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond corresponding with Round
Lake, and one Lake/Pond within 1000 feet east of the site.
• Eleven wetlands delineated within the site boundaries are summarized in Section 4.2 of
this report.
1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report
2
2. OVERVIEW
The 41.2-acre 1700 Highway 96 Site was inspected on May 5, 2021 for the presence and extent
of wetland. The property was located in Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Arden
Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The site was situated south of Ramsey County Highway 96,
east of Minnesota Highway 10 Figure 1). The site boundaries corresponded to Ramsey County
PID# 213023110008 and the following address: 1700 Highway 96, Arden Hills MN.
The 1700 Highway 96 Site consisted of buildings associated with the North Heights Church and
parking lots with woodland and meadow on the fringes of the property. The topography of the
site sloped from an elevation of 938 ft MSL on the central portion of the site down to a low of
900 ft MSL on the western portion. Surrounding land use consisted of single-family residential,
commercial development and recreational lakes.
Eleven wetlands were delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries
and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2.
Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type
determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation
concurrence and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for Wetlands 1-11 under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
3. METHODS
3.1 Wetland Delineation
Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and
Northeast Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were
marked with pin flags that were located by Kjolhaug Environmental Services using Trimble R1
Receiver GNSS GPS units.
Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland-
upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal
coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the
shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled.
Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a
Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used
are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources
1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report
3
Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric
Soils, Version 7, 2010).
Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and
the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes
include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric
components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric
(1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components).
Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant
species was taken from the 2017 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2017. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH).
4. RESULTS
4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) showed eight wetlands mapped within the site boundaries (Figure 3).
The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Bluffton loam (Hydric) and Dundas fine sandy
loam (Predominantly Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the site. Soil types mapped on
the property are listed below in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4.
The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
2015) showed Round Lake (MN DNR Public Water 62-70 P) approximately 470 feet west of the
site (Figure 5).
The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond
corresponding with Round Lake, and one Lake/Pond within 1000 feet east of the site (Figure 6).
Table 2. Soil types mapped on the 1700 Highway 96 Site
Symbol Soil Name Acres
% of
Are
a
%
Hydri
c
Hydric Category
132C
Hayden fine sandy loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes 25.20 61.2 5
Predominantly Non-
Hydric
75 Bluffton loam 9.73 23.6 100 Hydric
123 Dundas fine sandy loam 3.94 9.6 95 Predominantly Hydric
132B
Hayden fine sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes 2.29 5.6 7
Predominantly Non-
Hydric
1039 Urban land 0.04 0.1 0 Non-Hydric
1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report
4
4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations
Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on May 5, 2021. Eleven wetlands
were identified and delineated on the property based on field observations and aerial
photography (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix B. The following
descriptions of the wetlands and adjacent uplands reflects conditions observed at the time of the
field visit. Herbaceous vegetation was actively growing at that time. Precipitation conditions
were typical based on the Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database method and within
the normal range based upon the 30-day rolling precipitation total (Appendix C). Reference
photos of delineated wetlands have been included as Appendix D. Wetland descriptions are
provided below in Table 3.
1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report
5
Table 3. Wetlands delineated on the 1700 Highway 96 Site
Wetlan
d ID
Wetland Type
Dominant Vegetation NWI Soil Survey Adjacent Upland Observed Drainage
Features Size (Acres) Boundary Rationale Circular
39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed
Wetland
1 Type 3 PEM1Cx Excavated shallow
marsh
Hybrid cattail, reed
canary grass and sedges. None Bluffton Loam (Hydric)
Upland consisted of paved surfaces, as well as
woodland dominated by a canopy of quaking
aspen and boxelder trees with an understory of
common buckthorn.
Wetland 1 received runoff from
adjacent paved surfaces,
however not inlets or outlets
were observed.
0.20 Steep topographic break along
excavated sideslopes.
Wetland
2 Type 3/2 PEM1C/
PEM1B
Shallow marsh, wet
meadow
Hybrid cattail, lake sedge,
scattered green ash and
red-osier dogwood.
PEM1C Bluffton Loam (Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of boxelder,
American elm and quaking aspen trees with an
understory of common buckthorn and Tatarian
honeysuckle.
No inlets or outlets were
observed within Wetland 2. 0.85
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from wet meadow to
upland woodland.
Wetland
3 Type 3/2 PEM1C/
PEM1B
Shallow marsh, wet
meadow
Hybrid cattail and reed
canary grass with
scattered black willow.
PEM1C Bluffton Loam (Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of basswood
and boxelder trees with an understory of
common buckthorn, common burdock and
common blue violet.
A culvert drained into Wetland 3
from the east and a tile outlet
drained the wetland to the
southwest.
0.45
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from wet meadow to
upland woodland.
Wetland
4 Type 1 PFO1A/
PEM1A
Partially forested
seasonally flooded
basin
Green ash trees, lake
sedge, reed canary grass None
Hayden Fine Sandy
Loam (Predominantly
Non-Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of boxelder
and quaking aspen trees with an understory of
common buckthorn, prickly gooseberry and
Tatarian honeysuckle.
No inlets or outlets were
observed within Wetland 4. 0.01
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from seasonally flooded
basin to upland woodland.
Wetland
5 Type 1 PEM1A Seasonally flooded
basin
Reed canary grass and
sedges. None Bluffton Loam (Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of boxelder
and quaking aspen trees with an understory of
common buckthorn, prickly gooseberry,
meadow rue and Tatarian honeysuckle.
A tile outlet drained into
Wetland 5 and a tile inlet was
present immediately south of the
wetland.
0.03
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from seasonally flooded
basin to upland woodland.
Wetland
6 Type 1 PEM1A Seasonally flooded
basin
Reed canary grass, giant
goldenrod and dwarf
clearweed.
PEM1C Bluffton Loam (Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of boxelder
and green ash trees with an understory of
common buckthorn, common burdock,
bedstraw, giant goldenrod, Canada goldenrod
and Tatarian honeysuckle.
An ephemeral tributary drained
into Wetland 6, which drained
though the wetland into an
eroded ditch to the south.
0.05
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from seasonally flooded
basin to upland woodland.
Wetland
7 Type 5 PUBGx Excavated open water
Open water, duckweed,
narrow fringe of hybrid
cattail and willow shrubs.
PUBGx/
PEM1C
Hayden Fine Sandy
Loam (Predominantly
Non-Hydric)
Meadow dominated by smooth brome, red
clover, gray dogwood, Canada goldenrod,
Canada thistle and common dandelion.
Culverts were present on the
northern and western portions of
the wetland, which likely convey
hydrology from adjacent paved
surfaces into the wetland and
offsite.
0.32 Steep topographic break along
excavated sideslopes.
Wetland
8 Type 3/2 PEM1C/
PEM1B
Shallow marsh, wet
meadow
Hybrid cattail, reed
canary grass, giant
goldenrod and
smartweed.
PEM1C
Bluffton Loam
(Hydric), Hayden Fine
Sandy Loam
(Predominantly Non-
Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of boxelder,
green ash, bur oak and quaking aspen trees
with an understory of common buckthorn,
prickly gooseberry and bedstraw.
A culvert was present east of
Wetland 8, discharging
hydrology from paved surfaces
toward Wetland 8 through an
eroded ditch.
1.40
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from wet meadow to
upland woodland.
Wetland
9 (Storm
Pond)
Type 5 PUBGx Excavated open water
Open water, narrow
fringe of hybrid cattail
transitioning to reed
canary grass
PUBGx/
PEM1C
Hayden Fine Sandy
Loam (Predominantly
Non-Hydric)
Graded meadow dominated by reed canary
grass, smooth brome and common milkweed.
Wetland 9 consisted of an
excavated storm pond that
extended offsite to the west.
0.40 Steep topographic break along
excavated sideslopes.
Wetland
10 Type 3/2 PEM1C/
PEM1B
Shallow marsh, wet
meadow
Hybrid cattail and reed
canary grass with a lesser
amount of willow and
sensitive fern
PEM1C
Bluffton Loam
(Hydric), Hayden Fine
Sandy Loam
(Predominantly Non-
Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of boxelder
and green ash trees with an understory of
common buckthorn, prickly gooseberry,
common dandelion and Tatarian honeysuckle.
Wetland 10 received hydrology
from a culvert on the northern
portion of the wetland, and
drained to the south into
Wetland 8.
0.40
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from wet meadow to
upland woodland.
Wetland
11 Type 3/2 PEM1C/
PEM1B
Shallow marsh, wet
meadow
Hybrid cattail, reed
canary grass, Canada
bluejoint and scattered
willow shrubs.
None
Hayden Fine Sandy
Loam (Predominantly
Non-Hydric)
Woodland dominated by a canopy of quaking
aspen with an understory of common
buckthorn, prickly gooseberry and common
burdock.
No inlets or outlets were
observed within Wetland 11. 0.04
Moderate topographic break along
a transition from wet meadow to
upland woodland.
1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report
6
4.3 Other Areas
Four ephemeral tributaries were present on the site (See Figure 2), which were all resulting from
point discharge of stormwater. The ephemeral tributaries present all exhibited an eroded bed and
bank. Tributaries 1-4 were flowing sluggishly at the time of the field visit, but would likely be
dry during the later portions of the growing season except for immediately after rainfall events.
Given the presence of a defined bed and bank, these features were determined to be non-wetland
tributaries. The locations of observed culverts and drain tile inlets and outlets are shown on
Figure 2.
Clay drain tile was observed south of Wetland 5 that appeared to be failing based upon adjacent
erosion (between Wetland 5 and the origin of Tributary 2), however flowing water was only
observed above and below this section of tile. Given the presence of a defined bed and bank and
the presence of adjacent culverts discharging stormwater these areas were not delineated as
wetlands. Reference photos have been included as Appendix D.
A graded swale dominated by reed canary grass was present on the western portion of the site
draining from a culvert outlet into Wetland 9. The graded swale was dominated by reed canary
grass, with adjacent steep slopes dominated by reed canary grass, smooth brome and common
milkweed. This area was not delineated as a wetland because it consisted of a graded linear
channel that was apparently created to convey stormwater. Reference photos have been included
as Appendix D.
Sample Point A was taken on the central portion of the site within a topographic depression
dominated by green ash trees, gray dogwood, red-osier dogwood, Kentucky bluegrass, reed
canary grass, Canada goldenrod and ground ivy. This area was not shown as a wetland on the
NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly
Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. The soils in this area did not meet a hydric soil indicator,
therefore this area was determined to be upland.
Sample Point B was taken on the northeast portion of the site within a topographic depression
dominated by reed canary grass and common burdock. This area was not shown as a wetland on
the NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Hayden fine sandy loam
(Predominantly Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. This area did not contain a hydrophytic plant
community and the soils did not meet a hydric soil indicator, therefore this area was determined
to be upland.
No other depressional areas with hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on
the site. No other areas were shown as wetland on the NWI map, and no other areas were
mapped with hydric soil on the soil survey.
4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type
determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation
1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report
7
concurrence and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for Wetlands 1-11 under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION
The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were
prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was
performed.
Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an
official survey product.
Delineation Completed by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist
Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321
Kyle Uhler, GIS Specialist
Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1353
Report Prepared by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist
Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845
Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321
Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: June 22, 2021
1700 Highway 96 Site
Wetland Delineation Report
FIGURES
1. Site Location
2. Existing Conditions
3. National Wetlands Inventory
4. Soil Survey
5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory
6. National Hydrography Dataset
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063)Arden Hills, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 1,500
Feet
Site Boun dary
Source: ESRI Streets Basemap
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
9
1
8
920
9
2
2
9
1
6
9
1
4
9
2
49269
1
2
928
910
908906
904902 930900
898
896894
9 3 2
892
934
890936 938940942944 946948926
924924934908934944
924910
934936900932938944910
936
9
0
6914904 922904926 9 4 4916
932930912
924
9029049069049
1
4
924
9289 3 8
9 0 4
912930 946944934 946918918916
9
0
8
916
936942
936928906930
910928906 9329
0
6
9 3 6926
926
934
910
906
932
942Figure 2 - Existin g Conditions (2020 MNGEO Photo)
1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063)Arden Hills, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 300
Feet
Site Boundary
Transect
Wetland Boundary
!(Tile Outlet
!(Sample Point
!(Tile Inlet
Tile Flowpath
!?Culvert
Graded Stormwater Swale
Ephemeral Tributary
Ramsey County Lidar
Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons
Wetland 9
Wetland 6
Wetland 5
Wetland 3
Wetland 7
Wetland 1
Wetland 4
Wetland 2
Wetland 11
Wetland 8
Wetland 10
Wetland Number Area (Acres On Site)1 0.2020.8530.4540.0150.0360.0570.3281.4090.40100.40110.04
Ephe meral Tributa ry 295 Linea r Feet
Ephe meral Tributa ry 3245 Linear Feet
Ephe meral Tributa ry 1111 Linear Feet
Ephe meral Tributa ry 4176 Linear Feet
T9-1
T6-1
T5-1
T7-1
T1-1
T3-1
T2-1
T4-1
T8-1
T11-1T10-1
SP-A
SP-B
L1UBH
L2ABH
PEM1C
PEM1C
PEM1C
PEM1C
PEM1C PEM1A
PEM1A
PUBGx
PEM1C
PEM1C
PEM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1C
PEM1C
Figure 3 - National Wet lands Inventory
1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063)Arden Hills, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 400
Feet
Site Boun dary
Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USFWS
W
1039
132C
132C
860C
75
75
75
132C
132B
123
132B
123
75
75
75
132D
132B
132D
132D
75
Figure 4 - Soil Survey
1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063)Arden Hills, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 400
Feet
Site Boun dary
Ramsey County Soils
Hydric/Pred ominantly Hydric
Pa rtia lly Hydric
Pred ominan tly Non -Hydric/Non-Hydric
Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS
See narrative for soil series description.
Round (62-70 P)
Valentine (62-71 P)
Unnamed (62-180 W)
Unnamed (62-179 W)
Farrel's (62-184 W)
Sunfish (62-65 P)
Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory
1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063)Arden Hills, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 1,000
Feet
Site Boun dary
Pu blic Ditch/Altere d Natural Watercourse
Pu blic Wate rco urse
Pu blic Wate rs
Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR
Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset
1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063)Arden Hills, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 1,000
Feet
Site Boun dary
Hydro Ju nctio n
Artificial Path
Canal/Ditch
Conne ctor
Stream/River
Lake/Po nd
Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USGS
1700 Highway 96 Site
Wetland Delineation Report
APPENDIX A
Joint Application Form for Activities
Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota
1700 Highway 96 Site
Wetland Delineation Report
APPENDIX B
Wetland Delineation Data Forms
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes X
Depth (inches):
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Yes
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
4 - 6 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP1-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
305
3
75.00%
3.05
4
95
3
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Populus tremuloides
0
20
285
0
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
70 Y
FAC
Y
FAC
70
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Lonicera tatarica 5 Y FACU
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 20
25
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 5 Y FAC
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
5
Sampling Point:SP1-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
0
100
0
5
Prevalence index greater than 3.0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
1
5
14
13
35
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP1-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
19-25 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6
14-19 10YR 2/1
Remarks
5 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loam0-14 10010YR 2/1
95 10YR 4/6
Clay loam
M Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes 2Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 1
2
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
NoX
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP1-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
100
2
100.00%
1.00
2
0
50
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
0
100
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Carex vulpinoidea 60 Y OBL
Typha angustifolia 40 Y OBL
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
100
Sampling Point:SP1-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
100
100
0
0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
20
0
0
0
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP1-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
12-20 10YR 4/2
Remarks
5 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Mucky sandy loam0-12 10010YR 2/1
95 10YR 4/6 M Sandy loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP2-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
N
Y
X
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Yes
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range. Soils were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal circumstances were present.
N
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes X
Depth (inches):
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
1
11
6
28
15
10 N
10 N FACU
Sampling Point:SP2-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
15
0
90
0
25
0
5
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
55
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Arctium minus 5 Y FACU
Cornus alba 15 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 20
FACU
Lonicera tatarica
Prunus nigra
Y
FAC
30
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Populus deltoides
0
100
150
30
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
30 Y
FAC
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
280
3
75.00%
3.11
4
50
3
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
62 10YR 4/2
Clay loam Fill soil
M Clay loam Fill soil
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loam0-9 10010YR 3/4
Sampling Point:SP2-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
3 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10YR 4/3 10 10YR 4/6
9-20 10YR 3/4
Fill soil
Remarks
25 D
Soils at the sample point consisted of fill material.
