Loading...
08/23/2016 ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2016 Reports 2016 Water and Wastewater Budget a) Memo from Todd Harrison and copy of Water/Wastewater Budget presentation. Planning PBD-2016-39 - Official Plan Amendment No. 117, Thundering Waters Secondary Plan. Applicant: GR (CAN) Investments Ltd. a) Various correspondence including comments from the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry, Communications Niagara Arts Showcase - Request for Noise relief for event September 22nd , 2016. RECOMMENDATION: For the consideration of Council FINANCE DEPARTMENT Inter-Departmental Memo To: Mayor Diodati and Members of Council From: Todd Harrison, Director of Finance Date: August 23, 2016 Re: 2016 Water and Wastewater Budget Accompanying this meeting, attached is 2016 Water and Wastewater budget for your review. As you may recall, 2016 water rates will remain unchanged from 2015 for the remainder of the year. In January 2017, the Utilities Budget will be presented to Council using the new water rates structure of (60/40) which was approved by council. Best regards, Todd A Great City ... For Generations To Come (0 i a = � N CY) (i) � N CO C„.": ...m =a Cl) CO LL C = CZ � o a Sim 4pa III MIMI (113 CU CU , 0) mim. (Ts a) C Z Cl)" y O asL Om>1 ft...„,„,..mimeL U a) L uM (DX 4- L. \\ ' 2 1/4\4\ m +O O I- E ti a) Cl) >CD = N co+a 2 -0 2 o c •. i c C v -o cd cua) — 0 — C Cr) g = > E 2. a) al 1 CD c m> t) 3 5 a " ..... I 40111011110 :€3 E Ln 'O MCD M O (13 >, W V) iv 13 CD N ._L. ._ > - `= (/7 C ♦"r _ := CB C Cti 0 i � W O i 04-11 V 0 a)L. -0 as C i 0 cg's O .Ou) = .c iffile )1 & CDC Zil = O 2 v 1 alik Lm 74Z 610 42 0 Omia W ♦"' '' CO O m Ce .g. C� 0 .O cA I— 2 . . . . O L a) O ,,,,c,\,,,,''.:\*,,,\1 "4:1"'r' r . O .L M L •` - Ln O a) .- a 3 D .0. L O a ' Cl) aS W co o.,c co a L L. C.) LAs '1'i 05 a) 0 >1 o :- 0 V 2 a c ) 22- co O — 2 .E. c '.6 OL a) a)C ■. CD 15 SI= vilma a) i AI • (,)— �x •= i V Et vima 0 46 ca " .3 co a) ° 2 x ti to Io O2• .O O .O 2 Ep .L L � 8 1 1/44,K\7:. � M �� s O — C) — = O ,_ O till C •MEM • v c� O sim CCs O ' 4' 4) '_ E L. — � � a) c)4—• = w > O • MD CNS O O O ti w M 0 ili 0) s.- C = IS 4111 FM CD CD CD i 'V = 0 o v 2 IA +as " Cm °I) ,� tp v sID a) .F.+ Q - .•N-+ a) lilj '- E . 0 0. a cz ._ C u) 0 cu -2 cl) •_ C13 6-1 > — ix 161.O w — E — • :6 .,C2 .- 0 0 ,�„• 0. v 00 . = � Rss L. 0 0) 0 ND = .-to c,„ a, -I—. EEC 2420 v -c32 • • • CCOO 0 C) N CCO C' N- to n h h CS: � o o � � Q � � p t d' 41 U CO to r Ef? r $041 ta+w 40 ...., NON0 tdN "Cr 1".... t0 © 0 N- CO 0 N. n n Ili n n n w CO 0 d" CO d' M CO N r N- N CO Q U.Sr 46 r.: CO r N "r" rf' d' r C7 mimi (A N tf3 N O U, U, COCr L Cl) a) 0 cit 0 CO L N CD CD v ,v Cl) CD C) U 0 C RS Q to CD V U a = '. CU v ® CD y a 0 Q N o > 0) Ti ca X CD ,r 6. CD cn a to .? D) 'r* O c I\ - tt ".... 15'n O1tV Cl)� L.. 0 „,,,iN, 2 a) 0) O. v Cl) a ti .- L 1-. c ro O - oiitt c u . Tu. C .O L 00 E : °'? ..c O a) L O� 0 — i. RS Cn — vlesa = .-E- -C; 0 al 2 _ S ca 75 en ''' = 2 E ti- 0 > 7 433 m d' _c c M = 0 = to 0 1 Lc) 2i —6 0) 2, -0 >, lisi -0 c/� ca = 0 cl) V-) L) a) " c c En a) to . a- 2 2 .E — >+ . _ co rz% > 0 ictl,_ 0 1:47‘ 44 .4° 0 Ii). ra (71 a a 0 � ti � L. C ,WI a 0 4., U p V 0- > 0 (1) �- - 00 — M o w v -a v, 0. E _ c� N ca .> cl) ti " 0) O .. .� r' — O 0 Tr 0 .0 SIN. 2 7; a tiF2 a °-P " a) Z a c E a) x a) . 0 2 ....u. 4.3 as 7— w = 4- E .— O 0- w to cz w CY_ oZ c� a ._ — S. O cl0 Eto CD 0 0 0 CO (0 0 c0 0 '1" CO +, 4. n nco ^ n CD CD ID cy) n w 1\\\s‘ 1/4\"\\\ Lei � '14) N M N1"... N N I`., \,,,s\s‘ „,„„ CZ M 'a r M 1`w d 4::rM 0N. N a) d, N r N r ti N tt N 441. N 0, t 100 ..r ei eq el 0 ILO CO 0 CO b' M 0CD 'Cr O in 'd' (0 'd• O 0 r O O O IR n n n n n n w T"" n n '�+ CO 'd" M O NCO N T- IN a) t CO d' 1".- d' "CrM a) N Cid I• • CsiQCNI d' d' N rM- N b4 N� � Nt-o M ca to a) L a) . . „) .I CD 0 CD CD ce C13 en Er a) Cl) CU re C a) 0 :}:I C ,N N V .�a Ca � .ice = w ._ Cl) N .—N i 0 w C13a) -0 j U a co 72 m a w 0 0 0 E E c' ..--c->N 2 N -tv 0 C 0. 2 © as d C) CC a) >< N . i i CD of c .� V W = a) ,a) W 2 ce 49 .s3S2 O .r..+ .11-+ > to t13 -C X 2 W W Q U Z E-- CL > I— I— 0 U E-- -° c,:' a), 4 t zi %-. -- ,s,\\ 4,,,, a) A a) a') \\ - V ....`. c � OMS O .- ,is, .0 00 a) = ._ w CD .cr t) C Lm C w V' C- — -.- 'cm 2 In, — c3 a) E W ..-8 a) 7-; a) ->" .c Nii cy) — 0 E 15 L- En mi 0-) as *a 0 -7,.. to = = 4-• 0 >i 7/1 -0 as 0 u) ♦..r Oa) — - I 0 a) = o c c2- O Cl) mime +md m0 4-icEcDE E 0 ■ a O E s .a) T — . - .� .i a) on CL to i CU i -� O a _ a) 4.• to .0 71 (/) -E. ._ w -0 = .....*" ci) a) (,) 'V mrl, B. c (1') >% — cl) ‘a. 0 7 ._ iz to .c< c, 6 EZas u . . . . can t Cts ,,,,.,,,,,,\,.,4.\\1/4\:\1/44 1*' 77:1'''' '*'m 4:3) N N O Z97, c!1 � t •T y. N CD C cs) r' co U) ift.t. 0 Ealo (NIcN1 CD O 1) O N oc a$ CNI ON (i) E a) .... _ ,... co a) ,,.... I:e -11.• a) a) CZ EE c) i( ] . it.) ._ aa2 mima I a) m v E i 0 O. o c1$ CCS > Ce Et1.- w a, co 1-- 0 Lo.4` 0dam' d.. ■ ■ ,Hs•s\,,,,, '''''\\ tiC) te N N ;iti- tt0 74 MC$ CD cv) et) 4Do '41' 'Ie. C .— .� co N N ;.- V CI RS (N 0 O V _ a) w L CU CU cl. Ce Ce a) Er.) CDV .� 0 LL . CU tt) � cu R to 4 '� S: E us E E° a) cm a) O 0 O j icn C) G) , aO c L2 •5 m = O -' cp •— .