The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA003 - Letter from EPA dated May 2, 2001 - Complaints #2001-122 and #2001-132 s - OIt � Fields of Opportunities STATE OF I O Wf THOMAs J. VILSACK, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURC JEFFREY R. VONK, DIRECT SALLY J. PEDERSON, LT. GOVERNOR CERTIFIED MAIL May 2, 2001 Chuck Wnkleblack Bob Friedrich Jr. Hunziker Land Development Co. Friedrich Land Development Co. 105 S. 16`h St 619 E. Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010-8009 Ames, Iowa 50010 SUBJECT: Notice of Violation: Discharge of pollutants to a water of the state [567 IAC 61.3(2)] Uthe Farms Subdivision, First Addition, GW Carver Ave. & Bloomington Rd, Ames NPDES General Permit No. 2: IA-4542-4380 Complaints#2001-122 and#2001-132 Dear Messrs. Wnkleblack and Friedrich: Enclosed is the report completed by Amy Scott of the Field Office#5 staff following her complaint investigation at your development We believe you will find the report self-explanatory and strongly encourage you to take prompt action on the requirements and recommendations listed near the end. By May 22, 2001, please submit to this office (attention Amy Scott) the steps taken to provide sediment and erosion controls which will effectively retain sediment on the development property. As you were previously informed, because sediment was discharged off the property on April 11, 2001, the matter is being referred to DNR legal staff for appropriate enforcement action. You may contact Ms. Scott (515-725-0371) or this office with any questions or comments. Sincer ly, elf im Stricke1( frx-41' Supervisor, Field Office#5 cc: Storm Water Section/IDNR (w/encl.) Michael Murphy, Legal/IDNR (w/encl.) Scott Williams, WHKS & Co., 1421 S. Bell, # 103, Ames, IA 50010 (w/encl.) Katherine & Herbert Fromm, 3531 GW Carver Ave., Ames, IA 50010 (w/encl.) FIELD OFFIC515-725-00268W 7 FAX 515-725-0218 OwEwwMOte.a us/�A 50305�611 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I RO C d DI 810 .. ENV R.PNMENTAL.P _ .TE ..TI...N. V.I$ _..N L !r,ffi # ..::.:::::. ... :.:::::...:: ..... :::::.::...........::::::: : :... :::... . ......::::.:::::::::::::::.::.. 40i.:SW. t. °Suite Y :`Des Moines Iowa 50309. 46i 1 ... °::... .......::::::::::::::::::::......::::::::::::::.:::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. :: .. . . ....................................................................... ................... ..hnne5 5 :�25,0268:::::::;:: : :::::::::�:FAX:`5i5 :7,25-02 ti:::::::::::::: :::::,_:::::::::::::::::::::::::,::,:,::::::::::::::::::: REPORT OF INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION DATE CURRENT: 4/10/01, 4/11/01 1 LAST: 1/24/01 TO: Chuck Winkleblack Bob Friedrich, Jr. Uthe Farms Development Co. Friedrich Land Development Co. c/o Hunziker&Associates 619 East Lincoln Way 105 S. 16"' St Ames Iowa 50010-8009 Ames Iowa 50010 SUBJECT: Storm Water Discharge Investigation Uthe Farms Subdivision, First Addition, G.W. Carver Ave. & Bloomington Rd., Ames, Stc NPDES General Permit No. 2: IA-4525-4380 Complaints #2001-122 & #2001-132 PERSONS Dean Hunziker CONTACTED: Kathy& Herbert Fromm Chuck Winkleblack Scott Williams, WHKS & Co. OBSERVATIONS: A follow-up visit to the complaint inspection of 1/24/01 was made on April 10, 2001, to observe the sedimei erosion controls at the development. Conditions were damp from rain prior to 4/10/01. It was not mining a time of my visit. A return visit was made on 4/11/01 in response to a complaint of turbid water discharging the site. 4/10101: Water in the east drainage ditch leading to the temporary sediment basin was clear. Ample freeboard was in the basin. However, despite conditions of low flow, the cloudy water being discharged from the basin inc the basin was not functioning properly as a sediment basin. The level of the water in the basin was low en, reveal the silt fence wrapped around the lower portion of the perforated riser discharge pipe. The condition of the silt fences below the basin indicated that the fences had been previously overtopped passed during conditions of high flow. It was not possible to determine if the fences were also undercut. Due to the above conditions, I planned to contact Chuck Winkleblack the next morning to express concern: the turbid quality of the basin's discharge during low flow and the apparent overtopping and by-passing of t fences. Vegetative cover was present on most of the lower slopes and in the area of the sediment basin. Upper sk where the grading activity was taking place are steep and had no vegetative cover. There were no silt fenc the perimeter of the bare soil areas. No silt fence was observed at the base of the soil stockpiles. 