RIVERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays Township of Lake of Bays.

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays Township of Lake of Bays January 2018 RIVERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC. 47 Quebec St., Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 2A5 / T / F / E info@rsenviro.ca

2 47 Quebec St, Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 2A5 / T / F / E info@rsenviro.ca

3 January 8, 2018 RS# Michael Melling Partner Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto ON M5V 3C1 via to SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Study, Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays, Township of Lake of Bays Dear Mr. Melling: RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. is pleased to provide you with the attached report. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding the report, or if further information is required. Best regards, RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. Report prepared by: Al Shaw M.Sc. Senior Ecologist Glenn Cunnington, Ph.D. Ecologist / Species at Risk Specialist Lasha Wilson, H.B.Sc., Dipl. T. Ecologist / Biologist CC: Langmaid s Island Corp Margaret Walton, Stefan Szczerbak, Planscape Jim Dyment, Deb Kakaria MHBC Bill Van Ryn, Mat MacLean CC Tatham 47 Quebec St, Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 2A5 / T / F / E info@rsenviro.ca

4 47 Quebec St, Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 2A5 / T / F / E info@rsenviro.ca

5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Type of Study Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Date January 8, 2018 Project Manager Al Shaw Report Summary Legal Description Island A (Landmaid Island) lying in front of the Geographic Township of McLean, in the Township of Lake of Bays, District Municipality of Muskoka. Planning Authorities Township of Lake of Bays, District Municipality of Muskoka Proposed Development Plan of subdivision to create 36 waterfront lots on Langmaid s Island Owner/Agent Langmaid s Island Corp. / Jim Dyment (MHBC) The purpose of this study is to address provincial and municipal requirements pertaining to the protection of significant natural features such as Species at Risk ( SAR ), fish habitat, and Significant Wildlife Habitat ( SWH ). Based on both desktop and on-site evaluations, RiverStone determined the following: 1. Portions of Langmaid s Island (the Subject Property ) are fronted by Type 1 fish habitat, including a potential Lake Trout spawning shoal. 2. Significant Fish habitat on the Subject Property can be protected by implementing avoidance and mitigation measures 3. Habitat of Species At Risk has been identified on the Subject Property. Barn Swallow were noted in the existing boathouse, and Little Brown and Northern Long-eared Bat may use the property for maternal roosting. The Barn Swallows will be addressed through the Endangered Species Act regulations and in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (the MNRF ) at the time the boathouse is removed. Tree clearing will be restricted to times outside of the roosting period to minimize impacts to the bats. 4. Candidate SWH in the form of Rock Barrens as well as Cliff and Talus slopes were identified on the Island. These areas will be excluded from development 5. There was no evidence that the Subject Property has been used by deer; however, proposed development will maintain existing thermal cover (i.e. conifer forest) and minimize removal of woody browse species, thereby preserving the ecological form and function of the Subject Property for deer. To ensure that the area s significant features are protected, RiverStone has made a number of recommendations that are presented below. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays I

6 RECOMMENDATIONS WATER QUALITY AND FISH HABITAT To ensure that fish habitat in Lake of Bays is not negatively impacted by the placement of in-water structures, and that the proposed development is in compliance with the Fisheries Act, RiverStone recommends the following measures: Placement of docking/boathouse facilities should be excluded from areas identified as Type 1 Fish Habitat, as shown on Figures 3 and 4. These areas have the potential to contribute to the lake fishery, and therefore impacts to these areas could be considered serious harm. DFO should be notified immediately if a situation occurs or if there is imminent danger of an occurrence that could cause serious harm to fish. If there is an occurrence, corrective measures must be implemented. Construction of the in-water portion of docking structures and associated in-water works are not to be completed between May 1 and July 15, to avoid potential impacts to fish during the warm-water spawning season. All in-water habitat features, including aquatic vegetation, natural woody debris, and boulders should be left in their current locations in the nearshore area. To ensure that water quality and fish habitat are not negatively impacted by stormwater runoff during construction activities (e.g. land clearing and grubbing, dwelling and septic system construction), RiverStone recommends the following measures (to be considered along with details provided by CC Tatham in their Construction Management Plan ( CMP ): Development of cottages should be set back a minimum of 20 m from the high-water mark of Lake of Bays. When the native soil is exposed, sediment and erosion control works, in the form of heavy-duty sediment fencing, should be positioned along the downgradient edge of any construction envelopes adjacent to the Lake. Ideally, aggregate materials will be barged to the site and immediately offloaded and placed where required (septic, cottage footings, etc.). If temporary storage of aggregate is required, material should be set back from the Lake by no less than 30 m, and be contained by heavyduty sediment fencing. To maintain its integrity during inclement weather events, the sediment fencing must be constructed of heavy material, solid posts, and be properly installed (trenched in). Additional sediment fencing and appropriate control measures should be stockpiled on-site so that any breach can be immediately repaired through the construction of check dams. Regular inspection and monitoring will be necessary to ensure that the structural integrity and continued functioning of the sediment control measures is maintained (i.e. proper installation is not the only action necessary to satisfy the mitigation requirements). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays II

7 Inspections of sediment and erosion control measures should be completed within 24 hours of the onset of a storm event. Sediment control measures should be maintained in good working order until vegetation has been established on the exposed soils Where there are limitations due to the depth or condition of native soils, RiverStone recommends the following: All new septic systems should be set back 30 m from the high-water mark as directed by the District and Township. Development of septic systems and structures should be excluded from the constrained areas shown on Figure 4. These include areas with slopes greater than 25% as noted in the Ontario Building Code ( OBC ). Class IV sewage treatment facilities, employing the use of a raised filter bed or a tertiary treatment system with area bed, should be required. As a measure of increased filtration and phosphorus removal, all septic systems will be constructed with a layer of material (approximately 0.25m of the required 0.9 m) that has a high capability to retain phosphorus (i.e. >1% by wt iron and aluminum and < 1% by wt calcium carbonate). These criteria are the same as required by the Province to allow development to occur on the most sensitive lakes in Ontario (Lake Trout Lakes considered to be at capacity). Testing of the material will be completed prior to bringing it on site. The final location and installation of any septic system be completed by a licenced installer, respecting the conditions described above. Vegetation within 20 m of the shoreline should be maintained in its natural state, with the exception of a pathway to the shoreline for each proposed lot. The path will have a maximum width of 2 m, meander, and be constructed of permeable substances (e.g. clean gravel, mulch), or drain away from the shoreline, where required. Trees will not be cut within the setback unless they are a safety hazard, and debris from clearing or materials to be used in construction will not be placed within the setback. The location of the shoreline access for construction on each lot will be situated to coincide with the location docking facility/boathouse. This is intended to minimize the disturbance to the shoreline, concentrating vegetation removal and land manipulation to a single location that will eventually be the pathway between the dock, cottage and septic system. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RiverStone recommends the following in regard to Barn Swallows and the boathouse: Prior to demolishing the boathouse, this work and all steps to be competed shall be registered with the MNRF, including the construction of a new habitat for Barn Swallow. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays III

8 In order to prevent impacts upon the habitat of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern bats that may be utilizing the forest communities on the Subject Property for maternal roosting habitat, RiverStone recommends the following: Tree clearing for the purposes of development on each proposed lot only occur in the fall, winter and early spring (from October 15 to April 15). This timeframe is outside of the maternal roosting period. In the event that tree clearing must occur between April 15 and October 15, a qualified professional should complete a combination of snag surveys and acoustic monitoring, with technical guidance from the MNRF, for the area where tree clearing is proposed. If snag trees are found within the clearing area, bat exit surveys may be required. SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT In order to protect the ecological features and their functions, RiverStone recommends the following: Site alteration and development be excluded from the Cliff habitat identified on Figures 3 and 4. Site alteration and development be excluded from the Rock Barren habitat identified on Figures 3 and 4. MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS The following measures are recommended to minimize the effects of development on the Subject Property s natural features and functions: Vegetation removal and disturbance outside of the development envelopes should be minimized. RiverStone s assessment concluded that the Subject Property is not a deer wintering yard; however, it is possible that deer feed at the Subject Property during the winter, particularly on the coniferous fringe at the Lake edge. Removal of vegetation, which may support browse species for deer, is to be minimized, which includes understorey shrubs. Seagull Island, which was identified as part of the Muskoka Heritage Area, should be excluded from development. OTHER NATURAL FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS In order to be compliant with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, RiverStone recommends that: Vegetation removal should be restricted during the migratory nesting season, May 1 and July 31 each year. In the event that tree clearing must occur between May 1 and July 31, a qualified professional should complete a nest survey for the area where tree clearing is proposed. If nesting birds are found, tree clearing should wait until the birds have fledged. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays IV

9 CONCLUSIONS Based on our site assessment and review of the federal and provincial legislation and policy, the District of Muskoka ( District ) Official Plan ( District OP ), and the Township Official Plan ( Town OP ) and Development Permit By-law, the potential impacts of the proposed development plan on the natural features and functions of the Subject Property can be appropriately minimized with the significant natural features protected. Based upon the findings presented in this EIS and contingent upon the implementation of the recommendations made herein, it is RiverStone s conclusion that the proposed development of the Subject Property lots will have a low likelihood of negatively impacting any significant natural heritage features and functions, and that where negative impacts on the natural environment have the potential to occur, they can be acceptably avoided or minimized. RiverStone advises that the recommendations in this EIS be incorporated into the development and site plan agreements for the Subject Property. Finally, these conclusions are also dependent upon the recommended preventative measures being implemented through issuance of development permits that is subsequently enforced with appropriate by-laws. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays V

10

11 Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND APPROACH AND METHODS Information Sources Used to Assess Site Conditions Site Investigation General Approach Terrain, Drainage, and Soils Vegetation Communities Wildlife Breeding Bird Surveys Turtle Visual Encounter Surveys Features and Functions of Conservation Interest Habitat-based Approach Fish Habitat Endangered and Threatened Species Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Environmental Policies BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS General Site Conditions Terrain, Drainage, and Soils Ecological Communities Wildlife Breeding Birds Turtles Features and Functions of Conservation Interest Fish and Fish Habitat Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species Significant Wildlife Habitat Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals Rare Vegetation Communities Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (excluding Endangered or Threatened EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays

12 Species) Muskoka Heritage Area PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Fish Habitat and Water Quality Endangered and Threatened Species Barn Swallow Endangered Bats Significant Wildlife Habitat ( SWH ) Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals Bat Maternal Colonies Rare Vegetation Communities Cliff and Talus Slopes Rock Barrens Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (excluding Endangered and Threatened species) Muskoka Heritage Area Other Natural Features and Functions COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND POLICIES Federal Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, amended ) Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c Provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007 (the ESA ) Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (the PPS ) District of Muskoka Official Plan (Office Consolidation 2014) Township of Lake of Bays Official Plan (July 2016) Township of Lake of Bays Development Permit By-law CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays

13 List of Tables Table 1. Site visits and primary tasks Table 2. Classification of Fish Habitat Types Table 3. Dimensions of proposed lots, Langmaid's Island List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Subject Property, Langmaid s Island, Township of Lake of Bays Figure 2. Topographic contours, Langmaid s Island Figure 3. Biophysical features and functions, Langmaid s Island Figure 4. Proposed development and environmental constraints, Langmaid s Island List of Appendices Appendix 1. Select Photos from Site Visits Appendix 2. Assessment of Endangered and Threatened Species Appendix 3. Assessment of Significant Wildlife Habitat Appendix 4. Ecological Community Details Appendix 5. Draft Plan of Subdivision (MHBC) EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays

