Citizens working to protect & enhance Langley's largest watershed

You will receive a total of four questions from SRES for written responses prior to the November 14 meeting.  These responses will be posted on the website and paper copies will be available for the meeting.  If you get your responses to us by Sunday evening the 13^th we should be able to have the copies ready for the meeting. 

( posting date  11/05/2006 )

Questions --------One     Two    Three    Four 

Question 1  )  Please explain your understanding of the consequences for groundwater levels (water tables) and for downstream flooding when residential development consumes an area (i.e. tree removal, roads, roofs and other hard surfaces).  Please outline mitigation measures for these problems.  Would you make such mitigation measures a requirement for future developments in Langley ?

Here is one more resource for the first question.  WWW.waterbalance.ca      http://model.waterbalance.ca/sql/tutorial/LearnWhy.html    http://model.waterbalance.ca/sql/tutorial/Demonstration.html

A site put together to promote new ideas in storm water management.   The two pages give general information and an example.   

Like the previous sites this points out that replacing treed areas with hard surfaces causes rains to run off quickly. Langley old timers tell us that streams used to take 2 or 3 days to peak after heavy rains but this now happens in minutes or hours.   

Detention ponds don’t work in the sense that they only decrease peak flows to previous peak flow levels but the peak flows last much longer and this continued flushing down the stream causes damage.  

Increased flooding occurs downstream and the water table suffers as the water that would have soaked into the ground goes down the stream instead.  These problems are aggravated by all the toxic substances that flow off streets and by pesticides etc. that homeowners use which wash out in the rain.  For this reason Matt Foy of Fort Langley (DFO scientist) has said that, “Having a storm drain emptying into a stream is like pointing a loaded gun at the stream.”

The fascinating thing about this topic is that the “new” ideas in a lot of ways are suggesting that we return to variations of the “old” ways prior to engineered drainage.

   Question 2  Floodplain issues     Are you in favour of the Township buying land in the Fort Langley floodplain to protect the Salmon River or are you in favour of dredging the Salmon River to dry out land that has traditionally been subject to flooding? Would you revisit the decision slipped through in the middle of last summer (but not yet presented to DFO) to dredge Yorkson Creek and its floodplain?

Resources http://www.anjec.org/pdfs/wetlandscover&chapters.pdf   this document outlines the importance of wetlands and other details of wetland preservation

http://www.obiecorp.com/perspectives/09-07-05-new_orleans.htm    talks about the subsidence of the land around New Orleans due to drainage projects.  Although New Orleans will be rebuilt they present arguments that we should not be interfering with floodplains

Background

a)  The Salmon River/Fort Langley floodplain has traditionally flooded when heavy rains come down the river.  In fact, prior to the dykes being erected after the 1948 floods the entire floodplain would have been under water for several weeks every spring when the Fraser River peaks during spring freshet.  The floodplain has, therefore, been a good area for growing hay but not a good area for higher value crops. 

Farmers have lobbied for the floodplain to be dried out so they can plant these higher value crops.  They claim that flooding has increased due to development although there is no proof of this as the Salmon River watershed has escaped urban development.

i) Opportunity         SRES has advocated that the Township buy up the land that floods as the environmental, heritage and recreational values of this area are extremely high.  Purchase of the land would still allow the Township to lease the land back to the farmers to grow their traditional crops while retaining land along the Salmon River for nature walks and establishment of a proper riparian area along the stream. 

This sort of project would fit very well with the idea of eco and heritage tourism in Fort Langley .  Walking paths in the floodplain would complement the Fort to Fort trail and eventually the Trans Canada Trail as it will pass through Fort Langley .  There are also agribusiness opportunities that would arise from the traffic that would pass along these paths.  Since the recreational and environmental values of this area are so high there would likely be interest and funding from land conservation and other groups that might be used to help complete the purchase. 

ii) The risky alternatives    The alternatives to this sort of solution are and have been very risky.  An attempt was made to decrease flooding in 1994 when pumping was increased at the mouth of the river (heavy flows coming down the river after rains have to be pumped up into the Fraser in the spring when the Fraser is high and the floodbox at the mouth of the Salmon River is closed to keep the Fraser out of the floodplain).  This did not satisfy the needs of the farmers and acrimony resulted. 

