20071268 Ver 1_401 Application_20070707

July 19, 2007
Ms. Kimberly Garvey
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
RE: Nationwide Permit 38Pre-Construction Notification
Seep Collection Trenches
International Paper -Riegelwood Mill
Riegelwood, Columbus County NC
Dear Ms. Garvey;
8208 Brian Ct.; Garner, NC 27529
P:919-606-1065 - F:919-341-4474
~~V~~~~ i
~s®P~
07-1268
International Paper's (IP) Riegelwood Mill and its engineer, Richardson, Smith, Gardner and
Associates Inc. (RSG) are proposing to install two trenches adjacent to the South Bay water
treatment pond in order to remediate ongoing seeps from the pond into adjacent wetlands. In
support of this activity, Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. (CEI) and RSG have prepared this Nationwide
38 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) for the project. Included in this submittal are the PCN
form, vicinity and site maps, engineering plans and details, site photographs, an agent
authorization letter, and wetland delineation forms and mapping. Additional information
supplementing the PCN form is included in this cover letter.
Project Background and Site Description
The IP Riegelwood Mill is located in Columbus County near the Pender County line, north of the
junction of NC 87 and US 74/76. Livingston Creek and the Cape Fear River, both navigable
Class C Sw waters, are in proximity to the project area (Figure 1). The IP Riegelwood Mill
opened in 1951 and has since undergone several upgrades and doubled its original size. As a
part of its pulp and packaging manufacturing process, the mill generates up to 50 million gallons
per day of wastewater which undergoes onsite treatment prior to being discharged into the Cape
Fear River (NPDES Permit No. NC0003298). The treatment process includes aeration through a
series of basins or bays, including the South Bay.
The South Bay is the penultimate basin in the treatment series. From there, the wastewater is
transported to the North Bay for additional settlement and aeration prior to being discharged into
the Cape Fear River. On February 4, 2005, NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) reported a
potential seepage issue occurring in two locations along the eastern side of the South Bay dike,
which were noted during December 14 and 22, 2004 site investigations. These locations are

Ms. Kimberly Garvey Page 2 of 5
July 19, 2007
shown, along with existing topography and 1998 aerial photography, in Figure 3 and designated
as Area 1 and Area 2. NCDWQ correspondence related to this investigation is provided in
Attachment 4.
The impacted areas are easily identified by the adverse effects on the natural vegetation in the
wetland area as shown in the site photographs (Attachment 3). In the two impacted areas, the
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) trees are dead. Along the toe of slopes and into the impacted
area of the wetland, herbaceous vegetation is surviving including lizard tail (Saururus cernuus),
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and cattails (Typha latifolia) along with a few saplings and
shrubs including bald cypress and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
The wetland boundary is distinct due to the presence of the dike. The cypress swamp wetland is
characterized by strong indicators of hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic plants as described
in the attached wetland data form (Attachment 5), although vegetation has been impacted as
described above. Upland areas are present at the base of the dike where it was previously
impacted by construction (exhibiting disturbed soil horizons and lack of hydrology) and in areas
where there is some high ground beyond the dike. A wetland delineation of the two seep areas
was performed on June 22, 2007. Wetland boundary points were collected using asub-meter
GPS unit, and a known survey control point was also acquired to check accuracy. This
information is presented in the engineering plans (Attachment 6).
Project Description
The purpose of the trench installation is to prevent further impacts from occurring due to seepage
of wastewater from the South Bay. The seepage, which has been ongoing for a number of years,
has resulted in a loss of forested vegetation in two areas within the wetland. NCDWQ sampling
and analysis revealed that the seepage could be toxic (Attachment 4). In order to prevent
additional damage to the wetland resources adjacent to the South Bay, the contamination must be
contained. Several alternatives, discussed below, were evaluated prior to settling on this project.
The proposed solution is to intercept the seeps at two locations where the contaminants seem to
be flowing. These two areas (Figure 3), are in the low points where the wetlands are adjacent to
the dike and are the natural flowpath for the hydrology in the immediate area.
The two trenches would be 3 feet wide and 70 or 40 feet long in Areas 1 and 2 respectively. The
trenches would be dug to a depth where they could be keyed into the Pee Dee formation, which
consists of a tight and highly impermeable clay. Geologic exploration of the area identified this
layer within 3 to 10 feet of the surface. The trench would be backfilled with stone and lined with
an impermeable geotextile membrance (Attachment 6). A collection pipe would be installed at
the bottom of the trenches, and a sump pump would transport the contaminated materials back to
the South Bay. The trenches would be located a safe distance from the toe of the dike in order to
protect its stability, and therefore they would be entirely within the wetland boundary.
In order to construct the trenches, overexcavation of the area would be required. The
overexcavation would be kept to the minimum amount required to build the trenches, and a
maximum of 15 feet from the outer edges of the permanent trench. Excavated soil would be
temporarily stockpiled along the toe of the berm, then used to backfill the excavation as the

