Salmon habitat at risk from industrial development
West Creek is one of the 14 most sensitive watercourses in BC Why is DFO Pacific Region NOT enforcing Fisheries Act
fish includes
- (a) parts of fish,
- (b) shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals, and
- (c) the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals; (poissons)
fish habitat means water frequentepd by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas; (habi
Proof of Life Coho Salmon Sucessfully Spawning in West Creek Headwaters
West Creek headwaters begin south of 401 Trans Canada at 275 Street Langley BC
VIDEO of Beaver creating habitat for many species – specifically WILD COHO SALMON
West Creek Wetlands
West Creek at Risk From Industrial Development
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Documents from Township of Langley files
Regulation http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete//36_2016
Government of BC Working Around Water https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-licensing-rights/working-around-water
Application from envirowest to BC MELP to “eliminate” watercourses June 8, 1999 “Compensation” will be “the Poppy Golf Course”
Page 16
DFO PERMIT 99-HPAC-PA2-000-000217 MELP File A2004880
DFO INSPECTION REPORTS
Page 104 #17 **** shall ensure that the COMPENSATORY habitat is functioning as intended for the lifetime of the Gloucester Industrial Estates
Letter from DFO re the importance of wild coho habitat in West Creek headwaters wetland and tributaries and a letter of apology from Beedie re killing coho in the West Creek headwaters wetland:
This wheel of survival is a stark reminder of the 1 in 1,000 chance Pacific salmon smolts have to live to maturity. ALL levels of government must protect their spawning, nursery and ocean habitat.
West Creek is one of 14 Sensitive Streams in B.C.
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/36_2016#ScheduleB
Requirements of applicant re Sensitive Streams
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/36_2016#section17
Sensitive streams designated
Applications respecting sensitive streams
(a) a fish inventory of the stream;
(b) a flow or runoff analysis of the stream, including additional flow measurements for correlation of data;
(c) seasonal distribution of water demand from the stream, including for irrigation purposes;
(d) if there is a tributary or aquifer designated with the sensitive stream,
(i) the contribution to the sensitive stream of water from the tributary or aquifer, and
(ii) the seasonal distribution of water demand from the tributary or aquifer;
(e) an assessment of the fish habitat at the point of diversion, or proposed point of diversion, on the stream and in the area of the stream affected or that will be affected;
(f) the design of proposed works, including diversion structure and balancing and storage reservoirs;
(g) if appropriate, any specific water conservation measures that the applicant will use to minimize the amount of water used;
(h) whether material is to be removed from the stream or stream channel in connection with the works;
(i) proposed measures for the protection of natural materials and vegetation that contribute to the fish habitat of the stream and the stability of the stream channel;
(j) whether substances, sediment, debris or other material is to be deposited in the stream or stream channel in connection with the works;
(k) a proposal for restoration of the worksite after the works have been completed.
Envirowest QEP Ian Whyte P. Ag letter to Township of Langley staff re eliminating West Creek at 48th and 275
In 2018 Forest Lands and Natural Resources ORDERED Township of Langley and Ian Whyte to obtain a permit for future work in or about West Creek
Historic demands that Township of Langley and Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resources ENFORCE laws protecting salmon habitat:
.
Cavanaugh letter re Ev Logistics riparian area infractions
Township of Langley Council meeting Jan. 30, 2023 @ 1 hr 28 mins
“Covenant”?
ARE TOWNSHIP OF LANGELY COUNCIL and STAFF EXERCISING THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY OR ARE THEY IN BREACH OF TRUST?
March 13, 2023
Regular Meeting for Public Hearing and Development Permits Agenda – 2 –
A. ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF AGENDA ITEMS
1. Regular Meeting for Public Hearing and Development Permits –
March 13, 2023
That Council adopt the agenda and receive the agenda items of the
Regular Meeting for Public Hearing and Development Permits held
March 13, 2023.
B. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
C. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Streamside Protection and Enhancement
Clarification Amendments
Bylaw No. 5854
PUBLIC HEARING VIDEO
Beedie Development Group are planning to build industrial buildings on the Covenant lands that are supposed to remain greenspace according to DFO Permit 99-HPAC-PA2-000-000217 and the BC Water Act Permit MELP File A2004880
TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY FOI GOLF COURSE LANDS AT GLOUCESTER LANGLEY BC OCT. 2022 Pages 1 to 208
Page 147
VDATE: October 7, 2020 TO: Matt Brigden, Township of Langley FROM: Geoff Smart, EBB Environmental RE: BEAVER ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
For the breaching or removal of beaver dams, the ICOP allows for the removal of a beaver dam where the impoundment of water may cause imminent threat of damage to nearby infrastructure, or is obstructing fish passage. DFO’s ICOP outlines measures and best practices that must be implemented for the protection of fish and fish habitat and require that notification of works4 be submitted to the regional office no less than 10 days before the initiation of works. For B.C., notifications can be submitted via email to the Triage and Planning Unit, ReferralsPacific@dfo-mpo.gc.ca . ***
Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development The management of beaver dams and the maintenance of culverts are regulated under both the Wildlife Act and the Water Sustainability Act. Section 9 of the Wildlife Act prohibits any actions that disturb, molests, or destroys a beaver lodge or dam unless the activity is undertaken by a licensed trapper, undertaken to provide irrigation or drainage under lawful authority for the protection of property, or authorized by permit (Wildlife Act, Section 9 (2)). The removal of a beaver dam under the Water Sustainability Act is regulated under Section 39 (1)(u) of the Water Sustainability Regulation and requires a Change Notification to be submitted 45-days before undertaking the dam removal. For routine maintenance of a beaver dam, communications with the province indicate that a formal Change Notification under the Water Sustainability Act is
TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY PAGE 6 OF 11 GLOUCHESTER STORMWATER DETENTION POND BEAVER ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 2020 Timing Generally, all instream works are to be completed during the appropriate timing windows to minimize the impacts on fish and beavers. Within the south coast region, the approved timing window for fish is between July 15 and September 15; for beaver dam removal, the timing window is between April 15 and September 15.
With respect to the above timing windows, it is noted that recent fish inventories by Dillon Consulting Ltd. (2012) and Envirowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. (2018) have not document the occurrence of salmonids (i.e., coho salmon) within the stormwater detention pond
Source ECCC British Columbia
TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY FOI GOLF COURSE LANDS AT GLOUCESTER LANGLEY BC OCT. 2022 Pages 209 to 256
Envirowest QEP Ian Whyte has been before BC Supreme Court in 2013
[17] Mr. Whyte provided an opinion on the restoration plan put forward by the Conservancy. Part of the difficulty with Mr. Whyte’s opinion is that he maintains that the Defendants did not harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy the fish habitat at Windebank Creek, a conclusion that is contrary to the findings of this court. Much of his opinion is a repetition of the evidence that he gave at trial which was rejected. One area of his evidence which was not discussed at trial concerns the notion of restoration. As he points out in his report, the term “restoration” suggests a return to some previous condition. It is his position that the site restoration plan proposed by his company which formed the basis of the payment of $32,200 to the Conservancy was one which met the approval of the District of Mission. Specifically, it provided for the planting of vegetation which would control erosion and protect Windebank Creek’s water quality. The trees proposed in that plan were selected so as to control the growth of Himalayan blackberries and other invasive plant growth. Mr. Whyte is also of the opinion that a three year maintenance period is required because that is what comports with the District of Mission’s requirements.
[18] In his report, Dr. Pearson was critical of the Envirowest plan for a number of reasons. Dr. Pearson is of the opinion that the Envirowest plan will not control the growth of the harmful blackberry species. He is also of the opinion that the plant density proposed by the Envirowest plan is too low, that the species of trees it proposes be planted is not diverse enough to promote proper insect and fish food sources or to resist invasive plant species, and that the maintenance period of three years is too short to allow native plants to establish. [19] Where the evidence of Dr. Pearson is in conflict with the evidence of Mr. Whyte, the evidence of the former should be preferred. Much of Mr. Whyte’s recommendations are concerned with meeting the approval of the District of Mission for commercial development, as opposed to any concern over the long term viability of the fish habitat at Windebank Creek. Conversely, each of Dr. Pearson’s recommendations is based on environmental concerns that directly relate to the health of the fish habitat which was found to be harmfully altered by the Defendants. Mr. Whyte’s position that no harmful alteration of the fish habitat has occurred adversely colours his opinions on what proper site restoration should look like and accordingly, I find the opinion of Dr. Pearson to be the more objective of the two.
