Petition Number 172 - Denis Rochon,
2088 Concession 10,
Pendleton, Ontario.
denrochon@gmail.com
613-673-5823
What is the meaning of "environmental impact"?
-Any change to the environment, (water, air and land) whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organization's activities, products or services."

BUT, if this is in an agricultural context, things are different in such a way that many factors do not even surface when talking about environmental impacts. When a 3,000 pig factory is recognized as a farm, the norms and regulations are lowered to fit such an entity. An environmental impact assessment is based strictly on the possible damage done to a significant woodlot and if there are any endangered species on the property where a pig farm will be apparently built. The dangers of pollution or contamination of surface and or ground water are non-issues compared to, if this entity was classified as an industry.

In my eyes, a barn with 3,000 pigs is a FACTORY!!!

Let's not forget that Pendleton is close to the St-Lawrence River to the south, just 2 watersheds away and one watershed close to the Ottawa River.

Is the South Nation Conservation ready to gamble with water quality? (Farrell)

The water consumption for this pig FACTORY is immense, a single pig will drink between 20 and 26 litres a day, (let's use 22 litres)

+ the barn will use 131 litres of water for flushing (cooling and cleaning) that same pig, =153 litres of water per pig, per day

x 3,000 pigs= 459,000 litres of water per day

x 365 days(in a year)=167,535,000 litres of water per year.

Where are they going to get all this water? From an already fragile aquifer or the South Nation River? (QUANTITY) Has anybody from the ministry of the agriculture or the environment of Ontario done an aquifer assessment study? How long before we ONTARIO RESIDENTS living in Pendleton, get severed from our drinking water? The provincial government ( McGuinty and Broten) have been talking and changing Acts (Clean Water Act), and regulations (Water Taking Tax) concerning drinking water in the last months or are those done because provincial elections are looming? What about the citizens of Pendleton, don't we have rights to drink CLEAN WATER? Last time I checked we still lived in ONTARIO.

I guess this is what happens when the municipal office of the Nation municipality (Pommainville) feels that he is not obligated to keep the residents of his constituency, informed about such a situation that could become life threatening.

As for the anaerobic digester (bio digester), by itself, would eliminate most of the smell and it does not consume any water to function, but the danger lies in

-A- The transport of the liquid manure from the pig FACTORY to the anaerobic digester, via a 5 km pipeline. Pipelines are known to leak, ie. the water pipeline that supplies St-Isidore with their drinking water and out in the western provinces, people make their living on repairing leaky oil pipelines.

-B-The extraction of the methane which is needed to produce electricity. (methane, being a volatile, inflammable gas)

Then comes the "proposed" ethanol plant, water consumption for ethanol production, 16.1 litres of water to produce A SINGLE LITRE of ethanol .

Need I say more?

How many litres of ethanol are suppose to be produce in a year?

5 million litres?

Unless M. Henrrard has a secret magical water fountain up his sleeve,

again I ask "where will this water come from?"

By now, it is quite evident that,

WE DO NOT WANT THIS PIG FACTORY

AND WHAT IT BRINGS IN OUR NEIGBORHOOD!!!!!!!

From Petition Number 99- Ron Dines
Dated April 13, 2007
Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario

http://www.cefeo.org:80/

CEFEO congratulates the East Hawkesbury Municipal Council for their sound reasoning

The February 23rd edition of the weekly newspaper Le Carillon reported that East Hawkesbury has prohibited intensive hog operations by adopting a new municipal by-law on February 14th.

By-law 2025-23 prohibits the creation or establishment of, the possession, maintenance or operation, directly or indirectly of an intensive hog operation in the county of East Hawkesbury. The term “Intensive Hog Operation” is defined as follows: An agricultural installation which implies the reproduction, breeding, custody, lodging care or maintenance of pigs exceeding 500 living animals.

The citizens for the environment and future in Eastern Ontario (CEFEO) congratulate and thank the Municipal Council of East Hawkesbury for this decision.

Evidently, council has listened to the vast majority of its citizens, including local farmers: it has fully analyzed all of the documentation given to it (notably by CEFEO) and has consulted a highly qualified lawyer concerning this matter.

The preamble to the regulation emphasizes the important points supporting Council’s position.

