720027_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

y yy CT
§_a
loop
lu
- . - - - z® �y Nw
- -
- : __ � L
. . \^
_« - \�-6 �S \ \ -. /; f <2 3 %«- -'I
2 a «z:~ «
lm% !MOP 'any walp
� �� Ng-�� -� �

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency_
Facility Number: 720027 Facility Status: fictive Permit: AWS720027 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine ,- County: Perauimans Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 12/17/2008 Entry Time:12:05PM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Sunray Farm
Owner: Earl R Godfrey
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 289,Winslow Rd _ Hertford NC 279448022
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Fame: Latitude: 36°06'57" Longitude: 76°14'27"
From Hertford take SR-1300 (New Hope Rd) east for approx 13 miles. Take a right onto Winslow Rd (SR-1323), which is immediately
after SR-1321 (Cross Neck Road). Path is on right approx 7110 mi. from Cross Neck jct.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Earl R Godfrey Operator Certification Number: 17733
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Earl Godfrey Phone:
On -site representative Earl Godfrey Phone:
Primary Inspector: Eric Newsome Phone:
Inspector Signature: _
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS720027 Owner - Facility: Earl R Godfrey
Facility Number : 720027
Inspection Date: 1211712008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Most recent WUP signed 1/8/1999 & received at WaRO 2110/2003. State Non -Discharge Permit due to expire September 2009;
however, the permittee/landowner needs to continue weekly freeboard checks and rainfall monitoring.
#7. There is high grass and weed growth around all three lagoons.
#21. Please record the weekly freeboard checks and any rainfall amounts on the forms provided today (FRBD-1, 1A, and TRAN-1).
Farm has been de -populated since 1999 and therefore would require re -permitting as a new facility if farm plans to re -stock at or
above 250 head of swine. No crops were planted in any of the fields (8-13) listed in the Waste Utilization Plan.
The following must be performed, should any irrigation to crops occur from any of the lagoons: 1)crops must have been those
assigned in his WUP; 2) a waste analysis would have to be performed and documented within 60 days (pre- or post -irrigation) of any
event; 3) IRR1 and IRR2 forms must be documented for each irrigation event, and; 4) a calibration of waste application equipment
would have to be performed (pre -irrigation).
Be sure to contact NRCS for a plan to clean out sludge if there are plans to use its nutrient content.
Page: 2

Permit: AWS720027 Owner - Facility: Earl R Godfrey Facility Number: 720027
Inspection Date: 12/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
W Swine - Farrow to Finish 250 0
Total Design Capacity: 250
Total SSLW: 354,250
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon
1
12.00
24.00
agoon
2
19.00
300.00
lagoon
3
19.00
174.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS720027 Owner - Facility: Earl R Godfrey Facility Number: 720027
Inspection Date: 12/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWo)
❑ 0130
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWD)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑ ■
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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,/ large trees, severe
❑ 01111
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■
❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■ ❑
❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
■ ❑
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS720027 Owner - Facility: Earl R Godfrey
Inspection Date: 12/1712008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number; 720027
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Cl
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans -
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Roanoke silt loam
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
n n ■ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
fl ❑ ■ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20.'Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS720027 Owner - Facility: Earl R Godfrey
Facility Number: 720027
Inspection Date: 12/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
■
,
Transfers?
■
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
■
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑
■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ Cl
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ it
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit; AWS720027 Owner - Facility: Earl R Godfrey
Facility Number: 720027
Inspection Date: 12/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ 0
32. Did Reviewerlfnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ 0
Page: 7

(Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0.Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit '® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Z. av Departure Time: County: Y 'vRegion:' \eo
Farm Name: _^`� i "'_ Owner Email:
Owner Name:�'� ` % Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:^r
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e= d= Longitude: 0 c= 6 0 Il
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Other
❑ Other—. - -
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes F No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
)E�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Date of Inspection v
Facility Number: 2 —
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: .Z 3
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard.(in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(iet large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
91 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
!
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
N No
[__1 NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I 0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ElEvidence of Wind Drift [:3Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(� NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination"
❑ Yes
❑ No
� NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�a NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
/ NA
❑ NE
Comrnentsr{refer, to questton #f) Explain any YES answersand/orFany`recamsBenda#ions or any other comments.
Use'dawi g Hof facility totietter.egplain situations: (useadditio al>p g a} sine e�ssary�):
J 1,., J,jg. r `
Reviewer/Inspector Name I h [�� Phone: 2SZ+ 4�-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ti 6 S
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Z -T Date of Inspection
Required Records &_Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 'Zj Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check `�] Yes ❑ No [INA ❑ NE
❑ Design El El the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ;` 21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? �es ❑ No ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No aNA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes RNo NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ( bNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes M No ElNA El NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? r
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional 'Comments and/or Drawings:
66 C ?t G
4G
_A Y
12128104

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Earl Ray Godfrey
Sunray Farm
Rt. 3, Box 499
Hertford, NC 27944
4 • •
CAENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPAFRTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AIVp NATURAL RESOURCES
May 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection
Sunray Farm
Facility No. 72 -27
Perquimans County
Dear Mr. Godfrey:
On March 30, 1999, I conducted an Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection at the referenced
facility. Overall, the operation was found to be in satisfactory condition. A copy of the inspection report is
attached for your review_
In general, this inspection includes verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2110217, Senate
Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management
system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are
being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
The recommendations and/or comments regarding your inspection can be found in the comment section of the
attached inspection form. It is very important as the owner and Operator in Charge that you address any noted
concerns, as soon as possible. For assistance, please contact your Technical Specialist and/or the local Soil &
Water Conservation District Office.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the inspection_ Should you have further questions or
comments regarding this inspection, do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 321.
Sincerely,
Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist 11
cc: Perquimans County SWCD Office
WaRO
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Facility Number Date of Inspection �-
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted N Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 10 Nof peratDate Last Operated: ...........................
Farm Name: Sunt'.ay..Earm.................................................................................................. County: Perquimans WaRO
OwnerName:]r.4.y................................ Gofxey...................................................... Phone No:5....................................................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title:................................... ........ Phone No:
Mailing Address:.#..>89X.41............................ ................. k�.flXf4F.(...................................1.9.4..............
.................. .....................
Onsite Representative: S:ojany.Godfro.......................................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: U%jj.t.................................... GQdflgX................................ ........... Operator Certification Number:. i7. .............................
Location of Farm:
;d.t�iles.E..u.Hertfurtl.saa Rd.1d.QD,.talze.Sl3.)<z3.lG.ar�tWta.Sbazes.B.n�ad.nfl SR.13.Q�...T1t,efaKinn i.apt.tlxe.c�ad.n1CS)B.)«z .............
........................................................................................................................................................... ...........
Latitude Longitude ®. ©; ®u
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:.....................................................................................flaal...........................................................................
Freeboard (inches) . ...............25... .. ..... 5.1..........
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
Structure 6
p Yes ® No
Continued on back
3/23/99

Facility Number: 72-27 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need main ten ance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
® No
p Yes
p Yes
N No
p Yes
N No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes N No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
13 Yes Ig No
p Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
No: violations: nr:deficiencies were, noted during this. visit. • .You :will receive: nolt rihe' ::
• ... about this: visit..... :::::::::: ::::::: ::: :: :::: :
•ommentI (refe to question #}: Faxplain any YES answers and. an} recommendations or any other comments.
se drawings of facility to better expiain situations. use additional pages as necessary}:
14. This facility was initially pended due to the WUP not matching the map and irrigation design information provided. This
•
information was corrected by Mr. Bill Blackwell, Technical Specialist and submitted to WaRO on 4-12-99. Upon a review of the
amended WUP, this facility does not need a WA Determination.
17 & 22. Applied for General Permit.
Irrigation records complete with nitrogen balance.
Current waste analysis & soil analysis.
If you have any questions about this inspection, please contact me at [phone], ext. 321,
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Daphne B. Cullom
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

