MHW Stewardship Plan Ph 2 FINAL v2.4sm

Mabou Harbour Watershed Stewardship Plan

Phase Two: Action Plans

Photo: Nancy Cameron

Community Steering Committee

February 27, 2008

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the dedicated team of volunteers who have brought this project to fruition – the Mabou Harbour Coastal Management Planning Committee, the Community Steering Committee, and the Mabou & District Community Development Association. Without your valuable insights and initiative, this project would not have been possible.

Many thanks are extended to our summer students, Lisa and Jessica Rankin, who

carried out their responsibilities with the highest degree of professionalism and enthusiasm. We would also like to thank community members who have generously donated their equipment and services to the project.

We gratefully acknowledge the support of our partner organizations:

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada • Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture • Fisheries and Oceans Canada • Environment Canada • Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture • Nova Scotia Environment and Labour • Municipality of the County of Inverness • St. Francis Xavier University • Inverness-Victoria Federation of Agriculture • Mabou Harbour Shellfish Growers Association • Cape Breton District Health Authority • Inverness South Anglers Association • Dalbrae Academy

The Stewardship Planning Project was funded under the Canada-Nova Scotia Water Supply Expansion Program, an initiative under the federal-provincial-territorial Agricultural Policy Framework. Additional financial resources were leveraged from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada and the Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development. Contact information Community Steering Committee c/o Mabou & District Community Development Association P.O. Box 232 Mabou, Nova Scotia B0E 1X0

Community Watershed Coordinator Shauna Barrington Phone: 945-2771 Cell: 258-5654 Fax: 945-2324 Email: [email protected]

i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................ii

Committee Members and Affiliations................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................iv

Phase Two: Action Plans.................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

2. Scientific Information ...................................................................................................... 2

a. Water Quality.............................................................................................................. 2

i. Physical Parameters ............................................................................................... 2 ii. Nutrients ................................................................................................................. 3 iii. Bacteria ................................................................................................................. 3

b. Sediments .................................................................................................................. 4

c. Aquatic Species.......................................................................................................... 5

d. Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................ 5

3. Action Plans ................................................................................................................... 6

a. Monitoring, Assessment and Research...................................................................... 6

i. Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 7 ii. Sediments .............................................................................................................. 7 iii. Aquatic Species ..................................................................................................... 7 iv. Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................... 8

b. Capacity Building & Partnerships ............................................................................... 8

c. Public Education & Communications.......................................................................... 9

d. Funding ...................................................................................................................... 9

4. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 10

References ........................................................................................................................ 11

ii

Committee Members and Affiliations The success of the Stewardship Planning Project can be attributed largely to the diversity of perspectives participants brought to the table. The following list is intended to convey the wide range of backgrounds, interests and occupations of current committee members, including significant input from the agricultural community. Community Steering Committee • Committee Chair: Donnie Nicholson - dairy farmer (Inverness-Victoria Federation of

Agriculture) • Lynnette Babin - teacher (Felix Marchand School) • Robbie Sutherland - dairy farmer (Inverness-Victoria Federation of Agriculture) • Mary MacPhee - dairy farmer (Inverness-Victoria Federation of Agriculture) • Alec MacNeil – Manager of Allied Health Services (Inverness Consolidated Memorial Hospital) • Daniel Rankin - retired teacher • Graham Pottinger - teacher (Whycocomagh Education Center) • Leo Cox - beef and dairy farmer; retired NS Agriculture Resource Coordinator • Betty Ann MacQuarrie - community worker; Manager (Mother of Sorrows Pioneer Shrine);

Chair (Central Inverness Community Health Board) • Nadine Hunt - teacher (Dalbrae Academy) • Suzanne Craig - business owner; artist • Bonny Jean MacDonald - business owner; massage therapist • Dennis Hayward - retired Minister; future farmer • Deb Hayward - ocean conservationist; future farmer Mabou Harbour Coastal Management Planning Committee • Committee Chair: Jeff Lee – oyster lease holder (Mabou Harbour Shellfish Growers

