Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DonAndersen

Stauffer Creek - Further info

Recommended Posts

Folks,

Adjoining the lands of Border Paving, the proponent of the gravel pit, and within 50 yards on both the east side and north side are lands held under title by the Alberta Conservation Assoc., Trout Unlimited Canada, Alberta Fish and Game Assoc.. 
These lands were purchased by the above authorities with additional contributions of Central Alberta Trout unlimited Chapter.
If you purchased a fishing or hunting license and or are dues paying members of one or more of those organizations, these lands belong to you and you must have standing in any decision rendered. 
These lands held by the above groups have management plans developed by the owners whose decisions reflect any similar owner decisions. Examples of these decisions include land use, access, grazing and the like. 
Please address all comments about the application of Border Paving to:

Planning Dept.
Country of Clearwater,
4340 47 Ave, Rocky Mountain House, AB T4T 1A4

Please write a letter as letters have much more “weight” than emails or online petitions. 

Regards,

Don

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Don,

Did you make it to the meeting?  If so, how did it play out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
order Paving meeting held Nov. 28 saw a audience of perhaps 75. The audience was composed of most of the landowners within close proximity of the proposed wet gravel pit, several downstream landowners, business owners located along the stream, Trout Unlimited representatives from Calgary, Red Deer, Edmonton, Alberta F&G, Alberta Conservation Association, Red Deer Watershed Alliance & Butte Action Committee, plus a number of interested Anglers, landowners and county residents. 
Border Paving had their Hydrologist Consultants, fisheries consultant, plus in-house staff presenting info.

1) As expected, water and how to protect the North Raven River from potential effects on the stream was the major focus of the audience. The Hydrologist presented his findings which the audience felt meager at best. Many expressed the view of why risk the stream. This section of the meeting used perhaps 70% of the 2 hour session.

2) Border provided “story boards” showing pit locations, exactions, end pit lakes and the like

3) Border outlined a desire to combine applications for both pits as requested by Dept. of Environment. 

4) Road use, anticipated use of the pit, operating hours were all detailed. 

5) As part of the application process, attendees could sign in for further info sent to them, use a response sheet provided by Border. All responses sent or recorded become part of tbe package provided to the County 
.
For those who wished to comment on the application, please see previous post for letters addresses.

Regards,

Don

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...