14

15 1 BACKGROUND RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. ( RiverStone ) was retained by Langmaid s Island Corp. LIC ) to complete an Environmental Impact Study ( EIS ) related to the proposed creation of waterfront lots on Langmaid s Island in Lake of Bays. LIC s property holdings include Langmaid s Island (consisting of two islands separated by a shallow, narrow channel), a small rocky island to the northeast known as Seagull Island, and two neighbouring mainland parcels accessed directly from South Portage Road (Figure 1). Langmaid s Island and Seagull Island are located within the Township of Lake of Bays (the Township ), while the mainland parcels lie within the Town of Huntsville (the Town ), all within the District Municipality of Muskoka (the District ). The mainland parcels are located at 3933 and 4215 South Portage Road, both with frontage on Lake of Bays. Our EIS for the mainland parcels will be submitted under separate covers, as they are within a different municipality than the Subject Property. Limited environmental study work has been undertaken for Seagull Island, as it is not proposed to be developed. This report only concerns Langmaid s Island (the Subject Property ). It is approximately 54 ha (132 ac) in area, with 6,160 m (20,100 ft) of frontage on Lake of Bays. The legal description of Langmaid s Island is as follows: Island A (Langmaid s Island) lying in front of the Geographic Township of McLean, in the Township of Lake of Bays, District Municipality of Muskoka. RiverStone has been retained to undertake a review of the biological features and functions of the Subject Property as they relate to Municipal, Provincial and Federal policies and law, including the Township Official Plan (the OP ), Zoning By-law, and other relevant policy and legislation. The Official Plan for the Township (2016; the Township OP ) has designated the entirety of Langmaid s Island (and Seagull Island) as Waterfront. Further, the Plan identifies the island (and Seagull Island) as a Muskoka Heritage Site (Schedule C1 - Wetlands and Natural Areas), with a portion of the southwest shoreline designated as Type 1 Fish Habitat (Schedule C2 - Fish and Wildlife Habitat). Section D of the OP discusses the vision and policies regarding the natural environment in the Township. The Township s Development Permit Bylaw (04-180, Consolidated November 18, 2010, Schedule A November 29, 2005; the Permit By-law ) includes Langmaid s Island within the Waterfront Residential (WR) area, as well as identifying it as a Heritage Site. As part of the preparation of this EIS, RiverStone staff reviewed background documentation gathered through the District and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ( MNRF ), as well as spending many days on the Subject Property documenting and mapping the natural features and functions and in the nearshore area surrounding it. We have had many conversations with the regulatory agencies, as well as conducted site visits with the MNRF to obtain technical guidance in assessing several of the Subject Property s features and functions. This EIS has been prepared to satisfy the conditions set out in the Township OP, Zoning By-law, and other relevant policy and legislation related to the natural environment. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 1

16 2 APPROACH AND METHODS The approach and methods used to carry out this EIS are detailed in this section. Broadly speaking, this includes: 1. Gathering background biophysical information for the Subject Property and adjacent lands to become familiar with existing mapping of natural heritage features and occurrences of species of conservation interest and their habitat. 2. Conducting a site investigation to field-verify the presence or absence of natural heritage features and/or habitat for species of conservation interest identified during background information gathering, and to identify any additional significant features (where present). 3. Determining the potential for negative impacts associated with any future development and identify ways that these negative impacts can be avoided, minimized and mitigated, and/or compensation measures implemented through the proposed OPA/ZBA and draft plan of subdivision. 4. Providing an assessment of compliance of the proposed development with applicable Municipal, Provincial, and Federal environmental policies and law. 2.1 Information Sources Used to Assess Site Conditions Background biophysical information pertaining to the Subject Property and adjacent lands was collected from a variety of sources. These sources include: Correspondence provided by the MNRF pertaining to fish habitat, Species at Risk ( SAR ), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, and other natural heritage features (Ron Black, June 16, 2017). Species at Risk (SAR) by Township Tool provided by Parry Sound District MNR (MNR Tool - SAR in PS District v7.0 December 2016) regarding the SAR potentially occurring in the geographic township of interest. MNRF Natural Areas Mapping and Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database regarding information on occurrences of SAR and natural heritage features (squares: 17PL4809, 17PL4909, 17PL5009, 17PL4808, 17PL4908, 17PL5008, 17PL4807, 17PL4907, 14PL5007; accessed May 11, 2017, at: viewer=naturalheritage&locale=en-us). Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas ( OBBA ) Database and the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, (Cadman et al. 2007) regarding birds that were documented to be breeding in the vicinity of the Subject Property during the period (atlas square numbers: 17PL50, 17PL40, accessed at squareinfo.jsp). Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas database regarding records of reptiles and amphibians that have been observed within the vicinity of the Subject Property (squares: 17PL40, 17PK50; accessed June 13, 2017, at Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn 1994) regarding records of mammals in the vicinity of the Subject Property. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 2

17 Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 5E, January 2015 (MNRF 2015a) Deer Habitat Assessment Deer Wintering Areas and Deer Movement Corridors, sent from MNRF Parry Sound, December Land Information Ontario (LIO) for access to GIS data and information products. Aquatic Species at Risk Maps (DFO 2016) regarding records of aquatic SAR in the vicinity of the Subject Property (Map 23 of 30; accessed May 11, 2017, at Reid and Bergsma (1994), Natural Heritage Areas in the District. Muskoka Heritage Areas Program background data and field notes (provided by the District of Muskoka). Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Volume 2 (Henson and Brodribb (2005) regarding terrestrial biodiversity within Ecodistrict 5E-8 (Huntsville). Glenside Ecological Services Limited (2009) regarding SAR habitat in the District. Lake of Bays Lake Fact Sheet provided by the Parry Sound District MNRF (MNR 2012) regarding Lake of Bay characteristics including fish habitat and management. Lake Trout Spawning Shoal Assessment, Lake of Bays, Bracebridge District, Environment 2000 Project regarding Lake Trout spawning shoals in the vicinity of the Subject Property. An Evaluation of Selected Lake Trout Spawning Shoals in Lake of Bays, Tarandus Associates, 1988 regarding Lake Trout spawning shoals in the vicinity of the Subject Property. Digital Ontario Base Maps ( OBMs ; 1:10,000). Colour aerial photography of the property (digital orthophotos: leaf-off; spring 2008, 2013). RiverStone s in-house databases and reference collections. 2.2 Site Investigation General Approach The background biophysical information gathered as outlined in Section 2.1 helped direct datacollection activities associated with a site investigation carried out during multiple site visits in 2017 (see Table 1). Data collection was focused on: (1) topography and drainage, (2) soils, (3) fish habitat, (4) vegetation communities, (5) habitat for Endangered and Threatened species, and (6) significant wildlife habitat ( SWH ). Representative site photos taken during this investigation are assembled in Appendix 1. Overall, the level of effort expended on-site was appropriate to document the features and functions with recognized status, given the location and scale of the proposed development. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 3

18 Table 1. Site visits and primary tasks. Date Primary tasks RS Staff May 25, 2017 June 6, 2017 June 13, 2017 July 6, 2017 Breeding Bird Survey Visual Encounter Surveys for Wildlife Including Turtles and Snakes Breeding Bird Survey Fish Habitat Assessment Visual Encounter Surveys for Wildlife Including Turtles and Snakes Ecological Land Classification Fish habitat assessment Breeding Bird Survey Visual Encounter Surveys for Wildlife Including Turtles and Snakes Barn Swallow Nesting Survey Ecological Land Classification Breeding Bird Survey Habitat Assessment for Species of Conservation Interest Visual Encounter Surveys for Wildlife Including Turtles and Snakes Ecological Land Classification Al Shaw Lasha Wilson Al Shaw Lasha Wilson Al Shaw Lasha Wilson Lasha Wilson James Eyres July 21, 2017 Visual encounter surveys for Wildlife Ecological Land Classification Fish Habitat Assessment Al Shaw Lasha Wilson July 22, 2017 Fish Habitat Assessment Al Shaw July 26, 2017 September 11, 2017 September 12, 2017 General Wildlife Habitat Survey Fish Habitat Assessment Fish Habitat Assessment Ecological Land Classification General Wildlife Habitat Survey Site visit with MNRF Management Biologist technical guidance on fish habitat and related features Al Shaw James Eyres Al Shaw Lasha Wilson Al Shaw Steve Scholten (MNRF) November 1, 2017 Night observations of Lake Trout spawning Al Shaw Steve Scholten (MNRF) Although observations of fauna and flora of interest were recorded, they are not reported unless the observation was important for the determination of (1) habitat potential for Endangered or Threatened species, or (2) potential SWH. Evidence for the presence of a species or use of an area was determined from visual and/or auditory observation (e.g. song, call) and observation of nests, tracks, burrows, browse, skins and scats. Ecological Land Classification ( ELC ) vegetation mapping (Section 2.2.3) that was completed also provides information regarding the likelihood that plant species of conservation interest may be present (for example, most rare plants have strong affinities for specific ecological communities). Additionally, if a potentially rare plant not in flower was encountered, then a second site visit was conducted during the appropriate season for flowering or fruiting to confirm identification. This approach acceptably minimizes the risk that rare plant species would go undetected. Features of conservation interest were identified during background information-gathering and were then field-verified. Additional significant features not identified during background informationgathering, as well as mitigation measures to limit impacts associated with the proposed development, EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 4

19 were also identified during the site investigation (where applicable). These features of interest were digitized in the field with a GPS capable of 2m accuracy (SXBlue II) Terrain, Drainage, and Soils Geology is a significant factor in the formation of soil, the physical characteristics of a watershed, and ultimately surface water quality. The bedrock and overlying deposits influence surface runoff and infiltration, directly influencing the nutrient balance of receiving water bodies. Knowledge of the existing terrain in a study area is important in understanding how a property and its associated natural environment will respond to development pressures. The geophysical setting of the Subject Property was reviewed using OBM s, soils mapping, aerial photography and slope terrain according to Schedule D1 of the Township OP, and subsequently verified on-site. A detailed digital terrain model for the Subject Property was commissioned by LIC and completed by J.D. Barnes to more accurately review site topography as a constraint to future development Vegetation Communities All natural vegetation communities within the Subject Property were mapped according to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence (GLSL) Ecosite Fact Sheets (Wester et al. 2015), otherwise known as the Provincial ELC system. The GLSL Ecosite factsheets represent refinements and a synthesis of several different protocols for describing vegetation communities (primarily forests) within Ecoregions 4 and 5 previously prepared by MNRF in the 1990 s. ELC defines ecological units or Ecosites based on a hierarchy of influence involving several physical factors including climate (temperature, precipitation), flooding, disturbance regimes, and substrate (depth, texture, moisture, nutrients). ELC provides a common language to describe vegetation communities, which in turn facilitates the identification of vegetation communities likely to support features or functions of conservation interest. Each Ecosite code consists of three (3) components. The first component is a 1-digit geographic range code; all Ecosites within the GLSL geographic range begin with the letter G. The second component is a 3-digit Ecosite number that corresponds to a specific vegetation community. The third component is a 1- or 2-digit vegetation cover modifier indicating whether the dominant vegetation is tall-treed (Tt), low-treed (Tl), shrub (S), not woody (N), or not vegetated (X). For example, G153N refers to a rock barren community that is dominated by non-woody vegetation occurring within the Great-Lakes St. Lawrence geographic range. The boundaries of each ELC community were completed based on multiple site visits undertaking transects across the Subject Property in various seasons. Data collected was georeferenced and amalgamated with aerial photographs to delineate the community Wildlife Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding bird surveys were conducted in 2017 in accordance with the OBBA protocol (Bird Studies Canada et al. 2001). Surveys were conducted within the appropriate season (May 24 July 10), time of day (between dawn and 5 hours after dawn), and weather conditions (no rain; wind speed 3 on the Beaufort Wind Scale). Point count stations were surveyed across the Subject Property. Surveys EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 5