�' > Cl) O • -all -o O O La) C.) 0) co 0 .u) 2 > c ca 0 a) = a) co wtal V � L Q' L as 11 � `",) O V) ' O. .10 L 3 „ , (a 0 . ” . 4. 2 " • - L O IF. L 6- 2 ca C.) > - 2 v 0 2 0., o co a) " o_ 0 IS m u (i) C •o •- — N C L ;*:r O awE .cc. Cti L J L - O 4) > 4- > i Cl) Cl) •c CO O a L .- _a. •- I C ca Q CD L CD 4.. > m CD 2 'E -1:3 RI CD (a �+ Cl)� a 2 fj w C) V _ _ V) - - C a) a m Ri cn O ,L 0. O M G) C 0 c ca L r N M 4 Lri cfl o 2 C C N 15 .. IMO= E O c N--� z c O v cu O c V a) '3 .2 0W CC c ._ = ti W Cl) ca O %— L C.) 61 0 cNi •_ 4a 0:1) co ._ .- •• O O no 2 .' c V a) ap a) ti; L C 2 Q E 0 mO 00- 6 ca O ._ Cl) E O > II 7-10 o L > N L 0+61 ce _ O = co (,) cr) 4 - '- _ cu tml m Ce o N W • • . . CITY OF NIAGA FALLS GL5280 Page: Date: Aug 22,2016 Time: 9:29 am Budget Re By Function From Category: '_moi 0 To Category: 823020 V 1 Account Code: 15-3-7?????-???To: 15-4-??????-?????? 2016 2015 Account Code Account Description FINAL BUDGET FINAL BUDGET -BUDGET -BUDGET VALUES VALUES 15--> CITY WATER FUND 123010--> AUDITING SRVS 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-123010-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES 5,000 5,000 Total EXPENSE 5,000 5,000 AUDITING SRVS Surplus/Deficit 5,000 5,000 132015--> INSURANCE CLAIM SRVS 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-132015-030000 MATERIALS-INSURANCE CLAIP 50,000 50,000 Total EXPENSE 50,000 50,000 INSURANCE CLAIM SRVS Surplus/Deficit 50,000 50,000 133005--> REVENUES AND RECV 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-133005-010000 LABOUR-REVENUES AND REC 264,044 264,044 15-3-133005-010013 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ALLOCA1 71,292 71,292 15-3-133005-010016 OVERTIME-REVENUES AND RE 15,000 15,000 15-3-133005-030000 MATERIALS-REVENUES AND F 175,339 175,339 15-3-133005-030035 OFFICE SUPPLIES-REVENUES 20,000 20,000 15-3-133005-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES 243,512 243,512 Total EXPENSE 789,187 789,187 REVENUES AND RECV Surplus/Deficit 789,187 789,187 142015--> WSIB HEALTH SAFETY SICK SRVS 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-142015-030000 MATERIALS 30,000 30,000 Total EXPENSE 30,000 30,000 WSIB HEALTH SAFETY SICK SRVS Surplus/Deficit 30,000 30,000 431000--> SYSTEM MAINT WATERWORKS 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-431000-010000 LABOUR 1,732,227 1,678,553 15-3-431000-010013 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ALLOCA1 468,394 457,762 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS GL5280 Page : 2 Date: Aug 22,2016 Time: 9:29 am Budget Report By Function From Category: 100000 To Category: 823020 Account Code: 15-3--)77?7?-???To: 15-4-77?9,7-7???77 2016 2015 Account Code Account Description FINAL BUDGET FINAL BUDGET -BUDGET -BUDGET VALUES VALUES 15-3-431000-010016 OVERTIME-SYSTEM MAINT WE 90,000 90,000 15-3-431000-030000 MATERIALS 407,500 346,350 15-3-431000-030005 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN' 22,000 22,000 15-3-431000-030007 ELECTRICITY 37,000 37,000 15-3-431000-030009 WATER 4,000 3,000 15-3-431000-030015 ADVERTISING/NEWS RELEASE 13,500 15,000 15-3-431000-030017 INSURANCE PREMIUMS-SYST 128,994 127,088 15-3-431000-030035 OFFICE SUPPLIES-SYSTEM Mi 750 750 15-3-431000-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES 733,000 627,500 15-3-431000-050000 RENTS AND FINANCIAL EXPEN; 125,000 125,000 15-3-431000-080001 TO CAPITAL 4,100,000 4,100,000 15-3-431000-090000 INTERNAL RENT 224,396 252,865 Total EXPENSE 8,086,761 7,882,868 4--> REVENUE 15-4-431000-710000 USER FEES -5,000 -5,000 15-4-431000-710014 WATER CONSUMPTION FEES- -11,289,675 -10,907,483 15-4-431000-710015 WATER SERVICE FEES-SYSTE -8,845,042 -8,546,679 15-4-431000-710016 WATER FLAT RATE FEES-SYS- -60,000 -60,000 15-4-431000-710017 WATER STAND PIPE FEES-SY; -100,000 -100,000 15-4-431000-710018 WATER TRANSFER AND SHUT C -50,000 -50,000 15-4-431000-740000 PENALTIES ON WATER -100,000 -100,000 15-4-431000-770000 SALES -105,000 -105,000 15-4-431000-790000 OTHER REVENUE -60,000 -60,000 Total REVENUE -20,614,717 -19,934,162 SYSTEM MAINT WATERWORKS Surplus/Deficit -12,527,956 -12,051,294 432000--> REGIONAL CHRGS WATERWORKS 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-432000-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES 8,481,901 8,089,544 15-3-432000-040004 FIXED REGIONAL CHARGES-R 2,807,774 2,817,939 Total EXPENSE 11,289,675 10,907,483 REGIONAL CHRGS WATERWORKS Surplus/Deficit 11,289,675 10,907,483 433000--> WATER SYSTEMS RESEARCH&DEVMT 3--> EXPENSE 15-3-433000-010000 LABOUR-WATER SYSTEMS RE 156,550 156,386 15-3-433000-010013 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ALLOCAI 47,238 47,238 15-3-433000-010016 OVERTIME-WATER SYSTEMS I 1,000 1,000 15-3-433000-030000 MATERIALS-WATER SYSTEMS 21,000 40,000 15-3-433000-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES-WAT 138,306 25,000 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS GL5280 Page: 3 Date: Aug 22, 2016 Time: 9:29 am Budget Report By Function From Category: 100000 To Category: 823020 Account Code: 15-3-???77?-???To: 15-4-0709?9-77'?"" 