July 19, 2018 RS# 2017-88 Langmaid’s Island Corp. c/o Michael Melling Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1 via email: [email protected] SUBJECT: Response to Peer Review of EIS Documents by Palmer Environmental Consultants – Langmaid’s Island, Lake of Bays, Township of Lake of Bays, District of Muskoka Dear Mr. Melling: RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. (“RiverStone”) is pleased to provide our response to items raised in the District of Muskoka (“District”) peer review prepared by Palmer Environmental Consulting Group (“PECG”) and dated May 11, 2018 (the “Peer Review”) of our three (3) Environmental Impact Studies (“EIS”) for Langmaid’s Island (the “Island”), 3933 South Portage Road (the “3933 Landing”) and 4215 South Portage Road (the “4215 Landing”). In this letter report, RiverStone will go through each of the summary items provided in the Peer Review to provide a response and/or additional details that are requested. RESPONSE TO PECG PEER REVIEW COMMENTS The first comment provided in the Peer Review is in relation to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (“MNRF”) review of all the items related to species at risk (“SAR”), for all three properties. The MNRF has now completed its review and has signed off on the three properties, stating that there are no other requirements for the application in order to be compliant with the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). MNRF’s response for the three properties is provided in Appendix 1. A Summary of Issues was provided at the conclusion of the Peer Review. Each of the specific issues relate to Significant Wildlife Habitat (“SWH”), which is a component of Section 2.1.5 (d) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (the “PPS”). It states that “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: “(d) significant wildlife habitat, unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological function.” 47 Quebec St., Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 2A5 / T 705.645.9887 / F 888.857.4979 / E [email protected] RIVERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC. The Peer Review specifically requested additional details for the following items: • Need to demonstrate no negative impact to Bat Maternal Colonies for non-SAR Bat species. • Need to Confirm presence/absence of Bald Eagle and Osprey nesting, Foraging, Perching Habitat. • Need to Re-evaluate the protection of Seeps/Springs • Need to Further Assess the presence/absence of Deer Yarding Areas • Rare vegetation communities, provide further information including plant species lists. • Muskoka Heritage Area Designation – Further assess the significant heritage values for which the Langmaid’s Island MHA was designated. Bat Maternal Colonies - Non-SAR Bats Our EIS acknowledged that there is suitable habitat for roosting sites of Bat Maternal Colonies throughout the forested communities on Langmaid’s Island; however, the Peer Review suggested that the potential negative impacts of the proposed development on the roosting sites was not discussed in detail, specifically for non-SAR bats, and in relation to the older forest habitats on the western portion of the Island. The additional details requested included an assessment to better identify the potential loss of suitable habitat, noting that the Significant Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Support Tool #12 notes that site alteration resulting in vegetation loss can reduce the function of bat maternity colonies. As a result of this comment, RiverStone further assessed the suitability of habitat in the western portion of the Island, undertaking snag tree counts at 17 random locations on May 18, 2018, as well as communicating with MNRF regarding SAR and non-SAR bat impact mitigation. Following the Significant Wildlife Technical Guide (the “SWHTG”) for determining if a forest community contains candidate habitat for Bat Maternal Colonies, random point counts of snag trees spread amongst the forest communities are to be completed, using the observation numbers to determine if the threshold of 10 snag trees / ha is achieved to consider candidacy. The locations of the random counts are shown on Figure 1, along with the number of snag trees found within a 12.6 m radius around each point (equivalent to 0.1 ha). In total, 30 trees were considered to be in a state of decay, or had loose bark or cavities that would provide roosting opportunities. This works out to approximately 17.6 snag trees /ha; therefore, the western forest is considered candidate SWH for bats. Of note is that the Peer Review specifically mentioned Silver-haired Bats as the species potentially suited to the western part of the Island, due to their preference for older trees. This is noted in the MNRF Ecoregion Criteria Schedules to the SWHTG, stating that a site is considered candidate SWH in regard to Silver-haired Bats if the snag count is above 21 snags/ha. Given that RiverStone’s assessment reported a snag density below that