20 occurred for a minimum duration of 10 minutes at each station. The OBBA provides four breeding categories to accompany each observation: Observed: Species observed during its breeding season (no evidence of breeding). Possible Breeding: Includes any of the following observation types: 1) species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat, and 2) singing male present, or breeding calls heard, in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat. Probable Breeding: Includes any of the following observation types: 1) pair observed in their breeding season in suitable nesting habitat, 2) permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial song on at least 2 days, a week or more apart, at the same place, 3) courtship or display between a male and a female or 2 males, including courtship feeding or copulation, 4) visiting probable nest site, 5) agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adult, 6) brood patch on adult female or cloacal protuberance on adult male, and 7) nest-building or excavation of nest hole. Confirmed Breeding: Includes any of the following observation types: 1) distraction display or injury feigning, 2) used nest or egg shell found (occupied or laid within the period of the study), 3) recently fledged young or downy young, including young incapable of sustained flight, 4) adults leaving or entering nest site in circumstances indicating occupied nest, 5) adult carrying faecal sac, 6) adult carrying food for young, 7) nest containing eggs, and 8) nest with young seen or heard Turtle Visual Encounter Surveys Visual encounter surveys for turtles were conducted to target individuals after emergence from hibernation. For Blanding s Turtles, the preferred overwintering habitat typically includes permanent bogs, fens, marshes, ponds, channels or other habitats with free (unfrozen) shallow water (MNRF 2012). Where suitable habitat exists, the Occurrence Survey Protocol for Blanding s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Ontario (OMNR 2014) involves conducting five (5) separate surveys spread out over a minimum three (3) week period between ice-out (i.e. April) and mid-june under appropriate weather conditions (e.g. generally sunny conditions, no rain). The early portion of the survey window is to capture individual turtles emerging from hibernation. Based on the ecological communities present on the Subject Property, hibernation habitat was not anticipated to be present for Blanding s Turtles. The only wetland community is exposed along the northern shoreline, where wave action reaches the shoreline and has shallow depths which likely freeze to the lake bottom, making the community unsuitable for hibernating habitat. The focus of RiverStone s assessment was to identify basking turtles during the early portion of their active season, following emergence from hibernation habitat elsewhere. Our visual assessment was a modified version of the Blanding s protocol, including three site visits during the latter portion of the survey window as well as an additional survey in early July during the general nesting season. This protocol was adopted to have the best chance of encountering turtles given the habitat present on the Subject Property Features and Functions of Conservation Interest Habitat-based Approach Properly assessing whether an area is likely to contain species of conservation interest for the purposes of determining whether a proposed development is likely to have a negative impact is becoming more difficult as the number of listed species increases. Approaches that depend solely on documenting the EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 6

21 presence of individuals of a species in an area almost always underrepresent the biodiversity actually present because of the difficulty of observing species that are usually few in number, or wellcamouflaged. Given these difficulties, and the importance of protecting habitats of SAR, fish, and other species of conservation interest, RiverStone s primary approach to site assessment is habitat-based. This means that our field investigations focus on evaluating the potential for features within an area of interest to function as habitat for species considered potentially present, rather than searching for live specimens. An area is considered potential habitat if it satisfies multiple criteria, usually specific to a species, but occasionally characteristic of a broader group (e.g. several turtles of conservation interest use sandy shorelines for nesting, numerous fish species use areas of aquatic vegetation for nursery habitat). Physical attributes of a site that can be used as indicators of its potential to function as habitat for a species include structural characteristics (e.g. physical dimensions of rock fragments or trees, water depth), ecological community (e.g. meadow marsh, rock barren, coldwater stream), and structural connectivity to other habitat features required by the species. Species-specific habitat preferences and/or affinities are determined from status reports produced by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada ( COSEWIC ), Cadman et al. (2007), published and unpublished documents, and direct experience. Application of a habitat-based approach affords protection to ecological features that have the potential to function as habitat for Endangered or Threatened species without relying on surveys that have low likelihood of detecting scarce or cryptic species. Excluding development and site alteration from these features provides a highly conservative approach to ensuring compliance with the ESA. In instances where habitat features are such that either (i) a species presence cannot be easily determined through an assessment of habitat feature alone, or (ii) habitat features are such that they suggest a species may be present in an area where development is proposed and impacts are likely, RiverStone adds an additional level of rigour to its work by completing further species-specific assessments (e.g. Blanding s Turtle visual surveys, Whip-poor-will call surveys, Massasauga hibernation/gestation surveys, Bat Acoustic surveys) in accordance with industry-standard methods and protocols Fish Habitat As noted above, our field approach is habitat-based. That is, we do not conduct site visits to observe fish use of the shoreline habitat over their entire life cycle in order to conclude whether the habitat is used or not. Instead, we conduct a series of site visits during the time of year when habitat features are visible, to document feature characteristics and types (Table 2). While some habitats are specifically used by individual species at key times in their life history (e.g. rocky wind-swept shoals exposed to wind used by lake trout for spawning), other habitats are used by several species at various important times in their development (e.g. aquatic vegetation is used by various species for spawning, nursery, and/or feeding habitat). Characteristics of the lake shoreline that relate to habitat use by fish include: substrate type, slope / water depth, presence of woody debris / fallen trees and large boulders, aquatic vegetation, confluence with watercourses, and exposure to the wind. During our assessment, these features are surveyed from land and/or the water, taking note of the key habitat features described above. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 7

22 Existing information on Lake of Bays was reviewed based on data published through the District s Watershed Council Water Web, which included lake data provided by the MNRF. Discussions directly with MNRF also occurred on several occasions specifically to discuss fish habitat in relation to key species and habitats throughout the Lake. The key habitat features, along with the state of the riparian vegetation, are documented and recorded during onsite assessments and compared with the specific and general habitat requirements of the fish that are known to occur, in order to establish the fish habitat type (Table 2). Where available, our classification is compared with that of the MNRF. For the Subject Property, mapping provided by the MNRF identified the shoreline as Type 1 (Critical) fish habitat (Figure 2). Table 2. Classification of Fish Habitat Types. Classification Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Description Habitats have high productive capacity, are rare, in space and/or time, are highly sensitive to development, or have a critical role in sustaining fisheries (e.g., spawning and nursery areas for some species, and ground water discharge areas for summer and/or winter thermal refuges). Habitats are moderately sensitive to development and, although important to the fish population, are not considered critical (e.g., feeding areas and open water habitats of lakes). Habitats have low productive capacity or are highly degraded, and do not currently contribute directly to fish productivity. They often have the potential to be improved significantly (e.g., a portion of a waterbody, a channelized stream that has been highly altered physically). Generally, where watercourses are encountered, they are assessed for several important characteristics, including the physical dimensions of the channel, substrates, invertebrates, thermal regime, groundwater sources and adjacent vegetation; however, there were no features that could be classified as a watercourse on the Subject Property. Therefore, we have not elaborated on these assessment methods. Similarly, there are no internal wetland features that could be considered as habitat for fish Endangered and Threatened Species This report considers those species listed as Endangered or Threatened on the Ontario Species at Risk List (O. Reg. 230/08) that receive protection under s.9 and s.10 of the ESA. Based on the initial steps of our desktop analysis and contact with the MNRF, fifteen (15) Endangered or Threatened species had the potential to occur on the Subject Property or on adjacent lands. Following review of the aerial photography and our on-site assessment, eight (8) Endangered or Threatened species (Blanding s Turtle, Bobolink, Chimney Swift, Barn Swallow, Bank Swallow, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Long-eared Myotis, and Spotted Wintergreen) have the potential to use features found on the Subject Property proposed for development. Features that provide potential to function as habitat for SAR are associated with the island shoreline and beaches, existing buildings, and forest communities across the Subject Property (Figure 3). As described in Section , RiverStone s approach to site assessment is primarily habitat-based. The results of these assessments are provided in Appendix 2. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 8

23 2.2.6 Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 ( PPS ) protects SWH from development and site alteration unless it can be demonstrated that no negative impacts on the feature or its function will occur. As outlined in the SWH Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and supporting Ecoregion Criteria Schedules (OMNRF 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), SWH is composed of four principal components: 1. Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals; 2. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats; 3. Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern; and 4. Animal Movement Corridors. The process for identifying SWH is outlined in s of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010a). Step 1 considers the nature of the development application proposed and involves the assembly of background ecological information for the Subject Property and adjacent lands. If the application triggers a need to protect SWH (e.g. a change in land use that requires approval under the Planning Act), a more thorough investigation of potential SWH features on the Subject Property or adjacent lands must occur. Any confirmed SWH for the Subject Property and adjacent lands as identified in relevant planning documents or by the MNRF should be noted at this stage ( Adjacent can include proximate parts of the mainland where there could be a connection between features important to a species of concern). Where a need to protect SWH is triggered, Step 2 involves undertaking a more thorough analysis of features, functions, and habitats on the Subject Property via ELC (see Section 3.3). The list of ELC Ecosite codes generated for the Subject Property is compared to those codes considered candidate SWH in the relevant Ecoregion Criterion Schedule (i.e. 5E, 6E, or 7E) in Step 3. Where a positive match between an ELC Ecosite and candidate SWH exists, the area is considered candidate SWH. In Step 4, two options are available for candidate SWH: 1. the area may be protected without further study, or 2. the area may be evaluated to ascertain whether confirmed SWH is present. Evaluation may involve generating more detailed maps of vegetation cover, or conducting surveys of the wildlife population within the candidate SWH including reproductive, feeding, and movement patterns. If the area is confirmed SWH, the final step in the process (Step 5) is the completion of an impact assessment to demonstrate that no negative impacts to the confirmed SWH or its function will occur. The impact assessment process is assisted by SWH Mitigation Support Tool (OMNRF 2014). RiverStone employed the approach as outlined above (i.e. Steps 1-5) in assessing the potential for SWH to exist on the Subject Property. Technical results of our assessment are provided in Appendix 3, with additional discussion in Section Deer Wintering Habitat White-tailed Deer concentrate in numbers during the winter, after snow accumulates. The areas where they concentrate each year, referred to as wintering yards, are considered SWH as they rely on the cover and food found in significant yards. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 9

24 According to the SWH Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 5E, the MNRF District Offices have the information to identify candidate deer yarding areas. The MNRF follows the Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual to determine where yards occur. This data is eventually included in the Provincial Database and posted through Land Information Ontario, where the mapping of deer yards can be downloaded and viewed. The Criteria Schedule goes on to note that no additional studies are required to confirm SWH, as Deer Yards are mapped by MNRF District Offices, where the location of Stratum 1 (core habitat critical for survival) and Stratum 2 (adjacent mixed forest browse area) will be available. In this regard, we have reviewed the latest Deer Wintering Yard mapping from the MNRF, and the Subject Property is not located within a recognized Stratum 1 or Stratum 2. Therefore, based on the Provincial references, there is no expectation that a Deer Wintering Yard exists on the Subject Property. In the Muskoka Heritage Area document (Reid and Bergsma,1994), it is suggested that Subject Property serves as a deer wintering yard, referencing MNRF Aerial Mapping completed in As part of our initial background data collection efforts, an information request was submitted to the MNRF. The MNRF response included a note that the aerial photography showed a conifer fringe around the Island, and that the vegetation community should be considered for potential value as winter deer habitat. Included with the response was a document released as a primer for assessing deer wintering yards in the Parry Sound District (Deer Habitat Assessment Deer Wintering Areas and Deer Movement Corridors). This document describes the circumstances where winter deer yard studies are required and how they are to be completed. It recommends that winter deer yard studies be completed when development is proposed within Stratum 1 or Stratum 2 (adjacent mixed forest browse area), or within 1.5 km of Stratum 1 or 2 areas. In review of the mapping, the closest identified deer wintering yard is over 3.5 km from any part of the Subject Property. Based on all of the information reviewed and presented above, it is RiverStone s opinion that there is no expectation that a significant deer yard exists on the Subject Property, and no specific survey is required by the Province for further investigation. 2.3 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures In order to carry out a rigorous and defensible ecological assessment of potential impacts associated with the proposed development, RiverStone employed the following approach: 1. Predict impacts to existing biophysical features and functions on site based on the proposed development plan (from construction to post-completion), both direct (e.g. vegetation clearance) and indirect (e.g. light pollution, encroachment post-development, impacts). 2. Evaluate the significance of predicted impacts to existing biophysical features and functions based on their spatial extent, magnitude, timing, frequency (how often), and duration (how long). 3. Assess the probability or likelihood that the predicted impacts will occur at the level of significance expected (i.e. high, medium, low probability). In instances where the potential for negative impacts exists, relevant mitigation measures are offered to avoid, minimize and/or compensate for such impacts. RiverStone s impact assessment and recommended mitigation measures are provided in Section 5. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 10