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
NHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 2
3
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP2-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
120
2
100.00%
1.20
2
0
40
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
0
0
40
80
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
20 Y
FACW
20
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Carex lacustris 80 Y OBL
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
80
Sampling Point:SP2-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
20
80
100
0
0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
16
0
4
0
10
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP2-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
24-30 2.5Y 4/2
Remarks
5 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Mucky loam0-24 10010YR 2/1
95 10YR 4/6 M Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):16
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
17
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP3-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
340
4
66.67%
3.24
6
60
28
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
10
Acer negundo
Tilia americana
0
140
180
20
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
20 Y
Y
FAC
FACU
Y
FAC
30
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 15
20
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Arctium minus 25 Y FACU
Viola sororia 20 Y FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 N FACW
5 N FACBarbarea vulgaris
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
55
Sampling Point:SP3-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
10
0
105
0
35
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
11
4
6
10
15
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP3-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
21-24 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6
4-21 10YR 2/1
RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-4 10010YR 2/1
100
Clay loam
Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP3-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 3
4
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
17
0
0
0
0
Sampling Point:SP3-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
80
5
85
0
0
0
85
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Typha angustifolia 5 N OBL
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
160
5
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
165
1
100.00%
1.94
1
0
43
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
95 10YR 4/6 M Sandy loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Mucky sandy loam0-24 100N2.5/
Sampling Point:SP3-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
24-30 10YR 4/2
Remarks
5 C
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP4-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
21
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):20
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
7
10
4
25
10
Sampling Point:SP4-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
0
105
0
55
0
35
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Taraxacum officinale 10 Y FACU
Arctium minus 5 N FACU
50
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC
Lonicera tatarica 20 Y FACU
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 30
Y
FAC
20
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Tilia americana
0
220
150
0
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
20 Y
FACU
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
370
2
40.00%
3.52
5
50
18
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
100
Clay loam
Clay loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-12 10010YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP4-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
35-38 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6
12-35 10YR 2/1
Remarks
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP4-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 4
1
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
7
4
0
10
0
Sampling Point:SP4-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
30
5
55
0
0
0
35
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Carex vulpinoidea 5 N OBL
20
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 20
Y
FAC
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
60
60
5
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
125
2
100.00%
2.27
2
20
18
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
100
Clay loam
Clay loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-10 10010YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP4-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
30-35 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6
10-30 10YR 2/1
Remarks
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):19
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
20
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP5-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
395
2
33.33%
3.29
6
85
10
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
140
255
0
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
FAC
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Lonicera tatarica 20 Y FACU
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 80
100
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Arctium minus 5 Y FACU
Thalictrum dioicum 5 Y FACU
Populus tremuloides 5 Y FAC
5 Y FACURibes cynosbati
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
20
Sampling Point:SP5-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
0
120
0
35
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
4
20
0
50
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP5-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
32-36 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6
12-32 10YR 2/1
RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-12 10010YR 2/1
100
Clay loam
Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):4
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 5
6
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP5-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
65
3
100.00%
1.86
3
5
15
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
15
40
10
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
FAC
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 5
5
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW
Carex vulpinoidea 10 Y OBL
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
30
Sampling Point:SP5-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
20
10
35
0
0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
6
1
0
3
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP5-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10-24 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6
4-10 10YR 2/1
RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
Mucky loam0-4 10010YR 2/1
100
Clay loam
Loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP6-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
14
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):13
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
9
14
0
35
0
Sampling Point:SP6-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
5
0
116
0
46
0
46
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
Geum canadense
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
5 N
Arctium minus 10 Y FACU
Rhamnus cathartica 10 Y FAC
6 N FACUGalium aparine
FAC
Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW
70
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Poa pratensis 10 Y FACU
Lonicera tatarica 20 Y FACU
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Rhamnus cathartica 50
Y
FAC
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
184
195
10
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
389
2
40.00%
3.35
5
65
23
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
100
Clay loam
Clay loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-11 10010YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP6-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
5 C M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
18-24 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 4/6
11-18 10YR 2/1
Remarks
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP6-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 6
6
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):4
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
8
0
0
0
0
Sampling Point:SP6-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
40
0
40
0
0
0
40
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW
Pilea pumila 5 N FACW
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
80
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
80
1
100.00%
2.00
1
0
20
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
90 10YR 4/6 M Loamy sand
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-8 10010YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP6-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
8-24 10YR 4/1
Remarks
10 C
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes X
Depth (inches):
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Yes
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range. Soils were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal circumstances were present.
N
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
N
N
X
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP7-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
180
2
50.00%
3.60
4
10
18
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
140
30
10
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
FAC
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Salix petiolaris 5 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Cornus racemosa 10
15
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Trifolium pratense 15 Y FACU
Solidago canadensis 15 Y FACU
Taraxacum officinale 5 N FACU
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
35
Sampling Point:SP7-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
5
0
50
0
35
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
7
3
0
8
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soils at the sample point consisted of fill material.
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
NHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP7-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
Fill soil, restrictive layer
RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
Sandy loam0-18 10010YR 3/4
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 7
2
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP7-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
55
3
100.00%
1.00
3
0
20
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
0
55
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
OBL
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Salix nigra 15
15
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Carex vulpinoidea 20 Y OBL
Typha angustifolia 20 Y OBL
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
40
Sampling Point:SP7-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
55
55
0
0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
8
3
0
8
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)X Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP7-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
Sandy loamMC0-10 210YR 4/69810YR 4/2
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP8-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Bluffton loam (Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
28
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):26
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
16
0
3
0
8
Sampling Point:SP8-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
0
95
0
80
0
80
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Arctium minus 20 Y FACU
Glechoma hederacea 10 N FACU
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Solidago canadensis 50 Y FACU
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
15
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
5
Populus tremuloides
Acer negundo
0
320
45
0
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
10 Y
Y
FAC
FAC
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
365
2
50.00%
3.84
4
15
40
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
X Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
100 Clay loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-10 10010YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP8-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10-38 10YR 2/1
Remarks
Assumed depleted layer at some depth, therefore the Thick Dark Surface (A12) indicator applies.
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP8-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 8
14
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):13
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
7
0
0
0
0
Sampling Point:SP8-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
20
15
35
0
0
0
35
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Typha angustifolia 15 Y OBL
Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
40
15
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
55
2
100.00%
1.57
2
0
18
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)X Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loamMC0-24 510YR 4/69510YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP8-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**Remarks
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes X
Depth (inches):
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Yes
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
N
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP9-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
360
0
0.00%
4.24
2
0
43
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
100
260
0
0
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Solidago canadensis 60 Y FACU
Securigera varia 20 Y UPL
Poa pratensis 5 N FACU
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
85
Sampling Point:SP9-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
0
85
20
65
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
17
0
0
0
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
X Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):17
NHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
RockyType:
Sampling Point:SP9-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10YR 4/2 60
10-17 10YR 2/1
Remarks
10 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loam0-12 10010YR 2/2
30 10YR 4/6
Clay loam Restrictive layer
M Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 9
2
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP9-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
50
1
100.00%
1.00
1
0
25
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
0
50
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Typha angustifolia 50 Y OBL
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
50
Sampling Point:SP9-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
50
50
0
0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
10
0
0
0
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
X Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Assumed depleted layer at some depth, therefore the Thick Dark Surface (A12) indicator applies.
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):12
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
RockyType:
Sampling Point:SP9-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
Restrictive layer
RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loam0-12 10010YR 2/1
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP10-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
N
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
19
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):18
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
5
12
2
30
5
Sampling Point:SP10-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
10
0
95
5
45
0
25
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
Taraxacum officinale
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
5 Y
Ribes cynosbati 5 Y UPL
Poa pratensis 5 Y FACU
5 Y FACUCirsium arvense
FACU
60
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Geum canadense 5 Y FAC
Rhamnus cathartica 30 Y FAC
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Lonicera tatarica 30
Y
FACU
10
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
180
105
20
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
10 Y
FACW
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
330
3
37.50%
3.47
8
35
13
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
60 10YR 4/6
Clay loam
M Clay loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loam0-15 10010YR 3/4
Sampling Point:SP10-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
30 D M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10YR 4/2
15-21 10YR 3/4
Remarks
10 C
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
NHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):0
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 10
2
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
PEM1C
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP10-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
165
3
100.00%
1.83
3
0
30
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
50
0
0
70
45
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
OBL
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Salix nigra 30
30
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW
Typha angustifolia 15 Y OBL
Bromus inermis 10 N UPL
5 N FACWOnoclea sensibilis
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
60
Sampling Point:SP10-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
35
45
90
10
0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
12
6
0
15
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP10-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
11-19 10YR 4/1
Remarks
10 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Mucky loam0-11 10010YR 2/1
90 10YR 4/6 M Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):16
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
18
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
N
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?N
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Linear
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
N
Y
N
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope
3 - 5 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP11-1UpSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
275
1
25.00%
3.67
4
35
20
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Populus tremuloides
50
120
105
0
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
35 Y
FAC
35
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Arctium minus 20 Y FACU
Phalaris arundinacea 10 Y UPL
Taraxacum officinale 10 Y FACU
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
0
40
Sampling Point:SP11-1UpVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
0
75
10
30
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
8
0
7
0
18
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP11-1UpSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
20-25 10YR 4/2
Remarks
5 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Clay loam0-20 10010YR 2/1
95 10YR 4/6 M Clay loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP11-1WetSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
Y
Y
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Wetland 11
8
Yes X
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range.
Y
X
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes
Depth (inches):6
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
14
2
0
5
0
Sampling Point:SP11-1WetVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
0
80
80
0
0
0
70
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Typha angustifolia 20 Y OBL
10
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Calamagrostis canadensis 50 Y OBL
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Salix nigra 10
Y
OBL
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
0
0
0
80
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
80
3
100.00%
1.00
3
0
35
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
X Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
90 10YR 4/6 M Clay loam
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-19 10010YR 2/1
Sampling Point:SP11-1WetSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
19-24 10YR 4/1
Remarks
10 C
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
YHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP-ASampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
N
Y
X
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Yes
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range. Soils at the sample location were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal
circumstances were present.
N
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes X
Depth (inches):
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Prevalence index greater than 3.0
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
11
7
2
18
5
Sampling Point:SP-AVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
45
0
102
0
47
0
57
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
Trifolium pratense
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
2 N
Phalaris arundinacea 10 Y FACW
Solidago canadensis 10 Y FACU
10 Y FACUGlechoma hederacea
FACU
35
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Poa pratensis 25 Y FACU
Cornus racemosa 10 Y FAC
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Cornus alba 25
Y
FACW
10
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
188
30
90
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
10 Y
FACW
Y
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
308
4
57.14%
3.02
7
10
29
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
96 10YR 4/6
Sandy loam Restrictive layer
M Sandy loam Fill soils
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Sandy loam0-4 10010YR 2/2
Sampling Point:SP-ASOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
2 D M
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10YR 4/2
4-18 10YR 6/4
Fill soils
Remarks
2 C
Soils at the sample location consisted of fill material.
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):18
NHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
GravelType:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric soil present?
Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes X
Depth (inches):
Yes X Depth (inches):
Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave
Surface (B8)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region
Yes
Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal
range. Soils at the sample location were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal
circumstances were present.
N
HYDROLOGY
No
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
No
Indicators of
wetland
hydrology
present?Y
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two
required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
None
Concave
Drainage Patterns (B10)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Y
N
N
X
High Water Table (A2)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Water Marks (B1)
Saturation (A3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(C9)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Investigator(s):A. Cameron Section, Township, Range:
Datum:-
S:21 T:30N R:23W
(If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression
0 - 2 -Long.:-
Yes
Soil Map Unit Name:Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)
Lat.:
Yes
5/5/2021Sampling Date:1700 Highway 96 Site
See Joint Application Form SP-BSampling Point:MN
Project/Site:City/County:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Arden Hills/Ramsey
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
=Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
=Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
126
1
50.00%
3.23
2
0
20
0
Tree Stratum Plot Size (30 ft Radius
0
96
0
30
0
)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size (15 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
0
Herb Stratum Plot Size (5 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW
FACU
Arctium minus 15 Y FACU
Cirsium arvense 3 N FACU
3 N FACUCirsium vulgare
Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size (
Taraxacum officinale
30 ft Radius )Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species
3 N
0
39
Sampling Point:SP-BVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0
Indicator
Status
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of
Dominant Species Across
15
0
39
0
24
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
8
0
0
0
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B
Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L
Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soils at the sample location consisted of fill material.
Polyvalue Below Surface
(S8) (LRR R, MLRA
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(LRR R, MLRA 149B
Loamy Mucky Mineral
(F1) (LRR K, L)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA
149B)
Depth (inches):
NHydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
Sampling Point:SP-BSOIL
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%Color (moist)Color (moist)%Loc**
10YR 3/2 20
10-24 10YR 4/2
Remarks
1 C
Type*
Redox Features Texture
Loam0-10 10010YR 3/2
79 10YR 4/6
Sandy loam
M Sandy loam
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region
1700 Highway 96 Site
Wetland Delineation Report
APPENDIX C
Precipitation Information
1700 Highway 96 Site, Arden Hills MN: Precipitation Summary
Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group
Monthly Totals: 2021 (latitude: 45.07190 longitude: 93.17785)
Target: T30 R23 S21
mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre (inches)
Jan 2021 62 30N 23W 33 SWCD .67
Feb 2021 62 30N 23W 33 SWCD .43
Mar 2021 62 30N 23W 15 SWCD 3.51
Apr 2021 62 30N 23W 15 SWCD 2.87
May 2021 62 30N 23W 23 BYRG 3.07
March/April/May Daily Records
Date Precip.
Mar 1, 2021 0
Mar 2, 2021 0
Mar 3, 2021 0
Mar 4, 2021 0
Mar 5, 2021 0
Mar 6, 2021 0
Mar 7, 2021 0
Mar 8, 2021 0
Mar 9, 2021 0
Mar 10, 2021 .19
Mar 11, 2021 .84
Mar 12, 2021 0
Mar 13, 2021 0
Mar 14, 2021 0
Mar 15, 2021 0
Mar 16, 2021 .30
Mar 17, 2021 .06
Mar 18, 2021 0
Mar 19, 2021 0
Mar 20, 2021 0
Mar 21, 2021 0
Mar 22, 2021 .02
Mar 23, 2021 .04
Mar 24, 2021 1.50
Mar 25, 2021 .27
Mar 26, 2021 0
Mar 27, 2021 0
Mar 28, 2021 .29
Mar 29, 2021 0
Mar 30, 2021 0
Mar 31, 2021 0
1981-2010 Summary Statistics
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT
30% 0.50 0.43 1.30 2.00 2.90 3.34 2.84 3.66 2.21 1.43 0.96 0.60 18.67 30.78 27.93
70% 1.09 0.99 1.94 3.24 4.27 5.49 5.16 5.17 4.06 3.82 2.11 1.27 22.77 35.26 36.13
mean 0.85 0.78 1.82 2.84 3.73 4.43 4.40 4.27 3.51 2.70 1.74 1.16 20.35 32.24 32.06
Date Precip.
Apr 1, 2021 0
Apr 2, 2021 0
Apr 3, 2021 0
Apr 4, 2021 0
Apr 5, 2021 0
Apr 6, 2021 .50
Apr 7, 2021 .38
Apr 8, 2021 .09
Apr 9, 2021 .40
Apr 10, 2021 .12
Apr 11, 2021 0
Apr 12, 2021 0
Apr 13, 2021 .15
Apr 14, 2021 .15
Apr 15, 2021 .03
Apr 16, 2021 0
Apr 17, 2021 0
Apr 18, 2021 0
Apr 19, 2021 .05
Apr 20, 2021 0
Apr 21, 2021 0
Apr 22, 2021 0
Apr 23, 2021 .02
Apr 24, 2021 .10
Apr 25, 2021 0
Apr 26, 2021 .36
Apr 27, 2021 .02
Apr 28, 2021 .50
Apr 29, 2021 0
Apr 30, 2021 0
Date Precip.
