{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["review-comments"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"review-comments","index":0,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":3,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Comment ID","Commenting on behalf of","Organization","Comment","Supporting links","Supporting documents","Comment approved","Comment moderation","created","Link to comment"]
[46398,"on my own behalf",null,"I am opposed to this proposal. The goal of the ESA is the protection and recovery of species at risk, not the minimization of harm to these species. Moreover, this proposal is not directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A decision should be made until after the pandemic-related restrictions are lifted and Ontario Regulation 115/20 expires, to ensure that all Statements of Environmental Values are considered.",null,null,"Yes",null,"2020-06-02T10:29:00","comment/46398"]
[46502,"in my professional capacity, on behalf of my organization","Wildlife Preservation Canada","To Whom This May Concern,\nAs part of my reptile recovery work in the local area, I shared advice on this project early on (2018) and met with the proponent to discuss the proposal, visit the site in question, and visit the proposed enhancement area. All activities currently proposed as part of this overall benefit permit appear to be consistent with what was previously discussed. As such I am generally satisfied with the content of the permit proposal, however, there are two key components that should be strengthened: \n1)\tWith regard to \"Actions to achieve an overall benefit to the species\" and \"Actions to minimize negative effects to the species\": All of these actions do not appear to be guaranteed in the proposal, based on the use of the sentence \"These [ways to provide an overall benefit/minimize adverse effects] may involve/include\". This sentence should be changed in both sections to \"These will involve/include\". As it is written, it is impossible to know if all, or just a portion, of the proposed actions will actually be undertaken. If it is just a portion, it is impossible to know which specific actions will be undertaken. This information is key to determining whether or not all adverse effects will be minimized, and whether or not an overall benefit will be achieved. \n2)\tWith regard to \"Actions to achieve an overall benefit to the species\": The apparent ongoing net loss of Massasauga regulated habitat in the local area, combined with a recent precipitous decline in this species' distribution, suggests that we need to acquire and protect additional lands strategically (in addition to managing what is already secured under public protection). Has there been any consideration given in this proposal to expanding the nearby LaSalle Woods ESA (an extremely important site for the Massasaugas locally) by acquiring adjacent private parcels that are suitable habitat yet are open to residential development? For example, directly adjacent to and west of the LWESA, there are ~5 ha of land in private ownership, some of which have been recently used by both Massasaugas and Foxsnakes. Consolidating public lands adjacent to LWESA would create a substantial overall benefit for Massasaugas, and stem further habitat loss. The current proposal is commendable in its offer to properly manage a key area of protected snake habitat, which I have previously recommended, and is a very important activity that will contribute toward Massasauga recovery. My concern, however, is that this action alone will not contribute to \"no net loss\" of regulated Massasauga habitat, let alone achieve \"more than\" no net loss.",null,null,"Yes",null,"2020-06-15T12:17:00","comment/46502"]