Association); President (Mabou & District Community Development Association); Manager (Mabou Athletic Center)

• Artie Graham – crab and lobster fisherman; oyster lease holder (Mabou Harbour Shellfish Growers Association); Board of Directors (NS Fisheries Sector Council)

• Geoff Nishi – architect; oyster lease holder (Mabou Harbour Shellfish Growers Association) • Dave Cameron – business owner (tourism); Chair (Inverness South Anglers Committee) • Charles MacInnis – Area Chief, Oceans and Habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) • Jack MacNeil – Area Oceans Coordinator (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) • Danielle Goff-Beaton – Habitat Management Officer (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) • John MacInnes – Coastal Resource Coordinator (Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture) • Robbie Sutherland - dairy farmer (Inverness-Victoria Federation of Agriculture) • Mary MacPhee - dairy farmer (Inverness-Victoria Federation of Agriculture) • Dennis Hayward – retired Minister; future farmer • Deb Hayward – ocean conservationist; future farmer Community Watershed Coordinator • Shauna Barrington – B.Sc. (Biology), St. Frances Xavier University; M.E.S. (Masters of

Environmental Studies), Dalhousie University

iii

Executive Summary

This document is the result of a community-driven initiative to develop a Stewardship Plan for the Mabou Harbour Watershed. The first phase of the project identified the overall goals for the plan; the second phase outlined actions to reach these goals.

Overall, the Mabou Harbour watershed is relatively healthy. It supports a wide

diversity of fish and shellfish species, including salmon and oysters. Marine and freshwater quality can generally be considered good. However, a few items have been identified as a concern, including significant sedimentation, periodically low dissolved oxygen/high ammonia levels, elevated phosphate and bacterial levels. Finally, there are several culverts that are impassable to migrating fish. Land-use activities are thought to be contributing factors to these concerns.

In order to address these issues, actions plans have been developed. These plans include:

1. Monitoring, assessment and research: Watershed monitoring will be carried out annually to gather baseline data. This will help identify potential problems early, so that action can be taken. There are several specific topics that will be investigated and researched, such as dissolved oxygen levels, sediment movement, circulation patterns, salmon and oyster populations.

2. Capacity building and partnerships: The community’s capacity to carry out

stewardship initiatives will be developed. Specific actions to achieve this include training more volunteers for monitoring, engaging high school students, and fostering relationships with our partner organizations.

3. Public education and communication: This is considered to be the most

appropriate and effective method for getting the general public to become better stewards of the watershed. Priority topics for public education initiatives include Best Management Practices, drinking water quality, and erosion prevention. Specific action items include scientific workshops, newsletters and brochures.

4. Funding: Funds will be raised to carry out these action plans. A strong fundraising

committee will be formed, with the task of evaluating and implementing the most effective methods of raising money. Focus will be on seeking grants and special-event fundraising.

Overall, the Mabou Harbour Watershed Stewardship Planning Project has been

very successful. The community has come together with its partners to raise awareness, gather local and scientific information, identify problems and outline solutions. The community now has a solid foundation to protect this healthy watershed for future generations.

iv

Mabou Harbour Watershed Stewardship Plan Phase Two: Action Plans

1. Introduction

The Mabou Harbour Watershed Stewardship Planning Project aims to address water, coastal and aquatic resource issues in order to maintain a healthy watershed and a clean water supply for all users. It is a community-based planning project, driven by members of the Mabou Harbour watershed community and supported by government, academic and industry partners.

The first phase of the Stewardship Project (2006-07) involved identifying the main issues of concern to the community and articulating overarching goals for the plan. The goals are recorded in the Stewardship Plan Phase One document, and included improving water quality, reducing sedimentation, supporting fish populations and promoting responsible land-use practices. The second phase of the project (2007-08) involved gathering scientific information and developing strategies to reach these goals. The resulting action plans are presented in this document, and will be used to guide the community’s future stewardship activities.