25 2.4 Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Environmental Policies There are a number of relevant environmental laws and policies that apply to the Subject Property and proposed development, which are listed below. An assessment of the proposed development s compliance with these is offered in Section 6. Township of Lake of Bays Official Plan Consolidation (July 2016) Township of Lake of Bays Development Permit Bylaw (November 2010) District of Muskoka Official Plan (2014 Office Consolidation) Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as well as: o Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (OMNR 2010b) Provincial Endangered Species Act, S.O. 2007, c. 6, as well as: o O. Reg. 230/08 Species at Risk in Ontario List o O. Reg. 242/08 General (i.e. Exemption Regulation ) Federal Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, as well as: o Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations, S.O.R/ o Fisheries Protection Policy Statement Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22, as well as: o Migratory Birds Regulations, C.R.C., c BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS 3.1 General Site Conditions At the time of our site visits, the only development on the Subject Property was the original cottage development, consisting of 3 cottage buildings, a boathouse, and one out-building, all now in the central portion of the Island (Figure 2). The remainder of the Subject Property is in a natural state, and is comprised of as a mix of lowland and upland deciduous and coniferous forests, three topographic peaks, and considerable lake shoreline. The vegetation communities observed on the Subject Property is further described in Section Terrain, Drainage, and Soils The bedrock throughout the Subject Property and surrounding lands lies within the Central Gneiss Belt of the Grenville Province on the Canadian Shield. The felsic igneous bedrock throughout this region has extensive outcroppings, which are primarily the result of glaciation and post-glacial events. Common rock types include quartzite, marble and derived gneisses. Prominent bedrock knobs and ridges are common in the region and dominate features in some areas. The Subject Property also lies within the Georgian Bay Fringe, a distinct physiographic region of the Canadian Shield bordering Georgian Bay. This region occupies most of the Parry Sound District, extending eastward to areas north of the Kawartha Lakes (Chapman and Putnam 1984). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 11

26 The Subject Property is located in the southern portion of Ecodistrict 5E-8. Soils are the result of the advance and retreat of the last continental glaciation of North America (1.8 million years ago). Soils in this region tend to be shallow; however, the depth to bedrock can vary considerably over short distances. In general, soils are stony, sandy, and acidic in nature. The overland drainage from the Subject Property generally runs directly into Lake of Bays, primarily through diffuse overland flow over the shallow soils (there were no watercourses on the Subject Property). In a few locations, seepage areas were observed on the Subject Property very near the shoreline. These features did not form a watercourse, although minor flow was noted in the early spring site assessment. An assessment of slopes was completed in an effort to understand the topographic relief as it relates to development limitations and municipal policy. Visually, there are clearly areas of the Subject Property that are very steep, indeed nearly vertical. Three separate elevated areas occur on the Subject Property, in locations where the land widens, with the intervening areas being narrower and topographically flat. These areas of steep slopes have been identified, mapped and ground-verified as much as possible, to ensure constrained areas are noted and appropriate development policies are applied. 3.3 Ecological Communities Natural vegetation communities were characterized on several dates between May and September 2017, and delineated through a combination of air-photo analysis and field investigations. Ecosite mapping is provided on Figure 3 and described in Appendix 4. Existing vegetation communities within the Subject Property were assessed during the on-site investigation. A desktop exercise was undertaken to map vegetation community boundaries using background information sources and current aerial photographs; the mapped vegetation communities were then ground-verified and refined during the site investigation. Tolerant deciduous, mixed, and conifer forest communities dominate a majority of the Subject Property. Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) or Red Oak (Quercus rubra) is generally the main canopy species in these communities, intermixed with varying proportions of Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis) and Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), Ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), and Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea) were observed occasionally but in lower proportions. Other areas include pine and pine-mixed forests in varying combination with many of the abovementioned tree species, among abundances of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus). Other parts, particularly around the shore fringe of the Subject Property, are dominated with Eastern Hemlock and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), with lower occurrences of trees such as Yellow Birch and Red Maple. Most of these forests occur on shallow mineral and fibrous soils over granitic bedrock, while others, particularly in the lower elevations and depressions, have generally developed on fresh soils on the Subject Property. Among these forest communities, some elevations give way to slopes greater than 40% and vertical faces of semi-exposed bedrock forming cliff vegetation communities with species adapted to sparse soils and low nutrients, such as Eastern White Pine, Eastern White Cedar, Rock Polypody (Polypodium virginianum), and Rock Tripe (Umbelicaria mammulata). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 12

27 Open rock barren communities occur on the Subject Property. These may have been created and maintained by historical fires and aeolian effects contributing to very poor and shallow soil presence and species of grasses and sedges found in no other vegetation community on the Subject Property. Patchy distributions of vegetation species here typically include Common Juniper (Juniperous virginiana), Lowbush Blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), Bristly Sarsaparilla (Aralia hispida) and Poverty Oatgrass (Danthonia spicata). No mapped wetlands were identified on the Subject Property; however, one aquatic community, a shallow limnic mineral community, was identified during the site investigations located along the shoreline. This community resides in a small shallow bay in the north central portion of the Island, characterized by clear, shallow water over sands and silts and abundant large woody debris and scattered emergent plants in low abundance. Some exposed large boulder and bedrock was noted. The plant species present includes Pipewort (Eriocaulon aquaticum), Burreed (Sparganium sp.) and Dortmann s Lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna). Along the shoreline portion of this community is a relatively flat, thin shoreline with organic muck soil depositions. This narrow fringe along the shore is dominated by shrubs and small trees including Winterberry Holly (Illex verticiallata), Sweet Gale (Myrica gale), Eastern White Pine and Eastern White Cedar. It is likely that wave action and maintained water levels (Lake of Bays is a dam-controlled system), contribute to the low occurrence of organic soils and vegetation in this community. 3.4 Wildlife Breeding Birds Breeding bird surveys in accordance with the OBBA were undertaken by RiverStone on several occasions between May 24 and July 10, Additional incidental observations of individuals were noted during all assessments when new species were heard or observed. A total of twenty-eight (28) different bird species were recorded during the breeding bird surveys. The assemblage and abundance of birds recorded during the OBBA surveys generally reflects the prevailing structure and composition of on-site vegetation communities (per Figure 3). Bird species that breed and forage in deciduous and coniferous forests were the most widely documented, and included Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Pine Warbler (Setophaga pinus), Blackthroated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens), Black-throated Blue Warbler (Setophaga caerulescens), Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia), Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Common Raven (Corvus corax) and Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus). One (1) significant bird species was recorded during the OBBA surveys: Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), which is classified as Threatened and protected under the ESA. Initially, several individuals (up to 8) were noted flying and feeding in the area of aquatic vegetation along the north central shoreline (identified as a shallow limnic mineral aquatic community above). Upon further review, the adjacent boathouse was actively being used as nesting habitat for as many as 8 pairs of birds. Current and historical nests were observed in the rafters of the boathouse (15 nests were counted, both current and historical). Birds were continually moving between the boathouse and open water. Hatchlings were noted in several nests (up to 3 individuals per nest) during our site visits, with no sign of predation or access to the boathouse by predators. During a recent information meeting held in Baysville, a member of the public living on the north shore near the Subject Property noted that they have seen Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 13

28 time-to-time over their own property and over the Lake toward the Subject Property. Bald Eagles are not overly common in Muskoka, with southern Ontario being more suitable for their nesting habitat requirements. During our breeding bird assessments, and throughout our investigations on the Subject Property, no stick nests were observed that could be attributed to Bald Eagles or other raptor species. No other bird species listed under the ESA or deemed to be special concern by the Province were observed during our surveys Turtles Visual encounter surveys for basking turtles were completed as outlined in Section , above. Despite considerable effort, no turtles were observed on the Subject Property during the targeted studies or during other assessment times such as fish habitat assessments. Our observations included reviewing the beach habitats for evidence of tracks, excavations, or hatched egg pieces. None were observed. During the recent information meeting held in Baysville, a member of the public living on a property in proximity to the west end of the Subject Property noted several direct observations of Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentine) under their docking structure and within the channel between the Subject Property and mainland. It is expected that Snapping Turtles would occur along the shoreline of Lake of Bays and be found in proximity to the Subject Property. They would overwinter in wetlands and nest in grave/sand areas next to shallow weedy areas. The beach areas on the Subject Property were reviewed for turtles during the nesting and through the breeding season, as well as following hatching. No evidence of Snapping Turtles was found. This species is classified as Special Concern by the Province. Protection of habitat is to be afforded through designation as SWH, as noted in the PPS. The portion of their habitat that is protected is overwintering and nesting habitat. Although we concluded that habitat on the Subject Property is not suitable, the area of aquatic vegetation and the beaches will not be disturbed following development, protected by the designation of Type 1 Fish Habitat and through shoreline development setbacks. 3.5 Features and Functions of Conservation Interest The following features of conservation interest may have potential to be, or have been, confirmed on the Subject Property Fish and Fish Habitat The existing information indicates that Lake of Bays is approximately 6,780 ha in area, with a maximum depth of 70 m and an average depth of 22 m. The Lake is regulated, with water levels set by the MNRF-owned-and-operated dam at the Lake outlet in Baysville. Flows and water levels are maintained according to the Muskoka River Water Management Plan. There are no locks for boat passage or ladders for fish passage in the dam. The Lake supports a coldwater fishery, which includes Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and Cisco (aka Lake Herring, Coregonus artedi), as well as Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Walleye (Sauger vitreum) and Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Although stocking has not occurred since 1993 (Lake Trout), there is a varied history of fish enhancement in the Lake, from Smallmouth Bass (1922) and Walleye (1924), to Atlantic Salmon (1935), Brook Trout (1956) and EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 14

29 Rainbow Trout (1965). The invasive Spiny Water Flea (Bythotrephes longimanus) was first documented in Lake of Bays in Lake Trout Of particular importance to the MNRF are the Brook Trout and Lake Trout populations. Lake of Bays is one of the only remaining large lakes in Muskoka to have a self-sustaining significant Brook Trout population. It is thought that they are dependent on the cold, groundwater fed, tributary streams that are used as nursery habitat. The introduction of Bass has been identified as a primary factor contributing to the historically reduced abundance of Brook Trout. Lake Trout are a highly sought-after recreational fish that are targeted in all seasons outside of their fall spawning period. Lake Trout spawn on cobble shoals that vary in depth and are exposed to wind and waves that wash over the shoal to ensure the deposited eggs do not become smothered by silt. Historically, the MNRF and interest groups have directed considerable effort towards enhancing the Lake Trout population, including assessments and observations of spawning, as well as habitat creation/enhancement projects. From the early 1980 s and into the late 1990 s, several assessments of spawning habitats and observations of spawning were conducted by the MNRF and retained consultants. In the 1980 s and 1990 s, habitat enhancement projects were also completed to enlarge and refresh known spawning shoals, with the goal of increasing spawning potential and success, while understanding threats to spawning success, such as lake drawdown. Several of these studies noted Lake Trout spawning shoals along the shoreline of the Subject Property. A 1984 study completed by the Bracebridge MNRF assessed many existing shoals as well as constructing several shoals for study. The Langmaid s Island shoal was located on the south-central shoreline, between its two beach areas. The shoal was described as poor quality, presumably with suboptimal sized substrates, a higher degree of siltation, and depth of shoal. A later study in 1988 by Tarandus followed a series of deep-water and shallow spawning sites, some of which were similar to the previous study by MNRF. A different spawning location in proximity to the Subject Property was noted - off the southeast shoreline by some distance, and was included in the deep-water study group. The Tarandus study concluded that there was very little evidence of spawning at any of the deep-water sites, greater than 4 m, owing to the elevated levels of silt. Although many of the deep-water sites were not actively assessed, it was determined to be unlikely that any significant Lake Trout spawning occurs at these sites in Lake of Bays. The Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka Report (Reid and Bergsma, 1994) describes fish habitat as a key component of the Subject Property s natural heritage, specifically noting a potential Lake Trout spawning shoal as the primary component of fish habitat. In a review of the detailed background data for the study on the Subject Property, mapping suggests that the spawning shoal is close to the location of the area identified in the 1984 study, on the southcentral shoreline of the Subject Property, between its beach areas. Although in previous studies as described above there were several potential spawning shoals noted along the shoreline, or in the vicinity of the Subject Property, none of these areas were incorporated into the current MNRF mapping of fish habitat for the Subject Property, which was provided to us through our request for information. This mapping identifies a single reach along the southwestern shoreline as Type 1 Fish Habitat, noted to be potential habitat for Lake Trout spawning. This reach is not in the same location as any of the previously-mentioned studies. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 15

