20120794 Ver 1_401 Application_20120912

f-
20120794
Lux Farms Wetland Reserve Program Enhancement Project
F, f
Pre - Construction Notification Form and Supporting Documents

Lux Farms Wetland Reserve Program Enhancement Project
Pre- Construction Notification Form
Project Narrative
Summary and Goals
Background and Need
Project Significance
Hydrologic Design Brief and Water Management Plan
Purpose
General Watershed Hydrology
Target Hydrology
Pump Station 1 Design
Hydraulic Controls
Pump Station 2 Design
Water Management Plan
Water Management Table
Operation and Maintenance
Compatible Use Agreement
Access to Public Lands
Anticipated Construction Activities and Schedule
Activities and Equipment
Proposed Timeline
Wetland Delineation
Map of Wetland Delineation
Wetland Impacts and Benefits Summary Table
Environmental Evaluation
Ecosystem and Habitat Conditions
NRCS form CPA 52
Location Maps and Restoration Design
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Initial NC State University Modeling and Analysis
Appendix 2: Wetland Reserve Program Easement Deed

O''- VYAT�c��9OG
o Ni
20120794
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: Nationwide 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only
❑ Yes
for Corps Permit:
® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
® Yes
❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project
2b.
County:
Hyde
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Engelhard
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
8
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Lux Farms, LLC �►'e� HR , t;,
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Book 210 Page 557, Book 210 Page 561
w �Uql
a
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Wilson Daughtry
a�c�y
3d.
Street address:
3278 Airport Road
3e.
City, state, zip:
Engelhard, NC 27824
3f.
Telephone no.:
252 - 925 -5051
3g.
Fax no.:
252 - 925 -8391
3h.
Email address:
arg @hughes.net
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Project Manager
4b. Name:
Erin Fleckenstein
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NC Coastal Federation
4d. Street address:
128 Grenville Street
4e. City, state, zip:
Manteo, NC 27954
4f. Telephone no.:
252 473 -1607
4g. Fax no.:
252 473 -2402
4h. Email address:
ednf @nccoast.org
5. AgentlConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Kevin Boyer
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
5c. Street address:
1651 Mail Service Center
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27699
5e. Telephone no.:
919 571 6740
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
kevin.boyer @ncdenr.gov
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
8698 -74 -5610
Latitude: 35.5982840 Longitude: -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
75.990306*.
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
4033.01 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Intracoastal Waterway, Alligator River, Swan Creek,
proposed project:
Pamlico Sound
Intracoastal Waterway- SC, Swamp waters
Alligator River- SC, Outstanding Resource Waters,
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Impaired
SwanCreek- C, Oustanding Resource Waters
Pamlico Sound- SA, High Quality Waters, Impaired
2c. River basin:
This project falls on the dividing line of the Tar - Pamlico
and Pasquotank River Basins
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area is within a 42,500 acre drainage association that uses pumps to manage water levels for forestry and
agricultural production. These pumps discharge to coastal waters and have led to water quality impairments. The project
area is ditched and drained, prior converted land that is proposed to be restored to wetland function.
Adjacent property is owned by The Nature Conservancy, The Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife Resources
Commission and private landowners. Neighboring land is managed for agriculture, wildlife and habitat benefits. See
narrative and project map for more information.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
770 acres. Project area is ditched and drained wetlands (prior converted wetlands) that have been used for farm/forestry
operations for the last 30+ years. The project proposes to restore historic hydrologic connections and wetland function to
this land. Total project area is 1,400 acres for Phase 1 and would result in a net increase of 630 acres of wetland.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
0 streams, there are existing man made drainage canals and intermediate lateral ditches.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
This project has multiple purposes /benefits: 1) Restore hydrology, to the extent possible, on 4,033 acres of land enrolled
in the NRCS WRP program; 2) Improve water quality in Pamlico Sound by diverting waters through restored wetlands so
that oyster restoration in the sound can be more successful; 3) Enhance wetland function and habitat of lands enrolled in
the NRCS, WRP program; 4) demonstrate non - traditional partnership opportunities that exist between environmental
organizations, federal government and landowners.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Project involves creation of berms, installation of culverts, creation of overflow fords, installation of pumps and excavation
of sloughs. See project narrative for more details
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
E] preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known): NRCS- Jonathan Hinkle
Other: NRCS
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
June 2012- NRCS delineated wetlands with in the project area by applying the van Schilfgaarde Equation, which assess
the effect of the perimeter canals. William Wescott with the Corps has advised that this is acceptable. See project
narrative and associated wetland map.
6. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
7[]Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
, explain.
project involves 4033 acres, and is divided into 3 proposed phases. Phase I planning is complete and designed for
ncon
ruction. Phases II and III remain in the planning stages.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ❑ Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
, number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 [--] P ® T
temporary
clearing for
pocosin; scrub
® Yes
® Corps
33
construction
shrub thicket
El No
®DWQ
W2 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 [I P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No _
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
33
2h. Comments: Thirty -three acres of wetlands will be temporarily impacted due to the clearing and restoration of 1,400 acres
of artificially drained lands. All 1;400 acres will be restored to full wetland function at the completion of this project
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f:
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) ) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
. other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.-
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ❑P ❑T
02 []P [IT
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c."
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
-
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
"
❑ Yes 10 No. If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed - (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an •im acts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact"
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
131 ❑P
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P
❑Yes -
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Proposed project is designed for restoration purposes. The proposed temporary impacts are necessary to facilitate the
maximum best restoration at this site.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction will use low pressure equipment to minimize soil compaction and disturbance. Immediate seeding and planting
after earthwork and proper water management during construction will help minimuze potential impact. Post project monitoring
and management will ensure that long term restoration goals are met.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
[Type
I Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ ,
6a. Will the project. result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
-buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
.6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation, bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

'E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
El Yes . ® No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: this project is a wetlands restoration
project that does not include construction or an increase in impervious surface. Therefore, it does,not require a
stormwater management plan.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Hyde County
❑ Phase 11
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
[:1 El
El USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other: .
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW .
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11 -
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)'
la. Does the project involve' an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
El Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after- the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes ",to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
none generated
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
0-Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Emily Jernigan with the Raliegh office of FWS, Dennis Stewart of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, and Bill
Edwards with NRCS have been consulted. FWS has advised that red cocaked woodpeckers have been found in close
proximity to the project, on Roper Island, approximately 10 miles from the project site. The restoration design has been
crafted to minimize habitat disturbances. NRCS has performed their environmental evaluation of the site. Their complete
evaluation form is included in the attached narrative.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Kevin Hart with NC Division of Marine Fisheries has advised that there are no impacts to Essential Fish Habitat.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Mac Gibbs, Extension Director for Hyde County Cooperative Extension, has advised there are no historic or archeological
resources that would be impacted.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: FEMA requirements do not appy to this project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Hyde County Flood Map
Wilson Daughtry
8 -17 -2012
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applican ge 's ignature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only d an authbdzation letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project
Reestablishing Historic Drainage Patterns to Reduce Farm Drainage Discharges to Prime
Oyster Growing Waters in Pamlico Sound in Hyde County
Proiect Summary and Goals
A partnership, formed by the participation of Lux Farms, LLC, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF), and North
Carolina State University (NCSU), has developed a plan for restoring hydrology on 4,033 acres
of prior converted farm land in Hyde County and implementing a phase of restoration on 1,400
acres. The project partners have evaluated the feasibility of restoring historic drainage patterns to
greatly reduce pumped farm drainage into prime oyster growing waters of Pamlico Sound. The
plan they have devised works with natural topography and groundwater flows so that farm
drainage is absorbed into the landscape rather than pumped into Pamlico Sound. Implementation
of the plan will enhance lands that are enrolled in the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program. The
water quality and ecological impacts of implementing this plan have been modeled and evaluated
by NCSU and project partners. In addition to the partners mentioned above, additional
stakeholder input has been solicited from U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS), the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC). All stakeholders are in
support of the proposed restoration.
Project Goals
The federation has secured funding through the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund to
construct Phase I of the plan on Lux Farms. This project strives to marry the needs and goals of
many by:
1) restoring historic hydrology, to the extent possible, on 4,033 acres of land enrolled in
the NRCS WRP program in a multi - phased, multi -year approach;
2) improving water quality in Pamlico Sound for improved success in oyster restoration;
3) enhancing wetland function and habitat quality of lands enrolled in the NRCS WRP
program;
4) demonstrating non - traditional partnership opportunities that exist between
environmental organizations, federal government and private landowners.
Background and Need
The restoration of Lux Farms focuses on re- engineering an existing drainage system on about
7,200 acres of farm and forestlands situated just north of Engelhard between Lake Mattamuskeet,
Pamlico Sound and the Alligator River. Lux Farms and their drainage system are part of the
larger 42,500 acre Mattamuskeet Drainage District. Lands within the district have been
intensively ditched and the district operates a series of pumps and canals that facilitate land
management and agricultural operations for its members. Water is collected from field ditches
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 1 of 41

spaced 330 feet apart, which then flows through large canals to high capacity electric and diesel
pumps. This excess drainage water is pumped into the Pamlico Sound, Alligator River and the
Intracoastal Waterway, carrying with it sediment, agricultural pollutants and bacteria.
On the east side of the association, near Lux Farms, these pumps discharge into the estuarine
waters of Pamlico Sound via canals at two pump stations known locally as "Second" and "Fifth
Avenue ". These receiving waters are'classified for shellfish harvest but are now closed due to
bacterial contamination. The pumps also release pulses of fresh and low pH water that can
negatively affect marine organisms.
This pumping has also created an artificial diversion of groundwater over the past several
decades away from Swan Lake and the Alligator River which has had additional consequences.
It has caused subsidence and soil compaction in the drainage district and adjacent properties. It
also may have caused adjacent freshwater systems (Swan Lake and Alligator River) to become
more saline, or allow saltwater to penetrate further into these freshwater habitats. This is
resulting in ecological changes to the Alligator River system. Benefits to these habitats could be
realized by the reintroduction of historic freshwater flows and hydrologic regimes.
The existing drainage system was constructed before there was much understanding of the water
quality, fisheries and ecological consequences of converting wetlands to agricultural and forestry
operation. But now, the local drainage district understands that there are environmental concerns
with the existing design of its drainage system and possible benefits that could be realized by
managing it in a different way. For the past ten years they have been part of an active planning
process, coordinated by the federation, to develop alternative water management strategies that
result in improved water quality while continuing to allow farming and other land uses.
In discussions with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), North Carolina State University, and others, the drainage district and one of its
major landowners (Lux Farms) have developed a new plan for how to re- direct drainage away
from Pamlico Sound. The first phase of this plan focuses on the farming operations of Lux
Farms. If the initial implementation of the plan proves successful, the basic concepts could be
used to reduce surface discharges throughout the entire 42,500 -acre drainage district.
The basic concept of the new plan is deceptively simple. Nature originally moved water through
the landscape northwest to the Swan Lake and the Alligator River. The drainage district
redirected this water to the south and east via ditches and pumps to Pamlico Sound. Over the
years, Lux and others within the association have discovered that some of their lower lying lands
remained difficult to farm even though they are classified as being "prior converted" wetlands by
NRCS. Over the years, this land has been used for growing trees or enrolled in programs like
NRCS's Wetland Reserve Program.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 2 of 41