Municipalities have been created (by the Province of Ontario) to be responsible and accountable governments with respect to matters within their jurisdiction. They have the capacity, rights and jurisdiction to regulate locally for purposes related to health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants, including sewage waste, animals, odor, public nuisance and matters that could become or cause nuisances.

The report entitled Nutrients and their impact on the Canadian environment (published by the Federal Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, Fisheries, Health and Natural Resources) has concluded that in areas where intensive hog operations are practiced, there are more nutrients available then required by the crops, resulting in major environmental and health concerns about air quality, eutrophication of surface waters and the contamination of ground water.

The declaration of the Québec government of an urgent preoccupation…due to a large increase of intensive hog operations in recent years and of the environmental impact of these operations.

The resolutions of the Canadian Medical Association calling for a moratorium on Intensive Hog Operations, pending a more complete understanding of their impact on human health.

The evidence and resultant documentation given to the East Hawkesbury Council by many of its concerned citizens.

The importance the East Hawkesbury and its citizens place on health, safety and the well being of its citizens as well as the protection of the environment.

The fact that the largest risk identified, for the environment as well as human health and safety, is generated by intensive hog operations – and, consequently, that these agricultural exploitations require a higher degree of caution.

Before the considerable risk of serious or irreversible damage to the environment and to the citizens of the community, the stakes of health and public safety, as well as sustainable development can only be assured, in this context, by proactive measures which conform with the precautionary principle.

The council has established that in order to react suitably, in an appropriate manner, toward local stakes, in order to protect their assets and favour the well-being and future of the municipality, with respect to the economic, social and environmental plan, that it is in the public interest, both desirable and necessary, that the municipality adopt measures for its inhabitants and its environment concerning intensive hog operations.

The community of East Hawkesbury is therefore protected against integrators who wish to establish intensive hog operations on their territory.

CEFEO must, however, indicate that elected officials in communities adjacent to East Hawkesbury, have not yet understood the menace represented by the invasion of intensive hog operations, on the future of their communities. If other intensive hog operations were established there, the residents of East Hawkesbury could well suffer due to diverse geographical situations, the water table, streams and rivers, wind, and truck routes, among others, not bound by municipal borders and thus able to spread their perverse effects from one county to another.

The neighbouring counties (according to CEFEO) susceptible to an invasion of intensive hog operations are:

North Glengarry, where certain uninformed elected officials believe that intensive hog operations can be included in a sustainable development plan; and

The nearby Québec municipalities, in particular Rigaud and others of the MRC of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, where the integrators would be able to establish their operations since the lifting of the Québec moratorium, by the Liberal government at the end of 2004, without alternate replacement legislation.

CEFEO wishes to thank the citizens who have given donations for the advancement of the work in defending the rights and interests of the community. CEFEO will continue to be vigilant in this area.

NO
MEGA PIGGERY
On Concession 10 near Pendleton, Ontario

Suggestions for questions to ask our following representatives:

· Mr. Denis Pommainville ( 613-764-5444), Mayor, The Nation Municipality, 613-443-2111
· Mr. Jean-Yves Lalonde, Mayor, Alfred-Plantagenet,
613-673-4797 or 613-673-5909
· Mr. Pierre Lemieux, Member of Parliament,
1-800-990-0490 or 613-992-0490
· Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde, MPP, Ontario,
613-632-2706 or 613-446-4010

1. Why allow the construction of a piggery of this magnitude close to the Nation River and the Spring Brook? Don't we already have enough contaminated wells and water courses?

2. What is the advantage to The Nation municipality and Alfred-Plantagenet to have this piggery? The feed and the pigs will come from the province of Quebec and the meat will be exported abroad.

3. Why has The Nation municipality ignored the concerns of its residents who are overwhelmingly against this piggery?

4. Why has The Nation municipality already given a building permit for construction of the piggery?
5. Why favour the interests of a Quebec company, Coté-Paquette, instead of the interests of the residents of The Nation municipality and Alfred-Plantagenet?
6. Why haven't the municipalities of The Nation and Alfred-Plantagenet and our federal and provincial members of parliament fought more aggressively to protect the interests of their constituents?
7. Are municipal, provincial, and federal governments aware of the enormous quantity of water that this 3,000 sow piggery will require on a daily basis? Are not the quantity and quality of our water already in enough peril?
8. Hog production has become a nightmare in the province of Quebec. The province is saturated with piggeries and much surrounding farmland is awash with pig manure.
Why risk having the same problems in our own province
and in our own communities?

