14 NATCHEZ ON THE WATERFRONT


Where did all the water go from this marina at Hoover Reservoir in Ohio?


programs in place and has been spending millions of dollars testing and reviewing in-water relocation options It has found them not only to be environmentally safe, but often environmentally beneficial and usually economically beneficial. These programs have included filling deep ‘pot holes’ and capping them where required with clean material, creating marsh and other waterfront restoration and habitat programs, and/or creating sustainable containment and barrier islands. Such programs are often associated with such terms as ‘sustainability’ and ‘rehabilitation’. Upland relocation becomes


more challenging. While it can make sense to use materials on site, including raising their waterfront elevations to prevent or minimise flooding in storms, many government organisations are not allowing it. Moving the material inland as cover for landfills or other areas has a good ring to it. However, it typically requires large open land areas for dewatering of the materials, which do not exist in most developed areas (other than possibly usurping parks – never a


popular option), and the dewatering process can range from months to years before it can be trucked to its final destination. Yes, there have been many entities working on ways of accelerating the drying process or finding various ‘beneficial’ use treatments, such as making concrete blocks, etc, but these all typically come with extremely high costs and with their own associated and often not so well-studied environmental concerns. The bottom line, no pun


intended, is that there is no one right or even best answer, but what is clear is that: a) The waterfront facilities are not the cause of the problem, but are trying to be part of the solution and continue to be hammered by others for being proponents of dredging; b) Most governments are in the negative regulatory mindset of saying what cannot or should not be done, or what won’t be permitted. Few are in the mode of seeking meaningful solutions. In the US, one state that for some time has been taking a proactive position on dredging is New Jersey, which


MARINA ASIA-PACIFIC • NOVEMBER 2016


has taken foul waterfront areas – long written off by others – and turned them into viable, thriving environmental habitats with salt water marshes, encouraging a resurgence of fish and bird species. c) Not removing the sediments from our relatively shallow estuaries, harbours and inlets means that the materials are where most people swim, fish and enjoy other recreational activities, and where there is often the highest concentrations of marine life. It is here that those sediments are continually stirred up every time there is a rain or coastal storm! d) The pro-responsible dredging side has been losing the public relations game. Yes, it is often hard to explain to the public, but even relatively small things like talking about dredge material ‘relocation’ instead of ‘disposal’ or ‘relocation sites’ instead of ‘disposal sites’ can make a big difference. There is no question that


some materials have some nasty contaminants from prior years of abuse. There is also no question that in most cases those sediments


and most of the contaminant load originate from government, agriculture and/or industrial sources elsewhere in the watershed. The concern over the materials should not be swept under the rug, but the reality is that most of the materials are not toxic and governments have a responsibility to take proactive approaches for dealing with them as opposed to being just the negative regulator. Our waterfronts are an integral


part of our quality of life, as well as our economic health. They, and we, deserve a much more proactive approach to ensure our enjoyment of these precious natural resources.


*Dan Natchez is President of Daniel S. Natchez and Associates Inc, a leading international environmental waterfront design consulting company specialising in the design of marinas and marina resorts throughout the world. Your comments and enquiries are invited on Tel: +1 914 698 5678, by Fax: +1 914 698 7321, by E-mail: dan.n@ dsnainc.com or on his Website: http://www.dsnainc.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24