2016 2015 Account Code Account Description FINAL BUDGET FINAL BUDGET -BUDGET -BUDGET VALUES VALUES Total EXPENSE 364,094 269,624 WATER SYSTEMS RESEARCH&DEVMT Surplus/Deficit 364,094 269,624 Total CITY WATER FUND 0 0 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS GL5280 Page: 1 Date: Aug 22,2016 Time: 9:29 am Budget Report By Function WksT W ATC4- From Category: 100000 To Category: 823020 Account Code: 16-3-77797?-9??To: 16-4-7???97-?????? 2016 2015 Account Code Account Description FINAL BUDGET FINAL BUDGET -BUDGET -BUDGET VALUES VALUES 16--> CITY SANITARY SEWER FUND 132015--> INSURANCE CLAIM SRVS 3--> EXPENSE 16-3-132015-030000 MATERIALS-INSURANCE CLAP 65,120 65,120 Total EXPENSE 65,120 65,120 INSURANCE CLAIM SRVS Surplus/Deficit 65,120 65,120 142015--> WSIB HEALTH SAFETY SICK SRVS 3--> EXPENSE 16-3-142015-030000 MATERIALS 10,411 10,411 Total EXPENSE 10,411 10,411 WSIB HEALTH SAFETY SICK SRVS Surplus/Deficit 10,411 10,411 411000--> SYSTEM MAINT SANITARY SEWER 3--> EXPENSE 16-3-411000-010000 LABOUR 611,085 589,636 16-3-411000-010013 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ALLOCA1 155,100 155,100 16-3-411000-010016 OVERTIME-SYSTEM MAINT SA 25,000 42,000 16-3-411000-020000 LONG TERM INTEREST 390,326 415,628 16-3-411000-030000 MATERIALS 141,200 141,200 16-3-411000-030005 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN- 2,500 2,500 16-3-411000-030017 INSURANCE PREMIUMS-SYST 125,933 124,071 16-3-411000-030035 OFFICE SUPPLIES-SYSTEM Mi 250 250 16-3-411000-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES 906,273 897,000 16-3-411000-050000 RENTS AND FINANCIAL EXPEN: 200,000 200,000 16-3-411000-070000 LONG TERM DEBT PRINCIPAL 598,678 598,678 16-3-411000-080001 TO CAPITAL-SYSTEM MAINT S, 4,730,000 4,730,000 16-3-411000-090000 INTERNAL RENT 208,358 200,290 Total EXPENSE 8,094,703 8,096,353 4--> REVENUE 16-4-411000-710000 USER FEES -13,322,136 -13,322,136 16-4-411000-710010 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES-S -7,916,054 -7,916,054 16-4-411000-710011 SEWER FLAT RATE CHARGES- -100,000 -100,000 16-4-411000-710012 SEWER LATERAL CLEANING-S -25,000 -25,000 16-4-411000-740000 PENALTIES ON SEWER -100,000 -100,000 16-4-411000-780009 TRSF FROM DEVELOPMENT Cl- -989,004 -1,014,306 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS GL5280 Page: 2 Date: Aug 22,2016 Time: 9:29 am Budget Report By Function From Category: 100000 To Category: 823020 Account Code: 16-3-,rm?-???To: 16-4-7m9?-9????? 2016 2015 Account Code Account Description FINAL BUDGET FINAL BUDGET -BUDGET -BUDGET VALUES VALUES Total REVENUE -22,452,194 -22,477,496 SYSTEM MAINT SANITARY SEWER Surplus/Deficit -14,357,491 -14,381,143 412000--> REGIONAL CHRGS SANITARY SEWER 3--> EXPENSE 16-3-412000-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES 13,322,136 13,322,136 Total EXPENSE 13,322,136 13,322,136 REGIONAL CHRGS SANITARY SEWER Surplus/Deficit 13,322,136 13,322,136 413000--> SANITARY SYSTEMS RESEARCH&DEVMT 3--> EXPENSE 16-3-413000-010000 LABOUR-SANITARY SYSTEMS 156,550 156,386 16-3-413000-010013 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ALLOCA1 50,524 50,524 16-3-413000-010016 OVERTIME-SANITARY SYSTEN 1,000 1,000 16-3-413000-030000 MATERIALS-SANITARY SYSTEI 41,750 14,100 16-3-413000-040000 CONTRACTED SERVICES-SAN 710,000 740,000 16-3-413000-090000 INTERNAL RENT-SANITARY SY 0 21,466 Total EXPENSE 959,824 983,476 SANITARY SYSTEMS RESEARCH&DEVMT Surplus/Deficit 959,824 983,476 Total CITY SANITARY SEWER FUND 0 0 Gann n iCA7J ngd Ministry of Natural Ministere des Richesses -,r//7 Resources and Forestry naturelles et des Forks Guelph District Telephone:(519)826-4955 • 1".— Ontaric 1 Stone Road West Facsimile:(519)826-4929 Guelph,Ontario N 1 G 4Y2 August 19, 2016 Marilyn Radman, RPP, MCIP Associate Director, Development Planning and Urban Design Planning and Development Services Niagara Region 1818 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Re: Thundering Waters Secondary Plan—Characterization and Environmental Impact Study,June 2016—City of Niagara Falls, Niagara Region— MNRF Comments Dear Ms. Radman, The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry(MNRF) Guelph District Office has reviewed the Thundering Waters Secondary Plan Characterization and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Report (dated June 2016). We understand that the EIS was completed in accordance with Niagara Region's (the 'Region') Official Plan policies related to the Environmental Protection and Environmental Conservation designations on the subject lands. To provide context for MNRF's review, we have also reviewed materials available on the Region's website regarding the proposed Thundering Waters Secondary Plan. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Species At Risk and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species at Risk (SAR) Bats • We note that SAR bat species were considered by the project team as part of the EIS. SAR bats, including Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis and Tri-coloured Bat are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). These species receive individual and general habitat protection under the Act. As noted in MNRF Guelph District's Bat and Bat Habitat Surveys of Treed Habitats (updated May 2016), mapping of Ecological Land Classification (ELC) communities is the first step to determine the presence/absence of candidate maternity roost habitat for SAR bats. If a suitable ELC community is identified, it is recommended that the ecosite is treated as confirmed SAR bat habitat and to move forward to the next step if impacts to the 1iPage AUG 1 9 2016 p __ r community cannot be avoided. The following step is to map snags and conduct acoustic surveys. The purpose of mapping snags is to determine the number and location of monitoring stations appropriate for the size and quality of the habitat. The EIS identified both deciduous forest and deciduous swamp communities on site, which are suitable ELC communities for candidate maternity roost habitat for SAR bats. However, the EIS reported that no acoustic monitoring was undertaken to confirm presence/absence of SAR bats. MNRF staff recommend that the project team follow the steps outlined in the MNRF Guelph District's Bat and Bat Habitat Surveys of Treed Habitats (updated May 2016), which includes acoustic monitoring suitable habitats to confirm presence/absence of SAR bats. This will be important to understand the potential implications of the ESA (e.g. Overall Benefit Permit). We note that the EIS recommends undertaking acoustic monitoring and we concur with this recommendation. • MNRF staff note that Tri-colored Bat has been uplisted to Endangered under the ESA as of June 15, 2016. We recommend that the project team update their species lists to ensure any modifications made to species protected under the ESA are reflected in the reporting. Barn Swallow • Barn Swallow is listed as Threatened under the ESA and receives both individual and general habitat protection. Since no Barn Swallow nesting areas were identified on site, we agree that the nesting habitat may be restricted to drains and culverts in the area. We also agree that the project team should undertake surveys to document these locations in order to identify any foraging habitat that may be impacted by development. This will help to inform any potential implications of the ESA. Acadian Flycatcher • Acadian Flycatcher is listed as Endangered under the ESA, and receives both individual and general habitat protection. Acadian Flycatcher has been documented in the EIS as using the site. Since the ESA indicates that habitat includes any area on which a species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes—including life processes such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding—then habitat for this species appears to be present. We recommend that any impact of the development on Acadian Flycatcher and/or its habitat be considered in the EIS in the context of the ESA. Chimney Swift • Chimney Swift is listed as Threatened under the ESA, and receives both individual and general habitat protection. We agree that the potential for Chimney Swift habitat on site is low, although the species is known to use natural nest sites such as hollow trees. We recommend that the project team make a note in the EIS that there is potential for Chimney Swift to use natural sites as habitat. 2lPage Species at Risk Impacts and Mitigation • Wesection note that in Table 11,the Species at Risk sect on states the following under the mitigate/rehabilitate column: "Where servicing and transportation impacts are unavoidable, steps should be taken to rehabilitate impacted features." We recommend that this statement also make reference to ESA requirements, where applicable. Natural Heritage Features and Areas Provincially Significant Wetlands • The EIS identifies that the proposed development will result in the removal of approximately 1.3 ha, or 2%of the Niagara Falls Slough Forest Wetland Complex Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) on the subject property. This statement appears to contradict Table 13 in the EIS which notes that "All areas that have been identified as Provincially Significant Wetland EPA have been protected." We recommend that the Region seek clarification on the proponent's intention to remove or protect the Niagara Falls Slough Forest Wetland Complex PSW. • We note that PSWs are protected by provincial policy as wetlands are an important component of Ontario's landscapes and watersheds that provide a variety of economic, social and ecological benefits. Policy 2.1.4 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides direction that there shall be no development or site alteration within PSWs in southern Ontario. Based on the review of the EIS, it appears that there is development proposed in the PSW. • We recommend that the Region reviews the EIS for consistency with PPS policy regarding PSWs. • We note that the EIS has identified a number of other wetland areas that have not been evaluated and are contiguous with the existing PSW. We question why the EIS does not make the recommendation to have these wetland areas evaluated, or why the consultant did not undertake an evaluation as part of the EIS, to determine whether they should be included within the existing PSW. We recommend that a revaluation of the Niagara Falls Slough Forest Wetland Complex PSW be undertaken according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, and that all wetlands within the subject area be considered. • Mapping provided in the EIS does not appear to include the Welland River East Wetland Complex PSW just outside, but adjacent to, the southern boundary of the study area. We recommend that the project team identify this PSW and include a discussion in the EIS to address the issue of adjacent lands noted below. 