The Mabou Harbour Coastal Management Planning Committee (MHCMPC), a

group of volunteers concerned about the ecological health and sustainable development of the watershed, originally initiated this project. Participation has grown to include the Community Steering Committee, which was formed to oversee and direct the development of the Stewardship Plan. This committee is made up of fifteen representatives from a broad cross-section of the community (i.e., people from different areas, occupations, and interests), making the plan truly a community-based effort. Both committees operate under the Mabou & District Community Development Association. Government representatives from Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are active on the MHCMPC, providing financial, logistical, and technical support to the community’s efforts. The committees have also developed a network of partners who provide scientific and expert advice to the project.

An integrated management approach has been adopted for developing the Stewardship Plan. In essence, integrated management means all interested parties, organizations, sectors and groups are actively working together towards the common goal of environmental, social and economic sustainability (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998). To facilitate this approach, the community adopted a number of principles to guide their interactions and decision-making during this project. These included principles such as open communication, transparency and respect for all watershed users.

In addition to developing the Stewardship Plan itself, the committees have been successful at raising awareness of the project and educating the public about proper stewardship practices. A quarterly newsletter was used to communicate with all residents and stakeholders on a regular basis. A website has been developed, as well as a stewardship brochure. Many presentations have been made at various conferences (e.g., Oceans Connections) and as invited guests (e.g., of St. F.X., the Sustainable Communities Initiative, and the Bras d’Or Stewardship Society). The committees have also hosted

1

successful public action planning workshops, including one on surface water quality (presented by St. F.X.) and drinking water quality (presented by the NS Department of Environment and Labour). The committees believe that public education is the key to reaching our stewardship goals.

This document presents the action plans the community has developed to reach our goals. These plans have been developed under the direction of the Community Steering Committee, in close collaboration with the MHCMPC, other committees, community members, government representatives and academic stakeholders. The action plans are focused on the priority activities that the community wishes to undertake, considering the resources that will likely be available for their implementation. 2. Scientific Information

As part of the action planning process, the following scientific information has been gathered with the overarching goals of the Stewardship Plan in mind. The MHCMPC has been hiring summer students annually to collect ecological data in both the Harbour and the freshwater streams. The committees have been collaborating closely with the St. F.X. Earth Sciences ‘Geochemistry of Natural Waters’ class, who have made field trips to Mabou in the fall of 2006 and 2007 to gather and interpret water chemistry data. There have also been other scientific studies conducted by our partner organizations over the past few years. The following summarizes the results of all of these data collecting efforts. The community has used this information to help inform their decisions about the most effective and appropriate actions to take. a. Water Quality

i. Physical Parameters

The MHCMPC has been carrying out regular monitoring of physical parameters (e.g., temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen) since 2004. Water temperatures are generally within the biological limits of ecologically important species, such as salmon. Water temperatures in the Harbour peaked at 25oC in the summers. Most of the freshwater streams in the watershed stayed below 20oC, which is the temperature at which salmon become stressed (C. MacInnis, pers. comm. 2008). Salinities in the Harbour were approximately 28 ppt or below, indicating that freshwater from the rivers is mixing with the seawater. There was an overall decrease in salinity values in 2007, which reflects the higher amount of freshwater input this year.

Of more immediate concern are the dissolved oxygen levels, which have dipped to

very low levels every year in August, especially at the mouth of the three rivers (i.e., the Northeast, Mabou and West Mabou bridges), occasionally at Sam’s Cove, and at sites along the Mull River. These low levels are likely due to warm temperatures (warmer water holds less oxygen) and high vegetative growth, which consumes oxygen from the water column as it decomposes (St. F.X. 2007a). Readings sometimes got as low as 1.5 mg/L (5-10 mg/L is considered the normal range). These low levels are worrisome, since they are low enough to impede fish survival.