May 1, 2021 0
May 2, 2021 0
May 3, 2021 .01
May 4, 2021 0
May 5, 2021 0 Site Visit
May 6, 2021 T
May 7, 2021 0
May 8, 2021 0
May 9, 2021 0
May 10, 2021 0
May 11, 2021 0
May 12, 2021 0
May 13, 2021 0
May 14, 2021 0
May 15, 2021 T
May 16, 2021 0
May 17, 2021 0
May 18, 2021 .08
May 19, 2021 0
May 20, 2021 1.00
May 21, 2021 .67
May 22, 2021 .07
May 23, 2021 0
May 24, 2021 .08
May 25, 2021 .29
May 26, 2021 0
May 27, 2021 .01
May 28, 2021 .86
May 29, 2021 0
May 30, 2021 0
May 31, 2021 T
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3/1/21 3/16/21 3/31/21 4/15/21 4/30/21 5/15/21 5/30/21Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precip daily precip 30d rolling total
30 -day rolling
total
normal
precip range
Site Visit Climate Conditions
1700 Highway 96 Site, Arden Hills MN
Site Visit
May 5, 2021
6/8/2021 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database
https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=486000&passYutm83=4990953&passcounty=Ramsey&…1/1
Minnesota State Climatology Office
State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources
home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites |
about us
Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database
Precipitation data for target wetland location:
county: Ramsey township number: 30N
township name: unnamed range number: 23W
nearest community: New Brighton section number: 21
Aerial photograph or site visit date:
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Score using 1981-2010 normal period
values are in inches
A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value
derived from radar-based estimates.
first prior
month:
April
2021
second
prior month:
March
2021
third prior
month:
February
2021
estimated precipitation total for this location:2.89R 2.49R 0.54R
there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.00 1.30 0.43
there is a 30% chance this location will have more
than:3.24 1.94 0.99
type of month: dry normal wet normal wet normal
monthly score 3 * 2 =
6 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 2 = 2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)14 (Normal)
Other Resources:
retrieve daily precipitation data
view radar-based precipitation estimates
view weekly precipitation maps
Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR)
1700 Highway 96 Site
Wetland Delineation Report
APPENDIX D
Reference Photos
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 1 of 9
May 5, 2021 Wetland 1 Reference Photo (Facing Northwest)
May 5, 2021 Wetland 2 Reference Photo (Facing North)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 2 of 9
May 5, 2021 Wetland 3 Reference Photo (Facing South)
May 5, 2021 Wetland 4 Reference Photo (Facing Southwest)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 3 of 9
May 5, 2021 Wetland 5 Reference Photo (Facing South)
May 5, 2021 Wetland 6 Reference Photo (Facing North)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 4 of 9
May 5, 2021 Wetland 7 Reference Photo (Facing Northwest)
May 5, 2021 Wetland 8 Reference Photo (Facing North)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 5 of 9
May 5, 2021 Wetland 9 Reference Photo (Facing East)
May 5, 2021 Wetland 10 Reference Photo (Facing Northwest)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 6 of 9
May 5, 2021 Sample Point A Reference Photo (Facing Southeast)
May 5, 2021 Sample Point B Reference Photo (Facing East)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 7 of 9
May 5, 2021 Tributary 1 Reference Photo (Facing South)
May 5, 2021 Tributary 3 Reference Photo (Facing West)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 8 of 9
May 5, 2021 – Failing tiles south of Wetland 5 (Facing South)
May 5, 2021 Tile Discharge – Tributary 1 Origin (Facing North)
1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos
Page 9 of 9
May 5, 2021 – Graded Stormwater Swale (Facing East)
North Heights Church Apartments
Proposed Project Presented – Market Rate Standard Apartments (not age restricted senior living)
7/29/2021 Neighborhood Meeting – Public Comments
• Comment Card #1:
o “I do not want to see this. There is plenty of development about to happen at TCAAP and the traffic flow + noise
from Hwy 10 and deforestation is about to be a nightmare in this area. I am not convinced that this will be
anything other than low income with greedy Ramsey County in the mix. Wait a few years when this property
degrades and people see the problems with living here! Also Hwy 96 is dangerous as-is at these intersections and
adding these residents won’t help! The last thing I want is more danger or some terrible Idea like a round-about.
Another signal would see equal if not great accident rates to Lexington’s Hwy 96 intersection. NO THANK YOU!
Will not support. Also, WE DO NOT WANT Public Transit in this area!”
• Comment Card #2:
o “I do not know why I was not notified of this meeting when I would be directly affected by this (Colleen Ct).
Residents across the highway were notified. So this public meeting seems to be directed at those that may be less
affected. TCAP seems like enough development. Quality of life, property values, crime levels – very concerned
about how this would be affect by this apartment complex.”
• Comment Card #3:
o “No apartments – would prefer townhomes. Traffic issues!”
• Developer’s anecdotal summary/interpretation of verbal feedback received is outlined below.
These are not direct and/or written quotes. These notes may unintentionally include errors or interpretations by the
developer that are different than what was intended by the person(s) verbalizing comments.
o Traffic
▪ There are concerns about apartment residents utilizing/going-through the church parking lot to enter/exit
on the east side of the church site—to Snelling. This was a major and consistent concern.
▪ Market apartments, w/kids, will result in extra traffic to Royal Park; and the current infrastructure
(pedestrian connections, park equipment, park vehicular parking) doesn’t have capacity to handle and
isn’t safe. This was a major and consistent concern.
▪ Will result in extra traffic through neighborhood to the east (rather than using Hwy 96); and the current
infrastructure doesn’t have capacity to handle. This would be for apt residents trying to go towards St.
Paul/694 E. Additionally, the current condition of this infrastructure is a concern. This was a major and
consistent concern.
▪ There are existing concerns about traffic along old Highway 10; and that this project won’t help and could
potentially have a negative effect. Additionally, the condition of nearby road infrastructure is a concern.
o Sound
▪ This site may not work for apts due to the noise from the adjacent Highways.
▪ A sound wall will be constructed along Highway 10 in the future; residents of the apartment will not
desire the new wall.
▪ Noise along Old Highway 10 a major concern currently.
▪ What sound mitigation will occur for this apartment?
o This project will decrease the value of all the homes in the neighborhood to the east.
o Why doesn’t the developer construction senior living age restricted apartments—rather than standard market
apartments that will have families with kids?
o Why not construct condos?
o Why not construct town homes?
o What is the current zoning?
o No low-income housing desired.
NOTE: the Developer generally observed about 25-30 residents in attendance
Attachment E
Approved: April 10, 2017
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JOINT MEETING WITH
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 2017
5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council
Work Session at 5:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave
McClung and Steve Scott
Absent: None
Also present: City Administrator William Joynes, Director of Finance and Administrative
Services Sue Iverson, Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka, Senior Planner
Matthew Bachler, Interim City Planner Eric Zweber, Deputy Clerk Jolene Trauba, Public
Works Superintendent Jeff Frid, Grand Real Estate Advisors Developer Judd Fenlon,
Lyngblomsten Representative Patricia Montgomery, Wold Architects and Engineers
Tuann Johnson and Rick Moore, North Heights Church President John Oldfield and
Planning Commissioner Steve Jones
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A. NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERAN AND LYNGBLOMSTEN CONCEPT
REVIEW
Interim City Planner Eric Zweber discussed the site plan and a number of slides depicting the
proposed project. The project would consist of independent living, assisted living and
memory/enhanced/skilled nursing care. He noted the trail where fire equipment could be driven
as well as other trails and parking. Lyngblomsten would most likely request a rezoning to R -4.
Interim City Planner Zweber reviewed the table of R-4 standards versus the proposed project.
The Lyngblomsten plans would require six different requests: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from P/I – Public & Institutional to HDR - High Density Residential, Rezoning from R-1- Single
Family Residential District to R-4 – Multiple Dwelling District, Conditional Use Permit for a
Nursing Home and Assisted Living Use, Planned Unit Development for Performance Standards
Increases (at least height and density), Preliminary Plat and Final Plat.
$WWDFKPHQW)
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 20, 2017 2
Grand Real Estate Advisors Developer Judd Fenlon noted Lyngblomsten is proposing using an
approximate 6.5 acre parcel with 200 total units. They are looking toward a Spring 2018 opening.
Lyngblomsten Representative Patricia Montgomery gave a verbal presentation on
Lyngblomsten’s history, services offered and anticipation of needs in the Arden Hills area.
North Heights Church President John Oldfield stated that a goal of the church has been to
provide long term housing and assisted living for their members. They feel the Lyngblomsten
proposal will meet those needs.
Mr. Fenlon discussed a market analysis that was done of Arden Hills and surrounding area,
supporting the need for senior housing.
Wold Architects and Engineers’ Rick Moore spoke about maintaining the natural aspects of the
site and being in a location adjacent to the church for potential shared activities. The west side of
the property is the flattest and has the least trees so that is where they propose to build the project.
Tuann Johnson noted the color scheme of the structure. She mentioned they would like to build
a trail connecting to Royal Hills Park.
Mr. Fenlon stated that he feels they can be competive in price points and packages they offer
compared to the rest of the market.
Mayor Grant asked if the property was ever zoned multi-family.
Councilmember McClung stated that nothing other than a hostel has ever been proposed as
residential for the property.
Councilmember McClung questioned the demand analysis, wondering if the analysis took any of
the properties currently being developed into account and if it took any of the TCAAP
development into consideration.
Mr. Fenlon replied that any properties currently built or being built were a part of the demand
analysis, but possible TCAAP units were not.
Councilmember Holmes stated that her biggest concern is the traffic pattern going out to
Snelling Avenue and Highway 96.
Councilmember McClung concurred.
Councilmember Holden wondered what the active membership at North Heights is currently.
Mr. Oldfield stated that membership is down about 50 per-cent from the previous high.
Councilmember Holden then asked how much traffic would be produced by this development.
Mr. Fenlon stated that they are estimating 480 trips per day.
Councilmember Holden said she thinks 65 feet for the building height is way too high.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 20, 2017 3
Mayor Grant reiterated the number of senior living units coming into the area and stated that
Lyngblomsten’s risk is not the Council’s concern.
Councilmember McClung also expressed concern about the height of the current proposed
structure.
Councilmember Scott is also concerned about the traffic patterns, and pedestrian traffic going to
and from the park.
Mayor Grant agreed that traffic, changing zoning, and building height are all concerns.
Councilmember Holmes said she didn’t have a problem with the zoning, but felt it may be too
isolated from the rest of the community.
Councilmember McClung inquired if they had considered placing the building on the
northwestern section of the property.
Mr. Moore responded that they had considered it, but that placing it there would fill up most of
the area and would require alteration to the existing parking lot.
Councilmember McClung stated that he cannot support the current proposal. He has traffic
concerns, zoning concerns and massing/height concerns.
Councilmember Holden felt the use of land that is currently idle is good and as well as the
connection to the TCAAP area and parks. She said she would support rezoning in this situation.
B. HIGHER EDUCATION MORATORIUM STUDY
Interim City Planner Zweber stated that they would be discussing the conversations that took
place with the two Universities (Bethel and Northwestern) concerning existing campus master
plans and how they come into play with acquiring sites off campus. They would also start the
process of looking at commercial and industrial zones to see if they are meeting the needs of the
community. Both colleges are hoping to increase enrollment and continue to look for off-site
facilites. Both schools can save approximately 50% of costs by renovating an existing building
versus building new.
Interim City Planner Zweber also explained that the University of Minnesota has abandoned the
3-2 program. Those students would spend the first 3 years at Bethel or Northwestern, then
transfer to the U of M for 2 years and once completed they would have both a Bachelor of Science
and a Bachelor of Arts degree. Because that program no longer exists and in an effort to keep
those existing students, both colleges are looking for lab and classroom space necessary for S.T.E
M. students.
Mayor Grant asked if staff had looked at the parameters within the Conditional Use Permit under
which Bethel operates and if the student levels they are trying to reach are within those limits.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 21, 2018 2
Councilmember Holden suggested a demonstration during a City Council meeting showing the
viewers a demonstration of how to use community crime mapping.
It was decided that staff should schedule a quarterly update from the Sheriff’s Office during a
regular City Council meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding the officers stopping to visit with residents as they are making their
rounds through the neighborhoods, and the possibility of cameras in City Parks.
B. Concept Plan Review – Lyngblomsten and North Heights Lutheran Church
City Planner Matthew Bachler noted the Council had a previous Concept Plan Review with
Lyngblomsten and North Heights Church at the March 20, 2017 Work Session. At that time there
were concerns about building height, density, traffic and the required rezoning of the property.
Updates have been made to the plan and have been brought forward to review.
Grand Real Estate Advisors’ Judd Fenlon gave a presentation highlighting changes they have
made to the proposed development area. He mentioned that time was spent site planning and
investigating potentially changing the location to the north side of the property but there was too
much wetland, so they have continued to focus on the south side of the church. They are
proposing to purchase approximately seven acres of land from North Heights Lutheran Church
and build a continuum of care campus comprised of approximately 100 independent living units,
50 assisted living units and a 50 unit nursing home. They are motivated to preserve as many of
the site amenities as possible including mature trees and the wetland, and provide connectivity via
walking paths and sidewalks surrounding the site and to the park.
Councilmember Holden asked if they have considered sharing part of the parking lot with the
church rather than build an entirely new lot.
Mr. Fenlon replied that more discussion and study will be needed to see how frequently events
are held that fill up the current lot and how difficult it would be to share the lot.
Wold Architects and Engineers’ Rick Moore discussed the rendering of the building, which
included lowering the height of the building which will now be from 47 to 52 feet, noting the
highest part of the building would be the entrance. He also showed street view drawings with
perspectives from Highway 10 and Snelling Avenue. Building colors and materials have not been
been finalized.
Mr. Fenlon noted that a demand study was done in the primary market area and it was determined
that there is a need for 534 senior housing units now and the need will grow to 650 by 2021. A
traffic study was also commissioned showing there would be approximately 660 total daily trips
generated by the facility, 35 trips during the morning peak time and 55 during the evening peak
time.
Councilmember Holden stated that she isn’t worried about the amount of traffic that could be
generated by the facility.
Councilmember Steve Scott asked if the exits would be controlled intersections.
Attachment G
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 21, 2018 3
Discussion ensued regarding the possible need for controlled intersections at the parking lot exits
and a possible separate entrance to the housing area.
City Planner Bachler confirmed that the property would have to be built as a PUD, and it is
currently zoned R-1.
Councilmember Dave McClung stated he has all of the same concerns as he did with the
previous plan; traffic, density and height.
Councilmember Holden felt it would be a good use of the land, that traffic is not an issue, and
the project would be an asset to the community.
Councilmember Scott said he was not opposed to the project, but did have concerns about traffic.
Mayor Grant noted the building height being lowered mitigates a previous concern of his, and he
was not opposed to the project. He felt the traffic issues are probably resolveable. He encouraged
the Lyngblomsten team to contact Councilmember Fran Holmes for her opinion on the project.
C. Committees and Commissions – Joint Works Sessions with Council
City Administrator Dave Perrault gave comments from Councilmember Holmes; she enjoys the
joint work sessions and wants them to continue on an annual basis but the presentation should be
limited to half an hour and only the chair should speak.
After discussion, it was determined that the Council would like to continue to have a joint work
session with the Planning Commission, but the other committees and commissions could work
with the Council liaisons rather than come before the whole Council.
D. Utility Bonding
City Administrator Perrault reminded the Council that Ehler’s had given bonding
recommendations and the Council had requested other scenarios with varying levels of debt.
Councilmember Holden said she would like to look at the capital projects again to see if there is
anything they want to change before they do the bonding. She noted the amount of interest that
would need to be paid on each scenario.
Mayor Grant favored scenario A.
Councilmember Holden said she would like to strike the $200,000 for sewer lining in 2018 and
use scenario A.
Councilmember Scott leaned toward scenario B with the sewer lining as is.
Councilmember McClung was comfortable with scenario B.
Mayor Grant suggested taking out the sewer lining and bond an amount somewhere between
scenario A and B.
Page 1 of 3
AGENDA ITEM – 1B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: HR Green - John Morast
David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer
SUBJECT: City Council Work Session Speed Limits Updates
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$ $
Council Should Consider
No actions – Speed Limit Transition Update
Background
Minnesota Statute 169.14 Speed Limits, Zones; Radar regulates highway and roadway speeds in
Minnesota. Subdivision 2 sets maximum speed limits on a variety of within a Municipality, such
as 10 mph in alleys, 30 mph in urban districts, and 25 mph on residential roadways, if adopted by
the road authority. In August 2019, the Minnesota Legislature changed the Statutes governing
speed limits on city streets. The changes allow cities to establish speed on roads under the City’s
jurisdiction, other than the statutory limits, without conducting an engineering and traffic
investigation. Any speed limit changes must be implemented in a consistent and understandable
manner. “The city must erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the
authority under this subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city's
safety, engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety, engineering, and traffic
analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic crashes, and
methods to effectively communicate the change to the public.”. City Council has discussed
speed limit changes on various roads within the City decided to implement a speed limit
reduction on certain City streets from 30 MPH to 25 MPH in the spring of 2022.
Discussion
The project has been on-going developing a map for a reduced speed limit on city streets,
reviews and discussions have been ongoing to help ensure proper signage and locations.
Page 2 of 3
Coordination
Speed limits have been discussed with Ramsey County Sheriff’s office, City Attorney and
Prosecutor to ensure proper sign locations from engineering, legal and enforcement perspectives.
Final coordination efforts on sign placement with adjacent cities and Ramsey County Traffic
Engineering to ensure “sign pollution” and conflicting messages are eliminated.