In evaluating its land holdings, Lux Farms wants to use its lower elevation lands to store and
absorb its farm drainage. This land would provide a large buffer area of several thousand acres
to receive and infiltrate drainage that is collected from the areas of the farm being cultivated. To
this end, in 2011, Lux Farms enrolled 4,033 acres in the NRCS's Wetland Reserve Program; this
program places a permanent conservation easement on the land and performs basic wetland
restoration by reducing the influence of artificial drainage to the extent practical. NRCS has
partnered with the landowner, NCCF and NCSU in developing a plan that would enhance their
basic restoration to receive additional water inputs.
The idea is to use these 4,033 acres of prior converted wetlands as a water quantity and quality
buffer. Pumps will be used to lift water into shallow water impoundments around the perimeter
of the project area. These impoundments will store water temporarily, allowing for groundwater
recharge and water quality improvements via infiltration into the soils. Fords and culverts will
connect to the rest of the project area where water will be infiltrated into the restored wetlands.
This infiltrated water will then move by gravity as surface dispersed sheet flow and subsurface
groundwater following natural drainage patterns and water quality divides.
NCSU performed a feasibility analysis of this restoration concept; looking at historic, current and
future proposed conditions that would result from the proposed restoration. Their initial
modeling is included as Appendix 1 and shows that a water deficit currently exists in the project
area and to the northwest of the project are. Their initial concept and modeling has been further
refined through the participation of the aforementioned stakeholders group. The final restoration
design and the modeling that guides the design and water management plan is further explained
in this narrative in the section titled: Hydrologic Design Brief and Water Management Plan.
NRCS has performed their Prior Condition analysis and determined the desired future conditions
on the WRP tract which have also been included in the current design.
Project Significance
This project is one of the largest and most exciting opportunities for water quality and habitat
restoration in the country because of its scale and potentially large environmental benefits. It is
the next phase of nearly 20 years of conservation work which has focused on the Albemarle and
Pamlico peninsula. This region has been one of the epicenters of conservation activity in the
country with significant successes achieved in protecting water quality and natural habitats.
This focus includes the establishment of the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge, Pocosin Lakes
Wildlife Refuge, thousands of acres of state gamelands, new privately owned conservation
properties, as well as previously managed conservation lands at Lake Mattamuskeet and Swan
Quarter Wildlife Refuge. In more recent years, attention has turned to restoring water quality as
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 3 of 41

thousands of acres previously drained wetlands have been enrolled in NRCS's Wetland Reserve
Program. This project represents this next era in restoration efforts.
Restoration activities that will result from this project are fully supported by the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan of the Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuarine Program, the
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, Fishery Management Plans, River Basin Plans, the 303(d) List,
the NC Oyster Action Plan, as well as the local landowners within the drainage district in Hyde
County.
Hydrologic Design Brief and Water Management Plan
Purpose
The purpose of this design brief is to provide details on the historic and targeted hydrology of the
project area, pump station designs, and a proposed water management plan for the project. This
project has been designed to restore hydrology of drained wetlands and to maximize potential
water quality benefits. The water holding capacity and treatment potential of various phases has
been used to size pumps that will be used to reroute drainage water. This will ensure that
pumped drainage water will improve wetland hydroperiod in degraded areas, be adequately
treated, and leave the property as diffuse flow. This design has been based on research at NCSU
and stakeholder involvement. The performance of the design will be monitored and supported
through grant funding.
The general design includes pump stations that will deliver water to pre- excavated depressions.
The depressions will then distribute surface water across available areas through a series of
sloughs and depressions. These features will serve to provide shallow and open water habitats
and improve the diversity of the restored area. The use of earthen baffles in several areas will
also help to distribute and spread flow across the restored wetlands. A series of fords and
culverts have been designed to control the depth and duration of ponded water in the restored
areas. These structures have been sized to limit stress to wetland tree species and wildlife as
advised by the NRCS and USFWS. Further detail is provided in the following sections.
General Watershed Hydrology
Soils data and topography of the watershed show that historic regional flow was to the northwest,
in the direction of Swan Lake. Currently, water is pumped to the east, toward Pamlico Sound.
One of the goals of this project is to restore historic flow conditions toward the northwest. Due to
the current configuration of canals and the effect of large rainfall events (i.e. associated with
hurricanes), it will not be possible to return all flows toward Swan Lake. Initial DRAINMOD
modeling of this watershed shows that only a portion of the historic flows can be returned to the
original flowpath, towards the lake. Limitations such as lack of funding for pumps needed in
future phases and access to private land may further prevent the complete restoration of
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 4 of 41

hydrology towards this area. However, the amount of water that will be diverted from the
Pamlico Sound will be significant if all proposed phases of the project are completed. The
current project phase (Lux Farms Phase 1) will divert a portion of the water that once flowed
through these impacted wetlands.
Research has shown that watershed: wetland area ratios of 18:1 can provide significant water
quality improvement. The overall proposed concept for this project (all three phases) will
generate a watershed: wetland area ratio of less than 2:1. This is a ratio that will not only provide
excellent treatment and water quality benefits, but can rarely be duplicated in NC.
Target Hydrology
The targeted hydrology for the restoration areas is to recreate previous undrained conditions, to
the extent possible. In general, lowland pocosins of this type are expected to have saturated
surface conditions and shallow standing surface water for much of the non - growing season.
During the growing season, it is expected that groundwater levels will draw down to several feet
below the surface. The highly organic, peat soils should allow water levels to respond rapidly to
rain events, and to exhibit a drawdown rate dependent on evapotranspiration of the wetland
ecosystem and lateral water movement to the nearest outlet. Natural conditions in this area would
have slow lateral groundwater movement limited by surface levels in the Alligator River or Swan
Lake. Hurricanes or northern wind events may create conditions that extend periods of surface
ponding, even in the growing season. The target drawdown rate should be based on both
observations in nearby reference wetlands and on long term predictions of evapotranspiration
from forested wetlands. NCSU is currently conducting groundwater monitoring on the farm and
in the restoration areas that will provide a baseline for evaluating groundwater levels. Modeling
and research at comparable pocosin wetlands should also provide metrics for evaluating the
restoration success and improving water management. Comparable sites that will be used for
monitoring include: current research project in the Great Dismal Swamp and a reference site at
North River Farms.
The proposed restoration plan includes two levels of restoration. The basic WRP restoration
includes core trenching and other earthwork that will help limit connections between the wetland
areas and the current Drainage Association drainage network. This will serve to restore surface
and groundwater movement in the historic direction. Based on DRAINMOD modeling of the
area, this should be sufficient to re- create target wetland hydrologic conditions throughout much
of the restoration area. A second, enhanced WRP restoration includes using pumps to lift water
into the project area to restore historic flow conditions and hydrologically connect currently
disconnected areas. The modeling analysis predicts daily average water tables using 32 years of
climate records for the area. A built -in wetland routine was used to predict the number of years
that wetland groundwater table criteria will be met.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 5 of 41

DRAINMOD analysis was performed to assess three scenarios: 1) the existing drained
conditions of the project area compared to two levels of restoration a) basic WRP restoration
including earth work and plugging of ditches and b) enhanced WRP restoration to include
additional water inputs from proposed pumps. In its existing drained state, the restoration area is
predicted to show wetland hydrology at a minimal level (5% of the growing season) in 19 out of
32 years. However, it will only meet targeted levels (7.5% and 12.5 %) in 10 and 4 out of 32
years. A simulation for the proposed conditions after WRP restoration is complete predicts
improvements in hydrology. Using the model, this level of restoration shows the site meeting the
5% criteria 31 out of 32 years, the 7.5% criteria 29 of 32 years, and the 12.5% criteria in 16 out
of 32 years (50 %). In a third simulation, the site would receive additional pumped water. This
enhanced WRP restoration shows the site meeting the 5% criteria 32 out of 32 years, the 7.5% of
criteria 30 out of 32 years and the 12.5% criteria in 19 out of 32 years. The pumps have a minor
effect on meeting wetland criteria but will enhance water quality benefits realized by the project.
These data support the sustainability of the project. The results are compared in Table 1. Green
shaded cells are meeting the designated criteria in more than 50% of years. Red shaded cells
indicate the criteria are not met.
The following graphs illustrate the predicted daily water tables in for the existing drainage
network and WRP restoration.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 6 of 41
Number of Years
Number of Years
Number of Years
W.T. meets 5%
W.T. meets 7.5%
W.T. meets 12.5%
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Existing Drainage
19 out of 32
10 out of 32
4 out of 32
Network
Proposed WRP
31 out of 32
29 out of 32
16 out of 32
Restoration
Enhancement of WRP
32 out of 32
30 out of 32
19 out of 32
with pumps
The following graphs illustrate the predicted daily water tables in for the existing drainage
network and WRP restoration.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 6 of 41

The zoomed in view of results in 2008 show the difference in expected water tables. The
proposed conditions have several more periods of wetland hydrology during the growing season
and a dampened drawdown rate. The water table draws down to a depth of several feet over the
summer due to evapotranspiration of trees. This mimics our expectations for the target hydrology
of the project.
It is clear that the proposed WRP restoration including core trenching and ditch blocking
activities will improve hydrology towards target levels. We conclude that the site will be restored
with the proposed earthwork, and is not dependent on pumps. However, the restoration area will
remain disconnected from surrounding areas that would have historically contributed additional
surface water inputs. Therefore, the pumped water from this project will provide an important
benefit if there is to be a significant reversal in the soil subsidence that has been observed in
these areas.
NCSU's watershed calculations show that only a portion of the historic surface water flow can
be reintroduced into the area from the proposed pump stations. Although pumps are not a natural
means of distributing water, design features such as sloughs, depressions, and baffles have been
included to maximize the distribution of pumped water and to control water levels. Additional
guidance has been gathered from stakeholders with the USFWS and the NRCS to generate
design criteria for the pumping system. The recommendations include limiting surface water
depth to 18 inches with a drawdown of no more than 7 days during the growing season. It is
thought that limiting ponding to this extent in the restored areas will prevent excess stress on
desirable tree species, while still allowing surface water to once again fluctuate in these areas.
Modeling efforts currently show that this depth of water in Area 1 will only occur during the
wettest of years. In fact, our initial DRAINMOD results using the last 33 years of rainfall and
climate data show that the maximum yearly depth of pumped drainage water in Area 1 would
have been only 16 in., with a maximum drawdown time of 5 days. Water depths of 12 inches or
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 7 of 41

more would only occur in 2 out of 33 years simulated, and 6 inches in only 12 out of 33 years. It
should be noted that our model continues to be refined using our field collected hydrology data,
but these estimates are not expect to change significantly.
Calculations on the sizing of pumps and water control features have been made with these
restrictions in mind, and the water management plan has been developed to enforce the
limitations. The combination of designed water control features and the elevation of surrounding
roads will create a passive control of the pumping system, which will prevent excessive ponding
of water. In addition, a plan has been developed to guide water management through adaptive
decision making during the first few years of ecosystem and restoration development. Details on
this system are provided in the following sections.
Pump Station 1 Design
Pump station 1 is designed for two 36" riser pumps. This station includes a diesel powered
engine to run the pumps. Each pump can operate at a flowrate of 25,000 gpm. It is anticipated
that in normal rainfall conditions, the operation of a single pump will be more than sufficient to
meet drainage needs in this area. The adjacent farmland (approximately 1,200 acres) would have
a potential drainage capacity of 1 -2 acre - in/day with the pump configuration, which meets
standard drainage pump design guidelines. Based on some simplified analysis of DRAINMOD
outputs, an average of 15 days of pumping per year (at 25,000 gpm) would satisfy drainage
requirements. The receiving area for this station is called Area 1, the 300 acre block in the
southern border of Phase I. Assuming saturated conditions, at 25,000 gpm, it will take
approximately 4 days of continuous pumping to fill Area 1 to a depth of 18 inches. At full
capacity (50,000 gpm), it will take 2 days of pumping before outflow occurs. The current
groundwater level at the start of pumping will of course influence this duration.
Normal rainfall conditions include normal groundwater levels and rainfalls less than 2 inches in
24 hours. It is expected that over 90% of storms will meet these conditions. After these rains, it is
expected that most drainage needs can be accomplished by pumping for less than 2 days with a
single pump. However, the full capacity of both pumps will be critical in years when hurricanes
deliver large rainfalls. Large rain events include storms greater than 2 inches that may only occur
from one to a few times a year.
Hydraulic Controls
With 3 fords leading to the next block (Area 2), the flow depth across them will be
approximately 4 inches at 25,000 gpm and 6 inches at 50,000 gpm. This shallow flow depth will
not cause significant restriction and additional build -up in the 300 acre block of Area 1.
Additional fords also lead west into the adjacent area named the Mile Square Block (MSB),
reducing the flow depth. The hydrology of the MSB has also been impacted by surrounding
drainage practices and subsidence is clearly evident, so additional water in these areas will
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 8 of 41