2

Otherwise, water chemistry information gathered by the St. F.X. class showed no evidence of elevated metal levels in the water (St. F.X. 2007b). pH levels are not a concern for this watershed, likely because of the buffering effect of the underlying geology (e.g., gypsum). The St. F.X. class also measured several chemical constituents (e.g., sulphate, bromide, calcium) of groundwater sources (i.e., private wells) around the watershed, which were within acceptable limits for drinking water. ii. Nutrients

Data collected throughout the watershed by both the MHCMPC and the St. F.X. class showed that, in general, most measured nutrients (e.g., nitrates, nitrites, sulphides) were within reasonable limits for a watershed of this size. Phosphate, although still within normal limits, was beginning to reach higher levels, particularly in the Mull River and in the brook beside the Mabou sewage treatment plant (St. F.X. 2007a). Although the class’s sampling was limited, it was clear from their data that most of the nutrients are coming into the Harbour from the rivers, indicating uland-uses as the major sources. In a separate study, it was found that Mabou Harbour hhigh level of silicate compared to other estuaries, likely due to the natural weatherincoastal lands (Theriault, 2008).

pstream

ad a

g of

The one nutrient of concern, however, is

ammonia. In the MHCMPC’s data, there have been many scattered spikes in ammonia levels every year in both the marine and freshwater samples, sometimes reaching up to 100 ppm. This level is considered very high, and would likely be toxic to fish (St. F.X. 2007a). It is not clear why these levels are being observed. It is therefore very important to continue monitoring and investigate the cause of this.

Photo: Nick Rankin

A marine vegetation study carried out in 2004 by a St. F.X. Aquatic Resources

student showed the presence of sea lettuce at a few locations in the Harbour, which is considered an indicator of localized nutrient pollution (MacLean, 2005). Sea lettuce also displaces eelgrass beds, which provide spawning and nursing grounds for many species of fish. In 2004, Mabou Harbour had a healthy number of large eelgrass beds; however, there were also significant areas of sea lettuce at Sam’s Cove, Indian Point, Hugh’s Point, and below the sewage treatment plant. iii. Bacteria Environment Canada has periodically conducted extensive bacteriological sampling in Mabou Harbour. In 1988, the levels of fecal coliform present in the water did not meet the stringent requirements for harvesting shellfish and the entire Harbour was closed (MacArthur et al., 2004). Their most recent assessment in 2003, however, has shown an improvement in bacterial water quality and has led to the seaward half of the Harbour

3

being re-opened. As a result, an oyster aquaculture industry is now developing in the Harbour. Environment Canada’s survey indicated that potential sources of contamination include the sewage treatment plant, animals (cattle and horses) grazing in or near waterways, run-off from manure storage pits, septic systems and wildlife (e.g., flocks of geese).

With respect to groundwater, 70% of private wells in Inverness County tested positive for total coliform from August-October 2007, and 20% were positive for E-coli bacteria (Routledge & Rafuse-McCarthy, 2008). While no corresponding increase in related illnesses has been reported, high bacteria levels in drinking water pose a health risk. Often the problem lies in poorly constructed or poorly maintained wells, which allow surface water and bacteria to enter the water source. Residents are encouraged to regularly get their well water tested and to check the integrity of their wells. b. Sediments

The St. F.X. class showed high sediment loads (suspended particulates) were being delivered to the Harbour from the Northeast River in 2006 and from the Mull River in 2007 (St. F.X., 2007a,b). Excess sediment movement in a watershed impairs fish habitat. Overall, sediment export from the rivers was much higher in 2007 than 2006, but this is to be expected with the much higher water flows in 2007. More monitoring and research is needed to understand the seasonal, annual and spatial variation of sediment exports into the Harbour, where the sediments are coming from, and where they are being deposited.

Sediment cores were taken from nine sites around the Harbour on August 16, 2007 using a core-piston apparatus (St. F.X. 2007c). These sediment cores were analyzed by the St. F.X. class for historical information on changes in water chemistry. One site next to the breakwater at Mabou Bridge showed a constantly increasing rate of organic matter deposition, while at the same time showing a decrease in nitrate levels. Bacteria decomposing the large amount of organic matter have used up all the oxygen available in the sediment and have likely switched to using nitrogen as an energy source. This suggests anoxic conditions at that site.