Sign Locations/Sign Inventory/Speed Limit Lamp
Signs in the sign inventory have been reviewed and 25, 30, 35 and 40 MPH sign locations have
been placed on the speed limit map. Next step is the site visit with City staff to each sign
location to verify actual field location for conflicts, sign distances, consistent messaging, etc.
As a note, it was thought MSA streets were not eligible (or at least unclear if they were) for cities
to reduce their speed limits. Apparently there has been some discussions at MnDOT regarding
this as well. Recently, MnDOT Office of State Aid made a presentation at the City Engineers
Association Meeting and clarified that MSA roads are indeed eligible for cities to reduce their
speed limits. However, MnDOT does not have design standards (yet) for these reduced speed
limits, other than school zones.
The Arden Hills MSA roads are shown on the speed limit maps (Attachment A) as the thicker
dashed lines. Several MSA street have similar neighborhood road characteristics of the city street
currently being recommended for speed limit reductions. Other are more cut through in nature
and disperse traffic to more major roads. Two roads in particular, Lake Valentine Road and
Snelling Ave N, are MSA roads, but act differently in traffic patterns, destinations, and design
standards. With this new information, further discussions and reviews of these roads should take
place to determine which might or should be eligible for speed limit reductions, or other actions,
such as traffic calming measures.
Citywide Speed Limit Sign/Communications/Code
Speed limit signs have been discussed and for costs and consistent messaging, the 25 MPH speed
limit sign, with an “unless otherwise posted” placard seem to be the most standard and
economical signs to use. (Attachment B)
Communications with the public can continue at public hearing(s) at the Planning Commission
and/or City Council levels, providing information to residents on the City website, email, City-
wide emails, postings at City facilities, etc. and to the motoring public with “traffic change
ahead” signs once implemented.
Code sections are being reviewed with the City Attorney to determine what changes might need
to be made to enact the speed limit changes.
Project Timeline:
• February 21 - 25 – finalize coordination with County, field verify sign locations and
message to public
• February 28- March 4 – finalize any necessary Code changes, Council actions, public
hearing date(s) and order signing
• March/April – Council actions and sign installation for Spring 2022 implementation
Page 3 of 3
Budget Impact
None at this time for this discussion
Attachments
Attachment A - Speed Limit Sign Map
Attachment B - Speed Limit Sign Examples
STOWE AVE
L
A
K
E
V
A
L
E
N
TI
N
E
R
D
RED FOX RD
GREY FOX RD
INGERSON RDROUND LAKE RD WAMBL
E DRSIEMS CTSNELLING AVE NCOLLEEN AVE
GLEN PAUL AVE
TILLER LN
H A M LINEVENUS AVE
T H O M D R
ARDEN VIEW DR
GLENARDEN RDCHATHAM AVEAMBLE RD
NOBLE RD
GRAMSIE RD
ARDEN PL
GRANT RD
OAK AVE
EDGEWATER AVE
JERROLD AVE DUNLAP ST NHARRIET AVE
FLORAL DR W
GLENVIEW AVE
GATEWAY BLVD
W Y N C R E S T
CARLTON DR
F O R E S T L N
PRIOR AVE NCUMMINGS PARK DR
ROYAL LN
KATIE LN PINE TREE DRFAIRVIEW AVE NRIDGEWOOD RDCRYS TAL AVE PLEASANT DRARDEN OA KS DR
V A L E N T I N E A V E
BENTON WAYINDIAN OAKS TRL
SKILESLNBRI
ARBECKMAN AVE
LA METTI L N
M C C R A C K E N L N KEITHSON DRASBURY AVE NNURSERY HILL LN
BUSSARD CT
DAWN
CIR W JAMES AVEJANET CT
CANNONGLENHILL RDNORMA AVEA R D ENVIEWCTR O Y
KATIE CT GL
ENARDENCTRIDGEWOOD CTKARTH LAKE CI
RGALE CIRMCCLUNG
DR
WYNCREST LNS
A
N
D
E
E
N
R
D
PARKSHORE DR EIDE CIR
NORTH-WOODS DRNURSERY HILL CT
C
U
M
M
I
N
G
S
L
NVALENTINE CTINGERSON CT
C O L L E E N C T
G
LE
N
VIE
W
C
T
HUNTERS
CT
SHORELINELNPASCAL AVE NLAKE LN NCONNELL Y AVE
THOM
CT AMBLE CIRCHATHAM CTCOLLEEN CIRROLLING HILLS RDARDEN
OAKS CTNORMA CIRI
NDI
AN PLEDGEWATER AVENORMAAVE TILLER LNSNELLING AVE NDUNLAP ST NARDENP L
S K IL E S L N
FAIRVIEW AVE NHAMLINE AVE NG L E N H I L L R D
WYNRIDGE
PLEASANT
CIR
ARDEN
INDIAN OAKS CT
JAMES CIRDELLVIEW AVEDELLVIEW AVEDELLWOOD STGATEWAY
CT
VALENTINE
CREST RD BRUEBERR Y LN
BRIARKNOLL CIR
DELLWOOD AVELAMETTI CIRWALDEN PLWEDGEWOOD
CIR
INDIAN
OAKS CIR
C
H
A
T
H
A
M
CIR
L A K E J O H A N N A B LV D
LAKE JOHANNA BLVDRIDGEEDGEWATER AVEFAIRVIEW AVE NFERNWOOD STSNELLING AVE NSHORELINELNK A T IE
LN
COUNTY ROAD D W SHOREWOODDR
LAKE LN
COUNTY ROAD E W LAKEJOH A N N A BLVD
GLEN PAUL AVECLEVELAND AVE NNEW BRI
GHTON RDNEW BRIGHTON RDHUDSON RDTHOM DRCLEVELAND AVE NBRIGHTON WAYNEW BRIGHTON RDINTERSTATE 35WCOUNTY ROAD E2 W
C O U N T Y R O A D E 2 WLAKEVIEWCT
C H A T H A M A V E
SIEMS CTARDEN PL
GLE N ARDENRDOLD SNELLINGARDEN OAKS DRSNELLING AVE NBETHEL DROLD HIGHWAY 10OLD SNELLINGVENUS AVEINTERSTATE 35WLAKE VALENTINE RDROUNDLAKERDW
O
L
D
H
I
G
H
WA
Y
1
0
INTERSTATE 694
INTERSTATE 694
H
I
G
H
WA
Y
1
0
KNOLL DR VISTA CTDAWN
CIR E
C
OLLEEN A V E ARDENVIEWDR
COUNTY ROAD F W INNOVATION WAY (Private)FERNWOOD STPLEASANT DR
A
M
B
L
E D
R
LEXINGTON AVE NLEXINGTON AVE ND R
CT
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC DR (Private)BETHEL DRBETHEL DR
COUNTY ROAD E W
LEXINGTON AVE NBENTON WAYAVE
INGERSON RD
AVE NWOOD RDCOUNTY ROAD E HAMLINE AVE NHAMLINE AVE NPrivateKATIE LNAL HILLS DRTony Schmidt
Regional Park
Crepeau Nature
Preserve
Hazelnut
Park
Ingerson
Park
Freeway
Park
Tony Schmidt
Regional Park
Sampson
Park
Lindey's
Park
Charles
Perry Park
Tony Schmidt
Regional Park
Valentine
Park
Floral
Park
Royal
Hills
Park Cummings
Park
Johanna
Marsh
Arden
Oaks
Park
Community
Gardens
Lake
Josephine
Lake
Johanna
Valentine
Lake
Round
Lake Karth Lake!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?
!?!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China
(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Community
City of Arden Hills
Speed Limit Signs Ü Document Path: P:\GIS_Data\PDF_Maps\SpeedLimits and SpeedSigns.mxdLegend
!?Proposed City Wide Speed Limit: 25MPH
State Aid Roads
SPEED LIMIT 25
SPEED LIMIT 30
SPEED LIMIT 35
SPEED LIMIT 40
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Attachment A
2550 University Avenue West | Suite 400N | St. Paul, MN 55114
Main 651.644.4389 + Fax 651.644.9446
HRGREEN.COM
Speed Limit Signage
MUTCD Compliance 25 MPH Speed Limit
MUTCD Compliance 25 MPH Speed Limit Sign
MUTCD Compliance Traffic Control Change
MUTCD Compliance Integrated Speed Limit Sign
Attachment B
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 1C
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Food Truck Update
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
For Council Consideration
Council should provide direction on the status of any updates to the City’s rules regulating food
trucks.
Background
Following discussion at Council worksessions, the City Council considered updates to its Food
Truck Ordinance at its June 14, 2021 City Council meeting (full memo and attachments are
included under Attachment A of this memo). At the meeting, Council decided to table the item to
a future worksession for further discussion. The proposed updates would have imposed the
following:
• Requiring the property owner/event host to obtain permit to host a food truck (similar to
garage sales)
• Limiting the number of times a residential property could host a food truck to two events
per calendar year
• Set an administrative penalty for violations of the ordinance ($100)
As the ordinance stands today, a residential property can host a food truck, but the sales are
limited to those attending a private/catered event, such as, a wedding or graduation party. From
an enforcement perspective, it is difficult for the City to define what is considered a “private”
event versus what constitutes sales to the general public. Non-residential properties are allowed
to host food trucks and make sales to the general public, for example, Mounds View High School
could host a food truck and make sales to the general public.
In 2021, the City issued 24 food truck licenses. Of those licenses, approximately 10 were for
non-residential properties, such as, the University of Northwestern, Mounds View High School
or Valentine Hills Elementary hosting a food truck. The remaining 14 licenses were residential
properties hosting food trucks.
Page 2 of 2
Of those residential properties, 3 reported to be a private or catered event, and 11 were for
ongoing neighborhood gatherings. These numbers represent information reported to the City at
the time of license application and may not represent the full extent of where licensed trucks
operated in the City thereafter. For example, a previously licensed truck may have been
subsequently hired at a different residential or non-residential property later in the summer which
did not report the event to the City, or an event could have been later cancelled by the vendor or
resident, making this difficult to track.
For reference, the Minnesota Department of Health licenses food trucks to ensure safe operation
and food preparation standards are met. The City also licenses food trucks that operate in the
City to ensure they meet City Ordinance requirements; the City also has the fire department
inspect food trucks to ensure they meet minimum fire safety standards. There is no standard on
regulating food trucks for Cities, some cities have little to no regulation while others have
regulations similar to ours.
Staff is seeking direction on what, if any, changes should be made to the existing ordinance, or if
Council is comfortable with it as written.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
Attachment A: June 14, 2021 Memo on Proposed Food Truck Ordinance Changes
Page 1 of 2
NEW BUSINESS ITEM – 9B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 14, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Julie Hanson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Consideration of Food Truck Ordinance Updates
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Motions to approve, table, or deny the following:
• Ordinance 2021-005 Amending Chapter 3, Section 320 - Limited, Temporary Permits,
Subsections 320.09, 320.10 and 320.12; Section 395, Subsection 395.05, Subd. 1 and
Subd. 2A; and Subsection 395.06; and Ordinance 2021-006 Amending 2021 Fee
Schedule
All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted.
Background/Discussion
At its special work session on May 24, 2021 the City Council directed staff to provide draft
language amending City Code pertaining to mobile food units/food trucks to include
implementing a residential food truck permit which caps private residential properties at two
catered events per calendar year and a fee violation in the amount of $100. Attached is a copy of
the draft May 24, 2021 special work session draft minutes which are slated for consideration of
approval at this June 14, 2021 regular City Council meeting.
These items would require an amendment to City Code Chapter 3 and also the 2021 Fee
Schedule should the Council wish to move forward.
Attached for Council review and consideration are a red-lined and clean version of the amended
ordinance, a summary ordinance for publication, a red-lined and clean version of the draft 2021
Fee Schedule, and a draft residential food truck permit.
Attachment A
Page 2 of 2
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
A: Draft Ordinance 2021-005 (red-lined version)
B. Final Ordinance 2021-005 (clean version)
C. Summary Ordinance 2021-005
D. Draft Ordinance 2021-006 Fee Schedule (red-lined version – page 7)
E. Final Ordinance 2021-006 Fee Schedule (clean version – page 7)
F. Draft residential Food Truck permit
G. Draft May 24, 2021 Special Work Session minutes
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3,
SECTION 320, SUBSECTIONS 320.09, 320.10 AND 320.12;
SECTION 395, SUBSECTION 395.05, SUBD. 1 AND SUBD. 2A;
AND SUBSECTION 395.06 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 – Licenses and Regulations, Section 320 – Limited,
Temporary Permits, Subsections 320.09, 320.10 and 320.12 are hereby amended by deleting
strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows:
320.09 Businesses, Occupations, and Activities for which Permit Fee not Required.
The activities for which permit fees shall not be required, but nevertheless a permit shall be
required, are as follows:
∙ Purchase of fireworks and operation of fireworks display or program;
∙ Boutique or garage sale;
. Mobile food unit/food truck catered parties/events; and
∙ Newspaper distribution locations.
320.10 Approval.
Approval of an application for a permit to engage in the following type of activity shall be
granted by the body, department or officer of the City indicated across therefrom in the following
schedule:
∙ Circuses and carnivals: City Council;
∙ Commercial advertising distribution: City's designated law enforcement provider and City
Administrator;
∙ Installation or construction of courtesy benches or shelters: City's designated law
enforcement provider and City Administrator, if such a bench or shelter is to abut a county road,
county permission must also be obtained;
∙ Fireworks purchase and/or display: City Council;
∙ Flea markets or commercial sidewalk sales: City Council;
∙ Boutiques or garage sales at a private home: City's designated law enforcement provider
and City Administrator;
Attachment A
. Mobile food unit/food truck catered parties/events: City’s designated law enforcement
provider and City Administrator;
∙ Group picnics or camping: park director and City Administrator;
∙ Peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants: City Administrator;
∙ Newspaper distribution locations: City's designated law enforcement provider and City
Administrator;
∙ Outdoor concerts: City Council; and
∙ Roadside stands: City Administrator.
320.12 Limit on Occasion of Mobile Food Unit/Food Truck Catered Parties/Events on
Residential Properties.
A residential property shall be limited to no more than two (2) mobile food unit/food truck
catered events per calendar year.
SECTION 2. Chapter 3 – Licenses and Regulations, Section 395 - Mobile Food Units,
Subsection 395.05, Subd.1 and Subd. 2A, and Subsection 395.06 are hereby amended by
deleting strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows:
395.05 Conditions of Licensing.
A mobile food unit may only operate as set forth in the following:
Subd. 1 Locations. A mobile food unit may only operate in the locations set forth in this
paragraph and as specified in the permit. A mobile food unit may operate in a private
commercial or industrial parking lot and on private residential property, with the written consent
of the private property owner.
When operations occur on private residential property, mobile food unit sales may only be for
catering purposes (such as a private graduation party or wedding) and not open for sales or
service to the general public. Sales or service may only be made only to the applicant of the
residential mobile food unit/food truck permit, their family and guests at the catered event.
The owner of the residential property must have obtained required city permits for the event as
required by Section 320 or other provision of this Code.
A mobile food unit may only operate in a City park or on City property and or rights of way with
the prior written approval or permit by the City and as specified in the approval or permit, and
additional park or other permits may be required for such operations.
Subd. 2 Performance standards. A mobile food unit licensee is subject to the following
performance standards:
A. Any mobile food unit with an annual license may not operate on the same non-
residential propertyor commercial property for more than twenty-one (21) days total during any
calendar year, and any mobile food unit with an annual or temporary license may operate at no
more than two catered events at a residential property during any calendar year, provided the
owner of the residential property has obtained all required permits for the event and has
complied with all terms of those permits.
395.06 Suspension or Revocation of a License, Criminal Penalty.
A license may be suspended, revoked, or denied for renewal for any violations of this Code or
conditions of any license. Any violation of this Code or provisions of any license shall be a
misdemeanor. It shall be a violation for a property owner to allow a mobile food unit to operate
on their property in violation of this Code or conditions of any license, and the property owner
may be charged with a misdemeanor or administrative penalty set by the Council (see current
Fee Schedule – Appendix As/charges ordinance).
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2021, by the City Council of the City of
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
By ________________________________
David Grant, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Julie Hanson, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3,
SECTION 320, SUBSECTIONS 320.09, 320.10 AND 320.12;
SECTION 395, SUBSECTION 395.05, SUBD. 1 AND SUBD. 2A;
AND SUBSECTION 395.06 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 – Licenses and Regulations, Section 320 – Limited,
Temporary Permits, Subsections 320.09, 320.10 and 320.12 are hereby amended as follows:
320.09 Businesses, Occupations, and Activities for which Permit Fee not Required.
The activities for which permit fees shall not be required, but nevertheless a permit shall be
required, are as follows:
∙ Purchase of fireworks and operation of fireworks display or program;
∙ Boutique or garage sale;
. Mobile food unit/food truck catered parties/events; and
∙ Newspaper distribution locations.
