RESPONSE TO PECG PEER REVIEW COMMENTS

Transcription

1 July 19, 2018 RS# Langmaid s Island Corp. c/o Michael Melling Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1 via MichaelM@davieshowe.com SUBJECT: Response to Peer Review of EIS Documents by Palmer Environmental Consultants Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays, Township of Lake of Bays, District of Muskoka Dear Mr. Melling: RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. ( RiverStone ) is pleased to provide our response to items raised in the District of Muskoka ( District ) peer review prepared by Palmer Environmental Consulting Group ( PECG ) and dated May 11, 2018 (the Peer Review ) of our three (3) Environmental Impact Studies ( EIS ) for Langmaid s Island (the Island ), 3933 South Portage Road (the 3933 Landing ) and 4215 South Portage Road (the 4215 Landing ). In this letter report, RiverStone will go through each of the summary items provided in the Peer Review to provide a response and/or additional details that are requested. RESPONSE TO PECG PEER REVIEW COMMENTS The first comment provided in the Peer Review is in relation to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry s ( MNRF ) review of all the items related to species at risk ( SAR ), for all three properties. The MNRF has now completed its review and has signed off on the three properties, stating that there are no other requirements for the application in order to be compliant with the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ). MNRF s response for the three properties is provided in Appendix 1. A Summary of Issues was provided at the conclusion of the Peer Review. Each of the specific issues relate to Significant Wildlife Habitat ( SWH ), which is a component of Section (d) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (the PPS ). It states that Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: (d) significant wildlife habitat, unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological function. 47 Quebec St., Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 2A5 / T / F / E info@rsenviro.ca

2 The Peer Review specifically requested additional details for the following items: Need to demonstrate no negative impact to Bat Maternal Colonies for non-sar Bat species. Need to Confirm presence/absence of Bald Eagle and Osprey nesting, Foraging, Perching Habitat. Need to Re-evaluate the protection of Seeps/Springs Need to Further Assess the presence/absence of Deer Yarding Areas Rare vegetation communities, provide further information including plant species lists. Muskoka Heritage Area Designation Further assess the significant heritage values for which the Langmaid s Island MHA was designated. Bat Maternal Colonies - Non-SAR Bats Our EIS acknowledged that there is suitable habitat for roosting sites of Bat Maternal Colonies throughout the forested communities on Langmaid s Island; however, the Peer Review suggested that the potential negative impacts of the proposed development on the roosting sites was not discussed in detail, specifically for non-sar bats, and in relation to the older forest habitats on the western portion of the Island. The additional details requested included an assessment to better identify the potential loss of suitable habitat, noting that the Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool #12 notes that site alteration resulting in vegetation loss can reduce the function of bat maternity colonies. As a result of this comment, RiverStone further assessed the suitability of habitat in the western portion of the Island, undertaking snag tree counts at 17 random locations on May 18, 2018, as well as communicating with MNRF regarding SAR and non-sar bat impact mitigation. Following the Significant Wildlife Technical Guide (the SWHTG ) for determining if a forest community contains candidate habitat for Bat Maternal Colonies, random point counts of snag trees spread amongst the forest communities are to be completed, using the observation numbers to determine if the threshold of 10 snag trees / ha is achieved to consider candidacy. The locations of the random counts are shown on Figure 1, along with the number of snag trees found within a 12.6 m radius around each point (equivalent to 0.1 ha). In total, 30 trees were considered to be in a state of decay, or had loose bark or cavities that would provide roosting opportunities. This works out to approximately 17.6 snag trees /ha; therefore, the western forest is considered candidate SWH for bats. Of note is that the Peer Review specifically mentioned Silver-haired Bats as the species potentially suited to the western part of the Island, due to their preference for older trees. This is noted in the MNRF Ecoregion Criteria Schedules to the SWHTG, stating that a site is considered candidate SWH in regard to Silver-haired Bats if the snag count is above 21 snags/ha. Given that RiverStone s assessment reported a snag density below that required for Silver-haired bats, the remaining species of Bat for which we are considering SWH is the Big Brown Bat. The next step in the process is to determine the potential negative impacts on the feature and ecological function based on the development plan and mitigation measures. The locations of the roosting trees were spread across the coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests on the western portion of the Island, with no single forest community having all of the roosting potential. The expected clearing for the 10 lots proposed on the western portion of the main Island will be closer to the shoreline, leaving the majority of the forest community undisturbed.

