Skip to content

Don't bother filling it: Report

Study says dumping on Steveston waterfront will cause too much trouble

Richmond City Council will ponder what to do with a near two-acre site on Steveston's waterfront this week.

Known as "Lot H," the water-covered wedge in front of the Imperial Landing boardwalk has long since been considered as a future city-run waterfront facility or green space.

But a study, carried out by a marine engineering firm, states that infilling the site with 5,000 truckloads of construction waste would cause too much disruption to the area.

And even the estimated $300,000 revenue from the dumping fees would be dwarfed by the $8.1 million needed to build a "cofferdam" wall around the site stop the infill from slipping into the river.

Weighing up the pros and cons of engineering an open space that the city can use in some way, senior city staff are advising council not to entertain the prospect of a pay-as-you-dump infill site as it would have too much of an impact on the neighbourhood.

The report, due to be considered by city council on Tuesday afternoon, says that around 40,000 cubic metres (400 million litres) of fill material (gravel, soil and concrete) would be needed to fill the site.

The main advantage of the infill option was that the city would gain a 1.9-acre waterfront open space.

However, the disadvantages stacked up high against it, including major disruption and closures to the boardwalk system for months on end without any certainty that the dyke system could handle construction trucks rolling in and out of the tight area every day.

Infilling the site with dredged materials from the Steveston Channel was also considered in the report, but it was estimated to take many years to achieve because the site can only be accessed by smaller barges. Also, infill materials from dredging, such as silt and sands, wouldn't provide a suitable base to build on.

Even if city council decided to go ahead with one of the infilling options, an in-depth environmental study would need to be carried out, as up to 35 per cent of the site is "red-coded," according to the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, meaning the area is critical to fish and wildlife.

[email protected]