�1.
�011R �%_,_�
Revised ApriI 20, I999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number7c - Q7 Operation is flagged fora wettable
Farm Name: acre determination due to failure of
On -Site Representativ Part 11 eligibility items) F9 F2 F3 F4
Inspector/Reviewer's Name:!&.,t ,,. _ Operation not required to secure WA
- determination at this time based on
Date of site visit: 3 _gip -_�i exemption. E9 E2 E3 E4
Date of most recent WUP: t k- a 7- r19 Operation pended for wettable acre
�eq ► 5; o,r, 1— s - q Ci determination based on P9 P2 P3
Annual farm PAN deficit:
^/-34 c->4 pounds
l V+� V 7
Irrigation System(s) - circle #( 1. rd-hose traveler; -2. center pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system w permanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
6. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system w/portable:pipe
PART I. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part II, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design,- including map depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and D)D3 irrigation operating parameter sheets, including map
/ depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an I or PE.
✓ E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part III. (NOTE:-75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part II - F1 F2'F3, before -completing computational table in Part Ill).
PART 11.75% Rule -Eligibility Checklist and.Documentation-of WA Determination
Requirements., WA Determination requiredbecause -operation fails -one of the _eligibility
requirements listed:below:
_F1 _Lack ofacreage.which-resulted in-over-application-of_wastewater=(PAN) on -spray--_-
field(s)=according.tofarm'slasttwo-yearsmfJrrigation7ecords --.
_F2 Unclear, illegible; orlack-ofinformation/map:-
ObViousfeld:iimitationslnumerous-hitches•,4ailure:to=deduct:requ'rEdi.-
buffer/setback:acreage,:or25%°of.total.:acreage identifed,in_CAWMPZincludes
small, -irregularlyshaped: fields -,"fields -less A-han -5 .acres:for-trave_lersnMess�h_ an t�
2.acres. for�stationa rinklers
F4 WA:determination required :because CAWMP credits field(s)'s -acreage-in -excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part 111.

Revised April 20, 1999
Facility Number �- a -7
Part Ill. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT
NUMBER
FIELD
NUMBER''2
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
TOTAL
ACRES
CAWMP
ACRES
FIELD
%
COMMENTS3
�34
36. a
a�].
-7Lk9
15 LA
it —la
d
33•
aS-
7&. 0
FIELD NUMBER'
- hvdrant_ null_ zone. or Daint numbers mav be used in Dlace-of field numbers deoendina nn CAWMP
and type of irrigation system. If pulls, etc_ cross more than one field,-inspector/reviewer will have to combine fields to
calculate 75% field by field determination for exemption; -otherwise, operation will be subject to WA determination.
FIELD.NUMBER` - must be clearly delineated -on -map.- _..
COMMENTS' - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage -exceeding 75%:bf-its totaf:acres -and -having -received less-than-50%
of its annual PAN as:documented.in.the-farm's previous _two_years'-(]997:&A998)-of -irrigation :records; cannot serve -as -.the
sole basis -for requiring a WA Determination: Back-upfields:nu_st:be�oted-in-the-comment-section-and must.be:accessible=.-
by irrigation system:-. -
Part IV. Pending WA -Determinations -
P1 Plan lacks -foil owing -information:,:---.
P2 Plan'revision-may_satisfy`75%:rulebased-on-adequate:overall-PAN deficit-and
adjusting:ail fieldacreage-to below=75% use.rate
P3 Other (ie/in process of -installing -new irrigation -system):

