Domtar agrees to pay 1.9 million dollars for Roanoke River damage

The Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree on September 16, 2026 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, requiring Domtar Paper Company, LLC to pay $1,905,000 for natural resource damages at the Plymouth Mill Superfund Site. The lodging is announced in the Federal Register of Friday, September 25, 2026 (Vol. 91, No. 185, p. 60982), under official reference FR Doc. 2026-19665. The publication opens a public comment period on the settlement and on the accompanying restoration plan.

The case is captioned United States of America and the State of North Carolina v. Domtar Paper Company, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00172, with D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-07838/4. It was initiated by a complaint filed by the United States and the State of North Carolina, acting as the legally designated trustees for natural resources in the state. The complaint alleged that the defendant was liable for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources resulting from the release of hazardous substances at and from the site near the Town of Plymouth, North Carolina, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.

How the settlement money is divided

The consent decree resolves the trustees’ claims against the defendant for a total payment of $1,905,000, allocated as follows:

• $1,750,000 into the United States’ Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving Fund, managed by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to fund future projects restoring injured natural resources near the site.
• $155,000 to the U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Damages Assessment and Restoration Fund, to cover the trustees’ administrative costs to plan, oversee and monitor restoration.

In return for the payments and restoration work, the United States and the State will confer on the defendant covenants not to sue for natural resource damages known as of the date of lodging of the consent decree.

Restoration commitments on the Roanoke

Beyond the cash payment, the defendant has committed to physical restoration measures benefiting the Roanoke River and its fish populations:

• Recording a conservation agreement on property adjoining the Roanoke River to preserve bottomland forest, benefiting water quality and fish nursery habitat.
• Reduced cooling water intake withdrawals at the mill.
• Lighting improvements at the Plymouth facility.
• Improvements for the Town of Plymouth Waterfront Park.

Draft restoration plan and public comment

In accordance with CERCLA and the National Environmental Policy Act, the trustees have written a Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment describing alternatives for restoring the injured resources. The alternatives evaluated are: (1) No Action/Natural Recovery; (2) Additional Modifications to the Domtar Plymouth Mill Cooling Water Intake System and Seasonal Outages; (3) Lighting Modifications at the Plymouth Facility; (4) Waterfront Park Improvements; (5) Warren Neck Conservation; (6) Floodplain Reconnection, Wetland Protection, and Fish Passage Improvements; and (7) Mush Island Perpetual Conservation Easement.

Comments on the proposed consent decree must be submitted no later than thirty days after the publication date, addressed to the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Energy and Natural Resources Division, by email at pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or by mail to U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Comments on the draft restoration plan go to the trustees at Howard.Schnabolk@noaa.gov or to NOAA, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, SC 29405. The notice is signed by Scott D. Bauer, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Energy and Natural Resources Division.

The settlement is a direct local-interest outcome for eastern North Carolina: it converts a hazardous-substance injury claim into funded restoration of the lower Roanoke River, with the money earmarked for fish habitat, water quality and public waterfront access rather than general revenue. Because the decree is only proposed, the thirty-day comment window is the public’s remaining opportunity to shape the terms before the court acts.

Source: Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 185, 25 September 2026, Notices, p. 60982 (official reference: FR Doc. 2026-19665).