3 The mitigation measures proposed in our EIS include a timing restriction for tree removal outside of roosting season, vegetation within the 20 m setback to be protected (access to shoreline excepted), as well as minimizing the removal of vegetation outside of the building envelopes. It is RiverStone s opinion that with the implementation of the recommendations of the EIS, the remaining forest represents suitable maternal roosting habitat for non-sar bats, specifically Big Brown Bat, and the loss of trees will not constitute a negative impact on the feature or its ecological function. As a follow up to developing our opinion above, we communicated with Ms. Karine Beriault, Management Biologist at the Parry Sound MNRF Office, who also provided MNRF comments related to SAR for this proposal. Although the MNRF does not directly comment on issues of SWH for EIS submissions, they are the authors of the SWH documents that are followed (SWHTG, Ecoregion Criteria Schedules, and Mitigation Tool) and are therefore able to provide guidance on its interpretation. Ms. Beriault suggested that she would expect the same mitigation measures to be applied to both SAR and non-sar bats to be compliant with Provincial legislation/policy (ESA, PPS), and that limiting tree removal to the period when Bats are not roosting, the setbacks as described above, and minimizing tree removal outside the building envelope were sufficient to determine that there are no negative impacts to the features and ecological functions. We trust that this addresses this issue. Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging, Perching Habitat The Peer Review notes seeing bald eagles flying overhead of Langmaid s Island during the PECG site assessment on March 23, During the public information sessions, members of the public also noted observing bald eagles flying over the Island. In addition to these observations, photographs were recently forwarded to the District by members of the public showing what looks like a stick nest along the shoreline of the Island near the western beach, near the southern shoreline of the Island. Although the EIS did note that stick nests were not observed during our assessment, the above observations lead to a request for additional information regarding specific site searches that were conducted for stick nests, and whether there are opportunities for nesting/perching in the super canopy. During RiverStone s site assessments, we had many opportunities to review the canopy for stick nests. These included our specific studies related to breeding birds, vegetation communities (ELC), and fish habitat assessments, when the entire shoreline of the Island was observed by boat. Observations were made by several individuals accessing all of the forest communities over approximately 15 hours on the Island. Much of this assessment time was in the spring (breeding bird) and fall (fish habitat), during the leafoff period, when nests would be more visible. Following the March observation of Bald Eagles by the peer reviewer, a specific site visit was completed on May 25, 2018 to review the locations noted by the peer reviewer to determine if there was any evidence of the existence of Bald Eagles or other raptors at individual trees. The locations reviewed (base of tree and surrounding area) were along the eastern portion of the Island, primarily on the higher ground where the taller trees would stand above the upper canopy. These are the locations that would be preferred by nesting and perching raptors. No evidence was found that would indicate use by bald eagles (accumulated food scraps, scat, or fallen parts of a stick nest at the base of the tree).

4 Nevertheless, and based on the recent photographs submitted to the District, an additional site visit was completed on June 28, 2018 to review the location of the picture, directly behind the western beach. March to mid-august is the preferred time to determine nest use, perching sites and foraging areas. The tree in the photographs provided to the District by members of the public is located along the western beach. RiverStone reviewed this area and tree on June 28, 2018 between 10:30 am and 1:30 pm. There was no indication that the nest was actively being used. No birds came to the nest, except for a number of turkey vultures and gulls flying over the area. As noted for the other locations surveyed for possible eagle nests, there was no indication of food scraps or scat at the tree base (Photograph 1), which would be substantial if this location were used for nesting. A subsequent site visit on July 10, 2018 by a RiverStone arborist suggests that the area thought to be a stick nest actually exhibits the characteristics of Witch s Broom. This disease in trees causes a dense mass of shoots to grow from a single location on the trunk or branch. The resulting formation resembles a traditional broomstick or bird nest. The size of material in the structure, current growth and position on the tree suggests that this is the most likely explanation. Despite no evidence of continuous use by bald eagles on the Island, the most suitable habitat trees for nesting and perching are those on the highest points of land, with the highest trees (super canopy). This would provide an unobstructed view in all directions. The areas of the Island having the highest topography, which have taller trees, are proposed to be within protected areas and will remain in their natural condition through zoning and conservation easements. Photograph 1. Base of tree reported to have a stick nest

5 Re-evaluate the Protection of Seeps/Springs Within the EIS, three locations were noted to have seeps: two were adjacent to the western beach, and one at a rock barren community further west. As noted in the MNRF Ecoregion Criteria Schedules, seeps and springs are areas where ground water comes to the surface within the headwaters of a stream or river system. The Peer Review noted that additional material should be provided regarding the two seeps located along the west side of proposed Lot 21 in terms of candidate SWH designation and potential impacts as important winter drinking areas for certain species. It was also noted that the delineation of the area contributing to the seeps may be required to ensure that the seeps will be maintained. RiverStone interprets the definition of seep/spring differently than the peer reviewer. The Ecoregion Criteria Schedules say that Seeps/Springs are areas where ground water comes to the surface. Often they are found within headwater areas within forested habitats. Any forested Ecosite within the headwater areas of a stream could have seeps/springs. The criteria then suggest that seeps are within any forested area (<25% meadow/field/pasture) within the headwaters of a stream or river system. The description goes on to say that seeps/springs can function as important feeding and drinking areas especially in the winter. The defining criteria relate to forested areas at the headwater of a stream. If those criteria are fulfilled, then the feature may function as an important drinking area for wildlife. Our assertion that the seeps do not form the headwaters of a stream (there is a barrier between the edge of the feature and the Lake, so there is no channel or other component of a stream), was acceptable to the peer reviewer, based on comments provided in the Peer Review. In RiverStone s opinion, the determination that these features did not meet the criteria for a seep/spring was correct. PECG suggests that the seep could also be SWH if it provides winter feeding and drinking function, and therefore must be assessed further. However, based on the definition of seeps/springs as candidate SWH in the Ecoregion Criteria Schedules, we confirm our original opinion that the seeps are not SWH. In addition to the above, RiverStone s original determination that the areas were seeps/springs was based on observation of water in low-lying areas adjacent to the eastern beach and lake, occurring in the fall of In response to the comments regarding seeps from PECG, RiverStone visited this location again on May 18 and June 28, 2018 to better characterize the feature. On May 18, water was noticeable in several pools adjacent to the shoreline (Photograph 2), which was expected given the time of year. There was a clear barrier between the edge of the pooled water and the Lake, which was a contributing factor to our original conclusion that the seep did not form the headwaters of a stream. By June 28, all of the pools were entirely dry (Photograph 3), with no visible groundwater upwelling. A seep/spring would be expected to have some indication of groundwater throughout the year, even if only a visible dampening of the soil. Given the apparent lack of groundwater in the area, the feature likely functions more as a vernal pool, where water is held at the surface for an extended period of time in the Spring.