Facility Number 72 27 Date of Inspection 1016198
Time of Inspection 15:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered M Certified ® Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 1E3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
FarmName: S.0 ny.Emm................................................................................................. County: P.erquimanR,.................................... W. ..aRO........
OwnerName: EadRay................................. Gadfrey....................................................... Phone No: 264-.26.7,5....................................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: R1.3.Ba.499..........................................................................................HerdQrd..NC ........................................................ 17.9.4.4 .............
Onsite Representative: ,59=y..GQllf7['y.........................................
Integrator:..------.
Certified Operator: Earl-& ................................... GDdfmy ........................................... Operator Certification Number: .177.3,3.............................
Location of Farm:
�Q.�oni�ea. .atets�.Q�a.R,.QQ.�lak,� 53. Caxalin�a�uxaa�d.n.S�i .13Q0...��anx.i�.ak.kia~ �a�d af.SR.,i3................
Latitude 36 ' fl6 45 " Longitude 76 ' 15 06
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? © Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
D Yes
® No
[j Yes
19 No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes ® No

Facility Number: 72-27 Date of Inspection 1016198
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ® No
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft): .............-4.Q..................... -..... S,Q.............. 2 5...............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Cffl No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes H No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes % No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? © Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type........................................................... -•--•.........................................--.-------------•-------....................................-----------...........................---... ...........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)7 [j Yes ® No
17. Does the facility_ have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
It -No, iolations' air'd'eritieriEies.wbre'poted,dutibg tbiS.Visit.' bu wiltreteiVe "no f4ribe'
•:co>Tres:pondencealiouf•fhis:visat•. .... - .. -.•_• . . . .........:.:. - - •
I111WIM0.14ID
p Yes ® No
❑ Yes Ig No
0 Yes X No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IM No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr,, Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 12, 1999
Mr. Earl Ray Godfrey
Sunray Farm
Route 3, Box 499
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Sunray Farm
Facility No. # 72-27
Perquimans County
Dear Mr. Godfrey:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection (as it is
viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the referenced facility by the Division of Water
Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, this inspection included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the
State Rules 15 NCAC 211.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated
properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being
kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 919/946-6481, ext. 318 or your Technical Specialist.
Sincerely,
Lyn B. Hardison
Environmental Specialist
Cc: LBH files
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

F
72 _5:�
Facility Number Date of Inspection F - _ I Time of Inspection �� 24 hr. (hh-mm)
a Registered M Certified C3 Applied for Permit gj Permitted JZ3 Not Opera Date Last Operated:
Registered
Farm Name: Sunray -Farm .................................................................................................. County: Perquimans WaRO
OwnerName: Earj.Ra)................................ Godfrey ..................................................... Phone No: 264--267.5 ...................................................................
FacilityContact: ............................................................................... Title: ............................................................... Phone No: ....................................................
MailingAddress: RUB01.499 .......................................................................................... Hexlfox.d..N.0 ......................................................... 2794.4 ..............
t'
OnsiteRepresentative- Sanay,Gndfr4 ......................................................................... Integrator: .......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Ear1R .................................... GLtdfr&,y ............................................ Operator Certification Number: 17733 ............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 Longitude F7U_19
-7-77 : ju I �
-.-�—Design- a Uurrent-7777 77.7 7 77 es gn-. rren Design Uu rrent
_?Population
Swine - Caace Po - [it 6n p6wtry P Cattle �7 Capacity
ifty-
_* . ... opy ation
--We—an to Feeder
[3
13 Feeder to Fm—j—sK—
[3 Farrow to Wean
[3 Farrow to Feeder
IM Farrow to Finish
250
11U
❑ Gilts
[3 Boars
j, rE3 Layer airy
E3 Non -Layer 1 1[3 Non-Datry EE3 Other
TotalDesign a �ael 250
Tot 3:54,250
�WV,
7
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? E] Yes M No
2. Is any discharge
observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 13 Lagoon [3 Spray Field E3 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/rain?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system" (if yes. notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
[3 Yes 0 No
[3 Yes 13 No
13 Yes 11 No
n/a
L3 Yes
M No
L3 Yes
0 No
E3 Yes
MNo
E3 Yes
MNo
13 Yes
gNo
E3 Yes
MNo
Continued on back