31 Page Significant Woodlands • Given the significance of some of the characteristics of the woodland areas and their proximity to the swamp wetlands, it's unclear why the EIS does not attempt to make a determination of the significance of the woodlands on the subject property. The 2014 PPS states that woodlands are identified using criteria established by the MNRF. These criteria are found in the ministry's Natural Heritage Reference Manual, however the EIS does not reference this document or compare the values of the wooded areas to criteria that are comparable to those in the manual. The wooded areas on the property are contiguous with the swamp wetlands and together create a large wooded area on the landscape that provides forest interior habitat and connectivity with neighbouring wooded areas. The EIS identifies old growth/ mature forest within some of these wooded areas, as well as habitat for Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood- Pewee, both species of Special Concern in Ontario which prefer intermediate to mature forests. We recommend that the Region ensure that the appropriate criteria for determining significance of the woodlands have been applied to the study area. Significant Wildlife Habitat • We note that a number of the natural areas identified on the subject lands have the strong potential to be identified as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH). MNRF's Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG), and the supporting SWH Criteria Schedule for Ecoregion 7E, provide technical recommendations to help planning approval authorities evaluate and identify SWH. This includes Special Concern and Provincially Rare (S1S3, SH) plant and animal species. • Although the EIS documents a number of significant values that would be relevant to the determination of SWH, it does not take the step of making this assessment and recommendation. Examples of habitat that should be more comprehensively addressed in this context include (but not necessarily limited to): o Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) o Amphibian Movement Corridors o Animal Movement Corridors o Bat Maternity Colonies o Habitat for Provincially Rare Species and/or Species of Special Concern o Deer Winter Congregation Areas • Planning authorities are responsible for identifying SWH, or approving the work of others using municipal criteria or provincial guidance, to ensure consistency with the 2014 PPS. We recommend that the Region ensure that the appropriate criteria for determining SWH have been applied to the study area. 4lPage Adjacent Lands • The EIS does not specifically identify adjacent lands to provincially significant natural heritage features but does identify several potential impacts of development on lands adjacent to the PSW. We suggest that some of the impacts identified in the EIS, including edge effects such as loss of habitat, noise, light and chemical pollution, reduction of forest interior habitat, introduction of non-native species, and human intrusions, could similarly apply to other areas on the subject property that may be identified as provincially significant. • The PPS does not permit development on adjacent lands to significant natural heritage features unless it satisfies the policy test that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Impacts and Mitigation • The EIS documents several features and values on the subject lands that suggest the presence of provincially significant natural heritage features in addition to the existing provincially significant wetland. It also documents a relatively high degree of biodiversity and recognizes the linkages between and among the features on the subject land and with those on the broader landscape. The City of Niagara Falls recognizes in its Official Plan that the natural areas on the subject property serve as a major junction within a potential Natural Heritage Corridor. • S. 2.1.2 of the PPS (2014) states: "The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features". • The EIS acknowledges, and shows graphically on Map 3, that many of the areas having significant ecological features and values will be permanently removed by the proposed development. It also documents negative impacts that will result, and others that may potentially result, to the remaining PSW areas as a result of the development. It also discusses, and documents graphically in Map 4, a significant reduction in the size and functionality of natural connections between features on the subject lands and with those on neighbouring lands. • Although the EIS outlines a number of possible mitigation measures, such as enhancements to degraded areas, it states that the fundamental principle guiding its environmental management of the negative impacts is 'No Net Loss' and 'consolidating' key areas. In response to several of the identified potential negative impacts, the EIS recommends the development of a compensation plan to be submitted with the plans of subdivision. 