30 Through discussions with Steve Scholten, MNRF Management Biologist at the Bracebridge Area office, the current belief is that very little spawning occurs on shoals that have not been enhanced or modified to include additional suitably-sized substrates or cleaning of the substrates. This assertion was based on other unpublished observations that were completed by the MNRF in the 1990 s and early 2000 s. At this time, shoals were observed for activity during the time of year when trout spawn. Given the primary use of shallow shoals for spawning, night-time observations using lights were completed at many of the shoals across the Lake. It was noted that observations of active Lake Trout were made at previously-enhanced shoals, while other shoals were inactive. This included a potential shoal located along the southwestern shoreline of the Subject Property (see description below). Other than the potential Lake Trout spawning shoal, no other fish habitat was noted along the shoreline of the Subject Property by the MNRF. Field Observations of Fish and Fish Habitat RiverStone s observation of fish habitat conditions focussed not only on potential Lake Trout habitat, but also on other habitats that may be important and contribute significantly for other species. Observations were completed from shore and a boat around the entire Subject Property, on several occasions, between June and November As noted in Section above, our assessment intended to observe many habitat characteristics for comparison to the requirements of fish species found in Lake of Bays, and ultimately classify the habitat according to MNRF criteria (Table 2). During our assessment of the nearshore area surrounding the entire Subject Property, three locations were determined to have characteristics that meet the definition and should be classified as Type 1 Fish Habitat, suitable for either individual species, or several species of fish during critical live stages. As noted above, Lake Trout utilize a specific type of habitat for spawning; rocky shoals comprised of large cobble, with little siltation and exposed to wave action. Our assessment reviewed the entire shoreline of the Subject Property including several locations that were historically considered potential habitat for Lake Trout. Observations of the substrates were completed from the water surface as well as using underwater video to better understand the depth where substrate composition changed, to gauge the extent that potential habitat areas extended away from the shoreline. MNRF also provided technical guidance on this evaluation method and provided assistance in evaluating substrate size preferences based on their experience with other areas of the Lake where spawning is known to occur, and habitat enhancement has occurred in the past. Following evaluation of the Subject Property s entire shoreline, our assessment concluded that a single reach of shoreline on the northeastern end of the Island had suitable substrates and was oriented in a way that allowed access by wave action from various directions. This feature was also of sufficient size that Lake Trout would find the location suitable. Although no fish were spotted when the site was reviewed at night with lights during the spawning window, the habitat characteristics were such that the reach remained as a potential location for Lake Trout spawning, and it should be protected. Along the north central shoreline of the Island, immediately to the east of the cottage, boathouse and accessory structures, there is a small bay at the base which is the narrowest section of land (approximately 10 m). In our assessment of vegetation communities, this area is characterized as a shallow limnic mineral aquatic community, dominated by Pipewort, Burreed, and Dortmann s Lobelia, with the shoreline containing aquatic shrubs and small trees including Winterberry Holly, Sweet Gale, Eastern White Pine, and Eastern White Cedar. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 16

31 This area has shallow sand and organic substrates that support the growth of aquatic vegetation, with wave action limiting the extent of plant growth. It also has a considerable amount of woody debris deposited here from the open water, as well as from dead fallen trees in the nearshore area, previously submerged when the dam in Baysville was commissioned. Areas of aquatic vegetation and woody debris serve an important role for several species of fish. Aquatic vegetation can act as a spawning substrate as well as produce insects for food, and provide nursery habitat for young fish and refuge from predation. The boundary of this reach of Type 1 Fish Habitat is mapped on Figure 3, and as a development constraint on Figure 4. The final reach of Type 1 Fish Habitat identified during RiverStone s assessment extends through the narrowing of the two islands at the west end, extending slightly along the shoreline of both. This location is characterized by shallow depths and dense woody debris over sand/silt substrates. Upon initial examination, it was thought that the area may serve as spawning habitat for Smallmouth Bass, as the conditions seemed suitable, with shallow depths and ample cover options. However, a thorough review of the area during spawning season for bass neither revealed any visible nest structures, current or historic, nor were any individuals of spawning size seen in this area. Although the area did not seem to support spawning bass, the density of woody debris and shallow water depths would support young fish as a nursery feature and produce considerable insects for food. As such, this area has been classified as Type 1 Fish Habitat, with the boundary mapped on Figure 3, and as a development constraint on Figure 4. The remaining habitat surrounding Subject Property can be characterized as Type 2 Fish Habitat offering a variety of general conditions, with rocky shorelines, variable water depths adjacent to the shoreline, overhanging riparian vegetation, and some woody debris. These observations and classifications were derived from many days of assessment, technical guidance from MNRF, and review of existing materials from various sources Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species The results of RiverStone s desktop, habitat-based, and targeted assessments for Endangered and Threatened species and their habitat are provided in Appendix 2. The preliminary screening identified the potential for fifteen (15) Endangered or Threatened species to be present within the study area (Appendix 2) based on existing records and/or range maps. This initial list of species was further refined to eight (8) species that had the potential to be present or use vegetation communities on the Subject Property or within the study area. From the refined list, the remaining species were anticipated to be found within the forested or rock barren communities which are present within the Subject Property. Based on the results of the habitat-based assessment and targeted surveys, RiverStone confirmed the presence of nesting Barn Swallows, found in the existing boathouse. Also, RiverStone identified the potential for two (2) species of Endangered Bats, Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), to have habitat on the Subject Property in any of the forested vegetation communities identified, which covers the majority of the Subject Property (see Appendix 2 for a detailed technical description of RiverStone s assessment). Each of these species has the potential to be affected by the proposed development on the Subject Property. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 17

32 3.5.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat The results of RiverStone s desktop, habitat-based, and targeted assessments of potential features and communities that could function as SWH per Provincial policies is provided in Appendix 3. Three (3) communities or features with the potential to be identified as SWH were identified: Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals, Rare Vegetation Communities, and Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern, as described below Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals Bat Maternal Colonies Tree roosting bats, including Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), have range overlaps with the Subject Property. During the site investigations, suitable dead or dying trees (snags), and trees with loose bark or tree cavities, were observed across the treed vegetation communities of the Island. These trees may provide suitable maternal colony habitat. These habitats very much overlap with the potential habitat for the Endangered species noted above - Little Brown Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Rare Vegetation Communities Cliffs and Talus Slopes As described in Section 3.3 and Appendix 4, cliff vegetation communities are present on the Subject Property in the high elevation and steep slope (Figure 3) areas along the southeast shoreline. These areas include sparsely treed Precambrian rock with flora characteristic of Cliff SWH (including Rock Tripe [Umbilicaria sp.] and Rock Polypody, specifically classified as Ecosite G158Tt. Rock Barrens Rock barren vegetation communities are present on the Subject Property (Figure 3). These areas include relatively flat, sparsely-vegetated Precambrian rock with flora indicators of rock barren SWH including, but not limited to, Common Juniper (Juniperus communis), Lowbush Blueberry (Vaccinnium angustifolium), Bristly Sarsaparilla (Aralia hispida) and Pale Corydalis (Corydalis sempervirens). These rock barrens are classified as Ecosite G164Tl, are further described in Section 3.3 and Appendix 4, and are considered SWH Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (excluding Endangered or Threatened Species) Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species White-tinged Sedge (Carex albicans) was confirmed on the rock barren communities on the Subject Property. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife species are considered further in the impact assessment section below (see Section 4.2), where mitigation measures are proposed. See Appendix 3 for a detailed technical description of RiverStone s assessment. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 18

33 3.5.4 Muskoka Heritage Area According to Reid and Bergsma (Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka,1994), the primary considerations for the designation of the Subject Property as a Muskoka Heritage Site includes a suite of natural heritage features, including Diversity of Habitats, Quality and Disturbance, Fish and Wildlife Concentrations, and Scenic Landscapes. The diversity of habitats considered in the document includes coniferous fringe forest, early successional deciduous forest, rocky shorelines, sandy beaches, marshland, steep rocky ridges, exposed cliff faces and rock barrens with little recent disturbance. All of these habitats were identified during the site investigations and accurately mapped. In our experience as ecologists, many of these habitats are commonplace across Lake of Bays and can be found within short distances of the Subject Property, including on nearby islands and the mainland. The only exception is the two beaches on the south shoreline of the Island, although they do not have ecological significance. Each of these habitats is also, with the exception of the deciduous forest, located within close proximity to the shoreline. The quality and lack of disturbance of the habitats is unquestionable. The vast majority of the Subject Property has been left in a natural state by the previous owners, who have had very little to do with the Subject Property for many decades. The only evidence of disturbance is the result of non-owners, such as various items left on the beach shoreline and inland, vandalism to the existing buildings, as well as the remains of several small fires. Otherwise there is little evidence of disturbance, with natural features remaining intact across the Subject Property. Fish and wildlife analysis was focussed on a few items, including deer wintering habitat, potential Lake Trout, as well as the functioning of adjacent Seagull Island as a Herring Gull loafing area and nesting habitat for Canada Geese. As described above in Section 2.2.6, there is no indication from available current sources that the Subject Property functions as a deer wintering area. Although deer likely use the Subject Property during the winter to forage on the conifer trees surrounding the shoreline or through some of the interior, there is no expectation that the Subject Property is a wintering yard, with the closest yard being over 3.5 km to the north according to the MNRF data and mapping. It was MNRF data that was cited by Reid and Bergsma (1994) to consider the Subject Property as a wintering area; however, this data was not included in the MNRF database of significant deer yards. The potential area of Lake Trout habitat mapped as part of the Muskoka Heritage Areas program was not included in the current MNRF mapping of Fish Habitat within Lake of Bays. An additional area was noted through the assessment as part of this study, which is one of many on the Lake. The MNRF expects that the known sites of spawning activity are shallow sites elsewhere on Lake of Bays, where enhancement activities have occurred to restore and expand suitable shoals. These areas are not located on the Subject Property. Included in the Muskoka Heritage Area is the small, rocky island known as Seagull Island. Reid and Bergsma indicated that it was known to support nesting Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) and as a Herring Gull loafing area. RiverStone s assessment of Seagull Island confirmed it is still a stopover for gulls, some of which were observed to be nesting, and Seagull Island now has an establish Doublecrested Cormorant nesting colony. No evidence of nesting Canada Geese was observed on Seagull EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 19