320.10 Approval.
Approval of an application for a permit to engage in the following type of activity shall be
granted by the body, department or officer of the City indicated across therefrom in the following
schedule:
∙ Circuses and carnivals: City Council;
∙ Commercial advertising distribution: City's designated law enforcement provider and City
Administrator;
∙ Installation or construction of courtesy benches or shelters: City's designated law
enforcement provider and City Administrator, if such a bench or shelter is to abut a county road,
county permission must also be obtained;
∙ Fireworks purchase and/or display: City Council;
∙ Flea markets or commercial sidewalk sales: City Council;
∙ Boutiques or garage sales at a private home: City's designated law enforcement provider
and City Administrator;
Attachment B
. Mobile food unit/food truck catered parties/events: City’s designated law enforcement
provider and City Administrator;
∙ Group picnics or camping: park director and City Administrator;
∙ Peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants: City Administrator;
∙ Newspaper distribution locations: City's designated law enforcement provider and City
Administrator;
∙ Outdoor concerts: City Council; and
∙ Roadside stands: City Administrator.
320.12 Limit on Occasion of Mobile Food Unit/Food Truck Catered Parties/Events on
Residential Properties.
A residential property shall be limited to no more than two (2) mobile food unit/food truck
catered events per calendar year.
SECTION 2. Chapter 3 – Licenses and Regulations, Section 395 - Mobile Food Units,
Subsection 395.05, Subd.1 and Subd. 2A, and Subsection 395.06 are hereby amended by as
follows:
395.05 Conditions of Licensing.
A mobile food unit may only operate as set forth in the following:
Subd. 1 Locations. A mobile food unit may only operate in the locations set forth in this
paragraph and as specified in the permit. A mobile food unit may operate in a private
commercial or industrial parking lot and on private residential property, with the written consent
of the private property owner.
When operations occur on private residential property, mobile food unit sales may only be for
catering purposes (such as a private graduation party or wedding) and not open for sales or
service to the general public. Sales or service may only be made only to the applicant of the
residential mobile food unit/food truck permit, their family and guests at the catered event.
The owner of the residential property must have obtained required city permits for the event as
required by Section 320 or other provision of this Code.
A mobile food unit may only operate in a City park or on City property or rights of way with the
prior written approval or permit by the City and as specified in the approval or permit, and
additional park or other permits may be required for such operations.
Subd. 2 Performance standards. A mobile food unit licensee is subject to the following
performance standards:
A. Any mobile food unit with an annual license may not operate on the same non-
residential or commercial property for more than twenty-one (21) days total during any calendar
year, and any mobile food unit with an annual or temporary license may operate at no more than
two catered events at a residential property during any calendar year, provided the owner of the
residential property has obtained all required permits for the event and has complied with all
terms of those permits.
395.06 Suspension or Revocation of a License, Criminal Penalty.
A license may be suspended, revoked, or denied for renewal for any violations of this Code or
conditions of any license. Any violation of this Code or provisions of any license shall be a
misdemeanor. It shall be a violation for a property owner to allow a mobile food unit to operate
on their property in violation of this Code or conditions of any license, and the property owner
may be charged with a misdemeanor or administrative penalty set by the Council (see current
Fee Schedule – Appendix A).
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2021, by the City Council of the City of
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
By ________________________________
David Grant, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Julie Hanson, City Clerk
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3,
SECTION 320, SUBSECTIONS 320.09, 320.10 AND 320.12;
SECTION 395, SUBSECTION 395.05, SUBD. 1 AND SUBD. 2A;
AND SUBSECTION 395.06 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on June 14, 2021, Ordinance No. 2021-005 was
adopted by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No.
2021-005, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the City Council adds
Mobile food unit/food truck as an activity requiring a permit fee for catered parties/events. The
Ordinance requires approval from the City for Mobile food unit/food truck activities; provides that
a residential property is limited to two Mobile food unit/food truck catered events per calendar
year; and provides additional conditions of licensing regarding permit requirements and criminal
penalty.
A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the
City’s regular office hours or on the City’s website.
APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota,
this 14th day of June, 2021.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
By __________________________________
David Grant, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Hanson, City Clerk
Published in the Pioneer Press on June 16th, 2021
$WWDFKPHQW&
Page 1 of 15
City of Arden Hills
Ordinance 2021-0026 – Appendix A
Amended 2021 Fee Schedule
I. Administrative
Dogs/Cats – Licenses Two years (Pro-rated for second
year @ $15.00)
$30.00
Dogs/Cats – Duplicate Tags Each $6.50
Dogs/Cats – Boarding $22.00 per day
Dogs/Cats – Impoundment Fee $50.00
Dogs/Cats – Surrender Fee Each $25.00
Dogs – Residential Kennel
License
Annual $21.00
Dogs – Dangerous Dog Fee Annual $500.00
Dogs – Potentially Dangerous
Dog Fee
Annual $250.00
Copying – General City Material $0.25 8 ½ x 11; $0.50 large. Per
Page. Add postage if mailing
copies
Assessment Search $53.00 per half hour
Private Activity Revenue Bonds Non-refundable application fee $500.00
Annual Administrative Fee 1/8 of 1% (0.125%) of
outstanding principal balance of
the bonds for the life of the bonds
Reimbursement of all City costs
II. Building Construction (All permits are non-refundable after 90 days)
Building Permits – Permit Fee Fees shall be based according to
the 2020 State Statute 326B.153
and are determined by the City’s
Building Official
Commercial Building Permits –
Plan Review Fee
65% of Building Permit Fee.
Payment equaling half of this fee
is due at time of permit submittal
(non-refundable)
Residential New
Construction/Additions – Escrow
$2,000
Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy (CO)
Escrow To be determined by Building
Official
Building Permits – Re-inspection $63.25 per State Statute
326B.153
Building Permits – Manufactured
Home Location ,
$100.00 + State Surcharge fee as
outlined in State Statute
326B.148
Building Permits – Demolition Permit Fee $100.00 + State Surcharge fee as
outlined in Statute 326B.148
Escrow $2,000
Building Permits – Special
Investigations
100% of Permit Fee
$WWDFKPHQW'
Page 7 of 15
Water Meter/Spacer Charges –
Greater than 1”
Contact Public Works for Quote
Water Connection Fee –
Connection fee for previously
un-served or expanded lots
$855.00 per acre or portion
thereof
Water Availability Fee –
New or Additional Units
The units are based on the
Metropolitan Council’s formula
for calculating new sewer
availability charge (SAC) units
$ 1,375 per unit
Sewer Connection Fee –
Connection fee for previously
un-served or expanded lots
$840.00 per acre or portion
thereof
Sewer Availability Fee –
New or Additional Units
The units are based on the
Metropolitan Council’s formula
for calculating new sewer
availability charge (SAC) units
$ 825.00 per unit
Sewer Permits – Service
Installation/Alternations/Repairs
Per inspection $42.00
Sewer Permits – Plan Review
Fee
Set by Inspector
Sewer Permits – Reinspections $42.00 per hour
Sewer Access Charge Set by Met Council Annually $2,485.00 (Contact Met Council)
Sanitary Sewer Utility Prohibited
Sump Pump Connection
Surcharge
$100.00 per month
IX. Miscellaneous/Retail Activities
Boutique/Garage Sale Application/notification of City
Hall required
No charge
Residential Mobile Food
Unit/Food Truck Permit
Application/notification of City
Hall required
$20.00 per permit (limited to 2
catered events per calendar year)
Administrative Penalty $100.00
Tent Permit $55.00+ State Surcharge
Sidewalk Sales $53.00
Business Licensing –
Amusement Facilities
Includes arcade, dance hall,
movie theater, pool/billiard
tables, bowling alleys, indoor
tennis, skating facility, outdoor
tennis, driving ranges, etc.
$105.00
Business Licensing – Wholesale
Bulk Fuel Storage
Liability insurance required $210.00
Business Licensing –
Hotel/Motel
$6.50 per room
Business Licensing – Courtesy
Bench, Non-advertising
$26.00
Business Licensing – Courtesy
Bench, Advertising
$79.00
Business Licensing –
Mechanical/Electronic Devices
Includes musical devices,
amusement rides, bowling alleys,
etc.
$15.00 per location + $15.00 per
machine
(MN Statute 449.15 sets
maximum permit fee at $15 per
location and $15 per machine)
Page 1 of 15
City of Arden Hills
Ordinance 2021-006 – Appendix A
Amended 2021 Fee Schedule
I. Administrative
Dogs/Cats – Licenses Two years (Pro-rated for second
year @ $15.00)
$30.00
Dogs/Cats – Duplicate Tags Each $6.50
Dogs/Cats – Boarding $22.00 per day
Dogs/Cats – Impoundment Fee $50.00
Dogs/Cats – Surrender Fee Each $25.00
Dogs – Residential Kennel
License
Annual $21.00
Dogs – Dangerous Dog Fee Annual $500.00
Dogs – Potentially Dangerous
Dog Fee
Annual $250.00
Copying – General City Material $0.25 8 ½ x 11; $0.50 large. Per
Page. Add postage if mailing
copies
Assessment Search $53.00 per half hour
Private Activity Revenue Bonds Non-refundable application fee $500.00
Annual Administrative Fee 1/8 of 1% (0.125%) of
outstanding principal balance of
the bonds for the life of the bonds
Reimbursement of all City costs
II. Building Construction (All permits are non-refundable after 90 days)
Building Permits – Permit Fee Fees shall be based according to
the 2020 State Statute 326B.153
and are determined by the City’s
Building Official
Commercial Building Permits –
Plan Review Fee
65% of Building Permit Fee.
Payment equaling half of this fee
is due at time of permit submittal
(non-refundable)
Residential New
Construction/Additions – Escrow
$2,000
Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy (CO)
Escrow To be determined by Building
Official
Building Permits – Re-inspection $63.25 per State Statute
326B.153
Building Permits – Manufactured
Home Location ,
$100.00 + State Surcharge fee as
outlined in State Statute
326B.148
Building Permits – Demolition Permit Fee $100.00 + State Surcharge fee as
outlined in Statute 326B.148
Escrow $2,000
Building Permits – Special
Investigations
100% of Permit Fee
Attachment E
Page 7 of 15
Water Meter/Spacer Charges –
Greater than 1”
Contact Public Works for Quote
Water Connection Fee –
Connection fee for previously
un-served or expanded lots
$855.00 per acre or portion
thereof
Water Availability Fee –
New or Additional Units
The units are based on the
Metropolitan Council’s formula
for calculating new sewer
availability charge (SAC) units
$ 1,375 per unit
Sewer Connection Fee –
Connection fee for previously
un-served or expanded lots
$840.00 per acre or portion
thereof
Sewer Availability Fee –
New or Additional Units
The units are based on the
Metropolitan Council’s formula
for calculating new sewer
availability charge (SAC) units
$ 825.00 per unit
Sewer Permits – Service
Installation/Alternations/Repairs
Per inspection $42.00
Sewer Permits – Plan Review
Fee
Set by Inspector
Sewer Permits – Reinspections $42.00 per hour
Sewer Access Charge Set by Met Council Annually $2,485.00 (Contact Met Council)
Sanitary Sewer Utility Prohibited
Sump Pump Connection
Surcharge
$100.00 per month
IX. Miscellaneous/Retail Activities
Boutique/Garage Sale Application/notification of City
Hall required
No charge
Residential Mobile Food
Unit/Food Truck Permit
Application/notification of City
Hall required
$20.00 per permit (limited to 2
catered events per calendar year)
Administrative Penalty $100.00
Tent Permit $55.00+ State Surcharge
Sidewalk Sales $53.00
Business Licensing –
Amusement Facilities
Includes arcade, dance hall,
movie theater, pool/billiard
tables, bowling alleys, indoor
tennis, skating facility, outdoor
tennis, driving ranges, etc.
$105.00
Business Licensing – Wholesale
Bulk Fuel Storage
Liability insurance required $210.00
Business Licensing –
Hotel/Motel
$6.50 per room
Business Licensing – Courtesy
Bench, Non-advertising
$26.00
Business Licensing – Courtesy
Bench, Advertising
$79.00
Business Licensing –
Mechanical/Electronic Devices
Includes musical devices,
amusement rides, bowling alleys,
etc.
$15.00 per location + $15.00 per
machine
(MN Statute 449.15 sets
maximum permit fee at $15 per
location and $15 per machine)
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Phone 651.792.7800 * Fax 651.634.5137
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION
MOBILE FOOD UNIT/FOOD TRUCK PERMIT
FEE - $20 per permitted catered event
(Limit of 2 catered events per calendar year)
Applicant/Property Owner Name: _______________________________________________________
Applicant/Property Owner Address: _____________________________________________________
Email Address: ________________________________________________________________
Location of Event: ________________________________________________________________
Date of Operation: ________________________________________________________________
Hours of Operation: ______________________________________
Type of Catered Event: ______________________________________________________________
Mobile Food Unit/Food Truck Vendor Name: ____________________________________________
Important Information about Residential Mobile Food Unit/Food Truck Catered Events:
• All mobile food unit/food truck vendors must obtain a City Mobile Food Unit License pursuant to
Chapter 3, Sections 320 and 395
• By signing below, residential property owners acknowledge the following:
o Per Chapter 3, Section 395.05, Subd. 1, sales or service may only be made to the
applicant of this permit and guests at the catered event.
o Per Chapter 3, Section 395.05, Subd. 2 A, a residential property is limited to no more
than two (2) mobile food unit/food truck catered events per calendar year.
I agree to the above:
_____________________________________ ________________________
Signature Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OFFICE USE ONLY
_______________________________________ _______________________
Approved by City Personnel Date
$WWDFKPHQW)
Approved: June 14, 2021
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
MAY 24, 2021
5:45 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council
Special Work Session at 5:45 p.m.
Note: On March 20th, 2020 the Mayor signed a determination allowing Councilmembers to
participate in City Council meetings via telephone pursuant to State Statute 13D.021
Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and
Steve Scott
Absent: Councilmember Brenda Holden (excused)
Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; City Clerk Julie Hanson and City
Attorney Joel Jamnik
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A. Food Truck Discussion
City Clerk Hanson stated that the City Council had directed staff to provide draft language
amending City Code pertaining to mobile food units (food trucks) and that staff was looking for
further direction. She said some points to be discussed were clarifying language regarding who
may be served, limiting food trucks on residential properties to two catered events per year,
requiring residential property owners to obtain a permit that could be similar to garage sales, and
implementing a penalty if in violation for which the Council could assign a fine or fee if it so
chooses. She indicated this draft was just a first round draft for Council discussion and depending
on the direction, amendments could involve changes to Sections 395 and 320 and also the Fee
Schedule.
Councilmember Scott asked if food trucks need a permit under the current ordinance when
serving at a one-off catered event such as a graduation party or wedding reception and asked if it
was the responsibility of the resident or the business to obtain the permit.
Attachment G
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – MAY 24, 2021 2
City Clerk Hanson stated at this time the City holds the actual vendor responsible for obtaining
the license since they are the business operating at the event. She said that vendors must submit
the City’s application, a Certificate of Insurance, a copy of their Minnesota Department of Health
license and/Ramsey County and then also written permission from the property owner at which
the food truck would be operating.
Councilmember Scott asked for clarification of the temporary license.
City Clerk Hanson stated generally vendors have obtained a temporary license which allows
operation of 7 days or less events in a calendar year.
City Administrator Perrault indicated that the vendor is technically issued a license, not a
permit, and that a permit would be discussed later in the meeting as it pertains to residential
properties.
Councilmember Holmes asked if vendors must obtain permission from the resident in order to
have the event the on the resident’s property.
City Clerk Hanson stated that vendors must obtain written permission from the property owner
and that this applies to all locations, commercial or residential properties. She stated she has been
obtaining written permission from the host property owner prior to issuing a food truck license.
Councilmember Holmes asked about locations of neighborhoods hosting food trucks in the city.
City Clerk Hanson stated that last year the City was aware of one food truck event and
subsequently found out this year that last summer the food trucks had been extended for several
weeks. She said that so far this spring the City had been made aware of two locations in the city
hosting food trucks. She indicated one property owner was following the current ordinance and
providing written permission for trucks operating on their property but that she had not heard from
the property owner of the other location and so had reached out to the property owner via mail.
She indicated that she did not have confirmation that other location was operating and heard
nothing further since the City received a complaint regarding that area. She said that it was
confirmed food trucks were operating in the one area of the city and the vendors had been
obtaining the required license.
Councilmember Holmes asked if there were violations in the past.
City Clerk Hanson replied that potentially, yes.
Councilmember Holmes stated she wanted to discuss requiring a fee for a residential permit
versus a free permit such as is the case for garage sales.