51 Page • We note that policy direction set out in the PPS and supporting documentation does not support consideration of compensation strategies to address the policy test of no negative impacts to features and functions of provincially significant natural heritage features and areas. • We recommend that the discussion supporting the removal of these features in the report be reviewed for consistency with the PPS. The MNRF appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Thundering Waters Secondary Plan EIS. Based on our review, it appears that the EIS, in its current form, would not be able to fully inform the development of a land use plan and future development at this time. We would be happy to provide further clarification if needed and participate in meetings as appropriate. Regards, i ' LL � f (7('—c=L� c'lL Ian Thornton Resource Operations Supervisor cc: Joad Durst, MNRF Tara McKenna, MNRF Michelle Karam, MNRF Darryl Lyons, MMA 61Page 'tanning ;capned C. Susan E. Price 4732 Cookman Crescent Niagara Falls, On L2E 1C2 August 22, 2016 Niagara Falls City Council RE: Thundering Waters /Paradise Project I've watched the ever-changing plans for this project and seen the ever more invasive extent of encroachment on the wetlands by people, buildings, roads, rail, paths, trails etc and because of this encroachment I cannot envision the survival of these wetlands. Because of housing projects everywhere you look, trees are being decimated at an alarming rate, as is the intention here. I believe saying yes to this project would be a death sentence for the wetlands, its creatures, plants and forest. I hope we in Niagara can see the error of doing this and save the treasures God gave us. i� Susan E. Price y5 I AUG L 2 2,6 Clerk Dean lorfida: Please circulate and attach to August 23, 2016 Council Minutes Niagara Falls City Council August, 22, 2016 4310 Queen St., P.O. Box 1023, Niagara Falls, Ont. L2E 6X5 Members: Re:Thundering Waters Secondary Plan Public Meeting Comments Hydrogeological: I was advised that NO Hydrogeological Study is being done. Omission of this is a concern also expressed by expert Scientist, Mr. B. Warner on pages 267-268 of the Council Agenda. Such an omission is irresponsible and can end up costing taxpayers millions from resulting sinking roads, sinking houses, and sinking infrastructure even fifty years after the Developers are gone to the Bank, and as has already been happening in other subdivisions in this City. Water Resources: The comment made by one Planning Consultant that "We are not as concerned with Water Quantity as much as Water Quality because it flows to the Welland River", is contrary to the requirements of our Ministry of Environment Stormwater Management Guidelines which require that Post Development Flows be equal to Pre Development Flows. Such logic is irresponsible and can result in flood damage. Absent from the EIS is Water Tests, so where is the concern for Water Quality? Ownership: The developers claim to be saving two hundred acres of PSW Wetlands. However it was revealed at one of the Open Houses that they do not own them all. Therefore, which Wetlands does G/R (Can) Investments own and what is the acreage?. For example one of the PSW'S is in the Industrial Park so is not being saved by them. Welland River Watershed: I do not see any Terms of Reference in the Environmental Impact Study requiring consideration of the Lower Welland River Characterization Report of May 2011, which includes a large portion of this development. The current ongoing Welland River Plan Report which includes Floodplain Mapping is not included in the EIS. Have we learned anything from the July 19, 2013 Rainstorm Flooding Damage? All over the World, Nature is fighting back with flooding being shown as the consequence of greed. The City even invited Emergency Officials here from Calgary for a special Flooding Educational Meeting which I too attended. Building too close to Rivers and in Floodplains is WARNED to be an invitation to Flooding Disasters. This is further aggravated by the ABSENCE of a Hydrogeological Study and a completed Welland River Watershed Plan. The Secondary Plan IGNORES the warnings of the Emergency Meeting. Welland River Watershed Planning should preserve all of the Forests, North and South, for its entire length. This Development should NOT proceed. Yours truly, Jean Grandoni, R. R. #1, Garner Rd., Niagara Falls, On, L2H )S5 Brief to Niagara Falls City Council re Need to Protect Thundering Waters Forest August 23, 2016 From Dr.John Bacher(PhD), Chair