6 Such areas can function as breeding areas for amphibians; however, no calling amphibians or egg masses were observed during the May 18, 2018 site visit, when the pools were full of water. Therefore, they are also unlikely to provide areas to access flowing water in the Winter. Following the above discussion, this feature neither qualifies as a seep/spring, nor does it function as amphibian breeding habitat as might be expected in a vernal pool. However, the protection of the entire feature will be implemented through required 20 m shoreline setback as shown on the draft Zoning By-law Amendment prepared by MHBC and submitted with the Applications. It is RiverStone s opinion that this feature does not provide any additional functionality and therefore does not warrant any further review as SWH. Photograph 2. Seepage area/vernal pool with standing water, May 18, 2018.

7 Photograph 3. Seepage area/vernal pool entirely dry with no indication of groundwater contribution or dampening of the soil, June 28, Assess the Presence/Absence of Deer Yarding Areas Since receipt of the Peer Review, RiverStone submitted a formal Deer Wintering Yard Study to the District and Township of Lake of Bays (the Township ). The Study is currently being reviewed by PECG, and RiverStone will address comments from PECG when they are forwarded by the District. The Study concluded that Langmaid s Island does not have the components of, or function as, a deer wintering yard. As a summary of the Study, we offer the following comments. In undertaking our EIS, RiverStone submitted a request for information to the MNRF in Parry Sound for all available natural heritage information for the Island. Part of this request included accessing the Land Information Ontario database, where GIS mapping of many provincial features is available, including all designated deer yards. Deer yards are mapped by MNRF District Office staff, where the location of Stratum 1 (core habitat critical for survival) and Stratum 2 (adjacent mixed forest browse area) yards are evaluated. According to the most up-to-date deer wintering yard mapping from MNRF, the Island is not located within a Stratum 1 or Stratum 2 Deer Wintering area. The closest mapped deer yard is over 5 km from any part of Langmaid s Island (Figure 2). The MNRF response to our request included a note that aerial photography showed a conifer fringe around the Island, and that the vegetation community should be considered for potential value as winter deer habitat. Along with the response from MNRF, RiverStone was sent a document (Deer Habitat Assessment Deer Wintering Areas and Deer Movement Corridors) that clearly identifies where deer wintering habitat assessments are required.

8 Section 1.2 ( Confirming Deer Wintering Areas ), notes that site-specific studies are appropriate to verify mapping of deer wintering areas in support of Planning Act decisions for lands that are within 1.5 km of deer wintering areas identified in MNRF s data layer. As noted above, there are no mapped deer yards within 3.5km of Langmaid s Island, which substantiates our opinion that an assessment was not required, and that the Island is not a deer yard. Also noted in the Deer Habitat Assessment 101 document was reference to the PPS, where deer habitat can be considered SWH. Through the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 5E (p. 13), no studies are required to confirm the significance of deer wintering areas as identified by MNRF. These Schedules are used as a reference for criteria to establish the features of SWH and what studies are required to identify SWH. In the case of deer yards, the Schedules are clear that No studies are required. OMNRF to determine this habitat. It was RiverStone s position that a deer study was not required, and the Island is not a deer yard because the mapping completed by MNRF and available through Land Information Ontario did not classify Langmaid s Island as a deer yard. Hence, no assessment was undertaken, or required, as part of the EIS. The idea that the Island serves as a deer wintering yard stems from the Muskoka Heritage Areas document (Reid and Bergsma,1994), which referred to a small area along the northeastern shoreline as such. The document references MNRF Aerial Mapping completed in 1989 as the source of information leading to the classification. Based on this, the Township speaks to the existence of the deer yard in Section D.96 of its Official Plan. As noted above, it is the MNRF that is responsible for mapping and identifying deer wintering yards. It did not take action based on the information from 1989 to classify any portion of Langmaid s Island as a deer wintering area. In RiverStone s opinion, the likely reason this did not happen was that when the area was critically reviewed, the small area previously alleged to be a deer yard did not meet the criteria. In RiverStone s original EIS, we determined that the conifer fringe may be used by deer, but is not a significant feature that would be considered a deer wintering area. Taking into account all of the above, noting that in RiverStone s opinion a study was not required, and after nonetheless completing a deer wintering Study that showed a lack of key habitat features, RiverStone remains confident in the original assessment that the Island is not a wintering yard for white-tailed deer. The main feature that deer require in a winter yard is physical comfort. The coniferous forest intercepts the snow, allowing deer to move more easily, provides increased temperatures compared to surrounding areas by reducing wind and maintaining heat within the dense cover, and provides food sources such as red maple, striped maple, yellow birch, dogwood, hazel, ground yew and white cedar (Guidelines for Winter Feeding of Deer in Ontario, OMNR). In our opinion, the small area (approximately 1.5 ha in area) on the shore of this Island would not provide the required habitat to maintain warm temperatures, nor feed the number of deer that would normally concentrate in a yard. Further to this point, there are 280 deer yards (or parts thereof) in all of Muskoka, 10 of which are Stratum 1 Core yards, with the remainder being Stratum 2 yards. The average size of a wintering yard is ha. The small area on the north shoreline of Langmaid s Island is approximately 0.1 ha in area.