It is questionable whether the floodplain can ever be dried out enough for high value crops as the water table in a floodplain is too close to the surface.  Also the type of dyking, dredging and/or bypass channels that would be needed to try to dry the floodplain out would be very expensive and has a big downside.  One of the lessons from New Orleans is that when you interfere with normal sediment and water flows in a floodplain you end up causing the floodplain to subside and become more subject to flooding.  This is the reason that parts of New Orleans are well below sea level.  They didn’t start out that low but without the steady flows of sediment refurbishing the floodplain and without the floods that “fluff up” the land the floodplain compacts and settles.  This compacting and settling is that much worse if the land is tilled so these areas are best left for the growth of hay.

A final worry with attempts to dry up and grow higher value crops in the floodplain is that the Fort Langley floodplain is the recharge area for the Fort Langley water supply (aquifer).  More intensive agriculture with increased use of fertilizers and pesticides might compromise the water supply. 

Suggestions (see Yorkson below) that we can “just do a little bit of dredging” or have a small bypass channel may be compared to suggesting that one just be a “little bit pregnant”.  The history of floodplains in North America and the history of the Salmon River/Fort Langley floodplain is that a little bit of something (like the increased pumping in 1994) just leads to more problems and demands for more interference with the river with increasing long term consequences.  . 

b)  Yorkson floodplain

The trend in North America is to recognize that floodplains are difficult and risky to dry up and that the more economic and sensible course of action is to purchase the land.  Langley has gone against this trend with the proposal slipped through in the middle of this summer to dredge the Yorkson River .  While the proposal would see part of the land that floods purchased dredging is proposed to keep other parts drier. 

There is a problem in Yorkson due to development in Willoughby as the new development only uses some of the mitigation techniques outlined in Question 1.  There will be an increase in flooding in Yorkson over the next few years.  Nevertheless, the problems that will be caused if the normal sediment flows in the river are interfered with (see above) suggest that it makes much more sense to leave the river alone.  DFO has already expressed the opinion that dredging etc. will have serious negative effects on the floodplain ecosystem.  This letter will be sent to you in a separate E-mail. 

The environmental community asked the Township to set aside time to review the environmental side of the Yorkson issue before it was voted on but council voted the engineering department proposal through and opted not to hear those views. 

Question 3  Pressures on the Salmon River Watershed    What would you do to reduce development pressures on the Salmon River Watershed and to deal with water issues in the watershed (the falling water table and water contamination in the Salmon River Uplands)?  Would you be in favour of preserving the moratorium on development in the Salmon River Uplands and prevent any measures that might lead to development like piping water into the watershed?  What would you do to reduce withdrawals of water from the aquifer to restore the water table?  What would you do to deal with manure contamination and other water quality issues? 

Would you preserve the rural areas of the Salmon River watershed by opposing applications for removal of land from the ALR (for instance around Aldergrove and in the area between Trinity Western University and 216^th Street )? 

Background

Despite its small size the Salmon River remains one of the premier coho streams in B.C.  In fact coho preferentially seek out small streams with good quality water and good habitat as unlike other species they stay in the river for a year before migrating out to the ocean.   Coho runs in the river have been about 5,000 adult spawning each fall while juveniles migrating out to the ocean number 100,000.  The river has not been supplemented with hatchery stocks so has been designated a “key stream” and an “index” river by DFO.  The ups and downs in the coho runs have been followed over the years by DFO and the Salmon is one of the most studied rivers in B.C.

The Salmon River , however, was named one of B.C.’s 10 most endangered streams each of the last 2 years.  This status recognized that the river is quite healthy now but is threatened by development pressures in the Upland and Willoughby areas, pressures on the floodplain by farmers and the golf course and by dropping water tables and worries about water quality. 

The Salmon River Uplands has been under a development moratorium for over 10 years.  The moratorium was initiated in response to nitrate levels above public health limits in some drinking water wells.  Nitrate contamination was felt to be 2/3 from manure contamination and 1/3 from septic tanks.  Regular testing by SRES has documented that quality issues remain in the river and its tributaries.  There have been proposals (including one this spring) to remove the moratorium but so far it remains in place. 

There have been suggestions that bringing water into the area would help the water table and water quality issues.  Unfortunately, piping in water invariably leads to development and studies show (Dr. Schreier and others) that residential development creates increased problems with water quality.  This happens due to the large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides used by homeowners (much higher per acre than farming) and due to the toxic substances that are left behind by cars (heavy metals, oils etc.) which find their way into the water supply when rains flush them off the roads and driveways into storm drains.  As you know from Question 1 storm drains empty into the river despite some people still thinking that they go to Annacis Island .  These additional contaminants brought by development are much worse for the ecology than the present issues.  In fact, so far there are no real examples of streams that have escaped significant degradation after residential development.