Greening Niagara 1. City Council and Planning Department Thanked For Listening I thank City Council and your planning Department for listening to my presentations and submissions over the past several months, many of which are contained in your package this evening. I agree with the Planning Department's conclusions about the inadequate nature of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the need to resolve native land claims.The main difference I have with their conclusions is minor.Their comments on the need for future bridges not disputed by me. However, they are also a troubling sign of the hidden environmental impacts of what is termed "The Paradise" proposal. Building a new bridge over either the Welland River or the Power Canal will have negative environmental impacts, such as forest destruction. 2. City Council Should Not Be Intimidated by Threat of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal by developer At the outset I wish to stress that the Niagara Falls Council should not be intimidated by the threat of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, (OMB) by the developer of its decision, or lack of decision. This arises out of the situation, which is quite unusual within urban boundaries, that virtually all of the lands on the site which are not provincially significant wetlands, are provincially significant forests.These significant forests are designated in the region's and city's plans as Environmental Conservation Areas. (ECA) To have any development on ECA lands the Environmental Impact Study, (EIS) has to be completed. This is needed so that the ecological function of the significant forests can be assessed and maintained. From my understanding of ecology those who attempt to claim that hundreds of acres of forests can be destroyed without loss of function are undertaking what is best described as a mission impossible. Dr. Barry Warner has also pointed out to you additional problems with the EIS, notably its lack of hydro geological studies, which substantiates numerous presentations that council has heard on this matter over decades from Jean Grandoni. 3. Latest Version of Development Concept Has New Harmful Feature Not Identified in Earlier Proposal. One of the reasons the EIS will have to undergo quite extensive scrutiny is that the proposal was changed by a new document released on the city's website last week. On the website there is a map of what is termed the "Conceptual Road Plan". This map quite properly does not suggest any arterial or collector roads be placed in between the two large wetland blocks that are south of the Canadian Pacific Railway line. Last week however, the concept of keeping major roads out of the wetland complex south of the Canadian Pacific Rail line was undermined by a new posted document which describes an "Electric Car Route." This describes an electrical car roadway going between two wetland blocks, creating a death trap for wildlife. I am certain that frogs and salamanders do not have any preference in being killed by either and electrical or gas powered car. 4. Native Claims Settlement Offers Opportunity For Thundering Waters Forest to Become First Nations Managed Park I will elaborate upon what the planning report described correctly as the need to satisfy native land claims. Here I wish to stress is that having a doctorate in Canadian history, it is something that I have some familiarity with. I have also been guided in this regards by the writings of an Oneida environmental protection advocate and Niagara Falls resident, Karl Dockstader. In his eloquent writings Dockstader has stressed the environmental implications for our time of the two treaties of Niagara and the earlier Nanfan Treaty of 1701. In all of these treaties he finds that, "It was to be understood that resources were to be shared. Nobody could drink the last drop from the kettle without being sure that it could be replenished. With so little forest cover surviving today in Niagara, he finds that the proposed development"invalidates the developer's ability to act within the responsibility and honour of the crown." In elaborating on Dockstader's writings, I wish to stress that native treaty rights should not be seen in a negative right as an obstacle to development. If properly applied, they should be seen as a mechanism by which the developer can be compensated by the federal and provincial government purchasing the property as part of a settlement of native land claims.The land can then be transferred to a newly created First Nations Park. Its operations would both protect the environment and serve to properly educate the public on the earth respecting values of traditional native culture. If interested the developer could then use the funds to construct the Paradise development on a more appropriate site without forest cover within the urban boundaries of Niagara Falls. A Thundering Waters First Nations Park would truly be a tourist asset to Niagara Falls, which would entice the millions of people who visit this place to stay longer. There are many excellent examples of native