Why? Why? Why?

c.c. Vision
Le Reflet
Le Carillon
The Citizen
Radio-Canada
Lowell Green, CFRA

Signed,

Group of Concerned Citizens
http..//www.prescottrussellbusiness.com

Suggestions de questions à poser à nos représentants:

· M. Denis Pommainville ( 613-764-5444), Maire de la Municipalité de La Nation, 613-443-2111
· M. Jean-Yves Lalonde, Maire d'Alfred-Plantagenet,
613-673-4797 ou 613-673-5909
· M. Pierre Lemieux, Député Fédéral,
1-800-990-0490 ou 613-992-0490
· M. Jean-Marc Lalonde, Député Provincial,
613-632-2706 ou 613-446-4010

1. Pourquoi laisser une porcherie de cette envergure s'établir près de deux cours d'eau? (la rivière Nation et le Spring Brook) N'avons-nous pas encore assez de cours d'eau et de puits contaminés?
2. Quel avantage y a-t-il pour la municipalité de La Nation et d'Alfred-Plantagenet d'avoir cette porcherie? Les cochons et le grain proviendront du Québec et la viande sera exportée à l'étranger.
3. Pourquoi le gouvernement municipal de La Nation a-t-il fait fi de l'opinion de ses concitoyens qui sont majoritairement contre la porcherie?
4. Pourquoi la municipalité de La Nation a-t-elle déjà accordé le permis de construction de la porcherie?
5. Pourquoi favoriser les intérêts de la compagnie québecoise Coté-Paquette plutôt que ceux des citoyens de La Nation et d'Alfred-Plantagenet?
6. Pourquoi nos représentants au niveau municipal, provincial et fédéral ne sont-ils pas intervenus d'une façon plus aggressive en notre faveur?
7. Nos représentants se rendent-ils compte de l'énorme quantité d'eau qui devra être utilisée quotidiennement pour faire fonctionner une porcherie de cette ampleur? La quantité et la qualité de notre eau ne sont-elles pas déjà en péril?
8. L'élevage du porc est un cauchemar au Québec. Cette province est saturée d'éleveurs de porcs et beaucoup trop de ses terres agricoles regorgent de fumier de cochons. Des porcheries de taille industrielle, n'en avons nous pas déjà assez? Pourquoi risquer d'avoir les mêmes problèmes dans notre région, ici chez nous en Ontario?




Pourquoi? Pourquoi? Pourquoi?

c.c. Vision
Le Reflet
Le Carillon
The Citizen
Radio-Canada
Lowell Green, CFRA

Signé,

Groupe de citoyens engagé
http..//www.prescottrussellbusiness.com

la pollution potentielle de la rivière Nation à proximité du projet de la porcherie, la dépréciation de leurs résidences ainsi que l'épandage de purin et la présence d'un biodigesteur de taille dans le village de Pendleton.
Les réponses notamment de Jake DeBruyn, ingénieur du ministère de l'Agriculture, n'ont pas semblé rassurer les plus mécontents.

''Que devons nous faire pour arrêter ce projet?'', a questionné Robert Mallette de Plantagenet.
Nous ne sommes pas obligés d'accepter l'épandage de fumier. On peut faire des lois!''

En réponse, le maire d'Alfred-plantagenet souligne que sa municipalité est à la merci des normes provinciales.

''Il n'y a rien qui régularise les porcheries en province, mais les promoteurs doivent suivre certaines normes. Et ils doivent répondre aux exigences'', souligne Jean-Yves Lalonde.

**This is in french, however it clearly declares the disapproval of the population of Plantagenet in the building of the two projects.

Quelque 125 résidants du secteur Pendleton d'Alfred et Plantagenet ont pu exprimer une partie de leurs frustrations, mercredi soir, dans le cadre d'une assemblée publique touchant le projet d'une porcherie assortie d'un bio-digesteur, dans leur voisinage.
Comme c'est ordinairement le cas, lors des assemblées touchant l'implantation d'une porcherie, la plupart des citoyens participants se sont montrés très émotifs et peu réceptifs à l'idée.
Les organisateurs, la municipalité du Canton d'Alfred et Plantagenet, ont eu beau indiquer que l'assemblée devait porter sur le fonctionnement et l'utilité du bio-digesteur, la plupart des participants de la salle leur ont rétorqué qu'ils ne voulaient rien savoir de ce dispositif, mais qu'ils voulaient se faire rassurer concernant la porcherie et ses impacts.
La porcherie sera exploitée par l'entreprise Côté-Paquette alors que le bio-digesteur est un projet du producteur de grandes cultures de Pendleton, Philippe Henrard.