9 There are many islands within the District that are part of deer wintering yards; however, there are no islands that have a small area as a stand-alone deer yard, as suggested on Langmaid s Island. All of the other islands that are deer yards are part of larger yards that are immediately adjacent. To be considered significant, Yards need to be large in order to support a higher population. The small area identified on Langmaid s Island would be greatly affected by prevailing winter winds, and would not be suitable for maintaining thermal cover. The information collected during RiverStone s wintering assessment confirmed that the coniferous ring around much of the Island is the only habitat that could provide low-quality cover (score of 3/10). Its location on the shore, suggests thermal properties that would make it unsuitable. As pointed out by members of the public, there is evidence that deer do access the Island in the winter, given the distinct line of browsed conifer trees along the shoreline. However, this is not unique to Langmaid s Island; it is common everywhere there is coniferous vegetation along the shoreline, including all of the surrounding mainland. The browsed conifer edge does not make the Island a wintering yard or SWH. The proposed development plan will see the vast majority of the shoreline riparian area (20m) maintained, with the exception being the access pathway to the Lake through each lot. Although RiverStone maintains the Island is not a deer wintering yard, by protecting much of the riparian area where the conifer cover is primarily located, it is our opinion that even if the conifer ring was considered suitable for deer, the test of no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological function from the PPS for SWH would be met. In conclusion, there is no basis for section D.96(d) of the Township Official Plan identifying a deer yard on the Island. Figure 2. Langmaid s Island (red) in relation to nearby MNRF recognised Deer Wintering Yards (purple)

10 Rare Vegetation Communities: Provide Further Information Including Plant Species Lists PECG requested that additional information be forwarded regarding plants species found during RiverStone s assessment. In particular, the peer reviewer noted that RiverStone identified an (isolated) embayment that had scattered emergent vegetation. PECG requested further information regarding plant inventory for this area and its potential for SWH, due to Atlantic Coastal Plain (ACP) species. Rare vegetation communities can be considered SWH, including a Shallow Atlantic Coastal Marsh community characterised by ACP species. The primary ACP indicator species is Virginia Meadowbeauty (Rhexia virgininica), and includes the following other associated species: Rhynchospora capitellata, Xyris difformis, Panicum spretum, Triadenum virginicum, Polygonum careyi, and Juncus militaris. A shallow marsh community would be considered SWH if the indicator species and >4 other species were present. If identified, the entire vegetation community would be considered SWH. RiverStone provided PECG with the list of species found on the Island (Appendix 2). It was noted that the primary ACP indicator species was not present, nor were any of the associated species. Therefore, this community is not SWH related to ACP species. Regardless, the entire community is being protected through Environmental Protection zoning (that does not currently exist) because it was identified as Type 1 Fish Habitat in the EIS. As a result, all development, including docks, will be excluded from this area. Significant Heritage Values for which Langmaid s Island MHA was Designated The peer reviewer suggested that RiverStone s assessment of ecological and biological diversity and quality requires further review and assessment as it relates to Langmaid s Island as a Natural Heritage Area ( NHA ). The additional information is in relation to what was identified by the MNRF as late successional forest ( year-old hemlock and maple) along the west side of the Island, the range of habitat types, flora and fauna diversity (28 species of birds, 134 plant species), and rare plants. It was the peer reviewer s opinion that a full assessment of the features and functions for which Langmaid s Island has been designated as an NHA Area was not completed. The entirety of Langmaid s Island was classified as an NHA in 1994, through the Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka prepared under the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program (Reid and Bergsma, February 1994). This was carried through into policy within the Township Official Plan and, by reference, within the District Official Plan. As part of the designation process in the initial 1994 Study, a total of 74 candidate natural heritage areas were visited, resulting in 48 locations meeting the criteria to become an NHA. The selection was based on a set of 11 criteria, within categories of abiotic, biotic, and scenic. Meeting 2 of the 11 criteria was sufficient to become an NHA. The criteria are described in the 1994 Report as follows:

11 Abiotic Distinctive landform, Landform representation, Hydrology Biotic Representation, Diversity, Quality, Rare Species, Wildlife and Fish, Size and Linkages, Biogeographic Scenic Scenic According to the 1994 Report, Langmaid s Island met 4 of the criteria to become an NHA: Diversity, Quality, Wildlife and Fish, and Scenic. The discussion below follows each of these, including the historical details provided in the 1994 Assessment (as well as in studies previous to 1994 that contributed to the designation in the Township Official Plan). We have also commented on the reliability of the historical data in relation to the new information included in our EIS and this letter. Diversity Reid and Bergsma (1994) describes the Diversity aspect of Langmaid s Island as follows: 1. Diversity - (B2) For an island of its size, Langmaid's Island supports a diversity of habitats, including coniferous fringe forest, early successional deciduous forests, late successional mixed forests, rocky shorelines, sandy beach, marshland, steep rocky ridge exposed cliff faces and semi-open treed barrens. In RiverStone s review of the methodology in the Natural Heritage Areas Evaluation of Muskoka (1994) document, it is noted that for a candidate area to become an NHA it must exhibit high diversity of native flora and fauna either at the species or community level. At the species level, the total number of native plant species was plotted against the area of the candidate, and a linear regression analysis was used to calculate a trend line (i.e. a quantitative measurement). When reviewing the species data collected at all of the candidate sites, the average number of species per site was 211, with a standard deviation of Those candidate sites which plotted above the trend line (area vs. species number) qualified under Criterion B-2 as having high diversity. The data collected for Langmaid s Island had 134 plant species over 55 ha. Langmaid s Island fell below the trend line (having lower than average diversity per ha), and therefore did not meet the criteria for species diversity. For community diversity, vegetation community mapping was used: A candidate site with a large number of distinct communities, or with a high degree of interspersion among communities, measured qualitatively, was considered diverse. This methodology gives no indication of how many vegetation communities per area would constitute high diversity. RiverStone did note in the vegetation community assessment that two areas of shallow marsh area were identified adjacent to the western boundary of the western beach. In our review of the vegetation communities in these areas, these communities do not exist, except for a single row of limited aquatic shrubs, which is too small to be considered a distinct vegetation community. Otherwise, there would be several similar communities that would have to be separated in the mapping and description. For instance, there are several instances where mixed forests occur side-by-side, instead of being considered a single community, as we have mapped in our assessment. The differences in these

12 communities is very small, but when accounted for separately, the diversity of vegetation communities appears greater. The lack of a quantitative metric makes it impossible to know the threshold number of vegetation communities that would have made a candidate site diverse. The 1994 document suggests the Island has a diversity of communities, but does not provide any details on what that means. In RiverStone s opinion, the extent of the diversity of communities on the Island is not atypical for a 54 ha parcel of land or for 6600 m of frontage in Muskoka. The fact that the landform is an island does not change this opinion. The Island is only 50 m from the shoreline, and does not function as a distinct ecosystem separate from the mainland; rather, it is similar to the adjacent mainland. It is RiverStone s opinion that Langmaid s Island does not meet the tests to be considered a diverse site as cited in Section D96(a) of the Township Official Plan, and should not have been given this status because the species diversity was relatively low and the community diversity appeared overestimated based on the 1994 assessment methods. The example presented in the Assessment for a situation where community diversity was used to recognize greater community structure was the Bruce Lake Marshes, but it is also a Provincially Significant Wetland. The forest communities on Langmaid s Island simply do not exhibit the same level of diversity or significance. Quality Reid and Bergsma discuss the value of quality for Langmaid s Island as: 2. Quality and Disturbance - (B3) The island contains biotic communities showing little recent disturbance. In particular, it supports long stretches of undeveloped shoreline and natural beaches on a lake otherwise heavily developed for recreational property. The successional sequence following a natural disturbance (70-80 years ago) by fire on the eastern section of the island is of interest to compare with the late successional ( year old) forests on the western section of the island. The use of this island by Fisher (reported by Towle, 1989) would attest to its quality of forested communities and lack of disturbance. The island was evaluated by Brunton (1991 b) as a regionally significant forest and recommended as a candidate ANSI. It is clear that the Island contains animal and plant communities that show little disturbance. The only development on the Island is three cottage buildings, dock/boathouse and an electrical building along the north central shoreline, leaving the majority without buildings or development of any kind. The only other anthropogenic footprint is public use of the two beach areas where there was refuse deposited (chairs, old BBQs, tents etc.) There were very few additional signs of disturbance noted during RiverStone s many hours on the Island. Forest communities have been delineated and reviewed on both the eastern and western sides of the Island as part of the EIS. It is not apparent why the fact of the fire which disturbed the eastern portion of the Island versus the older tree community on the western portion of the Island should make the latter an area of significant interest. It is RiverStone s expectation that there are many similar areas around Muskoka, including on other islands. RiverStone does not see any natural value that this characterisation would confer on this forest community.