managed national parks in our continent, which is known by native peoples as Turtle Island.The Gwaii Haanas National Park and Haida Heritage Site is widely considered one of the world's best managed nature reserves. From seeing the blight of garbage dumped on these sites, which Karl Dockstader aided me in a clean up effort to remove, I saw one of the benefits of this style of management. It is the presence of Haida Watchmen who live on various parts of the protected area to protect their natural and cultural heritage. In Vancouver there is an fine example of an urban First Nations Park, the Pacific Spirit Regional Park. It emerged out of negotiations with the Musqueam Nation, and protects six hundred acres of forests. It has also led to a revival of many ancient native crafts and recreational activities, most notably around canoeing. A first nations park can reverse the toxic legacy of the assault on native peoples and their earth respecting cultures. Disturbed areas of the Thundering Waters site could become interpretive centers for the healing of this abusive legacy.The park could become the first step in a broader legacy to protect the threatened wetlands of the vanished Lake Tonawanda basin on both sides of the border.These are composed of magnificent old growth oak groves, that surround vernal pools. This environment is every bit as beautiful as the great tourist mecca of the Everglades. 5. More Species Keep Being Discovered in Thundering Waters Forest. When writing my last two submissions, I pledged that I would not repeat here what I said in earlier submissions, but confine myself to new evidence. In this regards, following my submissions, I was stunned after viewing photographs by Emma Lee Fleury, of yet another threatened species here, the Nine Spotted Lady Beetle. It is a terrible thing that the Nine-Spotted Lady Beetle is now an endangered species. I have happy teenage memories when its appearance was one of the happiest appearances in gardening. It has been so devastated in eastern North America, (Turtle Island), that the discovery of a single individual is a major cause for celebration. The species although not endangered, is not doomed since a viable population has been documented as hanging in Long Island, New York. Its decline is a serious threat to humanity, since the lady beetles are an important predator of agricultural pests, such as aphids. The Lady Beetle, also called Lady Bug, despite its great benefit to human civilization dependent upon agriculture, has endured a lot of abuse.The ancient poem that I am modifying so you has its origins in a peculiar custom which itself shows this. It is both marked paradoxically, by respect for the Lady Beetle, but displaying simultaneously displaying the sort of contempt, that has caused it to become an endangered species. . The burning of farmland after harvesting is a practice which does great harm to the environment. Although now banned in Canada, it endures in many countries, helping to trigger negative climate impacts by the dumping of carbon soot. Farmers however, attempted to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of their actions, by chasing away the Lady Beetle before they torched their fields.To make this difficult task more efficient, they sang what endures as a children's song, "Lady Bug, Lady Bug, Fly Away Home." It can now read. Lady Bug, Lady Bug May you on longer roam Stay in Thundering Waters Your refuge and home Please council keep it Don't give in to the greed Of those who would wreck it So terribly mean. 6. There are many experts who will join in the struggle to save Thundering Waters Forest In conclusion, one of the reasons that sometimes is given to excuse development is the prospect of an OMB battle. However, it appears that in efforts to defend this precious forest, Niagara Falls Council will be joined not only by its Planning Department, but a legion of citizen scientists.They are determined to defend habitats of the myriad of rare species, such as the Nine Spotted Lady Beetle, the Black Gum, Snapping Turtle, Wood Thrush, Honey Locust and Blue Spotted Salamander,for whom the forest is a last refuge. Dean Iorfida From: Lori Lococo <lori.lococo@bell.net> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:26 PM To: Dean Iorfida; Teresa Fabbro Subject: Noise By Law Variance Importance: High Hi Dean and Teresa Niagara Arts Showcase is planning an event after the Niagara Falls Night of Art on September 22na. We originally were going to have it indoors at the Lundy's Lane United Church. Our plans have changed and we have had to move it to SRC Vinyl on Main Street. I was just talking with Clark Bernat and he asked if we applied for a noise variation, Our event runs from 9 pm to 12 midnight, with live music from 9 pm to 11 pm outside and then a DJ from 11 pm to midnight inside. When talking to Clark, I looked at the calendar and see that Council only meets one time before then, tomorrow. How could we go about getting a noise variation? You assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! Lori Lori Lococo Home: 905 357 5902 Cell: 905 931 6370 1