required for Silver-haired bats, the remaining species of Bat for which we are considering SWH is the Big Brown Bat. The next step in the process is to determine the potential negative impacts on the feature and ecological function based on the development plan and mitigation measures. The locations of the roosting trees were spread across the coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests on the western portion of the Island, with no single forest community having all of the roosting potential. The expected clearing for the 10 lots proposed on the western portion of the main Island will be closer to the shoreline, leaving the majority of the forest community undisturbed. Response to Peer Review – Langmaid’s Island, Lake of Bays RIVERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC. The mitigation measures proposed in our EIS include a timing restriction for tree removal outside of roosting season, vegetation within the 20 m setback to be protected (access to shoreline excepted), as well as minimizing the removal of vegetation outside of the building envelopes. It is RiverStone’s opinion that with the implementation of the recommendations of the EIS, the remaining forest represents suitable maternal roosting habitat for non-SAR bats, specifically Big Brown Bat, and the loss of trees will not constitute a negative impact on the feature or its ecological function. As a follow up to developing our opinion above, we communicated with Ms. Karine Beriault, Management Biologist at the Parry Sound MNRF Office, who also provided MNRF comments related to SAR for this proposal. Although the MNRF does not directly comment on issues of SWH for EIS submissions, they are the authors of the SWH documents that are followed (SWHTG, Ecoregion Criteria Schedules, and Mitigation Tool) and are therefore able to provide guidance on its interpretation. Ms. Beriault suggested that she would expect the same mitigation measures to be applied to both SAR and non-SAR bats to be compliant with Provincial legislation/policy (ESA, PPS), and that limiting tree removal to the period when Bats are not roosting, the setbacks as described above, and minimizing tree removal outside the building envelope were sufficient to determine that there are no negative impacts to the features and ecological functions. We trust that this addresses this issue. Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging, Perching Habitat The Peer Review notes seeing bald eagles flying overhead of Langmaid’s Island during the PECG site assessment on March 23, 2018. During the public information sessions, members of the public also noted observing bald eagles flying over the Island. In addition to these observations, photographs were recently forwarded to the District by members of the public showing what looks like a stick nest along the shoreline of the Island near the western beach, near the southern shoreline of the Island. Although the EIS did note that stick nests were not observed during our assessment, the above observations lead to a request for additional information regarding specific site searches that were conducted for stick nests, and whether there are opportunities for nesting/perching in the super canopy. During RiverStone’s site assessments, we had many opportunities to review the canopy for stick nests. These included our specific studies related to breeding birds, vegetation communities (ELC), and fish habitat assessments, when the entire shoreline of the Island was observed by boat. Observations were made by several individuals accessing all of the forest communities over approximately 15 hours on the Island. Much of this assessment time was in the spring (breeding bird) and fall (fish habitat), during the leaf- off period, when nests would be more visible. Following the March observation of Bald Eagles by the peer reviewer, a specific site visit was completed on May 25, 2018 to review the locations noted by the peer reviewer to determine if there was any evidence of the existence of Bald Eagles or other raptors at individual trees. The locations reviewed (base of tree and surrounding area) were along the eastern portion of the Island, primarily on the higher ground where the taller trees would stand above the upper canopy. These are the locations that would be preferred by nesting and perching raptors. No evidence was found that would indicate use by bald eagles (accumulated food scraps, scat, or fallen parts of a stick nest at the base of the tree). Response to Peer Review – Langmaid’s Island, Lake of Bays RIVERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC. Nevertheless, and based on the recent photographs submitted to the District, an additional site visit was completed on June 28, 2018 to review the location of the picture, directly behind the western beach. March to mid-August is the preferred time to determine nest use, perching sites and foraging areas. The tree in the photographs provided to the District by members of the public is located along the western beach.