13 Although we did not find any signs of active use of the Island by Fisher (scat, tree marking), it was noted by Towle (retained by the Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation in 1989) that they were present on the Island, suggesting a high quality forest. RiverStone agrees that, at the present time, the forest is relatively undisturbed. However, the idea of Langmaid s Island being a regionally-significant forest and a candidate Area of Natural and Scientific Interest ( ANSI ), requires comment. First, the description of the Island as a regionally-significant forest is somewhat misleading. There is no current classification of forests at the Municipal, District or Provincial level that recognises regional significance. This was confirmed by both the District and MNRF. In addition, the PPS does not recognize any forest on the Canadian Shield or north of the Shield as significant (i.e. Significant Woodland). Given that there is no classification system to create regionally-significant forests in this jurisdiction, there are no policies or laws that stipulate criteria or require protection. In order to understand the requirements, criteria, and protection afforded to an ANSI, we spoke with Ms. Jaclyn Brown, District Planner for the MNRF (Parry Sound). The MNRF is responsible for identifying ANSI s. Ms. Brown forwarded a Draft Report by Brunton (1991) that recommended the Island be considered a candidate ANSI. This recommendation is found in a document that was apparently never completed and is now 27 years old. It was never accepted by MNRF, and therefore the Island has never been classified as a candidate or actual ANSI. Based on the work completed as part of the EIS and this letter, RiverStone believes that the description in Section D.96c) of the Township Official Plan is misleading in suggesting that ANSI classification has merit. In summary, Ms. Brown noted that the Island was labeled as potentially having regional, not Provincial, significance, and therefore is not afforded protection through the PPS. And as noted, there are no criteria for Regionally Significant Forests in the District. Wildlife and Fish The Natural Heritage Areas Evaluation of Muskoka document discusses the qualities of Langmaid s Island in respect to Wildlife and Fish as follows: 3. Fish and Wildlife Concentrations - (B5) Langmaid's Island supports a deer wintering area as well as potential Lake Trout spawning school. The proximity of the island to the mainland allows for a wildlife migration opportunity for many species. As described above respecting deer wintering, RiverStone does not agree that there is any evidence to suggest that the Island is a deer yard. The MNRF, despite having been part of the Reid and Bergmsa (1994) investigations, did not include the Island as a deer yard. The Township Official Plan should be amended to reflect this conclusion. The description of the how candidate NHA s would be considered in the category of Wildlife and Fish is as follows:

14 For the most part, this criterion was applied to known seasonal concentration areas for fish spawning, colonial bird nesting, and migratory bird staging areas. It can also be applied to core deer yards, if there is evidence of regular use over a number of years. Most of the data base for application of this criterion was provided by MNR Fish and Wildlife files. (italics added) In the description above regarding Langmaid s Island, one of the key features listed is a potential Lake Trout Spawning School (italics added). The description of the criteria for an NHA suggests that the criterion requires the area be known as a seasonal concentration area for fish. It is RiverStone s opinion that the potential of the area for Lake Trout spawning was not sufficient given the criteria for Wildlife and Fish. Additional fish habitat studies were completed in the area of potential Lake Trout spawning, as well as along the entire shoreline of Langmaid s Island. RiverStone s shoreline assessment included abovewater (boat) review, underwater video, and night-time surveys during spawning season. The MNRF provided guidance on the habitat assessments, particularly for Lake Trout spawning habitat. The area along the south-western shoreline that was previously noted as potential Lake Trout habitat was recognised as potential Lake Trout spawning habitat in the most current mapping of fish habitat for Lake of Bays. RiverStone s above-water assessment of the habitat reach noted cobble substrates, with open areas, including exposed bedrock near the shoreline. The underwater video provided a clear view of the conditions below the surface. RiverStone s analysis of the underwater video shows that the cobble substrates are sparse, and that the spaces between the cobble, where Lake Trout eggs would incubate, were entirely filled with sediments (Photographs 4 and 5). Suitable spawning habitat would include multiple layers of cobble that are well-washed by wave action to prevent sediment buildup that would smother developing eggs. This particular reach of shoreline previously considered to have potential Lake Trout spawning habitat, does not have suitable habitat characteristics for Lake Trout. RiverStone also observed the location during the night on November 1, 2017, during the spawning season. No observations of lake trout in the area were documented, whereas some Lake Trout were observed much further east in Lake of Bays at known spawning sites noted by MNRF.

15 Photograph 4. Substrates in location of previously-identified Potential Lake Trout spawning, showing sparse cobble with infilling of sediments between cobbles (approx. 3 m depth) Photograph 5. Substrates in location of previously-identified potential Lake Trout spawning, showing sparse cobble, woody debris, and infilling of sediments between cobbles (approx m depth)