reverse this trend. Additional pumping beyond these durations will be only limited by the desire
to prevent prolonged ponding and the water level conditions in the rest of the WRP area. A de
facto pumping limitation is built into the design because of the roads surrounding the restoration
areas. Since the elevations of surrounding roads reach a maximum of 3 ft, it is in the best
interest of the landowner to avoid over pumping in this area to ensure safety and trafficability of
the berms /roads.
Additional culverts and berms are planned as part of Phase 1 to spread water over the remaining
900 acres of WRP area. The additional area provided by the MSB provides a dramatic increase
in the connected wetland corridor. This increases the potential wetland area (1920 acres) to a
point where it is almost double the size of the effective drainage area for this Phase (1200 acres).
Pump Station 2 Design
An additional pump station has been designed for the intersection of 5`h Avenue and 3`d Street,
near the southeast corner of Area 3. The station will be identical in design to Pump Station 1.
However, this station has been designed to run on electric power instead of with a diesel
powered motor, because electric lines run past the proposed station along 5`h Avenue. The
proposed additions to Area 3 include the installation of an earthen baffle to maintain diffuse flow
and distribution in the restored area. Area 3 is not constrained by roads on the northern and
western portions of the block, whereas Areas 1 and 2 are surrounded by roads that must be
maintained. This reduces the depth of water that will be common in Area 3 throughout the year.
In addition, the depth of organic soils in this northern area provides greater subsurface storage
and the vegetation (low pocosin, no hardwoods) may be less susceptible to extended periods of
ponding. Hydraulic controls in this area will not be needed as it is directly connected to the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge at its boundaries. Similar to Area 1, tailwater
conditions and berm heights will prevent over pumping to ensure road safety to the south and
east of this block.
This proposed pump station will be placed in a location that will interface with wetlands and
cropland in the Phase I and the upcoming Phase II restoration, providing both better use of the
WRP wetlands in Area 3 and more flexible water management options. Pumping into Area 3
will allow more efficient use of the area because additional water will help the area approach
historic wetness while providing excellent treatment of the drainage water. Diverting water into
Area 3 further reduces the amount of drainage water that the northern area of Lux Farms
discharges into the Pamlico Sound. Additionally, it is possible in the future that nearby WRP
wetlands (owned by a different landowner, but adjacent to the Lux Farms land) may be available
to accept drainage water which would further decrease the drainage /wetland area ratio, so this
pump station provides the project flexibility if that scenario ever arises.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 9 of 41

The combination of both pump stations should provide excellent treatment benefits and be well
within the historic prediction of flow from the target area. In summary, the benefits of this
system configuration are:
• Increased pumping capacity while maintaining target wetland capacity.
• Reduced flow to the sound.
• Improved use of restored wetland areas and improved flexibility for management.
• Drainage area:wetland area ratios remain well within design targets.
• Passive hydrologic controls that will prevent over - pumping and excess ponding.
Water Management Plan
Based on the design for Phase I, long -term water management will be controlled without the
need for strict management policies. The natural climate patterns and installed water control
structures will prevent over pumping and extended period of excess water. However, some
controls should be put in place to manage water depths in wetland areas during the first few
years of restoration. Pumping in the spring and summer months should be limited to prevent
ponded conditions in this block for more than 7 days. Additional pumping could be allowed in
winter months, but will be limited by conditions in the Alligator River, Swan Lake, and the
wetlands in between. The following table outlines a potential water management plan for the
project:
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 10 of 41

Water Management Table
Time Period
Dates
Pumping Controls
Year 1 post restoration
April 1 -June 1
No pumping
June 1 — November 1
Pumping limited to 1 pump for 24
consecutive hours with 7 days in between
pumping events.
November 1 -April 1
Pumping limited to 2 consecutive days,
Ponding limited to 7 days. No ponding after
April 1.
Adjust management plan based on
monitoring results.
Years 2 -5 post
April 1 -June 1
No Pumping
restoration
June 1 — November 1
Pumping limited to 1 pump for 2
consecutive days with 7 days in between
pumping events.
November 1 -April 1
Pumping limited to 2 consecutive days,
Ponding limited to 7 days.
Adjust management plan based on
monitoring results.
Years 5+
April 1 -June 1
Pumping limited to 2 consecutive days with
7 days in between.
June 1— November 1
Pump as needed. Ponding limited to 7 days.
November 1 -April 1
Pump as needed. Ponding limited to 7 days.
Adjust management plan based on
monitoring results.
This is proposed as an adaptive management plan. It should be expected that climate specific
adjustments will be made and close coordination should be expected between project
stakeholders. During large storm events such as hurricanes or during periods of time when
excessive ponding is forbidden the drainage association's perimeter pumps, already in place and
managed by the association will be used to move water into the existing drainage system. This
plan will be re- evaluated annually based on the latest monitoring data and research at the site as
well as feedback from the refuge, NRCS, NCCF and landowner.
Operation and Maintenance
Initially, as the proposed water management plan is being refined and improved, the operation
and maintenance of the project pump stations will be the sole responsibility of Lux Farms
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 11 of 41

owner /manager, Wilson Daughtry. Once a final management plan is in place, operation and
maintenance will be turned over to the Mattamuskeet Drainage Association.
The long -term operation and maintenance of the project pump stations will become the
responsibility of the association. The association is well equipped to handle this; it was formed in
1977 and is composed of all 40+ landowners within its boundary. It is led by a three member
board of directors. The landowners are assessed fees annually based on the number of acres
owned and land use practices employed on their land. The fees generated are used to operate and
maintain six perimeter pump stations and maintain roads, canals and other infrastructure within
the association's boundaries. The annual dues generated adequately fund the association's
operation and maintenance needs. The proposed project pumps will become part of the
association's infrastructure and therefore be subject to their regular operation and maintenance
procedures.
Compatible Use Agreement
The 1,400 -acres Phase 1 area of Lux Farms has been enrolled in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). As such, a permanent
conservation easement has been placed on the land (Appendix 2). This easement is held by the
NRCS. As part of the WRP program, the NRCS will restore the land to basic wetland conditions
as explained in the above design brief. This basic restoration will be further enhanced by
additional water inputs from the proposed pump stations. The addition of pumps requires NRCS
to issue a Compatible Use Agreement. This agreement will serve to ensure that the proposed
water management plan is followed. The compatible use agreement can be evaluated at any time
and is renewable every five years.
Access to Public Lands
This project is being constructed on private lands within the Mattamuskeet Drainage
Association. The implementation of the project will not limit access to public lands.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 12 of 41

Anticipated Construction Activities and Schedule
Activities
General earthwork and excavation equipment such as trackhoes, bulldozers and other small
grading machinery shall be used on the project. Temporary measures to control erosion or
otherwise maintain the work area such as sheet piles and pumps may also be utilized. It is
expected that most earthwork shall be completed and the work shall be managed to limit
disturbance and minimize the transport of sediments. In addition, due to comments posed by
USFWS about the area being possible Red Cockaded Woodpecker foraging or cavity habitat, the
partners have agreed to mark and avoid trees greater than 8 inches in diameter in areas where
construction activities will occur to include: in areas of pump construction, slough creation,
baffle creation and ford/culvert installation.
Project Timeline
Project Activity
Anticipated Dates of Implementation and
Completion
Finalize Permitting
Apply for permits August 2012
Receive permits October 2012
Berm Creation - 5th Ave Canal
Begin construction November 2012,
complete December 2012
Berm Creation - Area 3
Begin construction June 2013, complete
August 2013
Culvert Removals
Begin and Complete November 2012
Culvert Installations
Order materials October 2012, begin
installations January 2013, complete January
013
Pump Station Installation- South
Order materials October 2012, begin
construction November 2012, complete
construction March 2013
Pump Station Installation- North
Order materials October 2012, begin
construction November 2012, complete
construction March 2013
rosion Control
Begin November and continue with each
project until complete in March 2013
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 13 of 41

n U
0-
� O
� U
O �
U �
U �
w O
O .b
ti ca
N U
� N
U �
3 U
Q N
O �
W
b �
c
�O
C%1 b
C
N
� 3
o0
� •a
U
z
o o
u
z�
CA
>, o
4o
Qn
o
a
a�
Q � S
O
U
bq
4.

Table 1. PHASE 1 Wetland Restoration Summary
Land Use
Pre Restoration
Post Restoration
Wetlands
770 acres
1400 acres
Non - Wetlands (Drained Land)
630 acres
0 acres
Wetland gain of 630 acres achieved from restoration of Phase I area
Table 2. PHASE 1 Temporary Construction Impacts Summary
Phase 1 restoration will result in 33 acres of wetlands being temporarily disturbed and 31 acres
of non - wetlands being temporarily disturbed. All land will be restored to wetland function at the
completion of the project.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 15 of 41
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Total
Wetlands
20
3
10
33
Non - Wetlands (Drained Land)
30
0
1
31
Phase 1 restoration will result in 33 acres of wetlands being temporarily disturbed and 31 acres
of non - wetlands being temporarily disturbed. All land will be restored to wetland function at the
completion of the project.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 15 of 41

Environmental Evaluation
Ecosystem and Habitat Conditions
This project is being implemented on prior converted lands as defined by NRCS. Parts of Phase
1 have been logged in the past, yet other areas remain forested or in scrub -shrub thicket
conditions. Small remnant stands of hardwood and pine forest exist in the project area.
The original concept for the project included creating a deepwater impoundment that would hold
water 3 -4 feet deep in Area 1. During times of drought this water would be used by the
landowner for irrigation of adjacent farm fields. However, after receiving comments from
stakeholders at US Fish and Wildlife Services and Natural Resources Conservation Service the
project was redesigned, which is reflected by its current plan. The stakeholders were concerned
that the 3 -4 feet of water in Area 1 of Phase 1 would drown already established hardwood or pine
trees. Therefore, the original deepwater reservoir in Phase 1 is now designed as a shallow water
reservoir which will only hold between 6 -18 inches of water for no more than 7 days during the
growing season; this redesign should limit any mortality or habitat conversion that could be due
to flooding. This redesign should also alleviate fears that potential red cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) cavity trees or foraging grounds would be impacted. Steps have been taken to limit any
and all disturbance in the project area. The proposed water management plan and compatible use
agreement serve as further safeguards that disturbance is minimized and habitat conversion is
avoided.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 16 of 41

NRCS CPA52 Form
NC-CPA-62
NRCA "NM CmUns
May 2007
Environmental Evaluation
This form SUMrnMIZOS the OfW% of the ptanned pracdoestsys4ems and documents an environmental evaluation of ft pimned actions.
The conssiveflon plan reflects to client's derAsIon;% based on twMlcW assidenoe pravl[ded by NRCS. AfternOws wtpleined to the client
are Identified on NC•CPA43, or In the conservation assistance notes, The NC-CPA-52 must be updated whenever the conservation plar, is
revised. Each subsequent edition of NC- CPA-621s maintained In the case file. -
Client ---IALYLrr.s. Farm(ImcUReld:
Natural Resources Evaluation
Instructions- Charactertre the not effect of the planned system or practice, the current condillon and any other afternadve Iderdified dudN
the pIarw*V proossm The net a0 1 inctuda short term affects occurring during the Implementation period and rwQ-1wrn effects occurring
during the system or prectlos ffe spa• Quality criteds foreach natural resource category we established In NRCS Fold Office Technical
Q&& ABsessment of specific effects may be noted on the Inventory of Planning Area form, cooservatlon WmIcal assistainos notes, or
other documentwbn In the conservation plan.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 17 of 41
Benchmark Condition
Conservation Plan
Aftannatives
Not Effect of No
I
Net Eftcl or
WIN
Action on
VA No Action
Not Effect of
WM Plan Med
Aftemalke an
Alternative
Natural
Mee Quality
Plan on Natural
chwity
Natural
NkXd Quality
Resources
Crlierla?
Resources
CribrI132—
Resommes
Criteria?
KA
14D
No
d
Condition
C
NO
NA a -
ZTV No
Ouanw
[U.-!
NA to -
)q No
W19. 0 - I )q NO
ftfi G I /911D
Qulaft
No
JD
0 - NO
. k
NA
w
MV 9- HD
NA -/9 -
SuRawl ty
19A # X)
00
A
M 190 -
An ID
Condition
KA •
Vd NO
NA?p 0
ND
M
Pic
ManaSement
NA
No
MA 0 -
NO
Uh
ro
U.
-4 vf
Health & NutrAlon
• 0 - I M HD
• 0 - YLS to
*8 HD
Managemer►l
0 Veg, to rJ
/0) D r® NO
yps HD
1
Habit I& Desired app.
HA -00- 1
MD
Jq W
0
:1 F
14
N1
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 17 of 41