8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
® No
Structures (Lagoons.Holding Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure
6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):.............. 147............. .............. ?...5........... ... ....... .... 24H............. ...................... ..............
........... .............. ......... ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
0 Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
N Yes
p No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
0 Yes
® No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
® No
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type Cnzn.(aSxlage.&.Grain)........ SmaU.Gzait�L4.WV1=L. Haney ... ....................Slay Saybeans ...............................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the' Rats) Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
U • o-v o eh5.Ora rcieri-cies'weerice ut Ais•re-ithtc d-r qg: t rs y.s.t.. • . oit-w1 •rec iVf a i-t. er'
: correspoada6vvisih ::: ' ' : :::
Reviewer/Inspector Name
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
i 3 Yes ®No
® Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
I] Yes ® No
I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L,, '6I_j1'A4'1 f4A__1 Date: 6--

❑DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
® DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection 1- - 4-8-97
Facility Number 72 27
Time of Inspection 1000 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (m fraction of hours
Farm Status: ez:1.25 for l br 15 min S ent.on Review 3-
or Inspection {includes travel and processing
Farm Name: Sutu[AyJFarnL.................................................................................................. County: Perqtumans.--------------.........---.......... WARO........
OwnerName: Eat'1................................ f uJJfrCY...................................................... Phone No: 26.4.2675...................................................................
MailingAddress: Bt.fti.492.......................................................................................... JUrdbind..NC......................................................... 27944..............
Onsite Representative: Paid.BAx.L%>x1 1.GwM=.................................................. Integrator:....................,..................................................................
Certified Operator:Ead&................................... GQJM xdt.... . Operator Certification Number- .17.73.3................. ....................................... ............
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude
0 Not Operational Date Last Operated:...............................................................................
type of uperation ana design capacity
Swine Number
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
IN Farrow to Finish
250
Poultry Number Cattle Number
❑ Layer I I[] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I 1 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
General
I . Are there any buffers that need maintenancefunprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on back

6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
❑ Yes
® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/1/97)?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
[:]Yes
®No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holdine Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon l Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
................2.5.................................1.0................................1.0.....................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
® Yes
❑ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
® Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type---.Sma,l.GraiU k.YftUL-B udP.Y». JAUQ6 .................. CM.(Sit4gQ.&.UX44...............
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
❑ Yes
® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19- Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. 72 —27
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
11,12: erosion and small trees were noted along dike wall; # ' 13: lacked markers in all tw6 lagoons whichare in series via manual
amps; # 15: cover crops are corn and small grain, there was an extra hydrant and more land available in comparison to the CAWMP; .
20: the CAWMP was available, however it was not complete; # 22, irrigation records are not being kept, forms were left with the
IC. The OIC. was informed to complete his CAWNT install irrigation markers, address the erosion and the small trees by maintaining
e dike walls, maintain the level in the lagoon between the min and max levels of his lagoons, restrict cow traffic on the dike wall and
update his WUP to include the extra hydrant and land.. Overall, the facility had a few deficiencies of which he proposes to address., Ther
were approx.. 30 cows on -site. The number of. animals at the time .of the inspection were sows: 165, piplets: 400, finishing: 800.
i::kY.i':-'.-'.i4::iitii. �..=�L`'.:%:.::'v
t?,.'}. '*.'-�. �' .:ti0:?:` }}:S:ti {•:4}: }s. .:.{i:S.{.::ti:�ry:.;y.;`..''..'f $C::>.':ti:.� i�.'}::.�-::}:::��x r'?h,.:
e - ..iG:•r i:Y`•:%e ?..Y::^.:^:-::::�C..: C:tirv:.::3'f.� .i.:S.v ':rCi: :.R:
Reviewer/Inspector actor Name "'`?»
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
cc. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Fae0yAssessment Unit 11 /14/96