16 It is RiverStone s opinion that the reach of shoreline previously identified as potential Lake Trout spawning habitat was so identified in error, as there is no evidence that the substrates are suitable or that the habitat is actually used by Lake Trout. The Peer Review did recognize that PECG was satisfied with the results and conclusions of RiverStone s fish habitat studies, noting that they were of the opinion that the locations of sensitive fish habitat is well understood and has been adequately protected through the lot lay out and proposed docking sites. It is RiverStone s opinion that both aspects of the Wildlife and Fish value that contributed to the determination that Langmaid s Island is a NHA, are in error. Specifically, RiverStone has completed studies to show that the Island is not a deer yard and that the potential Lake Trout spawning shoal on the southeast shoreline does not have the habitat characteristics required. Also, in both cases, deer and trout were not observed during the key periods of time where they should have been there. Langmaid s Island should not have been classified as meeting the Wildlife and Fish component of the NHA review. It is also noted that Section D.96 e) of the Township Official Plan considers Seagull Island a nesting area for Canada Geese and says it functions as a Herring Gull loafing area. These functions no longer exist, as the Island has been taken over by Double-crested Cormorants, which have killed the majority of vegetation and made it unsuitable for both Canada Geese and Herring Gulls. Scenic The scenic component of the NHA assessment was completed through a public response questionnaire to determine public preferences for various landscape types and to solicit specific nominations for scenic areas (Berney, D., and R. Reid. 1993, Muskoka Scenic Evaluation, Muskoka Heritage Areas Program). This Report was forwarded by the District for RiverStone s review as part of this assessment. The approach section of the Natural Heritage Areas Evaluation of Muskoka made it clear that the Report by Berney and Reid (1993) made the determination of scenic locations with no additional criteria. In the Langmaid s Island section of the Natural Heritage Areas Evaluation of Muskoka, the following summary is provided regarding the scenic criteria: 4. Scenic Landscapes - (C7) Seagull Island was identified as having high scenic value. In addition, the view from the summit of the hills on Langmaid's Island provide a commanding and highly scenic vista of the Lake of Bays. In addition to the description above, the map accompanying the text (Appendix 3) identifies Langmaid s Island with a circle around Seagull Island having the label Scenic Spot. In RiverStone s review of the Berney and Reid (1993) Report, all scenic candidates were evaluated to determine if they met a District-wide level of significance, with the assistance of a set of criteria, which included the following; 1. The view or feature must be visible from a public road, waterway, trail, or lands.

17 2. The view or feature must not be negatively affected by visual intrusions that significantly detract from the view or feature. 3. A minimum of one of the following criteria must be fulfilled: i. The view or feature has a well-known reputation or significant public exposure (e.g. High Falls). ii. The View or feature attracts public attention for at least a portion of the year (e.g. Utterson ice wall). iii. The view or feature contains running water or a water body visible from a road (e.g. White's Falls). iv. The View or feature contains contrasting elements, colours, or topography (e.g. Lake Muskoka shoreline). v. The view or feature exhibits harmony between cultural and natural elements (e.g. Bracebridge Falls). vi. The view or feature has a high potential for educational or interpretive activity (e.g. Skeleton Lake crater). vii. The view or feature provides a high degree of visual contrast within an urban setting (e.g. Muskoka canyon). viii. The view or feature is visually unique or highly distinctive within Muskoka (e.g. Big Chute). The results of the Berney and Reid (1993) study grouped the scenic landscapes into five categories, with 139 sites documented, the majority of which are within the Lakes and Shores category. Under the Lake of Bays sub-category of Lakes and Shores, Seagull Island was noted as meeting the criteria, and recommended as a scenic area. There is no mention of Langmaid s Island in any of the discussion, or in the Report at all. Further, a map is included in the Report that identifies the location of each scenic area. It clearly shows Seagull Island as the scenic area, not Langmaid s Island (Appendix 3). Given there are no additional criteria in the Natural Heritage Areas Evaluation of Muskoka for determining scenic areas, and no further analysis than in the Berney and Reid (1993) Report, it is clear that Langmaid s Island was not considered a scenic area, and should not have been combined with Seagull Island as they are two different land bodies separated by over 250 m. This conflation of the two is apparent in Section D.96 of the Township Official Plan. Further to the above, the additional observation in the Natural Heritage Areas Evaluation of Muskoka for Langmaid s Island that the view from the summit of the hills on Langmaid's Island provide a commanding and highly scenic vista of the Lake of Bays would not meet the criteria established in the Berney and Reid (1993) Report, because the view is from the Island out onto the Lake, not the other way around. This view is only ever accessible to the owners of the Island. It has never been available to the public, and therefore could not possibly be considered of general public interest. Finally, the preamble to Sections D.96 to D.100 of the Township Official Plan (although constituting Official Plan policy) speaks to topography and that the Island is valued for its scenic and aesthetic qualities. This landscape is proposed to be protected through zoning and conservation easements, and will not change following the development being proposed. In accordance with Section D.60 of the Township Official Plan, the development permit system will be used to protect the other aesthetic values of the Island and protect the shoreline vegetation. RiverStone was tasked with critically reviewing the Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka study as it relates to Langmaid s Island. We reviewed the study background information, mapping, completed