City Administrator Perrault indicated he had spoken with Councilmember Holden who said she
supported this and recommended a fee in the range of $10 to $20.
Mayor Grant asked what a reasonable fee could be and what other similar permits’ fees are.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – MAY 24, 2021 3
City Clerk Hanson stated the City has garage sales and boutiques permits that are no fee permits.
She said there is also a miscellaneous permit application that provides for 5K races at no fee,
block parties at no fee (generally Night to Unite), sidewalk sales at $53, and solicitors/transient
merchants which also have an associated permit and background check fees. She said there are
various general rentals and then the actual business licenses that are more defined.
Councilmember McClung stated he supports the proposal to regulate a commercial health food
service activity in terms of staff time. He indicated he supports a fee be assessed to recuperate the
costs of staff receiving information, answering questions, and so forth and noted the City is not
trying to raise money but rather recuperate staff costs.
Mayor Grant said that charging a fee would enable this function to not be overlooked and
recover staff time.
A short discussion ensued and the City Council agreed to implement a fee of $20 for a residential
food truck permit.
Councilmember Holmes asked about an administrative penalty for a resident not obtaining a
permit and suggested Council discuss a fee of $100.
Mayor Grant asked what the fee was for violations such as a peddler.
City Clerk Hanson deferred to City Attorney Joel Jamnik as this type of particular fee is not
called out currently in the Fee Schedule.
City Attorney Jamnik stated that most misdemeanor violations are on a payables list and may be
reduced if it goes to court. He said that having a $100 administrative penalty could be consistent
with City Ordinance and other charges.
Mayor Grant asked if this fee is consistent with other cities that City Attorney Jamnik represents.
City Attorney Jamnik said that most cities double or triple the initial permit fee but that many do
not have such a small initial fee for a permit of $20.
The City Council agreed to propose a $100 administrative fine.
Councilmember McClung stated regarding conditions of licensing and condition, that he would
like better clarification and proposed taking the word “resident” out so there is no ambiguity as to
the definition of resident.
Mayor Grant agreed as he had attended a catered event in Shoreview, noting he was invited but
is not a resident of Shoreview.
City Attorney Jamnik indicated that the intent of the use of the word resident was to indicate a
resident of the property where the truck will be located. He said the intent is to reference that food
may be provided to the owners of property and their guests but not to the members of the general
public.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – MAY 24, 2021 4
Councilmember McClung stated he was fine with this but would like to better clarify the
language referring to resident.
City Attorney Jamnik stated that the Council can clarify that the resident is the owner of the
property where the truck is located and their guests.
Councilmember McClung stated the purpose of an amendment is to not have a resident say that
anyone they invite is a “guest” as it becomes a community event rather than a private catered
event.
City Attorney Jamnik noted that a fairly broad net can be cast if the City were to try to classify
events and thus enforcement becomes difficult. He stated that rather the City could regulate the
events as far as the number of events allowed at a property.
Councilmember Holmes also questioned the word “resident” and agreed that it is ambiguous.
She recommended that the permit indicate the type of event and thus not be a general invitation.
She said she would prefer to use the word guests as resident is too vague.
City Attorney Jamnik reiterated that limiting the number of events is being proposed just for
residential properties and not commercial establishments.
Councilmember Scott asked for clarification about temporary versus annual licenses and the
duration of such.
City Administrator Perrault stated that the maximum of no more than 21 days applies to non-
residential properties of which can operate up to 21 days at the same location, but the food truck
can operate in other locations in the city throughout the year. He reiterated the 21 days for an
annual license refers to operation at one, single commercial location.
City Attorney Jamnik concurred with the definition of the annual license as it pertains to
commercial properties and reiterated the difference between a temporary and annual license. He
said that under the proposed amendment, a residential property would be limited to two events at
a single residence.
Councilmember Holmes said yes, the food truck can operate at several residential properties as
long as it is not at the same residential property more than twice.
The City Council resumed discussion regarding locations and the reference to “residents” instead
of “guests”.
City Attorney Jamnik said his preference would be to elaborate that residents means owners or
residents of the subject property and not a broader resident of the community or neighborhood.
He suggested adding language to indicate that “resident” is referring to the resident of the
property, the owners, the tenants or other occupants.
Councilmember McClung suggested saying “sales or service may only be made to residents of
the property requesting the permit and guests at the catered event”.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – MAY 24, 2021 5
A short discussion ensued about using the word resident versus owner.
Councilmember McClung further refined the language to state “sales or service may only be
made to the applicant of the residential permit, their family and guests at the catered event”.
A discussion ensued about the ordinance being prospective or to look back in 2021. The City
Council agreed to implement a residential food truck permit capped at two catered events per year
prospective upon adoption of the ordinance and directed staff to bring the changes forward at the
next regular meeting in June.
2. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURN
Mayor Grant adjourned the Special City Council Work Session at 6:25 p.m.
_________________________________ ________________________________
Julie Hanson David Grant
City Clerk Mayor
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 1D
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer
SUBJECT: Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should consider the revisions of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan.
Council should also consider contracting with Rainbow Tree Care to provide a discount to
residents to treat existing ash trees on private property.
Background
Refer to Attachment A, Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan, for the background and history of
EAB.
In 2016 and 2018, the City of Arden Hills treated a list of 37 trees with injected insecticide. The
insecticide is 99% effective when injected into healthy Ash trees and will protect for 2 growing
seasons. In 2021 the City treated 46 ash trees within public property for a total of $3,895 and will
continue to treat these trees every other year as needed.
On August 16, 2021 at the Council Work Session, staff brought this topic up for discussion to
review the City’s current adopted Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan (2012) and receive
feedback from Council if revisions to the plan were desired to better correlate with actions the
City is taking on ash trees. Staff took the feedback from that Work Session and updated the plan
which can be reviewed in Attachment A. Revisions included updates to more current information
about EAB but mainly updates to the action the City is taking to respond to EAB.
Page 2 of 2
Discussion
The intention of this discussion is to review the updated EAB Management Plan and provide an
opportunity for Council feedback. Once staff has direction from Council on the plan, it will be
brought forward at a regular meeting to formally adopt.
Currently, the City does not directly provide assistance or programs to residents related to
diseased tree control. The City promotes Friends of the Parks and Trails Annual Tree Sale but, in
2020 and 2021, that program was suspended due to challenges from Covid and after review of
their website there is no information shown for 2022. In 2021, the City contracted with Rainbow
Tree Care to treat the City owned ash trees, staff inquired if they provide services at a discount to
residents to which they replied they offer approximately 30% off their standard rate when
partnered with a City. Attachment C is a copy of their professional services agreement. Staff is
requesting direction from Council if there is interest in this program.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
Attachment A – Revised Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
Attachment B – Current Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan (2012)
Attachment C – PSA with Rainbow Tree Care
Attachment D – City Code Chapter 7
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 1
Adopted by the City Council on Month day, 2022
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
Background
Emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, is an exotic beetle that was discovered
in southeastern Michigan near Detroit in the summer of 2002. The adult beetles nibble on ash
foliage but cause little damage. The larvae (the immature stage) feed on the inner bark of ash
trees, disrupting the tree's ability to transport water and nutrients. Emerald ash borer probably
arrived in the United States on solid wood packing material carried in cargo ships or airplanes
originating in its native Asia. Without any natural predators or controls in North America the
insect has spread to, at least, 35 states and 5 Canadian provinces.
EAB adults can fly at least a half mile from the tree when they emerge. However, new
infestations are most often created when people transport infested nursery ash trees, logs or
firewood into uninfested areas. Transportation of firewood has been regulated to reduce the
spread of EAB. Ramsey County is a quarantine area, which prohibits the transportation of ash
wood outside the County. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is responsible for
quarantine enforcement and penalties.
Signs and Symptoms
Signs and symptoms of EAB include:
• Bark splitting
o Vertical fissures on bark
o Galleries exposed under bark split
• Serpentine galleries and “D” shaped exit holes
• The presence of EAB or larvae.
o Adult – Bright, metallic green/ ½ inch long, flattened back
o Larva – Creamy white, legless
• Canopy dieback
o Begins in top one-third of canopy
o Progresses until tree is bare
• Increased woodpecker activity.
• Sprouting of epicormic shoots from the base of the tree
Current EAB situation
St. Paul and Falcon Heights confirmed EAB discovery in May of 2009. The City of Shoreview
confirmed EAB discovery in the vicinity of County Road I and Schutta Road in July of 2011.
How these trees became infested is not known, though it is worth noting that the trees are only a
half mile from interstate highway 35W and in other states the principal spread of EAB has been
along travel corridors.
Attachment A
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 2
Adopted by the City Council on Month day, 2022
Analysis of the infestation showed that the EAB had been present for 3-4 years, which is
consistent with the insect’s path of destruction. Symptoms are slow to appear and once EAB is
actually found, it is estimated that it has already been present for 3-5 years. It is believed that the
emerald ash borer was first detected in Arden Hills in 2014 and, since then, its population has
continued to multiply and spread. It is estimated that as much as 12.3% of Arden Hills’ urban
forest is compiled of ash trees based on a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources survey
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2010 Community Tree Survey. Survey of front yard and
street trees in residential and commercial sampling areas)
To date, North American communities have not been successful in eradicating EAB once found.
EAB typically builds in population and eventually infests and kills all variety of ash trees.
Resident Education
Resident education and communication are key components of managing the impact of the EAB,
especially as more information becomes available. Public information is available to residents
through the City’s website, newsletters, and available at City Hall. Residents can also find
information about EAB management on the website for the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture: https://www.mda.state.mn.us/emerald-ash-borer-management-guidelines
Homeowners may treat their private trees, provided they use a licensed treatment contractor who
adheres to the City’s standards to protect surface and ground water.
Mitigation
Although it is not possible to stop the spread of invasive species, like the Emerald Ash Borer, the
City of Arden Hills’ EAB Management Plan is designed to help manage the impacts. The City’s
mitigation of EAB will be similar to the policy and intent of Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt Disease,
which attempts to control and prevent the spread of these diseases.
The City of Arden Hills has done the following to prepare for the EAB problem:
• Completed an electronic inventory with GIS software of all trees in the ROW along City
streets, parks and trails. This will help the City monitor the condition of ash trees
throughout the City.
• Clarified owner responsibilities for all Right of Way trees abutting a City road. These
changes were done with the amendment of Chapter 3 of the City Code in October of
2011.
• Updated the City’s Tree and Vegetation Ordinance, Chapter 7 to add ash trees to the
diseased trees that must be removed to prevent the spread of the disease. This ordinance
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 3
Adopted by the City Council on Month day, 2022
permits the City to enter private property for inspection, order the removal of diseased
trees and abate the nuisance upon non-compliance of property owners.
• The City website includes general information for residents as well as the appropriate
steps to take if EAB is suspected in one or more of their trees. The City has handouts
from the Minnesota Department of Resources available at City Hall.
The City of Arden Hills will take the following actions:
• The City will monitor ash trees throughout the City for EAB and in the event EAB is
discovered, staff will utilize Chapter 7, section 710 – Protection of shade trees from the
City Code to prevent the spread of the disease. As in the case of Oak Wilt and Dutch
Elm, this ordinance allows the City to enter private property for inspection of ash trees,
order the removal of diseased trees, and abate the nuisance upon non-compliance of
property owners.
• The City has inventoried all significant ash trees located on public property and
continuously monitors their health. Trees that are 8-inches in diameter or greater and
considered fair or better health will be treated by injection. Treatment frequency for these
trees is on a two-year cycle and will be continued as long as the tree still indicates fair or
better health
• “Buddy Trees” will be planted next to ash trees that begin showing signs of declining
health and determined to be infested with EAB. Once EAB takes hold of a tree, it is
inevitable that the tree will die. The “Buddy Tree” will provide an overlap period of time
where it will grow before the existing tree must be removed.
• Once an ash tree is determined to be in poor health the City will begin removal of the tree
on public property. These ash trees could be located within City parks or in boulevard
areas. No significant pruning or methods to save a declining ash tree will be attempted.
The City will remove the tree at that time. All ash trees that are removed will be
replaced.
Staff will schedule removal of declining ash trees in the fall. The most critical period for
movement of confirmed EAB ash trees is May-July. This is the period when adult
beetles emerge from trees, begin feeding on foliage, and move to more trees to lay their
eggs. During this time it is best to leave these trees standing and not chance the spread of
EAB by transporting beetle-infested wood to other areas. The City will follow the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s regulations for handling ash wood removal
• There are currently two methods of tree treatments being offered in the marketplace;
drenching the soil with chemicals and injecting the chemical into the tree. The City
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 4
Adopted by the City Council on Month day, 2022
strongly discourages the use of soil drench insecticides due to potential to pollute water
and negatively impact wildlife. The City strongly encourages residents to utilize a
certified arborist to treat trees.
o The City will permit residents to use chemical treatments on private ash trees,
given the following:
a. Private contractors are to use only the approved trunk injection method.
b. The City strongly encourages residents to utilize tree contractors that are
bonded, insured, and state licensed to apply commercial tree chemicals.
• The City will publicize the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s regulations for
handling ash wood removal. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/eab
• In an effort to encourage reforestation of private properties, the City will promote
Ramsey County’s Friends of the Parks annual tree sale and will pursue other EAB
programs that are available.
• The City will track the spread of EAB in surrounding communities in conjunction with
the Department of Agriculture.
The following is a list of resources for residents to review to learn about Emerald Ash Borer
symptoms, firewood requirements, and insecticide options. These will be listed on the City’s
website and updated as needed.
• Pest Alert-Emerald Ash Borer (PDF)
•
• Do I Have EAB? (PDF: 245 KB / 1 page)
•
• Ash Tree Identification (PDF: 7.95 MB / 2 pages)
•
• Signs and Symptoms of EAB (PDF)
•
• Map of EAB in USA (PDF)
•
• Minnesota Department of Agriculture EAB Quarantine
•
• Firewood Restrictions & Safe Handling Guidelines
•
• Homeowner Guide to Insecticide Selection, Use and Environmental Protection
•
• Ash Tree Waste Disposal Sites within Hennepin-Ramsey-Houston County
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 1
Adopted by the City Council on July 30, 2012
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
Background
Emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, is an exotic beetle that was discovered
in southeastern Michigan near Detroit in the summer of 2002. The adult beetles nibble on ash
foliage but cause little damage. The larvae (the immature stage) feed on the inner bark of ash
trees, disrupting the tree's ability to transport water and nutrients. Emerald ash borer probably
arrived in the United States on solid wood packing material carried in cargo ships or airplanes
originating in its native Asia. Without any natural predators or controls in North America the
insect has spread to 13 states and two Canadian provinces.
EAB adults can fly at least a half mile from the tree when they emerge. However, new
infestations are most often created when people transport infested nursery ash trees, logs or
firewood into uninfested areas. Transportation of firewood has been regulated to reduce the
spread of EAB. Ramsey County is a quarantine area, which prohibits the transportation of ash
wood outside the County. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is responsible for
quarantine enforcement and penalties.
Signs and Symptoms
Signs and symptoms of EAB include:
• Bark splitting
o Vertical fissures on bark
o Galleries exposed under bark split
• Serpentine galleries and “D” shaped exit holes
• The presence of EAB or larvae.
o Adult – Bright, metallic green/ ½ inch long, flattened back
o Larva – Creamy white, legless
• Canopy dieback
o Begins in top one-third of canopy
o Progresses until tree is bare
• Increased woodpecker activity.
• Sprouting of epicormic shoots from the base of the tree
Current EAB situation
St. Paul and Falcon Heights confirmed EAB discovery in May of 2009. The City of Shoreview
confirmed EAB discovery in the vicinity of County Road I and Schutta Road in July of 2011.
The Department of Agriculture has since identified 11 trees in this neighborhood with confirmed
EAB and several that are suspected and being monitored. How these trees became infested is
Attachment B
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 2
Adopted by the City Council on July 30, 2012
not known, though it is worth noting that the trees are only a half mile from interstate highway
35W and in other states the principal spread of EAB has been along travel corridors.
Analysis of the infestation showed that the EAB had been present for 3-4 years, which is
consistent with the insect’s path of destruction. Symptoms are slow to appear and once EAB is
actually found, it is estimated that it has already been present for 3-5 years. It is difficult to
determine when EAB will reach Arden Hills. It is estimated that as much as 12.3% of Arden
Hills’ urban forest is compiled of ash trees based on a Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources survey (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2010 Community Tree Survey. Survey
of front yard and street trees in residential and commercial sampling areas)
To date, North American communities have not been successful in eradicating EAB once found.
EAB typically builds in population and eventually infests and kills all variety of ash trees.
Resident Education
Resident education and communication are key components of managing the impact of the EAB,
especially as more information becomes available. Public information is available to residents
through the City’s website, newsletters, and available at City Hall.