34 Island. It should also be noted that Seagull Island is not proposed for development as part of this application. Scenic Landscapes included Seagull Island and hills on the Subject Property. The commanding views of the Lake from the hills are quite scenic, and have been available to the owners of the Island, but not accessible to the public. Considering views from private land to be worthy of designation under public policy seems irregular. However, it should be noted that these views are located at the top of steep slopes that have been mapped as part of this report. As noted above, Seagull Island now has an active colony of Double-crested Cormorants that have eliminated much of the vegetation and stripped the trees of foliage. Although Seagull Island now has less visual appeal, it is still a scenic feature when viewed from lands across the Lake. Also noted above, Seagull Island is not intended to be developed. 4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LIC is proposing to subdivide the Subject Property to create thirty-sis (36) waterfront lots (Table 3, Figure 4), each with frontage on Lake of Bays, being individually serviced (water and septic), and having accessory structures. The proposed lots range in area from 0.81 ha (2.00 ac) to 4.39 ha (10.39 ac) with frontages from 90.2 m ( ft), to m ( ft). A copy of the Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by MHBC Planning is provided in Appendix 5. Currently, the Subject Property is designated as Waterfront under the Township OP, and further identified as a Muskoka Heritage Area. The Township Permit Bylaw has the Subject Property within the Waterfront Residential Development Permit Area, as well as identifying it as a Muskoka Heritage Area. The proposal seeks to amend the OP and the Permit Bylaw, revise the areas of the Muskoka Heritage Area, and allow the creation of lots in addition to those currently in existence. RiverStone has collaborated with CC Tatham & Associates ( CC Tatham ) to develop and refine a construction management plan ( CMP ) for the development of the Subject Property as a whole, as well as individual lots, contained within the CC Tatham Functional Servicing Report ( FSR ). The overall goal of the CMP is to recommend best management practices to be applied throughout construction by prescribing locations for access and means for protecting shoreline vegetation. These best practices are included under a separate cover authored by CC Tatham, although some are referred to in this document as they relate to the natural environment. Access to the proposed lots will be provided from two mainland properties located along South Portage Road, within the Town of Huntsville. These properties will provide for parking as well as a shuttle service that is intended to reduce the amount of boat traffic to and from the Subject Property. A review of the natural features relevant to the proposed changes to the mainland access properties is documented in separate EIS reports prepared by RiverStone for each of the properties. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 20

35 Table 3. Dimensions of proposed lots, Langmaid's Island Lot # Area Frontage (m, ft) Hectares Acres Metres Feet IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the background information collected and site investigations detailed in Section 3, in concert with the proposed development plan (the Plan ) that outlines the proposed lot fabric in Section 4, the following sections provide an overall assessment of potential impacts to the natural environment and identified natural features of conservation interest. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 21

36 Based on the results of the assessment conducted, a number of features and functions of conservation interest have been identified. Figure 4 illustrates them, and applicable protective measures (municipal [e.g. in the Township OP or Permit Bylaw] and those recommended by RiverStone). Appendix 7 contains a copy of the Plan that includes the lot areas and frontages, as well as the location of shoreline access. Figure 4 should be read in tandem with the FSR prepared by CC Tatham to understand the full development on each lot. RiverStone has reviewed the existing zoning, and our impact assessment takes into consideration the activities that are permissible within the context of the proposed development. Our determination of whether the risk of potential impacts on a specific feature is acceptable relies upon the relevant policies and legislation referenced in Section 2.4, as well as our assessment of the significance or quality of the particular feature. 5.1 Fish Habitat and Water Quality Recent regulatory changes to the Fisheries Act require that project activities be reviewed to determine if they have the potential to result in serious harm to fish that are part of a Commercial, Recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Based on guidance documents provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada ( DFO ), serious harm to fish includes: direct fish mortality, the permanent alteration of fish habitat at a spatial scale, duration or intensity that negatively impacts habitat used to carry out one or more of their life processes (spawning, nursery, or rearing grounds, food supply areas, mitigation corridors, etc.), and destruction of fish habitat at a spatial scale, duration or intensity such that fish can no longer utilize habitats necessary to carry out one or more of their life processes (spawning, nursery, or rearing grounds, food supply areas, mitigation corridors, etc.). In the nearshore area surrounding the Subject Property, Type 1 (sensitive) Fish Habitat includes areas used for spawning and as nursery habitat for fish. These areas are generally incompatible with development, where serious harm may occur if docking/boathouse structures are constructed. The Type 1 Fish Habitat identified fronting the Subject Property has the highest likelihood of providing spawning habitat for Lake Trout, at the eastern end, and various other species in the north central and western areas mapped on Figures 3 and 4. Type 2 (general) Fish Habitat does not contain specialized habitat for fish and is typically used outside of the sensitive spawning seasons for general life history requirements (feeding, refugia, etc.). Restricting the placement of in-water structures to areas of Type 2 habitat ensures that Type 1 critical habitat is maintained. To ensure that fish habitat in Lake of Bays is not negatively impacted by the placement of in-water structures and that the proposed development is in compliance with the Fisheries Act, RiverStone recommends the following measures: Placement of docking/boathouse facilities should be excluded from areas identified as Type 1 Fish Habitat, as shown on Figures 3 and 4. These areas have the potential to contribute to the lake fishery and therefore impacts to these areas could be considered serious harm. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 22

37 DFO should be notified immediately if a situation occurs or if there is imminent danger of an occurrence that could cause serious harm to fish. If there is an occurrence, corrective measures must be implemented. Construction of the in-water portion of docking structures and associated in-water works are not to be completed between May 1 and July 15 to avoid potential impacts to fish during the warm-water spawning season. All in-water habitat features, including aquatic vegetation, natural woody debris and boulders should be left in their current locations in the nearshore area. Vegetation within the retained shoreline buffer area should be left in its current state, without any thinning of trees, unless they are a safety hazard.. As part of the impact analysis, potential impacts on water quality, which also affects habitat for fish, were assessed. In general, negative impacts on water quality and fish habitat can result via the following processes: stormwater runoff during construction activities; modification of drainage patterns or flow rates; inappropriately-located sewage treatment systems that increase nutrient (phosphorous) loading to water bodies; increased runoff due to an increase in the extent of hard surfaces (e.g. rooftops, driveways, patios); construction of in-water structures (e.g. culverts, docks, bridges); changes to in-water structural features (e.g. substrates, woody debris, aquatic vegetation); and changes to on-shore structural features (e.g. removal of vegetation or soil, importation of aggregates). Although the land use changes that are proposed have the potential to have negative impacts on water quality and fish habitat, it is RiverStone s opinion that the mitigation measures recommended below will reduce the risk of negative impacts to an acceptable level when diligently applied. Several of the mitigation measures relate to establishing vegetated shoreline buffers or setbacks. Within vegetated buffers, trees, shrubs, ground cover, and associated leaves and twigs slow rainfall and surface-water flows to water bodies and thus allow additional time for water to soak into the ground. By stabilizing shoreline soils this facilitates nutrient uptake and provides less opportunity for erosion. The retention of vegetation allows for a continual source of woody debris and leaves to the nearshore area, while increasing the uptake of phosphorus from overland run-off prior to it entering a water body. Since primary productivity in most lakes depends on phosphorus input (Schindler 1977), limiting the amount that reaches the water body reduces the potential occurrence of algae growth in the nearshore areas. To ensure that water quality and fish habitat are not negatively impacted by stormwater runoff during construction activities (e.g. land clearing and grubbing, dwelling and septic system construction), RiverStone recommends the following measures (to be considered along with details provided by CC Tatham in their FSR): Development of cottages should be set back a minimum of 20 m from the high-water mark of Lake of Bays. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 23

38 When the native soil is exposed, sediment and erosion control works, in the form of heavy-duty sediment fencing, should be positioned along the downgradient edge of any construction envelopes adjacent to the Lake. Ideally, aggregate materials will be barged to the site and immediately offloaded and placed where required (septic, cottage footings, etc.). If temporary storage of aggregate is required, material should be set back from the Lake by no less than 30 m, and be contained by heavyduty sediment fencing. To maintain its integrity during inclement weather events, the sediment fencing must be constructed of heavy material, solid posts, and be properly installed (trenched in). Additional sediment fencing and appropriate control measures should be stockpiled on-site so that any breach can be immediately repaired through the construction of check dams. Regular inspection and monitoring will be necessary to ensure that the structural integrity and continued functioning of the sediment control measures is maintained (i.e. proper installation is not the only action necessary to satisfy the mitigation requirements). Inspections of sediment and erosion control measures should be completed within 24 hours of the onset of a storm event. Sediment control measures should be maintained in good working order until vegetation has been established on the exposed soils. In regard to the potential impact of septic system effluent on water quality, the Ontario Building Code (the OBC ) requires a vertical separation of 0.9 m between the leaching bed and the high mark of the groundwater table, bedrock or soil with a percolation rate greater than 50 min/cm. When adequate depth cannot be achieved with native soils, the use of imported soils for the construction of a raised, fill-based system will likely be necessary to achieve the required vertical separation. Given the shallow depth to bedrock over the Subject Property, soil conditions for most lots are not suitable for a conventional in-ground leaching bed. Filter bed systems or tertiary treatment systems with area beds are alternatives permitted under the OBC. It is expected that tertiary systems will be chosen as a preferred septic alternative given the reduced footprint area that provides the same or better filtration. Where there are limitations due to the depth or condition of native soils, RiverStone recommends the following: All new septic systems should be set back 30 m from the high-water mark as directed by the District and Township. Development of septic systems and structures should be excluded from the constrained areas shown on Figure 4. These include areas with slopes greater than 25% as noted in the OBC. Class IV sewage treatment facilities, employing the use of a raised filter bed or a tertiary treatment system with area bed, should be required. As a measure of increased filtration and phosphorus removal, all septic systems will be constructed with a layer of material (approximately 0.25m of the required 0.9 m) that has a EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 24

39 high capability to retain phosphorus (i.e. >1% by wt iron and aluminum and < 1% by wt calcium carbonate). These criteria are the same as required by the Province to allow development to occur on the most sensitive lakes in Ontario (Lake Trout Lakes considered to be at capacity). Testing of the material will be completed prior to bringing it on site. The final location and installation of any septic system be completed by a licenced installer, respecting the conditions described above. Vegetation within 20 m of the shoreline should be maintained in its natural state, with the exception of a pathway to the shoreline for each proposed lot. The path will have a maximum width of 2 m, meander, and be constructed of permeable substances (e.g. clean gravel, mulch), or drain away from the shoreline, where required. Trees will not be cut within the setback unless they are a safety hazard, and debris from clearing or materials to be used in construction will not be placed within the setback. The location of the shoreline access for construction on each lot will be situated to coincide with the location docking facility/boathouse. This is intended to minimize the disturbance to the shoreline, concentrating vegetation removal and land manipulation to a single location that will eventually be the pathway between the dock, cottage and septic system. As part of the impact analysis, the potential to cause serious harm to fish, including fish habitat, was assessed. Although the land use changes that are proposed have the potential to have negative impacts on water quality, fish and fish habitat, it is RiverStone s opinion that the measures recommended above can mitigate potential negative impacts, so that serious harm to fish in the Lake of Bays fishery will be prevented. 5.2 Endangered and Threatened Species RiverStone field assessments have identified the habitat of three species at risk: Barn Swallow and Endangered bats (Little Brown Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat) Barn Swallow Nesting Barn Swallows were confirmed to be using the existing boathouse on the north shore of the Subject Property as nesting habitat. Fifteen (15) current and historical nests were noted throughout the boathouse, with active nests observed during our assessment. The Provincial recovery strategy for Barn Swallows defines the habitat as: nests (including unused nests) on natural or human-created nest sites during the current breeding season (between May 1 and August 31) plus the area within 1.5 m of the nest and the openings the birds use to access nests in enclosed situations; all used nests at any nest site that have been occupied by Barn Swallows within the previous three breeding seasons; and significant roost sites that are used regularly by at least 5,000 birds (approximately 1% of Ontario's breeding population, adjusted for young-of-the-year) during the post-breeding season (July 1 through October 31). Based on the above definition, the boathouse, including the openings in it and area 1.5 m surrounding it, should be considered habitat. This habitat will be lost due to the demolition of the boathouse EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 25