(c) The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants interfered with the fish habitat in a way that had impaired the value or the usefulness of the habitat for one or more of the purposes described in the definition of fish habitat in s. 34(1) of the Fisheries Act. Harm was created by the “cutting down of a number of trees, the removal of shade from the creek and the currying of adjacent vegetation” thereby altering the fish habitat to a “degree that was more than trivial or minimal.”
(d) The potential and likely results of the appellants’ works included alterations in the natural stream temperature regime, reduced large woody debris and its food and nutrient contributions, and decreased soil and bank stability, all of which majorly impact fish and fish habitat.
(e) The harm to Windebank Creek was “not insignificant” and “will take years to remedy.”
(f) Of the two experts who testified at the sentencing hearing on the extent of restoration and on which would constitute an appropriate restoration plan, the judge preferred the opinion of Dr. Pearson called by the Crown to that of Mr. Ian Whyte called by the appellants, having found the former more objective.
(g) The appellants’ conduct showed a high degree of recklessness.
TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY FOI 23-026 Pages 257 to 295
https://data-tol.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/TOL::development-activity-status-table/explore
First and Second Reading May 29, 2023 5 on the May 29 2023 130 pm Agenda F5
Video at 45:50 minutes
1 5500 Block of 268 Street through 276 Street
DP101055
The Applicant proposes to amend the Gloucester Industrial Park Community Plan to redesignate a portion of the property from Golf Course to Service & General Industrial and Park/Buffer/Conservation. The applicant further proposes to rezone a section of the property from Rural Golf Course Zone (RU-10) and Rural Zone (RU-1) to General Industrial Zone (M-2A). Streamside Development Permit and subdivision applications have also been submitted
2 27500 Block of 60th Avenue
DP101259 RECEIVED
The applicant proposes to rezone property from Rural Zone RU-1 to General Industrial Zone M-2A for the development of a 7,543 m2 industrial building. Form and Character and Streamside Development Permit applications have also been submitted
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Council give first and second reading to Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw 1979 No.
1842 Amendment (Streamside Protection and Enhancement Clarification) Bylaw No. 5854;
That Council consider that Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw 1979 No. 1842 Amendment
(Streamside Protection and Enhancement Clarification) Bylaw No. 5854 is consistent with the
Township’s Five-Year Financial Plan as updated annually and with Metro Vancouver’s
Integrated Liquid Waste Resource Management Plan and Integrated Solid Waste Resource
Management Plan, Housing Needs Report and with the consultation requirement of Official
Community Plan Consultation Policy (07-160); and
That Council authorize staff to schedule the required public hearing for Bylaw No. 5854.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report brings forward clarifying amendments to the Township’s Official Community Plan
Schedule 3 Development Permit Areas: Streamside Protection and Enhancement.
PURPOSE:
This report provides information and recommendations to amend the Township’s Official
Community Plan Schedule 3 Development Permit Areas: Streamside Protection and
Enhancement.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Richardson
DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
for
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Excerpts:
WEST CREEK AND NATHAN CREEK ARE IMPACTED BY THIS BY-LAW ARE TWO OF 14 SENSITIVE WATERCOURSES IN BC per THE WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT and are FISH HABITAT per FISHERIES ACT
https://west-creek-awareness.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/a-2017-01193-dq-final-1.pdf pAGE 229 April 18 2008 letter from envirowest to DFO cc to TOL
It appears that you are trying to circumvent the requirements of these designations:
Purpose of Act
2.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide a framework for
- (a) the proper management and control of fisheries; and
- (b) the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.
fish includes
- (a) parts of fish,
- (b) shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals, and
- (c) the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals; (poissons)
fish habitat means water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas; (habitat)
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/36_2016#ScheduleB
Requirements of applicant re Sensitive Streams
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/36_2016#section17
This destructive work has not stopped since the letter was sent to Township of Langley Mayor and Council, EV Logistics DFO Pacific Region Manager and Jim Pattison Group
Naming those who are causing risks: https://canada-info.ca/en/local-environmental-activists-update-regarding-one-of-her-projects/
October 28, 2022 update @18:30 https://www.civl.ca/podcast/?source=59267&mp3=radio.bloodmob.com/podcasts/civl/2022/10/28/15.mp3
Education 