Homeowners may treat their private trees, provided they use a licensed treatment contractor who
adheres to the City’s standards to protect surface and ground water.
Mitigation
Although it is not possible to stop the spread of invasive species, like the Emerald Ash Borer, the
City of Arden Hills’ EAB Management Plan is designed to help manage the impacts. The City’s
mitigation of EAB will be similar to the policy and intent of Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt Disease,
which attempts to control and prevent the spread of these diseases.
The City of Arden Hills has done the following to prepare for the EAB problem:
• Completed an electronic inventory with the software, “Simple Trees” of all trees in the
ROW along City streets, parks and trails. This will help the City monitor the condition
of ash trees throughout the City.
• Clarified owner responsibilities for all Right of Way trees abutting a City road. These
changes were done with the amendment of Chapter 3 of the City Code in October of
2011.
• Updated the City’s Tree and Vegetation Ordinance, Chapter 7 to add ash trees to the
diseased trees that must be removed to prevent the spread of the disease. This ordinance
permits the City to enter private property for inspection, order the removal of diseased
trees and abate the nuisance upon non-compliance of property owners.
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 3
Adopted by the City Council on July 30, 2012
• The City website includes information for residents on what steps to take if EAB is
suspected in one of their trees and general information. The City has handouts from the
Minnesota Department of Resources available at City Hall.
The City of Arden Hills will take the following actions:
• The City will monitor ash trees throughout the City for EAB and in the event EAB is
discovered, staff will utilize Chapter 7, section 710 – Protection of shade trees from the
City Code to prevent the spread of the disease. As in the case of Oak Wilt and Dutch
Elm, this ordinance allows the City to enter private property for inspection of ash trees,
order the removal of diseased trees, and abate the nuisance upon non-compliance of
property owners.
• The City will begin some removal of declining ash trees on public property, even when
EAB has not yet been identified. These ash trees could be located within City parks or in
boulevard areas. No significant pruning or methods to save a declining ash tree will be
attempted. The City will remove the tree at that time. The decision to replace a tree
that is removed will be on a case to case scenario. The reasons for preemptive removal
of ash trees include:
o Removing declining trees before they are infested with EAB;
o Allowing for reforestation with other species of trees; and
o Spreading the cost of tree removal over a longer period of time.
Staff will schedule removal of declining ash trees in the fall. The most critical period for
movement of confirmed EAB ash trees is May-July. This is the period when adult
beetles emerge from trees, begin feeding on foliage, and move to more trees to lay their
eggs. During this time it is best to leave these trees standing and not chance the spread of
EAB by transporting beetle-infested wood to other areas. The City will follow the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s regulations for handling ash wood removal
• There are currently two methods of tree treatments being offered in the marketplace;
drenching the soil with chemicals and injecting the chemical into the tree. The City
strongly discourages the use of soil drench insecticides due to potential to pollute water
and negatively impact wildlife. Due to the high cost of reoccurring treatments and the
long-term effects of chemical treatments on ash trees, water resources, and the
environment, the City has no plans to chemically treat public trees. The City strongly
encourages residents to utilize a certified arborist to treat trees.
o The City will permit residents to use chemical treatments on private ash trees,
given the following:
a. Private contractors are to use only the approved trunk injection method.
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan – City of Arden Hills Page 4
Adopted by the City Council on July 30, 2012
b. The City strongly encourages residents to utilize tree contractors that are
bonded, insured, and state licensed to apply commercial tree chemicals.
• The City will publicize the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s regulations for
handling ash wood removal. Ramsey County is currently under a quarantine which
prohibits the transportation of wood outside of the County. From September 15th to May
1st EAB-infested trees can be removed and transported only within the quarantine area, so
long as they are promptly chipped to the required dimensions, less than 1”x1”x1”. Non-
infested EAB trees can be removed from September 15th to May 1st using the normal
process of transporting un-chipped wood to the Ramsey County Yard Waste Site.
• In an effort to encourage reforestation of private properties, the City will promote
Ramsey County’s Friends of the Parks annual tree sale.
• The City will track the spread of EAB in surrounding communities in conjunction with
the Department of Agriculture.
The following is a list of resources for residents to review to learn about Emerald Ash Borer
symptoms, firewood requirements, and insecticide options. These will be listed on the City’s
website and updated as needed.
• Pest Alert-Emerald Ash Borer (PDF)
•
• Do I Have EAB? (PDF: 245 KB / 1 page)
•
• Ash Tree Identification (PDF: 7.95 MB / 2 pages)
•
• Signs and Symptoms of EAB (PDF)
•
• Map of EAB in USA (PDF)
•
• Minnesota Department of Agriculture EAB Quarantine
•
• Firewood Restrictions & Safe Handling Guidelines
•
• Homeowner Guide to Insecticide Selection, Use and Environmental Protection
•
• Ash Tree Waste Disposal Sites within Hennepin-Ramsey-Houston County
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made effective _____________ 20__ by and between the City of Arden Hills
(the "City") and Rainbow Treecare (the "Contractor") whose business address is
___________________.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The purpose of this agreement is to set forth terms and conditions for the provision of certain
professional tree care services by the Contractor to residents and property owners within the
City, and to the City.
The City and the Contractor agree as follows:
1. Contractor's Services. The Contractor agrees to provide professional tree care services as
described in Attachment A—Scope of Services and made a part of this Agreement ("the
Work"). If there is any conflict between the language of this document and the language of
Attachment A, the language of this document prevails.
2. Project Manager and Staffing. The Contractor has designated Ryan Spencer to be the
project superintendent for the Work. This person may be assisted by other staff members
as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement. The Contractor may not remove or replace the designated project
superintendent without the City's prior approval.
3. Time for Performance of Services. The Contractor must perform the Work within the
timeframe set forth in the attached Scope of Services. If Contractor is delayed in
performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, such as strikes, riots, fires,
acts of God, governmental actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City,
the time for performance will be extended by the period of time lost by reason of the delay.
4. Compensation for Services. Contractor shall be paid for the Work in the manner
described in the Attached Scope of Services, and made a part of this Agreement. For
renewals dated October 20__ and thereafter, the proposal price for subsequent
treatment seasons (20__, 20__, etc.) shall be adjusted annually by the percentage
change in the consumer price index for all urban areas (CPI-U) from the just ended year.
$WWDFKPHQW&
A change in the Scope of Services that may increase the compensation due to
Contractor will not be effective unless the City has given prior written approval.
5. Method of Payment. The Contractor must submit an itemized invoice for Work provided to
the owner of the property on which the services are provided. Invoices submitted for Work
provided to the City will be paid in the same manner as other invoices submitted to the City.
The Contractor must verify all statements submitted to the City for payment in compliance
with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391.
6. Audit Disclosure. The Contractor must allow the City or its duly authorized agents
reasonable access to the Contractor's books and records that are pertinent to all Work
provided to the City under this Agreement, including books and records of any approved
subcontractors, for six years after the effective date of this Agreement. Any reports,
information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by, the Contractor and its
subcontractors under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential must
not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written
approval.
7. Data Privacy and Security. The Contractor will take all reasonable and prudent measures to
ensure the security of all data that it handles in connection with the Work. The Contractor
agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws relating to data privacy or
confidentiality. The Contractor must immediately report to the City any requests from third
parties for information relating to this Agreement. The City agrees to promptly respond to
inquiries from the Contractor concerning data requests. The Contractor agrees to hold the
City, its officers, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Contractor's
unlawful disclosure or use of data protected under state and federal laws.
8. Document Ownership. All finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared by
the Contractor related to Work for the City will become the property of the City upon
termination of this Agreement, but Contractor may retain copies of such documents as
records of the Work provided. Except to the extent that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466
limits the City's liability, the City agrees to defend and indemnify the Contractor for any
claims or losses resulting from the City's use of such documents not contemplated by the
parties at the time of the preparation.
9. Term. The term of this Agreement is from the Effective Date through October __, 20__, the
date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon
the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem
appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as stated in this Agreement.
10. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by thirty days advance
written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination
under this provision if there is no fault of the Contractor, the Contractor will be paid for
Work rendered and reimbursable expenses hereunder until the effective date of
termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Contractor has
failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment will be made to
the Contractor, and the City may retain another Contractor to undertake or complete the
Work.
11. Subcontractor. The Contractor may not enter into subcontracts for Work provided in this
Agreement without the express prior written consent of the City. The Contractor agrees to
pay any subcontractor within ten days of the Contractor's receipt of payment from the City
for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The Contractor must pay interest of
1.5% per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not
paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an
unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For any unpaid balance of less than $100, the
Contractor must pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who
prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Contractor must be awarded
its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. This
paragraph is inserted in this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.425, Subd. 4a.
12. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes under this Agreement, the
Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement in
this Agreement may be construed to find the Contractor an employee of the City.
13. Assignment. Neither party may assign this Agreement without the written consent of the
other party.
14. Services not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Contractor not specifically
provided for in this Agreement will be honored by the City or its residents.
15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion is held by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, that decision will not affect the
remaining provisions of the Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained in this Agreement. This
Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to
the subject matter of this Agreement as well as any previous agreements presently in effect
between the parties relating to the same subject matter. Any alterations, amendments,
deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement will be valid only when expressed
in writing and signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement. The
residents and property owners of the City of Arden Hills who are provided Work under the
terms of this Agreement are third party beneficiaries and shall have all of the rights
afforded to the City hereunder related to such Work.
17. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services under this Agreement, the
Contractor must abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the
provision of services to be provided. Any violation constitutes a material breach of this
Agreement and entitles the City to immediately terminate this Agreement.
18. Equal Opportunity. The contractor agrees during the life of this contract not to discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status,
disability, sexual orientation, or age. This contract may be cancelled or terminated by the
City, and all money due or to become due hereunder may be forfeited, for a second or
subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this paragraph. The Contractor must
post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth
the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will
receive consideration for employment. The Contractor must incorporate the foregoing
requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require
all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts
for program work.
19. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement will not
affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
20. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and
employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission
(including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Contractor, its agents,
employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the Work and against all losses by
reason of the failure of the Contractor fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under
this Agreement.
21. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Contractor must maintain the following
insurance and furnish a certificate of insurance. The certificate must specifically state and
verify that the contractor has the required insurance coverage:
1. Worker's Compensation Insurance
a. Statutory Compensation Coverage
b. Coverage B - Employers Liability with limits of not less than:
$100,000 Bodily Injury by Disease per Employee
$500,000 Bodily Injury by Disease Aggregate
$100,000 Bodily Injury by Accident
2. Automobile Liability Insurance
a. Minimum Limits of Liability:
$1,000,000 - Per Occurrence- Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined
Single Limit.
b. Coverages:
X Owned Automobile
X Non-owned Automobile
X Hired Automobile
3. General Liability Insurance
a. Minimum Limits of Liability:
$1,000,000 - Per Occurrence
$2,000,000 - Annual Aggregate
$2,000,000 - Annual Aggregate applying to Products/Completed Operations
b. Coverages:
X Premises and Operations Bodily Injury and Property Damage
X Personal &Advertising Injury
X Blanket Contractual
X Products and Completed Operations
X Other; if applicable, please list: _____________________________
X City of City is named as Additional Insured
The contractor must obtain insurance policy(ies) from insurance companies having an "AM
Best" rating of A-(minus), Financial Size Category of VII or better, and be authorized to do
business in the State of Minnesota. An Umbrella or Excess Liability insurance policy may be
used to supplement the Contractor's policy limits to satisfy the full policy limits required by the
Contract.
The contractor and authorized insurance representatives must maintain coverage in these
amounts during the term of the contract and notify the City thirty (30) days before the required
insurance is cancelled or changed.
The insurance policies must name the City as an additional insured for the services provided
under this Agreement and must provide that the Contractor's coverage will be the primary
coverage in the event of a loss. A certificate of insurance on the City’s approved form that
verifies the existence of these insurance coverages must be provided to the City before work
under this Agreement is begun. Any policy deductibles or retention shall be the responsibility of
the Contractor. No deductible greater than $50,000 is allowed on any required insurance policy
without prior approval of the City’s attorney.
21. Governing Law. This Agreement will be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
22. Disputes. In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during or following the completion
of the Work described in this Agreement, the dispute will first be submitted to non-binding
mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The cost of mediation will be shared
equally by the parties.
23. Attachments
A. Scope of Services
B. Ash Tree Injection Price Quote Form for City Property
C. Ash Tree Injection Price Quote Form for Private Property
SIGNATURES
City
By_________________________
(NAME/TITLE)
By_________________________
(NAME/TITLE)
Contractor
By:
Name:
Title: ______________________________________
Attachment A—Scope of Services
Ash Tree Injection Services to the City of Arden Hills
Project Understanding
The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) threatens the lives of the thousands of ash trees located in the
City of Arden Hills (the “City”).
As the City continues to prepare for this devastating infestation and infection, the City has
agreed to enter a contract with Contractor to provide tree injection services for ash trees (“ash
injections” or the “Work”) within two separate areas: City-owned property and private property
as specified herein (the “Project”).
Project Goals
• Protect ash trees from emerald ash borer infestation on City-owned properties, including
parks. Treatments of City-owned trees will begin after City staff makes the decision to begin
treatments.
• Provide a bulk discount program to all private property owners within the City of Arden Hills
to encourage residents to proactively inject their ash trees in order to help preserve the City’s
tree canopy and the accompanying economic and environmental benefits.
Project Areas
Area 1- City property
Ash trees on City property identified by the City as trees to receive injection treatments will
begin after staff has made the decision to proceed with such Work. Unless City staff directs
otherwise, all ash injections must be completed between June 1st and September 30th of each
year, or before fall leaf color, whichever occurs sooner.
Area 2 – Private property
Homeowners will contact Contractor directly to initiate an inspection, receive a quote and
provide permission to perform the Work. Contractor will inspect the ash trees on private
property and determine whether they are appropriate for treatment and all invoices will be
submitted directly to the homeowner, and the City shall have no liability for or involvement in
the provision of such Work. All ash injections must be completed between June 1st and
September 30th of each year or before fall leaf color, whichever occurs sooner.
Project Period and Completion Dates
The tree injection period will run from approximately June 1st—September 30th of each year.
Contractor may reserve the right to group tree injections based on geographic proximity within
the injection period in order to achieve the efficiency needed to provide a discounted rate.
Injections will occur on trees that have fully expanded leaves and have not reached fall
senescence (fall leaf color). The city forester or person designated by the City Manager reserves
the right to extend or limit the time period based on seasonal conditions.
Contractor Qualifications
Founded in 1976, Rainbow Treecare (RTC) has built a reputation on a solid commitment to the
science of tree care and is uniquely positioned to offer the most comprehensive ash and elm
protection services in the state. A pioneer of Dutch elm disease protection since 1976 and
emerald ash borer protection since 2004, RTC has been working on a national level to develop
cost-effective management solutions for EAB. RTC currently has more than 25,000 ash trees
under protection with numerous government and public agency clients.
With the most International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists, Board-Certified
Master Arborists, and members of the American Society of Consulting Arborists in Minnesota,
no other company can offer the depth of skill, experience, and knowledge of tree pest and
pathogen issues.
Full-time GIS/GPS staff is available to manage tree inventory data and develop interactive maps
of public and private trees, and our in-house art and marketing department can produce
materials that widely and effectively communicate the Project details and assist with
homeowner enrollment and involvement.
Indemnification
Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its employees, and its residents and
property owners from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorney’s
fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work, provided that any such
claim, damage, loss or expense is:
(a) Attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to, or destruction
of tangible property including the loss of use resulting there from, and
(b) Caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act or omission of the
Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them
for whose acts any of them may be liable.
The Project Team
Contract Supervisor: Ryan Spencer will act as the Contract Supervisor for this Project. Mr.
Spencer, Rainbow Treecare Municipal Consulting Arborist, is a dedicated full-time employee
focused on municipal and governmental forestry, Mr. Spencer is available to quickly respond to
any issues that might arise throughout the contract period.
Field Inspectors: All proposed ash trees shall be inspected by a qualified Rainbow Treecare
employee. There may be instances when a tree is not in suitable health or condition to
recommend treatment. Rainbow Treecare shall have an individual experienced in
communicating tree information to the general public to explain such decisions. The person
assigned to inspect the trees shall be, at the very minimum, a Certified Minnesota Tree
Inspector, have a degree in forestry or a related field, or be an ISA Certified Arborist. The
individual shall be qualified to diagnose emerald ash borer; and have experience evaluating tree
condition. Additionally, the individual shall be able to explain the benefits and risks of all ash
protection options, with regard to pollinators, water quality, human health, and tree health and
condition.
Technicians: All treatment technicians for this Project will be drawn from the production staff
at RTC and will serve the citizens of Arden Hills with a commitment to the highest level of
customer service during the protection of trees located within the City.
