The working document does not establish clear objectives. Councilors are elected and paid to plan how new development might fit into and benefit local communities. Residents do not want to see existing values ​​destroyed by greed, whether the development in question may be a gravel pit, clear-cutting, a confined power operation, a nuclear power plant, or any other project. If the goal is to bring jobs to the Fort Assiniboine area, it might explain why it wouldn't be more beneficial to the community if local gravel operators first had the opportunity to sell their gravel and reclaim some of the existing pits, rather than open new wells for builders who will never live here? The working document attempts to replace operational restrictions with land use planning. This will only punish existing local gravel operators and will not address the real issues of cumulative negative impacts of new large wells added to existing ones. Can you please explain when or how this board plans to monitor the numbers and impacts of new development overall, and how many wells the county is willing to monitor? The working document does not provide for the protection of agricultural land. Many Alberta municipalities actively support agriculture through various means, including protecting farmland. Why are Woodlands councilors ignoring the Municipal Government Act and their own Municipal Development Plan, both of which require the protection of agricultural land? Can you please explain the county's criteria for rezoning agricultural land for natural resource extraction? The working paper includes repeated references to gravel pit reclamation, including repeated requirements for plans, safety of… half of the paper… ? Or better yet, could you explain why the county can't plan future gravel extraction for areas that are less likely to impact existing residents, businesses or recreational areas? The publicly available working document does not differentiate the proposed changes from the existing statute and does not include relevant sections of law or statute by reference, so it does not provide the public with sufficient information to respond to. Furthermore, many residents won't waste their time in these meetings because they don't trust councilors to base decisions on bylaws or public input anyway? Are councilors aware that many residents do not express concerns in public or in writing, for fear of repercussions from county staff? Do councilors believe that this meeting constitutes fair public consultation in these circumstances and, if not, what plans will be made for more effective consultation??