Ms. Kimberly Garvey Page 3 of 5
July 19, 2007
gravel collection trench is constructed. Access to the trench location would be from the dike,
along with timber matting to cross the wetland areas. This herbaceous wetland area (due to the
lack of live trees) would be immediately seeded with natural seed mix, and allow natural
reforestation over time.
Proposed Impacts
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would include permanent excavation and backfilling of the
trenches and temporary excavation and backfilling of the construction areas as described above.
The proposed impacts are summarized in Table 1, and detailed in the attached PCN.
Area 1
Collection of the seep in Area 1 would require a trench 70 feet in length. The 3-foot wide trench
would therefore impact 0.005 acres of wetland. Temporary excavation with 2:1 slopes would
require an additional 0.048 acres of impact, assuming an average depth to the Pee Dee formation
of 7.5 feet. Generally, the formation would be shallower, and the temporary impacts would
actually be less than this maximum estimate.
Area 2
Collection of the seep in Area 2 would require a trench 40 feet in length, impacting 0.003 acres
of wetland. Temporary excavation, using the same criteria as Area 1, would impact an additional
0.027 acres.
Tahle 1: Tmnact Snmmarv
Type Permanent
Im acts Temporary
Im acts Total Impacts
Wetland ac 0.008 0.075 0.083
Stream 1 0 0 0
O en Water ac 0 0 0
Alternatives
Several alternatives to the project were proposed and evaluated during the investigation of this
water quality issue, including slurry walls and recovery well installation. A slurry wall was not
deemed undesirable due to concerns regarding dike stability during construction.
A pump test was performed to evaluate the feasibility of using recovery wells to extract the
contamination. Due to the presence of thin and inconsistent sand layers, the effectiveness of the
wells was reduced to a point that would require a maximum spacing of 15 feet. This would not
ensure capture of the seeps, and would likely cause adverse effects on the hydrology of the
adjacent wetlands.

Ms. Kimberly Garvey Page 4 of 5
July 19, 2007
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Impacts have been minimized by identifying the key seep locations through geologic
investigations, and reducing trench length to the minimum necessary to fully capture the two
seep areas. Secondary impacts have been avoided by using the trench and impermeable
membrane approach rather than a recovery well system that could alter the hydrology of the
adjacent wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation of such minor impacts should not be required based on preliminary
conversations with USACE and NCDWQ staff. Limiting construction activities to the areas
already impacted by the seeps results in no additional loss of forested wetland. The collection of
the contaminated seeps would help accelerate the recovery of the area to a fully forested wetland.
Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
federally listed threatened or endangered species was reviewed prior to the site visit. In addition,
the latest Natural Heritage Element Occurrence GIS data was reviewed to identify known
locations of these species occurring within or adjacent to the project area. No habitat for the
federally listed species exists within the area to be impacted by construction or operation of this
project. One known occurrence of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) exists
downstream from the confluence of Livingston Creek and the Cape Fear River. This occurrence
is over 3,000 linear feet and 9,000 stream feet from the seeps. Due to this distance and the
containment of the contamination, the proposed project would have no effect on the sturgeon.
Table 2: Federalb T,icted Rnpripc in f nlnmhne ~'nnn+v N!'

Common Name
Scientific Name Federal
Status*
American alli ator Alli ator mississi iensis T S/A
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus T
Red-cockaded
wood ecker
Picoides borealis
E
Shortnose stur eon Aci enser brevirostrum E
Waccamaw silverside Menidia extensa T
Wood stork M cteria Americana E
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum Goole i E
Rou h-leaved loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia E
-- --•.....s.,.....> •,.,..a..,,,~ , ~, ~. - L,~«u uuo w su~u~aniy m appearance io anomer ustea species
Historical and Archaeological Resources
The likelihood of archeological resources being present within the project area is minimal. The
area is at least seasonally inundated due to its proximity to the Cape Fear River, which would
have prevented settlement within the immediate area. No structures exist within the project area.