The problems with water tables falling were long suspected but were documented definitely in the last 6 years.  Despite this knowledge and the prior knowledge of water quality issues the Township has relied on education and studies to attack this issue.  There is very little evidence that this approach is working.  Although the Township has sent a letter to the provincial government the province has yet to come forward with a Groundwater Act that would effectively regulate the excessive withdrawals of water from wells in the aquifer (B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have effective ground water legislation).  Nor has there been anything effective done about the manure issue. 

One of the major reasons that the Salmon River Watershed remains healthy compared to others is the lack of residential development in the area.  There have been proposals, however, to remove for development land in the ALR around Aldergrove (part of which is in the Salmon River Watershed) and more recent preliminary talks aimed at removing a substantial amount of land between 216^th Street and Trinity Western University .  Both of these proposals would jeopardize the ecology of the river for the water quality reasons listed above.  In addition, development would lead to the problems outlined in Question 1 with storm water management and all the negatives that brings for the watershed.  Finally, development would cause increased flooding in the Fort Langley floodplain (Question 2) and exacerbate the problems the Township is already having with the landowners in that area.    

  Question 4    Tree retention    What would you do to retain more trees (especially mature native evergreens) in Langley ? 

i)                    In development areas.  Would you look at altering the way bonus density works to allow planners to negotiate to save treed areas?  Would you look at altering development guidelines to help preserve and replant more mature evergreens?

ii)                   Would you be in favour of an effective tree bylaw for all of Langley ?  How would you design such a bylaw>

Trees are an important part of the ecology of any watershed.  I have appended a copy of a handout on the importance of trees that we give out when we do public events and tree plantings for SRES. 

Mature evergreens are (along with the salmon) an icon for the Pacific Northwest .  There is plenty of research documenting the economic, social, heritage and environmental benefits of trees.  For a review of this:  http://slf-web.state.wy.us/forestry/econ.htm  In addition to the benefits listed, the integrated Stormwater Management document cited in Question 1 documents that runoff from conifer forest areas is minimal so retention of large evergreens can be one aspect of stormwater management.  Trees are important habitat for song birds and other animals.  .    

In Europe, North Vancouver and other areas they have found ways to preserve and build around large evergreens even in residential areas.  In some areas, even before a tree bylaw was enacted planners were able to save large evergreens by negotiating with developers.  Bonus density provisions the way they stand in Langley do not optimize this process and might be revisited.  In addition, some of our development guidelines mitigate against preserving or replanting evergreens.  For instance the Township does not allow large evergreens in the front of lots or along boulevards.  This is apparently for “safety” reasons although many older parts of Langley have large evergreens in front yards with no apparent problem.   In addition, some cities have boulevard evergreens.

I have also attached information on tree bylaws in the Lower Mainland. 

Appendix 1

                                                                                           The Cedar

The cedar has been called the “Tree of Life”.  Cedars thrive in the moist areas beside rivers and streams.  The dense foliage of the cedar shades the stream and keeps the water cool.  Leaf and wood particles falling from the cedar provide food for the insects which in turn are food for fish and other wildlife of the stream and its banks.  The root system of the cedar helps stabilize banks from erosion.

Some cedars will eventually fall into the stream as the stream changes its path with time.  The wood lying in the stream performs a valuable function as the rushing waters after heavy rains cascade over the wood and scour out a deep pool on the downstream side.  These pools are favoured as resting areas by the larger fish both because the deep water is cooler and because the depth and the wood cover protect them from the birds and other predators awaiting their opportunity to feed.   Wood may also float up against banks and become jammed thus helping to stabilize the bank.  If you see wood in a stream, leave it there.

Even cedars which are planted far from a stream are valuable.  The watersheds or catchment areas surrounding local streams were once covered with evergreen forests of cedars, fir and spruce.  The dense foliage and soft forest floor would act as a sponge to soak up heavy rains and prevent the rapid runoff that we see with cleared areas.  The large volumes of water that rush down the streams from these cleared areas cause heavy bank erosion.  Dry seasons are tolerated better in a watershed covered by evergreens as the water is able to gradually seep out of the forest to maintain an adequate water flow during the summer. 

Trees and other vegetation are also nature’s air conditioner as they create more oxygen, clean and cool the air.  Properly planted trees can lower the peak temperature of a house significantly during the summer.  Remember that the summer sun is felt even on the north side of a house. 

This small cedar, whether planted beside a stream or elsewhere in the watershed will grow over the decades into an important part of the ecosystem.