990012_Site Visit_20240821

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990012 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC990012 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type:Structure Evaluation Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:Routine County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 08/21/2024 Entry Time: 12:30 pm Exit Time: 1:30 pm Incident#:
Farm Name: Shady Grove Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: Tim A Smitherman Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1040 Hoot Owl Hollow East Bend NC 27018
Physical Address: 4408 Shady Grove Church Rd East Bend NC 27018
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant 0 Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36' 13'59" Longitude: 80' 31'33"
US Hwy 421 north to Baltimore Rd. exit. Left at top of ramp(north). Right onto Forbush/Cornelius Rd. Left onto Baltimore Rd. Left
onto Flint Hill Rd. left onto NC Hwy. 67. Right onto Fairground Rd. Right onto Shady Grove Road. Farm is on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge&Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, &Treat
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On-Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
Primary Inspector: Kristen Potwora Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
On August 21, 2024, Division of Water Resources staff Kristen Potwora, conducted a structural evaluation of Shady Grove Dairy in
Yadkin County. The facility has been out of compliance for freeboard since the hurricane event on August 8th, 2024.
Prior to inspecting the farm, Mr. Smitherman (owner),took DWR staff to 3 new field sites for waste application.All fields were in
great condition with old corn stubble, no limiting slopes and no water features that were of concern.Two sites had soil analysis
testing conducted and will be the only sites waste will be applied on during this emergency situation.The soil analysis concluded
good conditions for waste application and no concerns or issues were noted. In March, Mr. Smitherman sent SWCD the two field
sites to be added to the CAMWP. They are currently under review. DWR recommends sampling the third field site for soils
analysis and have SWCD add it to the CAMWP as well. DWR staff sent Mr. Smitherman the small grain pan rates for waste
application for both field sites based on the soil series and NC State RYE on August 22, 2024.
At the farm, all the waste storage ponds, but the maternity waste pond and overflow basin,were non-compliant. There were no
signs of discharge from any part of the waste storage system. Mr. Smitherman began applying on the new fields on the same day.
Page 1 of 2

Permit:AWC99001: Owner: Tim A Smitherman Facility Number:990012
Inspection Date:08/21/24 Inspection TypeStructure Evaluation Reason for Visit:Routine
Waste Structures
Effective Built Closed Designated Observed
Type Identifier Date Date Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pit CLOSED-OLD ROOF PI 05/25/2005 12/31/2003 9.60
Waste Pond MATERNITY WSP 05/25/2005 18.00 24.00
Waste Pond NEW LOWER#4 09/07/2007 27.60 6.00
Waste Pond NEW UPPER#3 09/10/2007 27.60 27.60
Waste Pond OLD#1 05/25/2005 27.60 6.00
Waste Pond OLD#2 05/25/2005 24.00 18.00
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the ❑ M ❑ ❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage &Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./larc ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicablE ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
Page 2 of 2