TJs Marina Modified Project Scoping Meeting Feedback_022323

CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
TJ'S MARINA MODIFIED PROJECT—DWR SCOPING MEETING NOTES AND
FEEDBACK
Introduction
Thank you for meeting with DWR on January 10, 2023, at Washington Regional Office to discuss
the above referenced project. Our understanding from that meeting is that the proposed project
has been modified and DWR appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback on the modified
project and hopes that it will be helpful to you in any future updated submittals and permit
applications.
I. BUFFER TOPICS
A. Buffers -Generally
1. Present and ongoing use exemption:
a. Existing uses that are present and ongoing (as of Jan. 1, 2000) are exempt
from the Tar Pam buffer rules. Please note that the analysis is based on the
"footprint of the existing and ongoing use" —not impervious surface per se.
Please also note that, a present and ongoing use in one portion of a parcel does
not make the entire parcel exempt from the buffer rules. Also, "activities
necessary to maintain existing and ongoing uses are allowed provided that the
site remains similarly vegetated, no built upon area is added within the
riparian buffer where it did not exist prior to January 1, 2000, and [it meets
the stormwater requirements contained in the buffer rule]."
b. Even assuming that there are some areas where there is a present and ongoing
use, it sounds like the current proposal is to excavate those areas —not
"maintain" them.
2. Table of uses
a. For any updated project submissions or applications please explain how the
excavation of upland buffer areas falls within the table of uses 15A NCAC 02B
.0734 (11). Please also explain how the projects meets the criteria set forth in
15A NCAC 02B .0611 regarding authorization certificates.
3. Site plan feedback
a. The attachment contains DWR feedback on information depicted in the most
recent site plan. Please note that DWR may have additional comments if the
project changes or when additional information is received. Please consider
this feedback when submitting any updated project proposals or
applications. See the comments on the attached plan, however, they are
summarized below:
i. There are areas where the water depths are not shown.
ii. Normal Water Level is not shown.

iii. The 30' and 75' Areas of Environmental Concern are not shown along
shoreline of Sargent Canal.
iv. Plan shows proposed 6' slatted sidedocks and areas with 8' sidedocks.
v. Need more detail of the proposed bulkhead alone Sergeant Canal.
vi. The proposed fuel tanks do not list any construction detail including
if secondary containment will be installed.
b. If resubmitting the project, the existing (pre -impact) buffer lines (Zone 1 and
2) need to be shown on the plan along with the specific square footage. In
addition, the proposed impacts must be shown and quantified as well along
with any proposed buffer reestablishment. Please do not use the impervious
surface in these calculations but these can be shown on the plan as a separate
item.
B. Buffers —Tract A
1. Avoidance and minimization
a. For purposes of avoidance and minimization, please consider reducing or
eliminating the buffer excavation proposed along the northern shoreline of
Tract A along Battalina Creek for any updated project submissions or
applications. Such a reduction would reduce impacts to the existing buffer itself
and the related dredging in PNA. Such a reduction would seem to provide more
room to reestablish a buffer and more room for upland development.
2. Side dock
a. For purposes of avoidance and minimization, DWR would have concerns
regarding a sidedock wider than 6' for any updated project submissions or
applications.
b. For the slatted side dock, please provide specifics for the materials used
underneath the side dock for any updated project submissions or applications.
3. Reestablishment of a 50 ft. buffer
a. As discussed, reestablishment of the 50' buffer would be an important
component of minimizing impacts.
4. Perpendicular pedestrian access to side dock
a. As discussed, DWR suggests that you provide —and quantify and depict on the
site plan —perpendicular pedestrian access to the side dock for any updated
project submissions or applications. Please consider the number of accessways
and their width for purposes of avoidance and minimization.
C. Buffers along Sargent Canal
1. As discussed, this surface water is not depicted in the relevant maps and is not
subject to the buffer rules.

H. 401 TOPICS
A. Tract B and C - Wetlands on east side of property
1. The current site plan appears to show a proposed bulkhead and walkway around
Sargent Canal (in the vicinity of "Extension of East Street") that may impact an area
depicted as "wetlands." For any updated project submissions or applications, please
clarify:
a. Have wetlands been delineated on Tract B and Tract C and confirmed by the
USACE?
b. Are there any proposed wetland impacts in these locations? If so, please include
these in any subsequent applications and include at a minimum, details on how
these wetlands will remain connected to surface waters.
c. What is the existing elevation of the high ground?
d. What is the proposed height of the bulkhead and associated backfill in this
location?
B. Dredge spoil material sediment sampling
1. DWR has reviewed your dredge spoil/sediment sampling plan and would likely not
have any further comments for any updated project submissions or applications.
C. Primary Nursery Area
1. Portions of the dredging footprint are within waters designated as PNA by DMF.
DWR understands that the current concept is to eliminate dredging that was
proposed to the west of the terminus of Sargent Canal. For any updated project
submissions or applications, please consider a further reduction along the north
facing portion of Tract A along Battalina Creek. DWR's understanding is that this
area is not subject to the settlement agreement.
B. Dissolved Oxygen standard and flushing
1. DWR's classifications and standards program reviewed the modified proposal and
offers the following feedback for any updated project submissions or applications.
To promote flushing, please consider:
a. tapering the dredging from shallow to deeper waters as already discussed.
b. Consider reducing the over 90' turn at Boat Harbor Canal.
III. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY:
A. Buffer Authorization Application:
1. Application status: active application in house but review on hold pending
clarification of the proposed project.
2. Timeline: application received by DWR 7/21/22; DWR add info 11/29/22; no
complete add info response; scoping meeting for modified project 1/10/23.

B. 401 Certification Application:
1. Application status: denied.
2. Timeline: application received by DWR 7/21/22; DWR add info 9/15/22, no
complete add info response, application denied 11/17/22; scoping meeting for
modified project 1/10/23.
C. Potential DWR permitting next steps:
1. 401: DWR would need a new 401 application for any updated project. Presumably,
that application would come to DWR via a modification of the applicant's DCM
application.
2. Buffer Authorization: At minimum, DWR would need an updated buffer
authorization application to reflect any updated project.