Socio- Economic Considerations
lrw#uedona- Provide responses to the following gtfsetlanslstntemerds, based Infonnolion provided by the anent or personal ianoWedge,
to document that sod"conomic eKeots of the conservation and any alternative have been conaidered Charactaiza the net affect of the
planned system or precdoe end any alternative identified during ire planrdng process, Ex0anatron of apixft effects may he noted in the
space beneath the table.
Plnn Alram-
la Bhe planned eys0ern or practice and tend 1r8a
oornetbis wdth dent c4ectives?
y�
V
No
Is there reasonable expectation that the
client's Income goals will be met If the
�✓7
fey NO
vV
� NO
system Is Implemented?
if plannod procil s sae IQdrOfled as 9hrdeetaidMe (ace fiat In FOTO
N°
Has the client hhdlicated that funds needed to
hplament tte plan are available, or can be
$ No
V
yf ] NO
vv
Is the planned system or practice and land
use compatible wth dierht's sold, family, or
SID
y6 ND
VV
obtained?
Fadwal and Slate listed Endangered ti Threatened Specles,
religious values?
Are Dore adequate materials and or equilip W
present or obtainable to operate and mairhtahh
ref
eeo
V
Is the planned system or pmcdoe and land
use compatible vdth cllent'e ownership or
NO
' No
the system?
use
lease of the fend?
Agrmfla Slim. EssarM FIsM HdAM, a Natural Aram been mmplefed
Is there adequate labor present or obtainable to
operate and maudain the sydem?
No
No
Is the planned system or practice and land
use compatible with the amount of Ilene the
otient has IndkmW Is available tar Is
for ell Quo fields ned proud= beinO planned?
Inetata w and meneprnant?
Is there adequate kncWedge and ability
present or obtainable m operate and rhmfntatn
No
N°
VWU the plan avoid adverse affects to people
who are Iti ely to be of etol by the acMffas9
NO
� uo
the system?
type rwrilbnod abohro In or near the VWWrlg lactic d YE$ canted
V
V
Is the dent wf mg to adopt new manegemenl
No
"o
'AM the plan avoid adverse effects to
19 No
� NO
D dlvdfes or pracdoes fret are needed?
V O the ptaaarad sydern evgWovverd reduction at capacity
peoples' Nfa, health, or aafiaiy7
Do ft benefits of 6rIprOft the ounent
operation outweigh the Nta WWlon and
uo
ra
Wit the plan avoid actions that cause an
adverse effect to minorety populations, law
income or incw tribes Ina
�s
y� rte
rnainbnanoe costs?
populations
disproportloinallely high and adverse manner?
V
Special Environmental Concems
Instructiom - Answer Yes or No to each question and Indicate the effect of the planned system on each conomn
Downcast adorns, contacts and correspondence mgtdred to comply with wivlrornrental laws, regWr!ation end policy.
Coaaml Zww Emagwnont Mae !!11
Is ale planning ulhtl tad MAW dmig urted Coadal Zone Vb6 tvgl YES �i
drarn�smd Area, or coastal Ares of Erwil mmwhdal Coruom? V 0
cu"Un ltOaseeroes•
Has a adheei resources survey trees completed for d the fields and
rre V
Wes
preedloe being planned?
if plannod procil s sae IQdrOfled as 9hrdeetaidMe (ace fiat In FOTO
N°
a No
Sudion 9), is a CR Revbw lam In the case Its?
Fadwal and Slate listed Endangered ti Threatened Specles,
Eased Fish Hrrbibt and Natunt ArmW
Has a aun ey for Endangered. Threatanad, or Corhdlhdate spades, spew
use
ras
Agrmfla Slim. EssarM FIsM HdAM, a Natural Aram been mmplefed
for ell Quo fields ned proud= beinO planned?
A aourlgr IOI is avapabre bhxa:
Could a owsonragon pracOoo possibly aced listed epaclsa or a habitat
vea ya
,fs
type rwrilbnod abohro In or near the VWWrlg lactic d YE$ canted
V
V
Floodplaln Maanagamwd and Riparian Areas
bo#ftbh
No
No
V O the ptaaarad sydern evgWovverd reduction at capacity
wW loss ofdporlan areas preserd In of nrer the plar "unit?
ZOO' anew k4wta Oral coordination with enOMW a regtdatory needs to be compidw before pmcdaKs) are woememea
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 18 of 41

Invasive species
1MiA Ore planned syelem avoid or prevent the irdrodrxdon or spread of
No
VO NO
Invaetve species In or near the ptamndng und?
Gitgmory Birds
Coss the plan avoid ormWmlm to Ore gremlasl extend precticat, adveree
W
'�Ne
Impacts to mfgndory bitcs and Nroir meats?
Prima and Unhllro PonMaadls
VINI the planned pmolloes avol d brevenNy rwrwtng Prime or Unique
Pamtwid sells to non- agrlcul and use?
r no
19 NO
scenic BOUpr
WWI the planned system complimotd unique or nggh qual l , landscape
� "o
� No
resounms located wffdn dgM of the planning unk?
WoBand Consorvotlion, Com tAtetor Act. Misters of the 1J.S.
VU the planned system avoid removal of woody vegetation Oncluding
from wetland AND ptaNtrgt an agfttural commodity on
AV nt}
V1t1 do planned eyetem avoid manlpndegan of weOsnds and odw waters
pw setll In of now the planning urdt'?
h140lAwrN .ueaoe.annv.m LAND.4Anermll arlmar_html
�
e
Otho plametg area is located In a WROrshed diet has been O t al by Ibe
dab as 9mpdred' under Barmen SW34 wIB NIe fJC@nAWes reduce nOrk
Y68 pDJ
pah l
l/
WiW mud Searde Rivers
VW the planned precWces conserve or endmnoe water clw tigr or
aesCw ee in the seams of Morsapasdse Gme14 Now River, Lumber
YM
Rhw, er`tArBaon Creels Olaf are dasigamled as Wild or S=W
• ENO" answer i dicates Null cmwdkdian w1 h another a rogulatory ns s a to bo eompratod before p ucsoets) are Implemented.
List any Wail irigifre ulatory agencies that need to be omtKIK or permits alai tray be needed before prectim are
Installed The bAdvilrrter is respons bte for obtaining all required pemdis.
_ Sedhwl & Erasion Canbd _ Corps of Engineers NC Div, of Water OualWy _ U.S. Fish d VAC111% Se11 W
—NC Div. Coastal Managaned Others:
YO any mitigation be planned or required to dW unavoidable n pUve ofteds of title plan? Z—NO YES
Some otrampftas of MWOO a ihowe use of trljVkW s wow tt no for rimia eta, mofAoaial, or inning of ftlotat7a W. opareboa aril
makilananoe opecJilar ll linpismentatlon ofadlVftnaloara wAftn wwthas, as wrwN as mpfscomeM of resmuce, by mat mfton.
Please describe:
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 19 of 41

Instructions. For all CRP plans, in NRCS findings, employees may skip items i & 2 (below), but fl14In the Completed By and District
Conservationist to indicate corncunence. Forward thin form to the FSA CEO for complabon of determinations for all CRP plans.
NRCS FINDINGS
1. Basad on the evaivadon of effects on the environmril, the preferred action Is the:
ZIRImed Practica►System Allernadve No Action
2. The etfeota of the 171nned PrrclloofSysWn on the natural and human envimaront have been cornldered; and it is the NRCS
determination that the acdon(s):
Is not a Federal action (technical assistance only). No hather analysis is required at Unix time.
has been sutitclently, analysed in the NRCS envlrorrnental document docked below. No fu&dr enafysts is required.
there Is or may be a significant bWad (adverse or berteticel) on one or more of the above orNkontrterttel ovaluatiort
espads, Furdter analy" Including the possibility of an EA or BS wM be necessary. (f=orward to the attertion of ft Area
OfGoe and ASMTechnology)
Completd By:
Narno
Concurred By:
gLta "om-/
D>strlat Consenrat (Rr-0)
FSA FINDWO8
Title
tad on Use evaluation of effects on the emibonm ent, the pretemed action is tire.
Planned PrackelSystern AlbstrtaWa No Action
Ogle
Date
2. The effects of the Planned PradWaSyalem on the nahua) and human envitornient have been corhefdered; and d le the NRCS
detemdnabon that the action(sX
Is not a federal aodan (feehn[oal aedslanoe only). No further analysts Is required at this time.
has been suf dently analyzed In fie NRCS enWoronental document checked below. No Nrlhar analysis Is required
aFinal CRP Finding of No Significant Impact I
two Is or may be a signiticerb adverse Impact on one or more of the above envir rvnental evaluation aspects. Further
anslyals, Indudtng Ute possibiJty of an FA or EIS will be necessary.
Farm SeMea Agency Represerdafhns Tide Date
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 20 of 41

Location Map
j'
Alligator River
Swan Lake P�
L A

Ls94 -96942 WMOHY0 HIHON 'HDIrM • Gs94 XOH nsON g m < o
Y _ ON 'SlunoD apSH
6uuaalc?6ug yvcnjpnopL6y A o uot}eaoIsaZI at "Jojo.zpICH su1110A xn7 ]
puv DEJN 10ig x
s q SZgHHS AO XHGNI /HgA00
C�
O
O
O �
bt
�C
N
PMW-
0
0
IN
0
O
U
O
a .
rn
II�
5
r�
t
O
0 �oQ
O C � C• O
� - v
40 0
0
b
i
.s
Y
U
U {"�
y U
� U
a�
L a
z
F
r �
F �3�t e
t � t
V
N
U
Z
co
Q)
1
rV
T
0
T
O
N
0
+-)
1"1
�4-)n
L)
V 1
�4
�1
�1
Y••�••1
L
I�1
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
U
Z

4594 -9694? VKnOHVO H4NON 'HDFMVK • 4694 XOH f1S3N
6u?..4aauc6ug ?z.4n;yno?.46y
Pua 77)o7,6ogoig
nSoN
mg
x
- o
z
z
c
I
U
o
z mm
_
ON 'glunOO ap4fg
uotje.zojsazj OT201oapfg suizs4 xn7
sno ,kVrI JHHHS /SVHUV
0.S
W
Ri
a w
z �
a Cpl
2
c
8
0
L > UUX aC
1 n Q N 6 �1
3 m Z O l-6 m O O m
~ m c,Q-m m E
m i` p O °mn .Q3
E
U
.X>0252,0-
d
n�
n.�
:Lt, E U) m
mmam �m� tg'
O y V p� «« O N q W
zIZ«. € m rncf0 m
WE
�yqy.8 Z ma
m V Cl wo m C r C Y Q
UZmE —c .00 om c_ w a
m m m m U 7 2 q o °
m m c I m nD c U m m m `m i
w mcZ�m��na w cw tr T °so ° a
> >> m d m r 0 Eo u w m w a m N _ m m m
C a C Ol Y j 3 U m Z Q C O N Q .R q O V) C
.W2U0 -U—ma Z _ myH m �'��mehp0 hW-w0
y�c «oviQm w twN Lo ��g' M �m u��EmE� -m ZoE
z V m m O C E m CIE ~ m Q Qr m C 0 N H Y F C m m O m"
q N O' � � U m =fJ5 Lo �w 07 M (.1 O l7 ()_!r w iq C
omQ0$rriE�0 w�mm�G m6t W.2,. wrrc�m'(n �Q OD
O vnic�mocm rn �OgYmo; U�^mUai OcUN O >irmdE Z ,�
mL y o« oa; U.- a Q QKr a cUv> > > m E wF q
a t m m a Q� c m Q z a Yc � Z OI Z a a z m a w Z N a 0 0 W :6
a
d
tl
o
2
0
�r
N
v ro
� m
V �
m
sEm m
°
km
E z imi
m
E
$ W IIm
n
Qa`o
a�
N
t0 C C
N T
m ID
C. m
.!E «
m as
3 q LD
�X q
m q
N � N
T
C
y cmc
y O O
N {p
s 8m E
m 2S t�%i a c m a
E
Q Q a 2 E m U
E « m ra « n _a
o q m
j m m f V
m v n m °y w
w m y ° d E
> ° W
o W ° m 0 q °c
�+
m$ ` � c o
00 0
03 H CM -,I- Ln
-
�
om m> E CD Qi (i ai
8 La
m 8 J y y g S, � W v/ U) vi v/
q C 2 d T
m Q Q C q O
M y� dW � mo m c ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q
`a€ - m NWN w LNu
am 6L
m O W N m z -M Z E 5 m n N
O O Q Q Z m O C w ¢¢
CL
v at a $ W m i. mpan a
3 10 m V1 a'a'maN