" On ne veut pas d'un autre Walkerton chez-nous. On veut rien savoir du bio-digesteur et surtout pas d'une porcherie ", a lancé un citoyen vociférant.

Michel Mallette, qui s'est identifié comme un résidant du village de Pendleton, a dit que la porcherie serait établi beaucoup trop près de la communauté. " Il est inacceptable qu'une porcherie soit construite si près d'un village et, qu'en plus, le fumier soit épandu sur un terrain sablonneux ", a-t-il indiqué.

Une résidante de la neuvième concession, Corinne Balasa, a soutenu qu'elle avait recueilli des échantillons d'eau d'un ruisseau avoisinant qui longera également la propriété de la porcherie et que la qualité de l'eau s'était détériorée dernièrement. Elle a également voulu savoir qui serait imputable en cas de dégâts environnementaux et quels seraient les délais pour nettoyer ceux-ci.
À cette dernière question, le porte-parole du ministère de l'Agriculture de l'Ontario, Jake Debruyn, a expliqué que l'exploitant de la porcherie était responsable d'aviser le ministère de l'Environnement de toute situation problématique et était imputable en cas de dommages.
Denis Rochon de Pendleton s'est inquiété des effets de l'implantation d'une porcherie et d'un bio-digesteur dans un secteur ou l'eau de qualité est déjà rare.
À cet effet, Jake Debruyn a expliqué que le bio-digesteur s'alimentait du lisier du porc et n'avait donc pas besoin d'eau. Pour ce qui est de la porcherie, il a fait valoir qu'un exploitant de porcherie s'assurera forcément de s'établir à un endroit où les sources d'eau sont suffisantes, une réponse qui n'a pas eu l'heur de convaincre l'assistance.
Plusieurs citoyens se sont également inquiétés de la pollution par les odeurs et de la perte de valeur des propriétés. Les représentants du ministère de l'Agriculture ont soutenu que l'utilisation du bio-digesteur aurait pour effet de réduire considérablement les odeurs. En ce qui touche la perte de valeurs, ceux-ci ont mentionné qu'il y avait peu de cas de propriétés dévaluées à la suite de l'implantation d'une porcherie, une autre réponse accueillie avec scepticisme par l'auditoire.
Quelles que soient les réponses fournies par les représentants du ministère de l'Agriculture, les citoyens ne semblaient rien vouloir entendre, à part " non à la porcherie ".
" Qu'est ce qu'il faut faire pour empêcher la porcherie ! ", a lancé un citoyen auquel plusieurs autres ont rapidement fait écho.
" Notre municipalité ne peut rien faire, d'abord parce que la porcherie ne s'établit pas sur notre territoire, et ensuite, parce que c'est un dossier de juridiction provinciale ", a souligné le maire d'Alfred et Plantagenet, Jean-Yves Lalonde. " Si vous voulez arrêter le projet, il faut aller à la province ", a-t-il ajouté.
La municipalité du Canton de La Nation a pour sa part alloué le permis de construction.

Le bio-digesteur

Avant que les citoyens ne fassent assez rapidement dévier la discussion sur le sujet de l'implantation de la porcherie et de ses impacts, les délégués du ministère de l'Agriculture et le promoteur du projet de bio-digesteur, Philippe Henrard, ont pu brièvement expliquer les mérites de cette installation.
Ainsi, il a été permis d'apprendre que le bio-digesteur utilisait le lisier de porc pour produire par fermentation du méthane, un biogaz, qu'on peut ensuite utiliser pour la production d'électricité.
Les représentants du ministère de l'Agriculture ont par ailleurs indiqué que le promoteur Côté-Paquette s'était soumis à toutes les exigences environnementales, notamment, 240 jours d'entreposage de fumier au minimum; un plan environnemental préparé par un ingénieur garantissant la protection des puits et des eaux souterraines; une distance minimum avec les puits et les cours d'eau et la remise au ministère d'un document indiquant toutes les mesures prises pour respecter l'environnement.

**This is in french, however it also clearly declares the disapproval of the population of Plantagenet in the building of the two projects.