Ms. Kimberly Garvey Page 5 of 5
July 19, 2007
Stormwater Management
Minimal impervious surfaces would be created by the project. The trenches would be covered
with geotextile liner, and therefore 0.008 acres of impervious area would be added to the 1527
acre property. Stormwater runoff from the trenches would sheet flow into the adjacent wetlands.
No concentrated discharge would be created. Therefore, no change in stormwater quantity or
quality is anticipated. Water quality would be improved through the implementation of the
recovery trenches and pumping.
Conclusions
Based on the preceding information and the proposed site plans, there will be only minimal
impact to jurisdictional resources as a result of this project. All conditions of the Nationwide
Permit 38, and its corresponding General Certification 3637, have been met during the design
phase of the project. The construction will be monitored to ensure compliance with the
conditions of the permit as it is issued.
The preceding information, along with the enclosed PCN and associated materials, is submitted
for your review for this project. Based on verbal communication with Cyndi Karoly of the
NCDWQ 401 Unit, NCDWQ does not require submittal of a PCN for this activity since it was
deemed not to comprise "proposed fill or substantial modification" of wetlands. A courtesy copy
of this application is being sent to the 401 Unit and the NCDWQ Regional Office to allow
opportunity to review this decision with the full project information available.
We appreciate your time in reviewing the documentation of this project. If possible, expediting
this permit review would allow the project to be completed faster in the current drought
conditions and reduce the temporary impacts associated with the project. Please contact me at
your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
~ /~
Philip M
Senior Environmental Scientist
Cc:
Ed Beck, NCDWQ W~ mmgton Regional Office
Ed Kreul, International Paper -Riegelwood Mill
Greg Mills, P.E. -Richardson, Smith, Gardner and Associates, Inc.

Seep Collection Trenches
International Paper -Riegelwood Plant
Nationwide Permit 38 Pre-Construction Notification
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment
1 PCN Form
2 Figures
3 Site Photographs
4 Regulatory Correspondence
5 Wetland Data Forms
6 Engineering Drawings
Figures & Drawings (Attachment 2)
1 Vicinity Map
2 Soils Mapping
3 Site Overview