—m __,__»_._ _nS3.
k+
!q
bio
0
W
M
6 waa BUH 9� ;ma@6
E /
£
;mAGzgJ
| /!f &} )
) § 5
j
§
2 !:(
Js *
n | )
){)
k�
§
§
t
�
$
0
e
\
.
( E
uR
j�
\ ON '94 unoo apt§ §
( f =og elo Razi g2olo -i@Ig sum A In] §
) P4 B } VHHV
ol
0
.2
A j
I 0
� 4d
@
\ a �
74
�z
O
4
j
/
p
_
�
0
u
\
$\ �
0
�
\
_
{ k
�
bio
0
W
M
�
74
�z
O
4
j
/
p
_
�
0
u
\
$\ �
0
�
\
_
{ k
/k{
E /
|} \l!
| /!f &} )
) § 5
s -�
= a.l,lE
2 !:(
n | )
){)
§
�
�\
!|
�
E
ƒf;
2
|
�
a�k �
!
,|¥.{
�))7`
E !!|et
3 7!! |f
!2
V)
U)
3 X2(2
ƒ
\7
it
|2
\\
,!| !
�\� ƒ
§ ;� !
\! /$�
\2
E-!!.,
\ §2-
®k) \2/
ƒ
!

_— mV?M_,__a_._ _ m.
gam
LB 7� lm� s
�zm@+757
Js *
k■ _ ; ON 'Sl =nOD a@I2 E
£ =oge -To Ra] a /qo 22§ RU-lIaA Ind §
{ o
E PUP 2�1 SVHZIV /
)
ƒ
!!
ca
d
ID
£
§ _
ol
S
)
m
§ / 0
j 2
k
c
2 =
§
# 9
CL
cc
k
.7
]
@@%
k
{
.2 m
f��
0.
oJ2
\
79I
tm
«
<£2to
G
< <22
`
(D 11
\
\ ?0
E
.., |ot,
2 ¢ CL O a E
F
¥2w2wm
s
{ E
.
\0
/
W
0 CL
§ Em
).
§
E$ �-
!
§
\
§ !
{}
(
��
!
-
±
B z /
w§ �i a
)
ƒ
!!
ca
d
ID
£
§ _
ol
S
)
m
§ / 0
j 2
\
\
\ ?0
/
..
U)
c
s
.
W
V ` <
.—

L69L -999L9 MOM MON '90MM • 469L X09 f=N x 0
_ $
ON 'Sjunoo apSH �
6uuaaug6u,V 7v.Ln ;7n.- ,c.L6y o olsag wWojoapSH suiae3 xn7
PuD w
1DO26O1o2g of pg =
ns�nr x o SmejaQ U01JUIS duznd
_
.o
VJ c•�
o
N
fi�yyv
�C
I
\I
y
V
3
Y
V
3
7 c
N�
3
3
a
m
8�u
� � � 8 s• b o 5 vao ��
4 0
yyy�JO U 6�O mSE656J�'tON O'.L'C
All xI3
+ N l0 O
M
II
g
6
0
d
OM
4
-4� s
Gl-

Appendices
Appendix 1: Initial NCSU feasibility analysis and watershed modeling which guided the
concept development and original project design
Restoration of natural flow patterns and wetland conditions near drained agriculture
facility in Hyde Co, NC
Project description and Need
Introduction
Alligator River Growers (ARG) controls one of the largest farms in NC and in Hyde County.
This farm is located north of Engelhard, in extreme eastern Hyde County (Tar - Pamlico and
Pasquotank River Basin). Like many farms in the region, it employs intense drainage practices to
allow for agricultural operations and to maximize crop yields. Currently, water management on
the farm requires pumping of excess agricultural drainage water into the Pamlico Sound.
Multiple areas near the discharge points of the pumping canals are closed to shellfishing (e.g.,
areas near Berry's Bay, Otter Creek, and near the 5t' Avenue pump canal in the Long Shoal
River).
The area has been identified as an altered historical drainage pathway, and restoration/protection
of a portion of this land would extend and enhance valuable wetland ecosystems that surround
the farm. ARG is already actively pursuing the enrollment of nearly 3,200 acres of drained and
managed land on their farm into the NRCS Federal Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). These
lands extend into the drained farmland, so long -term protection of this corridor and potential
restoration of this land would provide an opportunity to reclaim historical drainage patterns and
reduce outflow of agricultural drainage water discharging into the estuary. It is believed that this
area formed a natural drainage way flowing northwest in the direction of the Alligator River.
Project Concept
Based on the above facts, a concept plan for combining restoration and innovative water
management system on this farm has been developed through as part of a CWMTF planning
grant. The current conceptual plan for replicating and restoring natural drainage patterns within
Lux Farm portion of the area (approximately 7,200 acres) include plugging of farm ditches,
enhancement of existing swales, land contouring, creating impoundments for peak flow
mitigation, water reuse and migratory waterfowl habitat, and planting of native vegetation where
needed. To reduce drainage outflow directly to the Pamlico Sound via pumping, the area to be
restored provides a more ecologically viable option to redirect a portion of agricultural drainage
water. Hydrology in the restoration area which was historically common to pocosin ecosystems
can be restored. In addition, as pumped drainage water flows through this area, sediment,
nutrients, and bacteria contained in this water can be effectively removed through
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 21 of 41

biogeochemical processes unique to wetland ecosystems. Increased infiltration and
evapotranspiration in these restored or enhanced areas would also reduce the net volume of water
leaving the confines of the farm.
The project would be the largest of its kind in North Carolina, and represent the advancement
and integration of agricultural drainage practice with environmentally sound objectives. This
overall project will serve as a demonstration of how environmental and water quality projects
can be implemented in conjunction with agricultural operations. In addition, it will serve as an
example for other farms in the watershed/drainage district that will lead to future restoration
projects with additional water quality benefits.
Project Feasibility
The Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University
has developed an initial hydrologic study to address the feasibility of restoring historic drainage
patterns and wetland hydrology without compromising the required drainage requirements of
Lux Farms.
Using GIS maps, aerial photographs, and local knowledge, the flow patterns that existed before
agricultural development, and that currently exist in the area, were determined. The distributions
of soil types, vegetation, and drainage systems were also determined for the historical and
current conditions. The predicted area that historically drained to Swan Lake was about 14,200
acres. This area was selected by locating the historic drainage ways to the lake and estimating
their subwatershed areas. Also useful were the different soils series that occur in this area. Each
of these soil series have a probable associated elevation, which indicates likely ridges and
surface water flow paths. The area of the current Lux farms was about 7,200 acres, and all of
the area was located inside the historical watershed to Swan Lake (Figure 1).
Under current conditions, the 7,200 acres of Lux farms does not drain to Swan Lake, but instead
artificially drains to the Alligator River and the sound through the current system of pumps and
canals. In addition, about 4,700 acres of the historical watershed outside of Lux farms drains to
the Alligator River and sound. This leaves about 2,300 acres of the 14,200 acre historical
watershed that is currently draining to Swan Lake. From this analysis alone, it appears
extremely likely that a sizeable portion of surface water that historically flowed towards Swan
Lake has been diverted from that area.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 22 of 41

A hydrologic study was conducted using the hydrology model, DRAINMOD. The purpose of
the study was to compare the volumes of water draining to Swan Lake for the following
conditions:
1. before the area was cleared for agricultural production
2. the drainage patterns that currently exist in the area
3. a hypothetical scenario with an alternative water management system.
Figure 1. Boundary of Lux Farms (orange outline) shown within historical watershed (in green).
Dark green areas on the northern side of the watershed are undrained wetland areas. Flow paths
for the historical condition are shown in dark blue, while major outlets for pumped agricultural
drainage water is shown in light blue.
To estimate historic and existing hydrology at the site, the model DRAINMOD was utilized.
DRAINMOD performs a water balance on poorly drained lands and predicts the surface and
subsurface drainage, evapotranspiration, storage of water in the soil and on the soil surface, and
seepage in response to historical rainfall and temperature records. DRAINMOD has been
extensively used in eastern North Carolina to simulate the hydrology of natural and agricultural
lands.
Input data sets for DRAINMOD were prepared for the different combinations of soil, vegetation,
and drainage systems for each of the three sets of conditions. The soil data sets were for the four
predominant soil types, Roper, Ponzer, Scuppernong, and Pungo. The vegetation data sets were
for natural forest, managed forest, shrub, and a typical crop rotation of corn -wheat and soybeans.
The data sets for the drainage systems were for natural wetland conditions with minimal
subsurface drainage and poor surface drainage, for impounded conditions with no subsurface
drainage and high surface storage, and for agricultural drainage with 1 m deep drains spaced 100
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 23 of 41

in apart and good surface drainage. DRAINMOD simulations were conducted with each
combination of soil type, vegetation type, and drainage system type occurring on each set of
conditions. The predicted outflow for each condition was determined by summing the outflow
amounts for each combination weighted by the area of each combination. The DRAINMOD
simulations were run for 30 years using rainfall data collected at Lux Farms from 1978 to 2007
and temperature data collected at Plymouth, NC for the same time period.
DRAINMOD simulations predicted that the average annual outflow from the historical
watershed was 19,200 ac -ft (Table 1). Year -to -year variations in outflow resulted in 10% of the
years having outflows less than 8,960 ac -ft (Low) and 10% of the years having outflows greater
than 27,800 ac -ft (High). The predicted average annual outflow that historically occurred from
the area that is now occupied by Lux Farms was 9,750 ac -ft (Table 1). The predicted average
annual outflow that currently occurs from Lux Farm is 11,930 ac -ft which flows to the Alligator
River and Pamlico sound through artificial drainage and pumping systems rather than to Swan
Lake (Table 1). The difference between the historical and current outflows from Lux Farms is
mostly due to the reduced evapotranspiration that occurs from current agricultural crops
compared the historical forest vegetation. The predicted average annual outflow from the 2,300
acres of the historical watershed that is currently draining to Swan Lake (see Figure 2) is 3,110
ac -ft (Table 1).
Based on our estimates - there is a 16,090 ac -ft average deficit on average flowing to Swan Lake
compared to the historic drainage pattern for the entire watershed. There is a 6,640 ac -ft deficit
on average flowing to Swan Lake when only the smaller Lux Farm portion is considered.
Therefore, a significant portion of drainage could be diverted towards Swan Lake from Lux
Farm without overwhelming the receiving land area.
To test this hypothesis, a hypothetical wetland restoration and water management scenario that
included a selected agricultural area, an impoundment to receive drainage from the agricultural
area, and a wetland to receive the overflow from the impoundment was created. The distribution
of soil types, vegetation, and drainage systems within this scenario were also determined and
modeled.
Area Evaluated
Avg
ac -ft
Low
ac -ft
High
ac -ft
Historic Watershed of Swan Lake
19,200
8,960
27,800
(14,200 acres)
Lux Farms Portion of the Historic
Watershed of Swan Lake
9,750
4,540
14,100
(7,200 acres)
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 24 of 41