40 building. It is recognized that the loss of man-made nesting structures does contribute significantly to the decline, in Ontario, of the Barn Swallow population. As such, Ontario Regulation 242/08 describes the conditions which allows an individual to repair, maintain, modify, replace or demolish a building or structure that is habitat for Barn Swallows, which include the following; register the work and the affected species with the MNRF (before work begins); minimize the effects of your activity on Barn Swallow; create and maintain new habitat for Barn Swallow; report sightings of rare species (and update registration documentation, if needed); and monitor the habitat you create and report on certain observations; prepare and maintain records that relate to the activity and the habitat. Based on the above, RiverStone recommends the following in regard to Barn Swallows and the boathouse: Prior to demolishing the boathouse, this work and all steps to be competed shall be registered with the MNRF, including the construction of a new habitat structure for Barn Swallow, as noted above Endangered Bats Potential habitat for two (2) Endangered bats, Little Brown Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (the Endangered Bats ) is located across the Subject Property in all forested vegetation communities. In each of these communities, there are snag trees that could support maternal roosting habitat for each of the Endangered Bats. Pregnant and lactating females will move from roost to roost each morning in responses to changes in thermal conditions and prey (insect) availability. Areas containing a high density of snags increases the chances of use by Endangered Bats as these areas provide a variety of microhabitat conditions. Changes within the forest community adjacent to maternal roosts have the potential to reduce the suitability of a given snag or cavity tree by changing the extent of shading by adjacent trees, which can result in changes to thermal conditions within the roost. Additionally, as roosting trees inherently exhibit some level of decay, removal of trees surrounding roosts may increase the potential for windthrow of both the roost itself and surrounding trees, thereby damaging or destroying the habitat feature. Habitat for Endangered or special concern bats is prevalent throughout Muskoka. As a predominantly forested area, habitat for maternal roosting bats is not limited across the landscape. The primary reason for these species of bats being listed under the ESA is the prevalence of White-nose Syndrome, which is a fungus that infects bats as they hibernate over winter. This fungus grows on their muzzle, ears and wing-membranes, continually waking them from hibernation and causing dehydration, resulting in mortality. In order to prevent impacts upon the habitat of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern bats that may be utilizing the forest communities on the Subject Property for maternal roosting habitat, RiverStone recommends the following; Tree clearing for the purposes of development on each proposed lot only occur in the fall, winter and early spring (from October 15 to April 15). This timeframe is outside of the maternal roosting period. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 26

41 In the event that tree clearing must occur between April 15 and October 15, a qualified professional should complete a combination of snag surveys and acoustic monitoring, with technical guidance from the MNRF, for the area where tree clearing is proposed. If snag trees are found within the clearing area, bat exit surveys may be required. 5.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat ( SWH ) The following sections contain the results of the impact assessment and recommendations for avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to the ecological form and function of candidate SWHs identified during the initial stages of RiverStone s SWH assessment. Details of the initial stages of the assessment are provided in Appendix 3 and have been summarised above in Section Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals Bat Maternal Colonies Similar to the material provided for the Endangered Bats, there is habitat for bats classified as Special Concern in the forested communities on the Subject Property that would be potentially used for maternal roosting. The species included in this designation are the Big Brown Bat and Silver-haired Bat. The recommendations provided above related to timing of tree removal and the need to undertake specialized studies if those timing restrictions cannot be followed, would also apply to Big Brown and Silver-haired bats Rare Vegetation Communities Cliff and Talus Slopes Cliffs were identified on the Subject Property and have some of the indicator flora identified in the SWH Ecoregion 5E Criteria Schedules. As such, the identified cliff habitat is candidate SWH, and the entire ecosite is included within the candidate SWH boundary as noted in the 5E Schedule. In order to protect this feature, RiverStone recommends the following: Site alteration and development be excluded from the cliff habitat identified on Figures 3 and 4. The Plan on Figure 4 provides for significant areas outside of the cliff habitat for development on the proposed lots containing cliff communities. Based on the avoidance of development within the cliffs on the Subject Property, RiverStone is of the opinion that the ecological form and function will not be negatively impacted Rock Barrens Two separate rock barren habitat features were identified on the Subject Property and are classified within the Ecosites considered to be Candidate SWH in the Ecoregion 5E Criteria Schedules and have some of the indicator flora. As such, the identified rock barren habitats are candidate SWH, and the entire ecosite is included within the candidate SWH boundary as noted in the 5E Schedule. In order to protect this feature, RiverStone recommends the following: Site alteration and development be excluded from the rock barren habitat identified on Figures 3 and 4. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 27

42 The Plan on Figure 4 provides for significant areas outside of the rock barren habitat for development on the proposed lots containing rock barren communities. Based on the avoidance of development within the barrens on the Subject Property, RiverStone is of the opinion that the ecological form and function will not be negatively impacted Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (excluding Endangered and Threatened species) Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species Results of RiverStone s habitat-based assessment for Special Concern species identified White-tinged Sedge (Carex albicans) on the Subject Property. Habitat for White-tinged Sedge is within the rock barren vegetation communities, which are also considered SWH as a whole. The locations of the individual plants were within the north central portion of the rock barren. No additional measures are needed to protect the White-fringed Sedge, beyond protecting the entire rock barren community as recommended above. 5.4 Muskoka Heritage Area The Subject Property is considered a Muskoka Natural Heritage Area according to the Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka (Reid and Bergsma, 1994), and recognized as such in the OP s for the District and Township. The Subject Property was given this designation based on a number of natural heritage features, including diverse habitats (coniferous fringe forest, early successional deciduous forest, rocky shorelines, sandy beaches, marshland, steep rocky ridges, exposed cliff faces and rock barrens), deer wintering habitat, potential lake trout spawning habitat, as well as the functioning of adjacent Seagull Island as a Herring Gull loafing area and nesting habitat for Canada Geese. The recommendations provided above serve to eliminate development from the rock barrens and cliff habitats, as well as identified fish habitat, with additional areas included beyond the Natural Heritage Areas Program. Although RiverStone does not in agree that deer wintering habitat exists on the Subject Property, the primary suitable food for deer are located as a fringe of coniferous trees, which will be largely protected (85% of frontage - outside of shoreline access areas). Seagull Island is not proposed for development. Finally, the Subject Property s hilltop views are located in proximity to steep slopes, which eliminates the ability for septic systems and greatly restricts, if not eliminates, any other development. The vast majority of the features critical to the inclusion of the Subject Property as a Muskoka Heritage Area are proposed to be maintained as part of the Plan. The proposed land use changes on the Subject Property will result in the felling of both deciduous and coniferous trees, and vegetation will be removed or substantially modified within the proposed cottage and septic footprints, and along the access paths. Boat access will require the placement of docking areas in the nearshore where Type 2 Fish Habitat is present. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 28

43 Consequently, the ecological function of these areas will be negatively affected, albeit, outside of critical areas. The following measures are recommended to minimize the effects of development on the sites natural features and functions, in addition to the recommendations included above: Vegetation removal and disturbance outside of the development envelopes should be minimized. RiverStone s assessment concluded that the Subject Property is not a deer wintering yard; however, it is possible that deer feed at the Subject Property during the winter, particularly on the coniferous fringe at the Lake edge. Removal of vegetation, which may support browse species for deer, is to be minimized, which includes understorey shrubs. Seagull Island, which was identified as part of the Muskoka Heritage Area, should be excluded from development. 5.5 Other Natural Features and Functions The proposed land use changes will result in the felling of both deciduous and coniferous trees, and vegetation will be removed or substantially modified within the development footprints. Outside of the significant features and functions noted above, migratory birds in general have protection under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (the MBCA ). To be compliant with this Federal legislation, RiverStone recommends that: Vegetation removal should be restricted during the migratory nesting season, May 1 and July 31 each year. In the event that tree clearing must occur between May 1 and July 31, a qualified professional should complete a nest survey for the area where tree clearing is proposed. If nesting birds are found, tree clearing should wait until the birds have fledged. 6 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND POLICIES The following commentary summarizes the Federal, Provincial, and municipal environmental legislation and policies that are relevant to the proposal being evaluated here, and describes how the recommendations provided in this EIS will permit the proposed land-use changes to comply with these provisions. 6.1 Federal Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, amended ) The Federal Fisheries Act states that: 35. (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Recent regulatory changes under Subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act require that project activities be reviewed to determine if they have the potential to result in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Based on guidance documents provided by DFO, serious harm to fish includes: EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 29

44 direct fish mortality; the permanent alteration of fish habitat at a spatial scale, duration or intensity that negatively impacts habitat used to carry out one or more of their life processes (spawning, nursery, or rearing grounds, food supply areas, mitigation corridors, etc.): and destruction of fish habitat at a spatial scale, duration or intensity such that fish can no longer utilize habitats necessary to carry out one or more of their life processes (spawning, nursery, or rearing grounds, food supply areas, mitigation corridors, etc.). As long as the recommendations in this EIS are followed, it is RiverStone s opinion that activities proposed on the Subject Property will not contravene Subsection 35 (1) of the Fisheries Act, and that an authorization under the Subsection 35(2) is not likely required. If, however, during the course of this project, situations arise and lead to occurrences that result in serious harm to fish, persons responsible for the project have a duty to notify DFO, take corrective action, and provide written reports under Section 38 of the Fisheries Act. 6.2 Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22 Section 6 of the Migratory Birds Regulations under the MBCA makes it an offence to disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird. Restricting vegetation clearing on the Subject Property to times outside of May 1 to July 31 will prevent contravention of Section 6 of the MBCA regulations. If development and site alteration will occur during this period, a nest survey should be conducted by a qualified avian biologist prior to commencement of construction activities, to identify and locate active nests of migratory bird species covered by the MBCA. If a nest is located or evidence of breeding noted, then a mitigation plan should be developed to address any potential impacts on migratory birds or their active nests. Mitigation may require establishing appropriate buffers around active nests, or delaying construction activities until the conclusion of the nesting season. 6.3 Provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007 (the ESA ) The ESA came into effect June 30, 2008 and replaced the previous provincial Endangered Species Act. The following excerpt from the explanatory note provided with the ESA summarizes the protection afforded to species: If a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species, the Bill prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, possessing, transporting, collecting, buying, selling, leasing, trading or offering to buy, sell, lease or trade a member of the species, or selling, leasing, trading or offering to sell, lease or trade anything that is represented to be a member of the species. Protection afforded to habitats of species is described as follows: If a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species, the Bill prohibits damaging or destroying the habitat of the species. This prohibition also applies to an extirpated species if the species is prescribed by the regulations. The regulations may specifically prescribe an area as the habitat of a species but, if no habitat regulation is in force with respect to a species, habitat is defined to mean an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes. With respect to certain species that were classified before first reading of the Bill, the prohibition on damaging or destroying habitat does not apply until the earlier of the date a regulation prescribing the habitat of the EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 30

45 species comes into force and the fifth anniversary of the date the requirement to establish the Species at Risk in Ontario List comes into existence. Appendix 2 of this EIS lists the species protected under provisions of the ESA that have the potential to occur on the Subject Property or on the adjoining lands. The recommendations provided in Section 5.2 are intended prevent contravention of the ESA, by following the regulations for Barn Swallow and Endangered bat best practices. 6.4 Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (the PPS ) The significant natural features documented on the Subject Property include candidate SWH, potential habitat for Endangered and Threatened species, and fish habitat. Based on the identified features the following provisions from Section 2.1 of the PPS are relevant to this assessment: 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. RiverStone has included recommendations to protect the features with the highest ecological value along the shoreline, and maintain connectivity. Surface water and groundwater features must be protected through the detailed CMP and sediment and erosion control plans. Provided these recommendations are incorporated into the Plan, the natural features in this area will be maintained Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in. d) significant wildlife habitat. unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Appendix 3 and Section 5.3 of this EIS provides RiverStone s assessment of the likelihood that the development and site alteration proposed on the Subject Property would negatively impact SWH. Based on the assessment provided therein, it is RiverStone s conclusion that the proposed development and site alteration would be consistent with Policy of the PPS, as long as development occurs outside the areas shown on Figure 4 and the recommended mitigation measures are followed diligently Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Excluding development and site alteration from the areas shown in Figure 4 as Type 1 Fish Habitat, and adherence to recommendations outlined in Section 5.1, will ensure that these activities do not occur in areas that could be considered fish habitat, which is consistent with Policy of the PPS Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Adherence to the recommendations included in Section 5.2 will ensure that these activities do not occur in areas identified as significant habitat of Endangered or Threatened species, which is consistent with Policy of the PPS. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 31