4111101: The April 11 th inspection was conducted between 11:00 am — 12:30 pm as a result of a complaint filed witf field office on April 11, 2001, concerning the discharge of a high volume of very turbid water from the housi development into Squaw Creek. Because Chuck Winkleblack was out of the office, I notified Dean Hunzikc complaint and that water samples of the discharge would be collected this same day. Heavy rainfall fell intermittently at the time of the inspection. As on 4/10/01 vegetative cover was present on most of the lower slopes and in the area of the temporary s basin. Due to lack of silt fences at the perimeter of the bare soil, the runoff from these areas into the basin heavily laden with sediment (i.e., dark tan color). The pollution prevention plan calls for silt fence to be plac Uth Pac along the perimeter of disturbed areas at locations where runoff can move offsite. Movement of sediment i east side road ditch was observed in the area of the Valley View Road extension. In contrast, farther east, flows in the road ditch were Gear, braided, and of lesser volume likely due to the presence of good vegetat cover in the ditch as well as up-slope. Surface flows from the west side of the project have the potential to enter the west road ditch, which does r currently discharge into the basin, and discharge off the property without control. At the time, the west ditcl discharging a good volume of turbid water. A field the also discharges into the west side road ditch and dog enter the basin. About two to three feet of freeboard was present in the basin relative to its south side berm. The perforate( pipe also stood well above the water level. The level of the water in the basin had risen sufficiently so that fabric on the riser pipe was not visible as it had been the previous day. The basin discharged turbid water; greater volume and faster rate than would be expected for water leaving the basin only through the perfora the riser discharge pipe. The silt fences in place below the basin were being completely overtopped and also by-passed by the voles the discharge from the basin. The water flowing off the development property was dark tan color as was th in the drainage way flowing to Squaw Creek. A turbid plume could be seen in Squaw Creek which odginat( the point where the drainage way discharges into Squaw Creek. After entering Squaw Creek, the turbid plL spread out to a width of 10 + feet and travelled out of sight along the east bank as a disfinct dark tan plume contrasting with the Dearer water from upstream. Water samples were taken to determine the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) at different point including influent to the basin (Northridge Parkway discharge and nearby field tile), discharge from the basi field file next to the concrete culvert under G. W. Carver Ave., the drainage way to Squaw Creek, and Squa Creek. Copies of the sample analysis reports are attached and the analysis results are summarized in the below. All samples were taken on 4/11/01 around mid-day. Total Suspended Sample Solids (TSS) Number Sample Location m /L 1 Northridge Parkway discharge 290 2 Field the @ Northridge discharge 21 3 Uthe basin discharge 7,560 4 Field the @ concrete culvert 430 5 Discharge from concrete culvert onto 5,670 Fromm property 6 Road ditch west of GW Carver @-Fromm 170 property 7 S uaw Creek 1,850 As a comparison, treatment standards for discharges from wastewater treatment lagoons limit total suspen solids (TSS) to a maximum of 120 mg/L. Also, Iowa general water quality criteria prohibit the discharge of that creates objectionable color, form sludge deposits, or create a nuisance. At the concrete culvert under G. W. Carver Avenue, a field the discharged turbid water. The source of the discharge from this tile is not yet known, but does not appear to be from the development The volume of f from this field tile was small relative to the discharges from the Uthe Farms and Northridge subdivisions. Photos were taken during the 4/10/01 and 4/11/01 inspections. j UthE Pag, During telephone conversations on 4/13/01 with Chuck Winkleblack and Scott Williams they reported that th basin size would be expanded. I informed them that, based on my observations of conditions at the site on 4/10/01, when flows were low, there appeared to be a problem with the discharge structure of the basin. I a them to verify that water was not being discharged out through the bottom of the basin. Scott Williams statE the sediment marking I observed 4/10/01 on the silt fences were not the result of overtopping during prior ra events, but had occurred as the deep snow melted in the basin and at the silt fences. During a telephone conversation on 4/23/01, 1 notified Chuck Winkleblack that a complaint had been filed of discharge from the site on 4/22/01 in the early morning. Mr. Winkleblack reported that when he had been ai site later in the day, the discharge had not been turbid. He reported that the basin size had been enlarged that time they had determined that the installation of the discharge structure had been previously eroded an undermined allowing water to discharge from the lower water level of the basin. To correct the problem, cor had been used to re-install the discharge structure instead of earth and rock. He also reported that addition controls (silt fence) upstream of the basin were being installed. Requirements 1. Discontinue discharges to a water of the state which violate general water quality criteria. [567 IAC 61.3( 2. Comply with the storm water discharge permit by: [567 IAC 64.3(1)] • installing additional controls up-slope of the temporary sediment basin and vegetated buffer strip, • maintaining controls in effective working condition, • sizing the sediment basin to meet the requirement for at least 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre. Recommendations: • To prevent undermining of the basin discharge structure, ensure that flows into the basin do not flow dir( toward the discharge structure. • Ensure that staff conducting inspections are trained and experienced in evaluating the need for and the effectiveness of sediment and erosion controls. AUTHENTICATION INSPECTOR: DATE: Amy Scott 4/27/01 REVIEWER: DATE: Bill Gross /G�y�� / 5/1/01