18 targeted field studies, and had several discussions with MNRF staff (planner and ecologist) as it related to the historical and current context of the background information. These efforts were intended to develop our opinions on whether Langmaid s Island should have been considered a Natural Heritage Area. In reviewing the four criteria of the Natural Heritage Area study that were supposedly met on Langmaid s Island (Diversity, Quality, Wildlife and Fish, and Scenic), the discussion above indicates that the details do not lead to the same conclusions. Species diversity did not meet the methodology and community diversity was not substantiated. Quality related to the undisturbed nature of the Island is not in question; however, the discussion of the Island as a regionally significant forest and candidate ANSI are misleading as they are not classifications that have any required protection, nor are they recognized by the Township of District. The Wildlife and Fish criteria included a deer yard, which is not included in any MNRF records and our targeted study excludes as a wintering yard, and a potential Lake Trout spawning shoal the was not a known feature at the time and was subsequently excluded through site specific investigations. The Scenic value of Langmaid s Island was only accepted based on the combined ownership with Seagull Island, which was the feature recognized as scenic is the study supporting the Natural Heritage Area evaluation. There was no mention of Langmaid s Island in the supporting study. These details are significant in forming our opinion that the natural features on Langmaid s Island did not warrant the designation as a Natural Heritage Area. CONCLUSION The foregoing provides additional data and details to responds to issues identified by PECG in their Peer Review of RiverStone s EIS documents. The proposed development plan has preserved those natural heritage features and values that have been identified on the Island through Environmental Protection zoning and proposed easements as the development of the Island proceeds. The required provisions of the various planning documents ensuring the protection and preservation of the values of the lands will be implemented in the development approval process. We trust that the information and analysis document here will be sufficient to provide the necessary satisfaction that the development as proposed will meet all of the policies and law related to the Island s natural features and functions. Please contact RiverStone if there are any questions regarding the details above, or if further information is required. Best regards, RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. Al Shaw M.Sc. Senior Ecologist / Principal

19 Appendix 1. MNRF Comment on Species at Risk Component of RiverStone EIS Reports.

20

21 Al Shaw From: NHI ParrySound (MNRF) Sent: February 23, :14 AM To: Al Shaw; NHI ParrySound (MNRF) Cc: Valentine, Summer; Rand, Jeremy; Kirstin Maxwell Subject: RE: Review - Information Request ( ) Hello Al; Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this file review. The recommendations at the beginning of the EIS are adequate to address impacts to SAR and the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Should other SAR be encountered during grading, construction, etc, MNRF should be contacted for advice on how to proceed. Regards, Karine Bériault Management Biologist/ Biologiste, gestion des ressources Parry Sound District/District de Parry Sound Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry/Ministère des Richesses Naturelles et des forêts Tel: A Bay Street Parry Sound ON P2A 1S4 From: Al Shaw [mailto:al@rsenviro.ca] Sent: February :05 AM To: NHI ParrySound (MNRF) <NHI.ParrySound@ontario.ca> Subject: RE: Review - Information Request ( ) Figures for the Langmaid s report. All the best, Al Shaw RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. From: Al Shaw Sent: February 2, :02 AM To: 'NHI ParrySound (MNRF)' <NHI.ParrySound@ontario.ca> Subject: RE: Review - Information Request ( ) Karine after your s today I realized that the final of the three reports has not made it through to you. I am attaching the text and figures separately so that it will go through this time. This is for Langmaid s Island in Lake of Bays, adjacent to the two other properties that you reviewed. Please do call or if you have any questions. Al Shaw 1

22 RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. From: NHI ParrySound (MNRF) Sent: February 2, :14 AM To: Al Shaw NHI ParrySound (MNRF) Cc: Kirstin Maxwell Rand, Jeremy Valentine, Summer Subject: RE: Review - Information Request ( ) Hello Al; Although I agree with the list of SAR that may or will be impacted by the proposed project, I have some recommended modifications to the mitigation. It is true that the most vulnerable SAR bat individuals are pregnant and lactating females, however all SAR bats (males, females, juveniles) are protected under the ESA. Therefore, we recommend that any changes to the buildings or tree removal be done outside the SAR bat active (and roosting) season, which means that work should occur from Oct 1 to May 1. This would be consistent with the recommendations associated with the other development proposal (Zoning amendment to allow waterfront landing as a permitted use). Should you have any questions regarding our advice, please don t hesitate to contact us. Karine Bériault Management Biologist/ Biologiste, gestion des ressources Parry Sound District/District de Parry Sound Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry/Ministère des Richesses Naturelles et des forêts Tel: A Bay Street Parry Sound ON P2A 1S4 From: Al Shaw [mailto:al@rsenviro.ca] Sent: January :20 PM To: NHI ParrySound (MNRF) <NHI.ParrySound@ontario.ca> Cc: Kirstin Maxwell <Kirstin.Maxwell@huntsville.ca>; Rand, Jeremy <Jeremy.Rand@muskoka.on.ca>; Valentine, Summer <Summer.Valentine@muskoka.on.ca> Subject: RE: Review - Information Request ( ) Second report for Huntsville Al Shaw RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. From: Al Shaw Sent: January 22, :17 PM To: 'NHI ParrySound (MNRF)' <NHI.ParrySound@ontario.ca> Cc: 'Kirstin Maxwell' <Kirstin.Maxwell@huntsville.ca>; Rand, Jeremy <Jeremy.Rand@muskoka.on.ca>; Valentine, Summer <Summer.Valentine@muskoka.on.ca> Subject: RE: Review - Information Request ( ) Karine, please find attached the first of two EIS reports for parcels in the Town of Huntsville. These parcels are proposed to be used as waterfront landings for the larger development on Langmaid s Island, which is in the Township of Lake of 2