Table 1. DRAINMOD simulated yearly flow volumes for historic and existing conditions at the
proposed restoration site. Only 10% of the years simulated would yearly have flow volumes
<Low and >High values indicated.
The wetland restoration and water management scenario had 922 acres of agricultural land
draining to a 315 acre impoundment and then through a 190 acre wetland to the Swan Lake
watershed. All of these components were located within Lux Farms, thus adding 1,427 acres of
potential flow to the Swan Lake watershed.
DRAINMOD simulations of the scenario predicted that the average annual outflow from Lux
Farms to the river and sound would be reduced from 11,930 ac -ft for the current condition to
9,560 ac -ft. A predicted average annual outflow of 2,410 ac -ft from the altered Lux Farm would
be added to Swan Lake. This flow added to the current outflow to Swan Lake (3,110 ac -ft)
would result in an average annual outflow of 5,520 ac -ft to Swan Lake. This predicted annual
outflow to Swan Lake would be much smaller than the predicted historical average annual
outflow of 19,200 ac -ft.
The results of this simulation showed that the combination of wetland restoration combined with
drainage flow diversion into impoundments that overflow into wetland areas, can have large
effects on reducing drainage outflows to nearby sensitive receiving waters. This initial
simulation on a relatively small portion of Lux farms resulted in approximately 20% reduction of
drainage outflow to Pamlico Sound.
These initial hydrologic simulations serve as the basis of the hydrologic restoration proposed for
Lux Farms. The models will continue to be strengthened before final design and construction
plans for this project are completed. We believe that the additional flow to the area surrounding
Swan Lake will not have a negative impact on the hydrology. In fact, additional surface water in
that area may restore historic pocosin habitat and serve to improve fire suppression for that area.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 25 of 41
Current Watershed Flow to Swan
Lake (2,300 acres)
3,110
1,450
4,480
Current Lux Farms Flow to Swan
Lake (7,200 acres)
0
0
0
:Current Lux Farms Flow to
=
I
Alligator River and Pamlico Sound_
:(7,200 acres)
11,930
_ [
7,760
16,140
Table 1. DRAINMOD simulated yearly flow volumes for historic and existing conditions at the
proposed restoration site. Only 10% of the years simulated would yearly have flow volumes
<Low and >High values indicated.
The wetland restoration and water management scenario had 922 acres of agricultural land
draining to a 315 acre impoundment and then through a 190 acre wetland to the Swan Lake
watershed. All of these components were located within Lux Farms, thus adding 1,427 acres of
potential flow to the Swan Lake watershed.
DRAINMOD simulations of the scenario predicted that the average annual outflow from Lux
Farms to the river and sound would be reduced from 11,930 ac -ft for the current condition to
9,560 ac -ft. A predicted average annual outflow of 2,410 ac -ft from the altered Lux Farm would
be added to Swan Lake. This flow added to the current outflow to Swan Lake (3,110 ac -ft)
would result in an average annual outflow of 5,520 ac -ft to Swan Lake. This predicted annual
outflow to Swan Lake would be much smaller than the predicted historical average annual
outflow of 19,200 ac -ft.
The results of this simulation showed that the combination of wetland restoration combined with
drainage flow diversion into impoundments that overflow into wetland areas, can have large
effects on reducing drainage outflows to nearby sensitive receiving waters. This initial
simulation on a relatively small portion of Lux farms resulted in approximately 20% reduction of
drainage outflow to Pamlico Sound.
These initial hydrologic simulations serve as the basis of the hydrologic restoration proposed for
Lux Farms. The models will continue to be strengthened before final design and construction
plans for this project are completed. We believe that the additional flow to the area surrounding
Swan Lake will not have a negative impact on the hydrology. In fact, additional surface water in
that area may restore historic pocosin habitat and serve to improve fire suppression for that area.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 25 of 41

Project details
Based on the hydrologic study, a hydrologic restoration and alternative water management
strategy appears feasible at a much larger scale that was conservatively simulated.
Approximately 45% of the 7200 acres controlled by Lux Farms will be available for hydrologic
restoration, wetland enhancement, or created impoundments. We intend to utilize this 3200
acres to divert, to the maximum extent practicable, agricultural drainage water away from direct
pumping into the Alligator River and Pamlico Sound.
The restoration will integrate multiple components that satisfy water quality and habitat
objectives without severely compromising the landowner's agricultural production. Landowner
satisfaction is extremely important. Under current regulations the landowner is allowed to
continue current operations without penalty. Progress with this project will not continue if the
landowner has to sacrifice significant production revenue. In addition, future collaborations
with other landowners in this region will be unlikely if this design is perceived to improve water
quality and habitat at the expense of agricultural revenues.
A large swath that extends through the center of Lux Farms northwest towards Swan Lake is the
area considered with the restoration plan. Although the area has been ditched and drained, the
area has remained too wet for recent agricultural production, but large sections have been planted
as pine plantation. Soils in the area are predominately Pungo muck, and the extent of this soil
matches well with the likely historic drainage path for this area.
This area will be enhanced to transport excess drainage water from the farm northwest on that
historic path. A natural swale that exists in this section will be used as the primary flow path of
the diverted agricultural drainage water.
Phase I -1400 acres restored
16,000 ft berms
7,000 ft sloughs /streams
Road levee breaches
Minor grading clearing
Pump station
Water control structures (3 -5)
Pond/wetland overflows (10)
Tree planting - 200 acres
Erosion control seed and Mulch (10 acres)
Phase II - 950 acres restored
27,000 ft berms
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 26 of 41

10,000 ft sloughs /streams
Road levee breaches
Minor grading clearing
Pump station
Water control structures (1 -3)
Pond/wetland overflows (5)
Tree planting - 300 acres
Erosion control seed and Mulch (15 acres)
Phase III - 850 acres restored
29,000 ft berms (maybe more with Increase of GR4)
5,000 ft sloughs /streams
Road levee breaches
Minor grading clearing
Pump station
Water control structures (2 -4)
Pond/wetland overflows (15)
Tree planting - 200 acres
Erosion control seed and Mulch (15 acres)
Total
72,000 ft berms
22,000 ft sloughs /streams
Road levee breaches
Minor grading clearing
Pump station
Water control structures (12)
Pond/wetland overflows (30)
Tree planting - 700 acres
Erosion control seed and Mulch (40 acres)
Monitoring
While the overall goals of this restoration project appear promising, the redirected water must
flow through a portion of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, under the jurisdiction of
the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, wetlands on other adjacent properties under
private ownership are protected by the federal Clean Water Act. Under the current plan, water
from the restored area would enter the refuge and these lands as diffuse flow since it would use
existing natural drainage ways to reach Swan Creek and Swan Lake before discharging into the
Alligator River. This area contains diverse wetland ecosystems including pocosins, bogs, fresh
and brackish water marsh, and hardwood swamps:
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 27 of 41

Many of these aforementioned areas have been degraded due to drainage practices on nearby
farms, resulting in changes in wetland hydroperiod. This has resulted in dryer conditions that
have degraded plant community types and increased the risk of fire in areas where organic soils
have become drier. One of the long -term management strategies for the refuge is hydrological
restoration, and this project could address these concerns. Diverting this drainage water into the
restored area and through this area should have long -term benefits to the refuge in addition to the
water quality benefits to the Pamlico Sound.
Flow moving Northeast must enter Alligator River National Wildlife refuge, managed by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service. To satisfy their requirements for discharge, monitoring stations must
be constructed to monitor flow crossing into their jurisdiction
Water Quality Objectives and How They Will Be Achieved
Research has indicated that nutrient and sediment loads from pumped agricultural drainage can
be substantially reduced within forested wetlands. Hydrology and water quality studies
(Chescheir et al., 1991, 1992) were conducted on two forested wetlands receiving pumped
agricultural drainage, one in Dare County and one in Tyrrell County. Water surface elevations
were measured and quality samples were collected on a network of stations across the wetlands
during various pumping events over a two year period. The information collected in the field
study was used to develop and calibrate a hydrology and water quality model of the system that
predicted the nutrient and sediment removal that would occur over a 20 year period of
climatological record. Total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment removal rates were
greater than 79% on the Dare County site where the ratio of drained land area to wetland area
was 5:1. Nutrient and sediment removal rates were lower (30 to 60 %) on the Terrell county site
where the ratio of drained land area to wetland area was 18:1.
We expect nutrient and sediment load reductions similar to or greater than those observed at the
Dare County site since the ratio of drained land area to wetland area will be less than 2:1. The
previous field studies and the modeling studies (Chescheir et al., 1991, 1992) showed that
sediment and nutrient load reductions increased as the ratio of drained land area to wetland area
decreased.
References
Chescheir, G.M., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead. 1992. Evaluation
of wetland buffer areas for treatment of pumped agricultural drainage water.
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 35(1):175 -182.
Chescheir, G.M., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead. 1991. Nutrient
and sediment removal in wetlands receiving pumped agricultural drainage water. Wetlands
11(1):87 -103.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 28 of 41

Appendix 2: NRCS WRP Easement Deed
BOOK 246 PAGE ZUO (I J)
400403 11 11
This document presented and filed:
11/28/201102:13:34 PM
E MERITA LEWIS- SPENCER, HYDE COUNTY. NC
Excise Tax: $8,24200
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
1212009
WARRANTY EASEMENT DEED
IN PERPETUITY
NRCS- I.TP -30
01/2010
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM
EASEMENT NO.66- 4532- 10- 00516645321000ZIF
THIS WARRANTY EASEMENT DEED is made by and between LUX FARMS, LLC, of
P.O. Box 158, Engelhard, NC 27824, (hereafter referred to as the "Landowner"), Grantor(s), and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
(hereafter referred to as the "United States "), Grantee. The Landowner and the United States are
jointly referred to as the "Parties". The acquiring agency of the United States is the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), United States Department of Agriculture.
Witnesseth:
Purt)oses and Intent. The purpose of this easement is to restore, protect, manage,
maintain, and enhance the functional values of wetlands and other lands, and for the
conservation of natural values including fish and wildlife and their habitat, water quality
improvement, flood water retention, groundwater recharge, open space, aesthetic values,
and environmental education. It is the intent of NRCS to give the Landowner the
opportunity to participate in the restoration and management activities on the easement
area. By signing this deed, the Landowner agrees to the restoration of the Easement Area
and grants the right to carry out such restoration to the United States.
Authori1y. This easement deed acquisition is authorized by Title Xll of the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. §3837), for the Wetlands Reserve Program.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of FOUR MILLION ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVEN Dollars (4,120,107. ), the Grantor(s), hereby
grants and conveys with general warranty of title to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and its
assigns, (the Grantee), in perpetuity, all rights, title and interest in the lands comprising the easement
area described in Part I and appurtenant rights of access to the easement area, but reserving to the
Landowner only those rights, title, and interest expressly enumerated in Part 11. It is the intention of
the Landowner to convey and relinquish any and all other property rights not so reserved. This
easement shall constitute a servitude upon the land so encumbered; shall run with the land for the
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 29 of 41

duration of the easement; and shall bind the Landowner, (the Grantor(s)), their heirs, successors,
assigns, lessees, and any other person claiming under them.
SUBJECT, however, to all valid rights of record, if any.
PART I. Description of the Easement Area. The lands encumbered by this easement
deed, referred to hereafter as the easement area, are described on SIT A which is
appended to and made a part of this easement deed.
TOGETHER with a right of access for ingress and egress to the easement area
across adjacent or other properties of the Landowner. Such a right -of -way for access
purposes is described in EXHIBIT B which is appended to and made a part of this
easement deed.
PART 1I. Reservations in the Landowner on the Easement Area. Subject to the rights,
title, and interest conveyed by this easement deed to the United States, including the
restoration, protection, management, maintenance, enhancement, and monitoring of the
wetland and other natural values of the easement area, the Landowner reserves:
A. Ti . Record title, along with the Landowner's right to convey, transfer, and
Otherwise alienate title to these reserved rights.
B. Quiet EnigMent. The right of the Landowner to enjoy the rights reserved on
The easement area without. interference from others.
C. Control of Access. The right to prevent trespass and control access by the
general public subject to the operation of State and Federal law.
D. Recr ional Uses. The right to undeveloped recreational uses, including
undeveloped hunting and fishing and leasing of such rights for economic gain,
pursuant to applicable State and Federal regulations that may be in effect at
the time. Undeveloped recreational uses. must be consistent with the long-
term protection and enhancement of the wetland and other natural values of
the easement area. Undeveloped recreational use may include hunting
equipment, such as, tree stands and hunting blinds that are rustic and
customary for the locale as determined by NRCS.
E. Subsurface Resources. The right to oil, gas, minerals, and geothermal
resources underlying the easement area, provided that any drilling or mining
activities are to be located outside the boundaries of the easement area, unless
activities within the boundaries are specified in accordance with the terms and
conditions of EXHIBIT C which is appended to and made a part of this
casement deed, if applicable.
2
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 30 of 41