"There's a river that runs right by there"
Pendleton area residents meet to learn impact of 3,000-sow operation but officials want to talk about bio-digesters
By Jean Sarrazin

PLANTAGENET - It was a public meeting billed as an "open forum" on the impacts of a sow operation and an energy-producing biodigester.

But it soon became apparent that the bevy of provincial experts brought in for the occasion - some from as far away as Kemptville, Kingston, Toronto and Guelph -- had converged on this tiny village only to vaunt the merits of nutrient management plans and the efficiencies of biodigesters. In the words of Alfred-Plantagenet Mayor Jean-Yves Lalonde, "The meeting tonight is mainly for biodigester information. This is not a zoning meeting."

More than 80 people showed up at the community hall in Plantagenet last Wednesday, March 21, in response to Alfred-Plantagenet Township notices published in the local press and sent out to individual property owners. The notices and the letters stated clearly that the open forum would be a public meeting "with respect to the impacts of a proposed sow operation and installation of a biodigester /energy plant."

The intensive livestock operation ( ILO ) in question -- a 3,000-head sow operation being planned by producer Mario Côté - is being proposed for construction in The Nation Municipality, on Concession 10 in South Plantagenet ward, very close to the South Nation River and the Nation/Alfred-Plantagenet border.

In his introduction, Mayor Jean-Yves Lalonde told the assembly that the township had asked Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Leona Dombrowski for her help in organizing the meeting. He said he received a very cordial and helpful response from Dombrowski. "She "really wanted the public to know about biodigesters" and the material they can handle: not only the effluent of a mega-pig operation but also all kinds of used oils. And so she responded to our request by providing us with some of her experts who are here with us tonight, said Lalonde.
The moderator for the evening, united counties head of planning and forestry Louis Prévost, reiterated Lalonde's assertion that the meeting was intended to be primarily an information session about biodigester technology.
Curran resident Ed Scott directed his question to Lalonde as the host of the information event. "I understand we're here tonight to discuss a pig farm in The Nation, but now the majority of the talk seems to be heading towards a biodigester. I want to know is there a permit applied for, for a biodigester in Alfred-Plantagenet? I want to know if it's one in the same or if it's two separate projects or what's happening here?"

Lalonde stated that no permit for a biodigester had been applied for in Alfred-Plantagenet and that according to ministry officials, there was no requirement for a biodigester when seeking approval for a mega-pig farm operation, but he insisted that the meeting was primarily intended to provide "biodigester information."

Philippe Henrard, the property owner who plans to accept the 50 to 60 cubic meters of pig manure produced daily by the proposed piggery, to feed a biodigester he hopes to construct on his property near Pendleton, went to the front of the hall to try and answer the concerns several people from the audience expressed about "toxic fumes" they feared would emanate from the operation.
"The manure will be digested and 90 percent of the odors and 90 percent of the pathogens will be eliminated. So I don't understand how it (a biodigester) could possibly bother you," stated Philippe Henrard.

Ninth concession resident Gary Foster reiterated the crowd's growing frustration with the unwillingness to talk about the specific impacts of the proposed sow operation in The Nation municipality.

"You people are putting the cart before the horse. Half of these people don't even know why we're here. We don't give a h__l about a biodigester - that's after the fact. We wonder where the piggery is going and why it's going in there right next to a river. You didn't even mention the river. There's a river that runs right by there," said Gary Foster.

Despite the focus on biodigester technology, members of the audience persisted in trying to obtain more information about the proposed sow operation.

Michelle Lafrance, who lives on Route 6 near Curran, wanted to know what would happen when a little spring-fed stream close to the mega-piggery floods it banks as it does every spring.

Prévost noted that there were no representatives present from the South Nation Conservation Authority to answer her questions.

Benoit Lebeau, a nutrient management engineer working out of the OMAF Resource Center in Kemptville, responded to Lafrance's questions.
He said that ILO operators were obliged by regulation to build their manure holding tanks at least 50 meters away from any water course and that operators would be inspecting the manure tank installations on a regular basis.

Corine Balasa of Nine-Mile Road was attending the meeting with her 89-year-old, father John Balasa who owns property on the ninth concession, North Plantagenet, adjacent to the Henrard property.

