Editor:
Re: Coast Reporter landfill report, February 5, 2024, “Area B potential landfill siting options scored lower.”
At the SCRD committee of the whole meeting on Jan. 25, the board was presented with three possible solid waste site contenders by Sperling Hansen Associates. A westward expansion of the existing landfill site and two options in Area B (Halfmoon Bay). Despite scoring lower, compared to the westward expansion option, it was even suggested that these two sites (TT2 and TT4) in Area B were still worth “further investigation.” The conclusions that Sperling Hansen have outlined in their report do not include some key geographical and geological parameters and clearly demonstrates that desktop studies are no substitute for actual site visits.
At site TT2, Sperling Hansen did not mention that, without detailed geological mapping, including shallow coring, or trenching to bedrock, the site is a potential karst area with limestone and marble caves/sink holes that have been identified on published and unpublished maps in the Phare Lake (formerly Wormy Lake) area and nearby Mineral Hill. The site is also on-trend with a mapped and published geological fault, the Snake Creek Fault, that passes beside and beneath Crowston Lake and beneath the Seawatch Development in Sechelt. While this fault is not currently active, there well may be an associated rubble zone that could be problematic for sinkhole development and landfill leachate seepage into groundwater. This site should be taken out of contention as a future possible landfill site.
At Site TT4, Sperling Hansen referred to Halfmoon Creek being 120m distant, but they did not identify a year-round tributary to Halfmoon Creek that runs through the middle of the proposed landfill site. This site should therefore be disqualified as a potential landfill site and should not even be considered, as was the case in the Jan. 25 presentation.
Lower scores? Not a winning recipe!
Peter Hews,
Halfmoon Bay