F. Water uses and water rights. The right to water uses and water rights
identified as reserved to the Landowner in EXHIBIT D which is appended to
and made a part of this easement deed, if applicable.
PM M. Obligations of the Landowner. The Landowner shall comply with all temis
and conditions of this easement, including the following:
A. Prohibitions. Without otherwise limiting the rights of the United States
acquired hereunder, it is expressly understood that the rights to carry out
the following activities and uses have been acquired by the United States and,
unless authorized by the United States under Part 1V, are prohibited on the
easement area:
1. haying, mowing, or seed harvesting for any reason;
2. altering of grassland, woodland, wildlife habitat or other
natural features by burning, digging, plowing, disking, cutting or otherwise
destroying the vegetative cover;
3. dumping refuse, wastes, sewage, or other debris;
4. harvesting wood products;
S. draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, diking,
impounding, or related activities, as well as altering or tampering with
water control structures or devices, except as specifically set forth in
EXHIBIT D, if applicable;
6. diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surfaco or underground water into,
within, or out of the easement area by any means, except as specifically set forth in
EMIIBIT D, if applicable;
7. building, placing, or allowing to be placed structures on, under, or over
the easement area, except for structures for undeveloped recreational use;
8. planting or harvesting any crop;
9. grazing or allowing livestock on the easement area;
10. disturbing or interfering with the nesting or brood - rearing activities of wildlife
including migratory birds;
11. use of the easement area for developed recreation. These uses include
but are not limited to, camping facilities, recreational vehicle trails and
tracks, sporting clay operations, skeet shooting operations, firearm
range operations and the infrastructure to raise, stock, and release
captive raised waterfowl, game birds and other wildlife for hunting or fishing;
12. any activities which adversely impact or degrade wildlife cover or
other habitat benefits, water quality benefits, or other wetland
functions and values of the easement area; and
13. any activities to be carried out on the Landowner's land that is
immediately adjacent to, and functionally related to, the land that is
subject to the easement if such activities will alter, degrade, or
otherwise diminish the functional value of the eligible land.
3
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 31 of 41

B. Noxious Plants and Pests. The Landowner is responsible for noxious weed
control and emergency control of pasts as required by all Federal, State, and
local laws. A plan to control noxious weeds and pests must be approved in
writing by the NRCS prior to implementation by the Landowner.
C. Fences. Except for establishment cost incurred by the United States and
replacement cost not due to the Landowner's negligence or malfeasance, all
other costs involved in maintenance of fences and similar facilities to exclude
livestock shall be the responsibility of the Landowner. The installation or use
of fences which have the effect of preventing wildlife access and use of the
easement area are prohibited on the easement or easement boundary.
D. Use of water for easement py;m. The landowner shall use water for
easement purposes as set forth in EXHIBIT D, which is appended to and made
a part of this easement deed, if applicable.
E. Protection of water uses and water rim. As set forth in EXHIBIT D, if
applicable, the Landowner shall undertake actions necessary to protect any
water rights and water uses for easement purposes.
F. Taxes. The Landowner shall pay any and all real property and other taxes and
assessments, if any, which may be levied against the land.
G. Ragdin . The Landowner shall report to the NRCS any conditions or events
which may adversely affect the wetland, wildlife, and other natural values of
the easement area.
H. Survival. Irrelevant of any violations by the Landowner of the terms of this
deed, this easement survives and runs with the land for its duration.
PART IV. Compatible Uses by the Landowner.
A. General. The United States may authorize, in writing and subject to such
terms and conditions the NRCS may prescribe at its sole discretion, the use of
the easement area for compatible economic uses, including, but not limited to,
managed timber harvest, periodic haying, or grazing.
B. Limits ns. Compatible use authorizations will only be made if, upon a
determination by NRCS in the exercise of its sole discretion and rights, that
the proposed use is consistent with the long -term protection and enhancement
of the wetland and other natural values of the easement area. The NRCS shall
prescnbe the amount, method, timing, intensity, and duration of the
compatible use.
4
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 32 of 41

PART V. Rights of the United States. The rights of the United States include:
A. Muagmynt a0vities. The United States has the right to enter the easement
area to undertake, on a cost -share basis with the Landowner or other entity as
determined by the United States, any activities to restore, protect, manage,
maintain, enhance, and monitor the wetland and other natural values of the
easement area. The United States may apply to or impound additional waters,
in accordance with State water law, on the easement area in order to maintain
or improve wetland and other natural values.
B. Access. The United States has a right of reasonable ingress and egress to the
easement area over the Landowner's property, whether or not the property is
adjacent or appurtenant to the 'easement area, for the exercise of any of the
rights of the United States under this easement deed. The authorized
representatives of the United States may utilize vehicles and other reasonable
modes of transportation for access purposes. To the extent practical, the
United States shall utilize the access identified in MIBiT B.
C. Easement Management. The Secretary of Agriculture, by and through the
NRCS, may delegate all or part of the management, monitoring or
enforcement responsibilities under this easement to any entity authorized by
law that the NRCS determines to have the appropriate authority, expertise and
resources necessary to carry out such delegated responsibilities. State or
federal agencies may utilize their general statutory authorities in the
administration of any delegated management, monitoring or enforcement
responsibilities for this easement. The authority to modify or terminate this
easement (16 U.S.C. §3837e(b)) is reserved to the Secretary of Agriculture in
accordance with applicable law.
D. Violations and Remedies - Enforcement. The Parties, Successors, and
Assigns, agree that the rights, title, interests, and prohibitions created by this
easement deed constitute things of value to the United States and this
easement deed may be introduced as evidence of same in any enforcement
proceeding, administrative, civil or criminal, as the stipulation of the Parties
hereto. If there is any failure of the Landowner to comply with any of the
provisions of this easement deed, the United States or other delegated
authority shall have any legal or equitable remedy provided by law and the
right:
1. To enter upon the easement area to perform necessary work for
prevention of or remediation of damage to wetland or other natural
values; and,
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 33 of 41

2. To assess all expenses incurred by the United States (including any legal fees
or attorney fees) against the Landowner, to be owed immediately to the
United States.
PART VI. General Proviso.
A. Successors in Interest. The rights granted to the United States shall accrue to
any of its agents or assigns. All obligations of the Landowner under this
easement deed shall also bind the Landowner's heirs, successors, agents,
assigns, lessees, and any other person claiming under them. All the
Landowners who are parties to this easement deed shall be jointly and
severally liable for compliance with its terms.
B. Rules of Construction and Special Provisions. All rights in the easement area
not reserved by the Landowner shall be deemed acquired by the United
States. Any ambiguities in this easement deed shall be construed in favor of
the United States to effect the wetland and conservation purposes for which
this easement deed is being acquired. The property rights of the United States
acquired under this easement shall be unaffected by any subsequent
amendments or repeal of the Wetlands Reserve Program. If the Landowner
receives the consideration for this easement in installments, the Parties agree
that the conveyance of this easement shall be totally effective upon the
payment of the first installment.
C. Environmental Warranty. "Environmental Law" or "Environmental Laws"
means any and all Federal, State, local or municipal laws, orders, regulations,
statutes, ordinances, codes, guidelines, policies, or requirements of any
governmental authority regulating or imposing standards of liability or
standards or conduct (including common law) concerning air, water, solid
waste, hazardous materials or substance, worker and community right -to-
know, hazard communication, noise, radioactive material, resource protection,
subdivision, inland wetlands and watercourses, health protection and similar
environmental health, safety, building and land use as may now or at any time
hereafter be in effect.
"Hazardous Materials" means any petroleum, petroleum products, fuel oil,
waste oils, explosives, reactive materials, ignitable materials, corrosive
materials, hazardous chemicals, hazardous wastes, hazardous substances,
extremely hazardous substances, toxic substances, toxic chemicals,
radioactive materials, infectious materials, and any other element, compound,
mixture, solution or substance which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment.
6
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 34 of 41

Landowner warrants that it is in compliance with, and shall remain in
compliance with, all applicable Environmental Laws. Landowner warrants
that there are no notices by any government authority of any violation or
alleged violation of, non - compliance or alleged non - compliance with or any
liability under any Environmental Law relating to the operations or conditions
of the Property. Landowner Hu'ther warrants that it has no actual knowledge
of a release or threatened release of Hazardous Materials, as such substance
and wastes are defined by applicable Federal and State law.
D. General Indemnification. Landowner shall indemnify and hold harmless, its
employees, agents, and assigns for any and all liabilities, claims, demands,
loses, expenses, damages, fines, fees, penalties; suits, proceedings, actions,
and cost of actions, sanctions asserted by or on behalf of any person or
government authority, and other liabilities (whether legal or equitable in
nature and including, without limitation, court costs, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and attorneys' fees on appeal) to which the United States may be subject
or incur relating to the easement area, which may arise from, but is not limited
to, Landowner's negligent acts or omissions or Grantor's breach of any
representation, warranty, covenant, agreements contained in this easement
deed, or violations of any Federal, State, or local laws, including all
Environmental Laws.
PART VII. SPECIAL Provisions Cif an
A. Exhibit B is contained in and hereby made a part of Exhibit A. Therefore there is
not Exhibit B attached to this Warranty Easement Deed.
B. An Exhibit C is not applicable and is, therefore, not attached to this Warranty
Easement Deed. There are no known Subsurface Resources.
C. An Exhibit D is not applicable and is, therefore, not attached to this Warranty
Easement Deed. No such rights and/or uses have been reserved by the
Landowner.
7
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 35 of 41

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, this Warranty Easement Deed is granted to the United States of
America and its assigns forever. The Landowner covenants that he, she or they are vested with
good title to the easement area and will warrant and defend the same on behalf of the United
States against all claims and demands. The Landowner covenants to comply with the terms and
conditions enumerated in this document for the use of the easement area and adjacent lands for
access, and to refrain from any activity not specifically allowed or that is inconsistent with the
purposes of this easement deed.
Dated thiday of MN"v 2 11.
Landowner(s):
F. Wilson Daughtry, Jr.,'h4ager
LUX FARMS, LLC
Harry IVShaw, manager
LUX FARMS, LLC
STATE OF NORTH CARQPNA,
COUNTY OF M rr$
I, WrJm PCs-r-- , a Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that F. Wilson Daughtry, Jr. and Harry N. Shaw personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged that they are Managers of LUX FARMS, LLC. a limited
liability company, and that they, as Managers, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing
instrument on behalf of the limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this Z. day of November, 2011
My commission expires:
N YrlR0d'��i
(SEAL) �.
NO ?-A R V
AIJecic
r
r -4 -
W
Notary 1
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 36 of 41

WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM
AGREEMENT NO.66- 4532- 10- 005/6645321000Z 1 F
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE
ACCEPTANCE BY GRANTEE OF PROPERTY INTEREST BY THE NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE:
I J. B. Martin. Jr.. State Conservationist, being the duly authorized representative of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, do hereby accept this
Conservation Basement Deed with respect to the rights and duties of the United States of America,
Grantee.
Dated this J(V day of tkiegu6te . 20jLL.
Si ft Conservationist
Au orized Signatory for the USA, USDA, NRCS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
1, -b& ra Z're-kXno( , A Notary Public for the aforesaid County and
State, do hereby certify that this day 'U-6. rr1am'ti 9'r personally appeared as
the duly authorized representative of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the United States of America, whose name is signed
to the foregoing writing bearing the date NoveM bee 16 , 20_L 1 who is known to me,
acknowledged the same before me in the County and State aforesaid on this day that being informed
of the contents of this conveyance, he /she, as the duly authorized representative, executed the same
voluntarily for and as the act of the United States of America.
Given under my hand this I day of N eN e -al6a+' , 2011 .
PON tnlaod �- Lt"."-Q
NOMYPMLIC NOTARY PUBLIC
WAXBCOUNTY,NC
My Commissiari expims: 22 �LUIS
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 37 of 41

This instrument was drafted by the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. 20250 -1400.
NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its program and activities
on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status,
familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,
reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived ftm any public assistance
program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotope, etc.)
should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (1202) 720 -2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint
of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20250 -9410 or call (800) 705 -3272 (voice) or (202) 720 -6382 (TDD). USDA is an
equal opportunity provider and employer.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
The above statements are made in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 522x).
Furnishing this information is voluntary; however, failure to furnish correct, complete information
will result in the withholding or withdrawal of such technical or financial assistance. The information
may be furnished to other USDA agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice,
or other State or Federal Law enforcement agencies, or in response to orders of a court, magistrate, or
Administrative tribunal.
10
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 38 of 41

EXHIBIT A
WRP Conservation Easement and Route of Ingress and Egress on the lands of:
LUX Farms, LLC
For:
The United States Department of Agriculture
Lake landing Township, Hyde County, North Carolina
TRACT 1:
Commencing at North Carolina Geodetic Survey Monument (N.C.G.S.) "AVE ", said monument having!NC
State Plane Coordinates of: North 680809.65 usft, East 2913570.56 usft (NAD `83/2007 Datum); thence,
N 54 "53'49 "W 16504.12' (Horizontal Ground Distance) to a 1/2" iron stake found at the intersection of
the center lines of 5th Avenue East and 3`d Street East, said point also being a corner for LUX Farms, LLC
and the southwest corner of the Mattamuskeet Hunt Club property, the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence
from the POINT OF BEGINNING, along the center line of 3rd Street East, a property line for LUX Farms,
LLC, said line aiso being the westerly property line of the Mattamuskeet Hunt Club property, N
38 002'13 "E 5660.40' to a point at the Intersection of the center line of 3rd Street East and the northerly
sideline of 6th Avenue East, a corner for LUX Farms, LLX, said point also being the northwest corner of
the Mattamuskeet Hunt Club property in the southerly property line of M. C. Davis; thence along the
northerly sideline of 6a' Avenue East, the northerly property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said line also being
the southerly property line of M. C. Davis and a property line for The Nature Conservancy property, N
72 °48'34 "W 561615' to a 3/4" iron pipe found, the northwest corner of the LUX Farms, LLC property,'
said point also being a corner for The Nature Conservancy property; thence along the property line of
LUX Farms, LLC, said line also being a property line for The Nature Conservancy property, S 36 033126 "W
5590.81' to a 1/2" iron stake found; thence along the property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said line also
being a property line for F. Wilson Daughtry et. all., S 36 °31'56 "W 6176.79' to a 5/8" iron stake set;
thence across the property of LUX Farms, LLC, the following courses and distances: S 75'19'44 E
3484.38' along the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East to a 5/8" iron stake set; N 86 °25'25'E 131.33'
along the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East to a 5/8" iron stake set; 5 74 °16'12 "E 1789.70' along the
south shoulder of 4th Avenue East to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection of the projection of the:I
east shoulder of 3rd Street East with the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East; N 37 °21'43 "E 896.69' along
the east shoulder of 3rd Street East to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection of the east shoulder of;'
3rd Street East with the projection of the south edge of a dike; 5 74 °55'42 "E 2581.68' along the south
edge of a dike to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection of the south edge of a dike with a line 10' east
of the east top of bank of a canal; S 37 °10'33 "W 923.10' to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection of
the projection of a line 10' east of the east top of bank of a canal with the south shoulder of 4th Avenue
East, S 74 °12'09 "E 1918.32' along the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East to a 5/8" iron stake set at the
Intersection of the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East with the projection of a line 10' east of the east
top of bank of a V- ditch; 5 40 °49'52 "W 2653.75' along a line 10' east of the east top of bank of a V -ditch
to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection of a line 10' east of the east top of bank of a V -ditch and a line
30' north of the north traveled way of 31/2 Avenue East; S 72 054'08 "E 1093.22' along a line 30' north of
the north traveled way of 3 112 Avenue East to a 5/8" iron stake set at.the intersection of a line 30'
north of the north traveled way of 31/2 Avenue East and the projection of a line along the east edge of
a canal; 5 40 °50'56 "W 3050.25' along the east edge of a canal to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection
of the projection of a line along the east edge of a canal and the south shoulder of 3rd Avenue East; S
73 °49'36 "E 7713.57' along the south shoulder of 3rd Avenue East to a 5/8" iron stake set at the
intersection of the south shoulder of 3rd Avenue East and the projection of a line 10' west of the west
top of bank of a V- ditch; N 41 °05'09 "E 2863.69' along a line 10' west of the west top of bank of a V -ditch
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 39 of 41

to a 5/8" iron stake set at the Intersection of the projection of a line 10' west of the west top of bank.of
a V -ditch and the south shoulder of 31/2 Avenue East; N 72'57'13-9W 1877.23' along the south shoulder
of 31/2 Avenue East to a 5/8" Iron stake set at the intersection of the south shoulder of 31/2 Avenue
East and the projection of the center line of a V -ditch on the west side of 5th Street East; N 41 °04'15 "E
2881.74' along the center line of a V -ditch on the west side of 5th Street East to a 5/8" iron stake seta'* t
the intersection of the projection of the center line of a V -ditch on the west side of 5th Street East and
the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East; N 74 °02'19 "W 1707.86' along the south shoulder of 4th Avenue
East to a 5/8" iron stake set in the south shoulder of 4th Avenue East; N 40 °53'35 "E 5850.94' to a 5/8"
iron stake set in a property line of LUX Farms, LLC, the center line of 5th Avenue East, said line also being
the southerly property line of the Mattamuskeet Hunt Club property; thence along the property line-of
LUX Farms, LLC, the center line of 5th Avenue East, said fine also being the southerly property line of the
Mattamuskeet Hunt Club property, N 72 059'33 "W 9994.13' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing
3430.17 Acres and being a portion of the property of LUX Farms, LLC described in Deed Book 210, Pg.
557 and Deed Book 210, Pg. 561 of the Hyde County Registry.
TRACT 2: '
Commencing at North Carolina Geodetic Survey Monument (N.C.G.S.) "AVE ", said monument having'NC
State Plane Coordinates of North 680809.65 usft, East 2913570.56 usft (NAD'83 /2007 Datum); thence,
S 81 °16'22 "W 23213.43' (Horizontal Ground Distance) to a point in a canal, not set, at the intersection of
the projection of a line along the north side of a ditch and the property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said line
also being the easterly line of Alligator River Farms, LLC, the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence from the
POINT OF BEGINNING, along the property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said line also being the easterly lines
of Alligator River Farms, LLC and Scouts, LLC, N 34 °34'28 "E 2731.87' to a point in a canal, not set, at the
intersections of the property line of LUX Farms, LLC, the easterly property line of Scouts, LLC, and the
projection of a line along the south top of bank of a V- ditch; thence across the property of LUX Farms,
LLC the following courses and distances: N 56 929'02 "W 4050.85' along the south top of bank of a V-
ditch to a 5/8" iron stake set at the intersection of the projection of a line along the south top of bank of
a V -ditch and a line 10' west of the west top of bank of a V- ditch; N 35 641'06 "E 667.58' along a line 1 :1
west of the west top of bank of a V -ditch to a 5/8" iron stake at the intersection of a line 10' west of the
west top of bank of a V -ditch and the south edge of a canal; N 74 °23'25 "W 4509.94' along the south
edge of a canal to a 5/8" Iron stake set at the intersection of the south edge of a canal with the property
line of LUX Farms, LLC, said property line also being the westerly property line of Barker Farms; then
along the property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said line also being the westerly property line of Barker
Farms, S 37004'10"W 2767.38' to a 1" iron pipe found, said point being a corner for LUX Farms, LLC, said
point also being a corner for Barker Farms and being in the northerly line of the J. Fred Webb et. al. i
property, thence along the property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said property line also being the northerly
line of the J. Fred Webb et. al. property, S 74 °53'35 "E 1535.61' to a 11/4" iron pipe found, a corner fbr
LUX Farms, LLC, said point also being a corner for the J. Fred Webb et. al. property; thence along the .E
property line of LUX Farms, LLC, said line also being the easterly property line of the J. Fred Webb et. al.
property, 5 22 040'19 "W 567,12' to a 5/8" iron stake set In the intersection of the property line of LUX'
Farms, LLC, said line also being the easterly property line of the J. Fred Webb et. al. property, and the'
projection of a line along the north side of a ditch; thence across the LUX Farms, LLC property, along a
line along the north side of a ditch, S 63 °18'17 "E 6923.41' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project Page 40 of 41

602.84 Acres and being a portion of the property of LUX Farms, LLC described in Deed Book 210, Pg. 561
of the Hyde County Registry.
Route of Ingress and Egress:
A route of Ingress and Egress 20' In width, containing 11.95 Acres, the center line of which is described
as follows: Commencing at North Carolina Geodetic Survey Monument (N.C.G.S.) "AVE ", said
monument having NC State Plane Coordinates of: North 680809.65 usft, East 2913570.56 usft (NAD
'83/2007 Datum); thence, S 32 °36'15 "W 16697.77' (Horizontal Ground Dlstance) to a point at the
intersection of the center line of said route of Ingress and Egress with the end of State Maintenance of
Airport Road, SR 1355, the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence with the center line of said route of Ingress
and Egress along 2nd Avenue East the following courses and distances; N 72 °17'53 "W 5371.86' to a I�
point; N 72 °2531 "W 6254.68' to a point; N 72 °43'51 "W 3837.81' to a point, said point being the center
line Intersection of 2nd Avenue East and 3rd Street East; thence along 3rd Street East N 34 °35'49 "E
770.00' to a point, said point being the intersection between the center line of said route of Ingress and
Egress and the southerly easement line of the proposed 602.84 Acres USDA WRP Easement'on the lands
of LUX Farms, LLC; thence along 3rd Street East N 34.35'49"E 2736.27' across the proposed 602.84 Acres
USDA WRP Easement on the lands of LUX Farms, LLC to a point, said point being the intersection
between the center line of said route of Ingress and Egress and the Northerly easement line of the
proposed 602.84 Acres USDA WRP Easement on the lands of LUX Farms, LLC; thence along 3rd Street
East N 34 °35'49 "E 1965.51'to a point in the intersection of 3rd Street East and 3rd Avenue East; thence
along 3rd Avenue East the following courses and distances: N 15 °13'55 "E 3156.55' to a point; N '
14 955'28 "E 1928.86' to a point, said point being in the intersection of 3rd Street East and 4th Avenue,.
East, and also being the Intersection between the center line of said route of Ingress and Egress and the
proposed 3429.92 Acres USDA WRP Easement on the lands of LUX Farms, LLC, the end of the center line
of said route of Ingress and Egress.
Lux Farms WRP Enhancement Project
CARO ►rr>>r�
p0 -•'9.
4� SEAL•;
L -4627
/ 111
Page 41 of 41