Corine Balasa asked "How can we protect the wells that we all have within the village of Pendleton? How can you guarantee that what's being spread on the land is not going to go into the water system? Once the chemicals are in (the water) it's very difficult to take them out. It's contaminated for years," stated Balasa.

"Should there be a disaster of any sort - and they do happen - who's responsible for the cleanup and how fast can it be expedited to correct the problem?"

John Balasa added an anecdote to illustrate the questions. "For the last 50 years since I bought the property there have been beaver by the hundreds. For the last few years polluted water run-off . . . has killed all the beaver. But last fall a couple of beaver returned and repaired the old dam and I am hoping these two beavers, being a symbol of Canada, will stay in this location."

Balasa gathered a round of applause for his anecdote.

Jake DeBruyn, New Technology Integration Engineer with the Ministry of Agriculture, responded to the Balasas' questions.

"With manure application, you can't spread when the (drainage) tile is running. So part of it is having enough storage and part of it is - if you see somebody who is spreading manure when the tile is running, the MOE (Ministry of the Environment) will show up. If manure were to leave the property then that is considered to be a spill," stated DeBruyn.

"If you, as a neighbour, would see that there is a problem, the Ministry of Environment has agricultural enforcement officers who can come on site and determine if there is a problem there. With nutrient management strategies, there is a level of enforcement in place specifically to deal with those types of issues," added DeBruyn.

Corine Balasa responded, "I'm sorry. I'm still concerned because you haven't quite answered the question. How exactly does this enforcement work?" She told the assembly that water samples taken from the beaver creek showed that nitrate levels had increased tenfold. "We have the reports. How do you control it" How do you enforce it?"

Rhéal Delaquis, a senior environmental officer with the Ministry of the Environment responded to the Balasas' questions. He said he couldn't contest the test results Corine Balasa had referred to but he reiterated the importance of nutrient management plans to the whole application process.

"You have to plan so that you can apply the manures at a certain time . . . so that there will not be any discharge directly into the drainage system," said Delaquis.
Pendleton resident Denis Rochon said, as someone who has lived in the area for 20 years, he is very aware of how "fragile" the water table in Pendleton is. "Every now and then you see a neighbor having to re-drill to get to the water source," said Rochon. He wanted to know what the anticipated water consumption would be of the sow operation and of the biodigester. He also wanted to know if provincial officials could guarantee that there would be no "toxic smells" emanating from the ILO.

"With any existing agricultural system, there is runoff from the fields," stated DeBruyn.

"And the one gentleman had indicated 'In the past, I used to go swimming in the river and now I can't anymore'. The reality is there are agricultural impacts on nature and as we improve our management practices these impacts are lessened over time and so we are always moving forward."

Concession 10 resident Bob Mallette referred to other municipalities near Ottawa that had managed to ban the spreading of manure near their communities.
"Why do we have to accept pig manure to be spread in Plantagenet? And if we do not want it, I'm asking the mayor right now, what do we have to do to stop this?" asked Mallette.

"Now I know that everyone is quite anxious to stop a project or reorganize it," stated Lalonde. "That's why we're doing this meeting tonight. The main thing to know is that the Ministry of the Environment has strict regulations. That's where it stands right now. We cannot just stop anything, anytime, anywhere. We (the municipality) don't have anything for (stopping the) spreading of manure. This township could apply a law (regulating the spreading of manure) and anyone can go to a higher level and just oppose what we're going to regulate because it is a provincial matter," stated Lalonde.

Another member of the audience asked Lalonde for his undertaking that before a permit was granted for a biodigester in the township, that he would call another public meeting, "and a referendum" - someone else shouted to a round of cheers and applause from the crowd.

Prévost stepped forward at this point to allow one final question from the assembly before closing the open forum portion of the meeting.

Some Alfred-Plantagenet residents had appeared before The Nation municipal council back in November to criticize what they called inaccurate municipal maps that had used by the piggery proponents in their application and to demand that correct maps be provided. The group contended that the final sketch plan prepared by Guy Lussier - the engineer who is preparing the nutrient management plan for the Coté project - shows Spring Brook Creek, a fish habitat, inaccurately, because the creek was diverted several years ago.
The residents told The Nation councilors that the South Nation Conservation Authority - which is responsible for the watershed -- was advised about the diverted creek and did nothing.Although they were invited to the open forum, no representatives from the South Nation Conservation Authority attended the Plantagenet meeting on Tuesday March 20, 2007.