ATTACHMENT 1
Pre-Construction Notification Form

Office Use Only: Porm Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~ 7 ~ 2 6 $
(lf any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
~,~s ~J ~ ~~ ~ ~ i
~~~~
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Petmit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 38
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information " " -~ ' '=' ' " ~'~ ~
1. Owner/Applicant Information ~',JL ~ ~;; ZUOI
Name: International Paper -Riegelwood Mill
Mailing Address: 865 John Riegel Road. Riegelwood NC 28456 n~s~c~ ~~ v~~ar=h u~f~u7~
Telephone Number: 910-612-2504 Fax Number. `~"~'~ p''`~ s4t0?'~l~.a.;ER s~.cN
E-mail Address: Edward.Kreull(cr~,i~a ep r.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Phil Mav
Company Affiliation: Carolina Ecosystems. Inc.
Mailing Address: 8208 Brian Court. Garner NC 27529
Telephone Number: 919-606-1065 Fax Number: 919-341-4474
E-mail Address: phil.mav~rc,carolinaeco.com
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
Page 1 of 9

and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Seep Collection Trenches, IP - Rie,~elwood Mill
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): n/a
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 90962
4. Location
County: Columbus Nearest Town: Rie elwood
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): n/a
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Wilmington, o west
on US 74/76 to the intersection with NC 87 in Delco. Turn right on NC 87 for 2 miles until
Riegelwood. Turn right at the stop light on John Riegel Road. Check in at the guard house.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.3457°N -78.2047°W
6. Property size (acres): 1527
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Livingston Creek
8. River Basin: Cane Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:/Ih2o.enr.state.nc.us,iadmin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Paper mill, industrial landfill, and wastewater ponds adjacent
to cvpress swamp associated with the Cape Fear River and Livingston Creek.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Installation
of two small (70 and 40 ft) trenches approximately 3 feet wide. Trenches will be excavated
using backhoe or excavator to a depth between 3 and 10 feet to tie into the Pee Dee clax
formation. An impermeable geotextile membrane (60 mild will be keyed into the Pee Dee
and an underdrain pipe placed on the bottom of the trench. The trench will be backfilled with
gravel and the membrane wrapped over the top. A sump Hump will be installed to remove
Page 2 of 9

the liquid from the trenches and transport it to the adjacent wastewater ponds Over
excavation will be required in order to construct the trench The temporary excavation area
up to 15 feet on either side of the trenches will be backfilled with the site soils and
revegetated with a natural seed mix.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The trenches are designed to contain the two
existins seen areas and collect the contaminated waters leaking from the South Ba~while
not draining_the adjacent wetlands.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. A iurisdictional delineation was performed in the areas of trench
installation. This information has been included in Attachment 5
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future plans are anticipated for this project
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Impacts involve excavation of the
wetland soils in the trench locations and adjacent area as required to construct each trench
The amount of excavation depends on the depth of the Pee Dee formation which is
anticipated to occur within 3 to 10 feet of the surface The impacted areas do not contain
Page 3 of 9

living trees, as the seeps have killed the woody vegetation. Therefore impacts are proposed
as herbaceous wetlands.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact

Site Number

(indicate on map)

Type of Impact Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,

herbaceous, bog, etc.)
Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet
Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 Excavation Herbaceous Yes 330 0.005
1 Temporary excavation Herbaceous Yes 330 0.048
2 Excavation Herbaceous Yes 600 0.003
2 Temporary excavation Herbaceous Yes 600 0.027

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.083
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: a~rox. 274 ac
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply leneth X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0 0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred in , floodin , draina e, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Watcrbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of

Impact
acres

Page 4 of 9

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Im act acres : 0
Wetland Im act acres : 0.083
O en Water Im act acres : 0
Total Im act to Waters of the U. S. acres 0.083
Total Stream Im act (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
n/a
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): n/a
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): n/a
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: n/a
Size of watershed draining to pond: n/a Expected pond surface area: n/a
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during constriction to reduce impacts. Impacts could not be avoided
due to the proximity of the wetlands to the South Bay dike The trenches must be installed a safe
distance from the dike so as not to affect the stability of the structure Therefore they must be
located entirely within the wetland boundary Geologic investigations and pum tp estin have
been performed to determine the maximum length of trench required to contain the two seeps
and minimize impacts to the wetlands Alternative solutions were evaluated including recovery
wells. but their ability to capture the release and the potential secondary effect of draining the
adiacent wetlands, made this option impractical
Page 5 of 9

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2u.enr.state.nc usincwetlands/stun ~ide.titml.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The limited acreage of impact is not anticipated to require formal compensatory miti ation
The remediation of the seep areas will improve water quality and the health of vegetation in
the adjacent areas.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at htt~__~.h'u_~nr_5kate +1c_u~ ~~r~rin~iex,htiTi. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Page 6 of 9

Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify ~? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone ,~~„~~ f e+~ Multiplier
1 I 1 3 (2 for Catawba) I
2 is
L Total I 0 I I 0 I
* 7_one 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Page 7 of 9

Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. n/a
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Minimial acrea a of impervious area will be
added as a result of the project. The 0.008 acres of trench will be covered by a geomembrane
and be impervious, which is insignificant compare to the 978 acre site The stormwater falling
on the trenches will runoffin sheet flow into the adjacent wetlands
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
The wastewater seeps collected in the trenches will be pumped back into the South Bav to
continue throush the treatment process prior to discharge into the Cape Fear River in accordance
with IP-Riegelwood Mill's NPDES Permit No NC0003298 The flow rate will represent a
ne~lisable fraction of the total wastewater flow and have no impact on effluent quality
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http_/,%h2o enr.state.nc usinc~~etlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: The
installation of collection trenches adjacent to wastewater ponds is not likely t0 promote growth in
the area. No additional jobs will be created by this project
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 8 of 9

The amount of temporary impact, along with the amount of time equipment will be in the
wetlands, can be reduced from the maximum listed above if the project could be constn.icted in
the current droueht. An expedited review would be greatl~ppreciated and would help to serve
the intent of the Clean Water Act and rotect water uali
Applic~ntl~gen ' Signature / Date
(Agent's sigr~at~-i~ alid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9