Equipment and Treatment Specifications
Upon request, Contractor will demonstrate proficiency with the injection equipment and
knowledge of the products used to prevent EAB.
Safety Standards: Contractor will use work methods, safety procedures and personal protective
equipment conforming to all ANSI and OSHA standards in performing the work under this
contract and will supply any Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to the City upon request.
Formulation Rates: It is the responsibility of Contractor to follow all insecticide instructions.
Any alterations in the formulations or equipment must be approved in advance by the city
forester or person designated by the City Manager. In order to remain responsive to emerging
research, the Contractor reserves the right to request a change in formulation rates or
application methods for the duration of the contract. Any such change and additional costs
incurred would be agreed to in written correspondence between the Contractor and the City.
Ash Trees:
1) All injections of ash trees must be with a liquid formulation of 4% Emamectin benzoate at
2.5-5mL per diameter inch every two years. No substitutions of the formulations shall be
allowed.
2) Determination of dosage shall be on the inches of diameter at breast height (DBH).
3) Injections must be made at the root flare to ensure the best distribution of the insecticide
throughout the tree.
Equipment: Contractor will provide all necessary equipment to complete the Work under these
specifications:
1) Equipment will remain in proper operating condition throughout the term of the Agreement
and RTC is responsible for cleaning and providing upkeep to the injection system on a daily
basis. Any maintenance issues or repairs are the sole responsibility of Contractor.
2) Treatment technicians will use a high-helix drill bit and must replace the drill bits after every
100 DBH inches to maintain high efficiency. Drilled holes must be the size recommended by the
injection equipment manufacturer.
3) Injection holes on ash must be drilled to a depth of approximately 1 inch below the bark to
maximize delivery of Emamectin benzoate into ash trees.
4) Emamectin benzoate will be injected into ash trees using current industry standard injection
systems that have efficacy data that supports their use, and follow all manufacturers’
specifications.
5) All injected trees must be tagged with the year of injection clearly indicated on the tag.
Contractor shall provide tags for all injected trees. The tags must be of a design and type that
can persist on the tree for at least 3 years.
Property Access and Notification
Contractor shall not enter private property without having previously obtained permission from
the property owner. If Contractor personnel desire to enter private property to access trees on
a City owned property, it is their responsibility to notify the underlying property owner by
knocking on the door at the time of the site visit or making a phone call ahead of time. Every
attempt shall be made to contact the City forester to notify of the intent on accessing a City
owned site through private property.
Contract Supervision and Form of Order to Proceed
The City shall refer residents interested in private property tree injections throughout the
treatment period of June-September of each year in a format mutually agreed upon prior to the
start of the Project.
Hours of Operations and Uniform
The City reserves the right to set limits on hours of operation for Work on Saturdays, Sundays
and holidays. All weekend or holiday Work must be approved by the city manager ahead of
time. Certified applicators and GPS staff shall wear company uniform and/or a high
visibility/safety vest at all times during field operations. Every vehicle associated with the
Project shall display a company logo or name.
Section 710 - Trees and Vegetation
(sections 7.10-01-710.10 & 710.12, subd 6(A)(7) and 710.12, subd 9(C) repealed 11/28/11)
710.12.1 Protection of Shade Trees* (adopted 8/29/05)
Subd. 1 Declaration of Policy. The City Council has determined that the health of oak, elm, and ash trees, hereinafter
sometimes collectively referred to as "shade trees," within the municipal limits are threatened by fatal tree diseases
commonly known as "Oak Wilt Disease", "Dutch Elm Disease", and "Emerald Ash Borer" respectively, here-inafter
sometimes collectively referred to as "shade tree diseases." It has further determined that the loss of shade trees growing
upon public and private property would substantially depreciate the value of property within the City and impair the safety,
good order, general welfare and convenience of the public. Accordingly, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the
Council to control and prevent the spread of shade tree diseases and other epidemic diseases, by enacting this subsection
for that purpose.
Subd. 2 Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both, not to exceed the maximums provided by state law for
a misdemeanor. Each day following the date on which the person was to have removed any diseased shade tree or wood
as specified in written notice given pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, the person has allowed the tree to remain
on his or her property, or has allowed the parts or brush there from to remain on his or her property, shall constitute a
separate violation.
Subd. 3 Forester. The position of city forester is hereby continued and the powers and duties of the officer are hereby
conferred upon the person as designated from time to time by the Mayor with the concurrence of the Council. It shall be the
duty of the forester to coordinate, under the direction and control of the Council, all activities of the City relating to the control
and prevention of shade tree diseases. He or she shall recommend to the Council the details of a program for the control
and prevention of the diseases and perform the duties incident to such a program as adopted by the Council. Inspections
may be performed by a designated tree inspector(s).
Subd. 4 Interference Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to prevent, delay or interfere with the forester or his or
her tree inspector(s) or designee while they are engaged in the performance of duties imposed by this subsection.
Subd. 5. Epidemic Disease Program. It is the intention of the City Council to conduct a program of pest control pursuant
to the authority granted by Minnesota statues section 18G.13, as amended, directed at the control and elimination of Dutch
elm disease, oak wilt disease, and elimination of other tree diseases and is undertaken at the recommendation of the
Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
Subd. 6. Shade Tree Nuisances Declared. (amended 11/28/11)
A. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances whenever and wherever they may be found within the City:
1. Any elm tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Dutch elm disease fungus Ceratocystis Ulmi (Buisman)
Moreau or which harbors any of the elm bark beetles Scolytus Multistriatus (Marsham) or Hylurgopinus Rufipes (Eichhoff);
2. Any dead elm tree or part thereof, including stems, branches, stumps, firewood or other elm material from which
the bark has not been removed and burned or sprayed with an effective elm bark beetle insecticide; and
3. Any northern red oak (Quercus rubra, Quercus ellipsoidalis, and Q. palustris), or part thereof, infected to any
degree with the oakwilt disease, Ceratocystis fagacearum.
4. Any living or standing white oak (Quercus alba), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and swamp white oak (Quercus
bicolor), that poses a threat of transmission of the oak wilt disease to other trees.
5. Red oak species deemed by the City forester or designated tree inspector to be a potentially diseased spore
producing tree (PSPT) must be removed before March 15th of the year following complete tree wilt. Any removed red oak
tree should be disposed of at an approved wood utilization site or properly treated, i.e. main stems cut into firewood length
sections, split if appropriate, stacked and covered in clear plastic with the edges sealed at the ground line to prevent vector
entry or escape.
6. Other shade trees with epidemic diseases or epidemic insect infestations.
Subd. 7 Shade Tree Nuisances Prohibited. (amended 11/28/11) It is unlawful for any person to permit the spread of a
public nuisance as defined in this chapter across his or her property lines in any specified control areas as established by
the city. Such nuisances shall be abated in a manner prescribed in this chapter.
Subd. 8 Inspection by Certified Tree Inspector.
A. The forester shall engage one or more persons, each of whom shall have been issued a certificate from the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture pursuant to M.S. § 89.63, as amended from time to time, certifying that he or she is a
qualified or certified tree inspector, for the purposes of inspecting any public or private properties, upon prior notification, to
detect shade trees harboring shade tree diseases, which inspector(s) shall act as the duly authorized agent(s) of the
forester. Nothing herein shall preclude the forester from being certified by the State Department of Agriculture as a qualified
tree inspector and acting as such on behalf of the City.
B. The tree inspector(s) shall inspect all premises and places, both public and private, within the City as often as is
practicable to detect and mark the location of all shade trees infected with shade tree diseases and report the results of the
$WWDFKPHQW'
inspections to the forester immediately after each inspection has been conducted. The forester, or the tree inspector(s),
may send appropriate specimens or samples to the State Department of Agriculture for analysis, or take such other steps
for diagnosis as may be recommended by the Department. In addition to the foregoing inspections, it shall be the duty of
the tree inspector(s) to investigate all reported incidents of infestation by Dutch elm fungus, elm bark beetles, emerald ash
borer or any other manifestations of shade tree diseases.
C. A property owner or contractor who becomes aware of any tree infestation within the City shall notify the City
Forester within seven (7) days.
D. The City forester and tree inspector(s) shall have the right to enter upon all private premises within the City at any
reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out the duties assigned to them under this subsection, including inspection,
treatment, cutting, burning or removing of diseased shade trees.
Subd. 9 Notices to Property Owners.
A. After each inspection and investigation, whenever the forester or the tree inspector(s) has found with a reasonable
certainty that a shade tree or any wood that harbors shade tree disease to such an extent that the same constitutes a threat
of infestation of shade trees in proximity thereto, the tree inspector(s) shall mark the diseased shade trees or wood or both,
as the case may be, in a visible manner and notify each owner of real estate within the City whereon the diseased shade
trees or wood, or both as the case may be, are located, which notice shall contain the inspection information with respect to
the diseased shade trees upon the property and shall further advise that, in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection, the owner is required to remove the trees or wood, or both, as the case may be, within (20) (amended 11/28/11)
days for elm and ash trees and (30) days for oak trees and other trees species from the date of the letter being sent to the
property owner. The notices shall be sent by certified mail with return receipt requested to the last known address of the
owner. In the event that the certified mail is not delivered, mailing by ordinary mail to the address shall be deemed sufficient
notice.
B. The notices to be sent under the provisions of this subdivision shall be sent to the occupant of premises upon which
the diseased shade trees or wood, or both as the case may be, are located, if those premises are occupied, and also to the
owner of the premises, if the owner has an address different from the subject premises and the address is disclosed by the
records of the county department of property taxation. Reasonable inquiry by the forester or the tree inspector(s) shall be
sufficient to meet this requirement, and telephone inquiry of the office of the county department of property taxation shall be
deemed reasonable inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the addresses. If the subject premises are unoccupied, then
mailing to the address of the owner as shown by the records of the county department of property taxation shall be deemed
sufficient.
C. No person shall allow, permit the spread of, or fail to abate a public nuisance as defined in this code. Such
nuisances shall be abated in the manner prescribed in this code.
Subd. 10 Removal of Diseased Shade Trees.
A. An owner of real estate in the City who is notified of the existence on his or her property of shade trees or wood
therefrom, or both as the case may be, harboring shade tree disease shall within the time specified in the written notice cut
down or have cut down each of the diseased trees, remove or have removed all parts, branches and brush there from, and
transport or have transported all the parts, branches and brush from the diseased trees and any diseased wood from the
premises to an authorized disposal or chipping site. With respect to the transportation of wood from diseased elms or ash
trees, it shall be unlawful for any person to transport within the City any bark bearing elm or ash wood.
B. The City Forester shall enforce the treatment of nuisance by requiring the performance of one or more of the
following disease control methods listed in subsection C in order to destroy and prevent the spread of epidemic diseased of
shade trees, including, but not limited to, Dutch elm disease, emerald ash borer, or oak wilt disease. Such abatement may
be designated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture or the University of Minnesota.
C. The following abatement procedures are recommended by the City of Arden Hills:
1. Root graft barrier installation at least 60 inches in the soil to isolate the diseased trees;
2. Removal of trees;
3. Stump grinding;
4. Burning, chipping, debarking or properly covering and sealing the potentially hazardous wood and/or stumps.
D. To prevent root graft transmission of tree related diseases, a barrier must be created between diseased and healthy
trees, either by cutting the root system with a 54-inch blade or longer by using a vibratory cable plow, or by digging a trench
to a minimum depth of 60 inches in the soil surrounding the diseased trees. Such abatement procedures will be carried out
in accordance with current technical and expert opinions and plans as designated by the State Commissioner of Agriculture.
E. In addition the owner may poison or have poisoned the stumps of trees diseased with oak wilt and shall debark or
have debarked to the ground line the stumps of trees diseased with Dutch elm disease or emerald ash borer in such manner
as may be approved by the forester.
Subd. 11 Abatement by City. In the event the owner fails or refuses to abate the nuisances as so required, then the
forester shall upon orders from the Council, abate the nuisance by cutting down diseased shade trees and removing all
parts, branches and brush thereof, together with any diseased wood of any diseased shade trees located on the premises,
from the premises to an authorized disposal or chipping site. The cost of the City's abating the nuisance shall be billed to
the owner or occupant of the premises upon which the nuisances existed.
Subd. 12 Assessment for Nuisance Abatement. If the owner or occupant fails to pay the bill, as provided for in Subd. 9,
within thirty (30) days of the date thereof, the Council may then assess the amount due, plus interest, against the property
as a special assessment under M.S. Ch. 429.101 (amended 11/28/11), as amended from time to time, installments of which
assessment shall in no event be payable over a period exceeding five (5) years from the date the same have been levied.
On or before October 1 of each year, the city administrator shall list the total unpaid charges for each such abatement
against each separate lot or parcel to which the same is attributable. Thereafter, the charges may then be spread by the
Council as a special assessment against the property benefited by the abatement, and the assessment certified to the
county as provided by law.
Subd. 13 Request for Laboratory Testing. Any owner of real estate in the City who receives a notice as provided in
Subd. 7 to the effect that shade trees or wood, or both as the case may be, on his or her property harbor shade tree disease
and must be removed within the time specified in the notice, may request the forester to obtain a laboratory test of one or
more of the trees. The request must be made no later than the date on which the trees or diseased wood are to be
removed from the premises, as specified in the written notice from the City to the owner as provided herein, by written notice
from the owner to the forester sent by certified mail with return receipt requested. Upon receipt of the request, the forester
shall promptly engage the services of the State Department of Agriculture or a qualified laboratory to make analyses of
appropriate specimens or samples of the allegedly diseased shade trees. If the analyses confirm the original diagnosis that
the shade trees are infected or the wood thereof diseased, or both whichever the case may be, the requesting owner shall
pay all expenses and charges incurred for the analyses by the City. If the test discloses that the trees or wood are not so
diseased, the City shall bear all the costs and the forester shall remove the trees or wood from the list of diseased trees. If
the test confirms the original diagnosis that the trees or wood or both as the case may be, are diseased, notice thereof shall
be sent the owner by the forester, and the owner shall remove the diseased trees or wood or both as the case may be,
within one week after receipt of the notice.
Subd. 14 Spraying or Treatment of Shade Trees.
A. Whenever the forester determines that any shade tree or shade tree wood within the City is infected with shade tree
disease, he or she may spray or treat all nearby high value shade trees by such chemical or mechanical means as will be
effective to prevent as fully as possible the spread of shade tree disease thereto. The forester may also cause the diseased
shade trees or wood to be sprayed or treated by chemical or mechanical means so as likewise to control the possible spread
of shade tree disease to neighboring, high value shade trees. Such procedure shall be carried out in accordance with
current technical and expert opinions and plans of the State Department of Agriculture and under the supervision of the
Department whenever possible.
B. As determined necessary by the City Forester, the City may utilize chemical means of treatment. If chemical
treatments are deemed necessary, the cost for this service shall be borne by the City. The costs of the mechanical means of
treatment shall be borne by the owner or occupant of the premises, the shade trees upon which have been mechanically
treated by the City. The owner or occupant of the premises shall be billed the costs of the mechanical treatment, and in the
event of nonpayment of the bill within thirty (30) days of the date thereof, the Council may then assess the amount due, plus
interest, in the manner provided in Subd. 10.
C. The forester shall notify, in the manner provided in Subd. 9, each owner or occupant of real estate within the City of
the date after which shade trees on his or her property shall be mechanically treated, which date shall not be less than five
(5) days from the date of mailing the notice.
Subd 15. Transportation of Epidemic Diseased Wood. It is unlawful for any person to transport within the City any
diseased wood that is determined to be hazardous, as described in Subd. 6.
Subd 16. Public Tree Care. The City has the right to plant, prune, maintain, remove or perform any other arboricultural
practices as necessary on all public property including the street right-of-way to ensure public safety and to preserve or
enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds.
Subd 17. Abuse or Mutilation of Public Trees. Unless specifically authorized by the City Forester, no person shall
intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant, remove any tree, attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising poster, or other
contrivance to any tree, allow any gaseous liquid or solid substance which is harmful to come in contact with any tree, or set
fire or permit any fire to burn when the heat could injure any portion of any tree, or top a tree by severely cutting back the
tree canopy to a stub.
Subd 18. Violation of Penalty. Any person, firm or cooperation who violates any section of this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction, thereof, shall be subject to a misdemeanor penalty as then by defined by Minnesota
law. Additionally, the City may exercise any civil remedy available under Minnesota law for the enforcement of this code
including civil action, mandamus, injunctive relief, declaratory action, or the levying of assessments.
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM – 1E
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
February 22, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Council Tracker Update
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on items presented on the Council Request Tracker.
Background
City Council will receive a verbal update on items the Council has previously directed staff to
research and/or bring forward.
Discussion
N/A
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
N/A