46 2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. The lands adjacent to the Subject Property fall on the Lake of Bays, with the exception of shoreline residents adjacent to the south west corner of the Subject Property, given the proximity of the Subject Property to the mainland in this area. Careful evaluation of the ecological function of the adjacent lands potentially affected by the permissible development and site alteration on the Subject Property indicates that the activities will be consistent with Policy of the PPS, as long as the recommended mitigation measures contained within this EIS are followed. 6.5 District of Muskoka Official Plan (Office Consolidation 2014) The District OP provides recommendations regarding the protection of the natural environment across the District. Many of the recommendations parallel the requirements set out in the ESA, Fisheries Act, and PPS; consequently, the preceding discussion of how a development on the Subject Property would comply with those requirements similarly applies to policies in the District OP. 6.6 Township of Lake of Bays Official Plan (July 2016) The preceding sections discuss how the proposed land use change will comply with federal and provincial legislation and policy, as well as the policies of the District. The Township s OP also has several policies related to the identification and protection of natural heritage features. Particularly, Section D Environment, contains policies related to natural features of importance and development principals to maintain those features. A number of the policies directly apply to this proposed development application, including D12 and D13, which require development setbacks of 20 m from the high-water mark and 30 m for septic systems. D16 discusses the preservation of the shoreline, requiring a minimum of 75% of the frontage to a depth of 15 m, to remain in a natural state. Policy D18 requires shoreline structures be built in a manner that considers natural features such as fish and wildlife habitat, natural landscapes and terrain. In addition, there are a number of policies that discuss the importance of water quality and using advanced septic systems to limit phosphorus input into lakes. Measures to implement all of these policies have been recommended within this EIS and as part of the proposed development of the Subject Property. Section D of the OP also discusses the Muskoka Heritage Areas, including the Subject Property. Policy D96 is primarily taken from the details of the Muskoka Heritage Areas document, citing the key pieces of data as the reasons for its designation. D97 discusses the maintenance of Seagull Island as a nesting area. Although the Seagull Island has changed significantly since this document was written, that is not relevant, since Seagull Island will not be developed. Policies D99 and D100 discuss the requirement for an impact assessment should lot creation be contemplated as well as the planning means to implement recommendations from an impact assessment for protection of important features. This EIS fulfills the requirement for an impact assessment. Section D98 discusses lot creation on the Subject Property, which is being addressed in the planning report also submitted in support of the application. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 32

47 It is RiverStone s opinion that this EIS meets the policies within the Township Official Plan as it relates to natural heritage feature assessment and protection. 6.7 Township of Lake of Bays Development Permit By-law The Township s Permit Bylaw incorporates the zoning, site plan and minor variance processes into a single system. The guiding principles of the Permit By-law, as taken from Section H20 of the Official Plan, form the basis for the Permit By-law: the natural waterfront will prevail with built form blending into the landscape and shoreline; natural shorelines will be retained or restored; disturbance on lots will be limited and minimized; vegetation will be substantially maintained on skylines, ridge lines or adjacent to the top of rock cliffs; native species will be used for buffers or where vegetation is being restored; rock faces, steep slopes, vistas and panoramas will be preserved to the extent feasible; and building envelopes and the associated activity area will be defined and the remainder of the property shall remain generally in its natural state. Following the recommendations provided herein, the development proposed will comply with these principles. Each of the proposed lots will require development permits, given their location in the waterfront area where the Permit By-law is applicable. The proposed configuration of each lot along with the setbacks, vegetation maintenance and construction controls, will be compliant with the Permit By-law. 7 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings presented in this EIS and contingent upon the implementation of the recommendations made herein, it is RiverStone s conclusion that the proposed development of the Subject Property lots will have a low likelihood of negatively impacting any significant natural heritage features and functions, and that where negative impacts on the natural environment have the potential to occur, they can be acceptably avoided or minimized. RiverStone advises that the recommendations in this EIS be incorporated into the development and site plan agreements for the Subject Property. Finally, these conclusions are also dependent upon the recommended preventative measures being implemented through issuance of development permits that is subsequently enforced with appropriate by-laws. 8 REFERENCES Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature Ontario breeding bird atlas: guide for participants. Cadman, M. D., D. A. Sutherland, G. G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A. R. Couturier Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Nature, Toronto. Chapman, L. J. and D. F. Putnam The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 33

48 Dobbyn, J Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Toronto. Glenside Ecological Services Limited Species at risk: potentially suitable habitat mapping. Final draft report prepared for District Municipality of Muskoka. 102 pp. Henson, B. L. and K. E. Brodribb Great lakes conservation blueprint for terrestrial biodiversity, volume 2: ecodistrict summaries. 344 pp. MNR Lake of Bays. Lake Fact Sheet-Parry Sound District. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Updated pp. OMNR Significant wildlife habitat technical guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch (Wildlife Section) and Science Development and Transfer Branch, 151 pp appendices. OMNR. 2010a. Natural heritage reference manual for natural heritage policies of the provincial policy statement, Second Edition. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. OMNR. 2010b. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second edition. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario. OMNR Survey Protocol for Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species at Risk Branch. Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 18 pp. OMNRF Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 533 pp. OMNRF. 2015a. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 5E. OMNRF. 2015b. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E. OMNRF. 2015c. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E. Reid, R. and B. Bergsma Natural heritage evaluation of Muskoka. Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, Bracebridge, Ontario. 266 pp. Schindler, D. W The evolution of phosphorus limitation in lakes: natural mechanisms compensate for deficiencies of nitrogen and carbon in eutrophied lakes. Science 195: Wester, M., P. Uhlig, W. Bakowsky, and E. Banton Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Ecosite Fact Sheets (third draft). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays 34

49

50 Legend Contour Mapping Provided by First Base Solutions Ü 5 m Contours Planning Boundaries Subject Property Percent Slope 20 % >20 to 25 % 25 to 30 % 3933 South Portage Road Seagull Island 30 to <40 % 40 % Lake of Bays South Portage Road Langmaid's Island Scale 1:8,000 RS Project No. Date Last Updated By Oct 20, 2017 AS Metres Disclaimers: the scale text on this figure (e.g., 1:1000) is based on a 11x17" print. If this figure has been printed on a different page size, then only the scale bar is accurate. figure should not be used in place of a professional survey Figure 2. Percent Slope from Digital Terrain Model.Langmaid`s Island, Geographic Township of McLean, Township of Lake of Bays. Part Lot 24, Concession 1, and Seagull Island, Geographic Township of Brunel, Town of Huntsville. Prepared for: Langmaid's Island Corp.

51 3933 South Portage Road Portage G015Tt/Tl Jo-Lee Point G164Tl Seagull Island Legend Planning Boundaries Subject Property Man-made Features Existing at Time of Site Visit (Approximate)!C Accessory Building!C Cottage Biophysical Features and Functions Identfied By RiverStone k Localized Seepage Areas Ecological Communities (Shaded Communities - Condidate Significant Wildlife Habitat) G100Tt/Tl - Fresh, Silty to Fine Loamy Hemlock- Cedar Conifer Ü South Portage G013Tt/Tl Lake of Bays!C!C!C!C G011Tt/Tl G005X G155N G100Tt/Tl G018Tt/Tl G011Tt/Tl G100Tt/Tl G018Tt/Tl G015Tt/Tl G005X k k G018Tt/Tl G158Tt G011Tt/Tl - Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh: White Pine Conifer G013Tt/Tl - Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh: Hemlock- Cedar Conifer G015Tt/Tl - Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh: White Pine Mixedwood G017Tt/Tl - Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh: Oak Hardwood G018Tt/Tl - Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh: Maple Hardwood G155N - Active Limnetic Mineral G158Tt - Acidic Treed Cliff G164Tl - Rock Barren G005X - Active Mineral Shoreline Fish Habitat Type 1 (Critical) G100Tt/Tl G013Tt/Tl G015Tt/Tl G018Tt/Tl Langmaid's Island G011Tt/Tl G164Tl G015Tt/Tl G011Tt/Tl k G164Tl Aquatic Vegetation Complex Features Lake Trout Spawning (Potential) Type 2 (Important) General Shoreline Habitat Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Barn Swallow Structure Orthorectified aerial photo - spring 2008 Scale RS Project No. Date Last Updated By 1:6, Oct 20, 2017 AS Metres Prices Point Disclaimers: the scale text on this figure (e.g., 1:1000) is based on a 11x17" print. If this figure has been printed on a different page size, then only the scale bar is accurate. Figure 3. Biophysical Features and Functions. Langmaid`s Island, Geographic Township of McLean, Township of Lake of Bays. Part Lot 24, Concession 1, and Seagull Island, Geographic Township of Brunel, Town of Huntsville. Prepared for: Langmaid's Island Corp. figure should not be used in place of a professional survey

52 Seagull Island Legend Planning Boundaries Subject Property Features with Recognized High Natural Heritage Value - Identified by RiverStone Endangered or Threatened Species at Risk Habitat Barn Swallow Habitat (boathouse) Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat Rock Barren and Cliff Ecosites Type 1 Fish Habitat Aquatic Vegetation Ü Complex Features Lake Trout Spawning (Potential) Development Setbacks Required by Relevant Approval Authorities 20m Development Setback 30m Septic Setback Narrow Waterbody Policy Area Proposed Development and Site Alteration Proposed Lots Docks Measures Recommended by RiverStone to Prevent and/or Reduce Impacts Area to Exclude from Development Langmaid's Island Orthorectified aerial photo - spring 2008 Lake of Bays Scale 1:6,500 RS Project No. Date Last Updated By Dec 7, 2017 AS Metres Disclaimers: the scale text on this figure (e.g., 1:1000) is based on a 11x17" print. If this figure has been printed on a different page size, then only the scale bar is accurate. figure should not be used in place of a professional survey Figure 4. Proposed Development and Environmental Constraints. Langmaid`s Island, Geographic Township of McLean, Township of Lake of Bays. Part Lot 24, Concession 1, and Seagull Island, Geographic Township of Brunel, Town of Huntsville. Prepared for: Langmaid`s Island Corp.

53 Appendix 1. Select Photos from Site Visits

54

55 Appendix 1 Photo 1. Langmaid s Island viewed from the mainland at South Portage Road view to the east (June 16, 2017). Photo 2. Central east side of Langmaid s Island shoreline (June 6, 2017). Photo 3. Mainland along South Portage Road view to west from Langmaid s Island (June 6, 2017). Photo 4. Seagull Island, north of Langmaid s Island (June 6, 2017). Photo 5. Active cormorant and gull nesting colony on Seagull Island (June 6, 2017). Photo 6. Steep, semi-treed cliffs on some portions of Langmaid s Island (June 6, 2017). \ EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays Page 1 of 4

56 Appendix 1 Photo 7. Rock barren vegetation community, east end of Langmaid s Island (July 6, 2017). Photo 8. Shallow bedrock soils on some portions of Langmaid s Island (August 11, 2017). Photo 9. Conifer vegetation community along shoreline fringe (August 11, 2017). Photo 10. Mixed forest vegetation community (August 11, 2017). Photo 11. Deciduous forest vegetation community (August 11, 2017). Photo 12. Vacant cottage building in central portion of Island (August 11, 2017). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays Page 2 of 4

57 Appendix 1 Photo 13. Vacant cottage buildings on central portion of Island (August 11, 2017). Photo 14. Vacant boathouse on west side of Island (June 16, 2017). Photo 15. Active Barn Swallow nest in vacant boathouse (June 23, 2017). Photo 16. One of the beach shorelines with recreational visitors (July 21, 2017). Photo 17. Beach shoreline community on southeast shore of Island (August 11, 2017). Photo 18. Shallow limnetic aquatic community and Type 1 Fish Habitat (August 11, 2017). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays Page 3 of 4

58 Appendix 1 Photo 19. Type 1 fish habitat, along western shoreline (June 16, 2017). Photo 20. Typical shoreline fish habitat with conifer fringe, (June 16, 2017). Photo 21. Potential Lake Trout Spawning Shoal (Type 1 Fish Habitat) along eastern shoreline of island (July 21, 2017). Photo 22. Type 1 fish habitat, near opening between two islands on north shore (June 16, 2017). Photo 23. Type 2 Fish Habitat, southeast side of Island (July 21, 2017). Photo 24. Type 2 Fish Habitat and beach community, south side of Island (June 16, 2017). EIS Langmaid s Island, Lake of Bays Page 4 of 4