Photo: Shauna Barrington

It is hypothesized that the organic matter at the Mabou Bridge breakwater may be at

least partially coming from the sewage treatment plant; however, this would have to be investigated further to confirm (St. F.X. 2007c). The breakwater is likely creating a gyre into that cove as water flows under Mabou Bridge. This gyre may be picking up the effluent from the sewage treatment plant and depositing it up against the breakwater, explaining why sediment cores near the sewage treatment plant did not show very much historical change in the rate of organic matter deposition.

4

c. Aquatic Species

Annually since 2004, the MHCMPC has participated in DFO’s Community Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP). This program is the result of close collaboration between DFO employees and twenty-four different community groups from various estuaries, bays and harbours around the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. The community groups gather data on fish and invertebrate species, which is then analysed by scientists to determine overall ecosystem health. A beach seine is used at six sites around the Harbour to collect, identify and cthe types of fish and shellfish presenFish are then released live back into Harbour.

ount t. the

Shrimp, mummichogs, and

sticklebacks have been the most common fish found in Mabou Harbour over the past few years (Weldon et al., 2007; Weldon at. al., 2005). There are a lot of juvenile cunners, flounder, silversides, and pipefish (which look like a straight seahorse). Green Crab is present, which are an invasive species that are harmful to shellfish populations and eelgrass beds. Out of all the estuaries tested around the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Mabou Harbour has one of the higher species richness indices (averaging 14 different types of species). This may be a good indicator that the Mabou Harbour ecosystem is relatively healthy, and may not yet be greatly impacted by human activities. However, the abundances of each species were generally low compared to other estuaries. Further scientific research is required to determine what this means in terms of ecosystem health.

Photo: Artie Graham

In another project, the MHCMPC has built six artificial oyster reefs in the Harbour by

placing quarried rock in concentrated spots along the shore. The rock provides a hard substrate that young oysters (spat) can attach to and eventually spawn, thereby increasing the overall oyster population in the Harbour. According to the committee’s annual monitoring efforts, at least two of the reefs have been successful at recruiting oysters (MHCMPC, 2006 & 2008). There was a good set of oysters in 2005, fewer in 2006 and very little in 2007. There may be a number of reasons for this downturn, including natural fluctuation, tides and currents, lower water salinities, or predation by Green Crab (Sephton & Bryan, 1989). More scientific study is needed to determine the natural oyster population dynamics, factors affecting spat recruitment, and if anything can be done to improve the success of the artificial oyster reefs. d. Fish Habitat

In 2007, the MHCMPC began working with DFO on a culvert assessment project. One of the first steps in assessing fish habitat in a watershed is to determine if fish migration routes are being blocked by things such as culverts, dams, debris, or causeways

5

(DFO, 2006). If they are, fish such as trout, salmon, gaspereaux and smelt cannot access their spawning grounds in the upper streams. This is known as habitat fragmentation.

As part of this project, fifteen culverts (out of the 432 culverts present in the watershed) were surveyed in 2007. Most culverts surveyed were the round, corrugated steel type. While all of the culverts were still intact, many of them were compromised in some way (e.g., kinked or pierced). 75% of the culverts surveyed were angled in such a way that their slope was too steep for fish to swim through (Godin, 2007). The entrance of two culverts was too high above the stream surface (over 60 cm) for salmon to be able to jump into them. Over half of the culverts surveyed also had debris or a trash rack in them, blocking fish passage. Some of these problems would require minimal effort to correct, while others require working with both DFO and the NS Department of Transportation to find a solution.

In addition, the MHCMPC in

collaboration with DFO has conducted stream habitat assessments in the upper watershed to determine the suitability of these streams for fish. In 2005, several sites along Shea’s Brook were assessed, and in 2007 a tributary off of Shea’s was completed. This tributary had mainly stable banks, but there was a large amount of silt deposited in the streambed. This inhibits salmon from spawning in that area. There was also a noticeable lack of deep, cool pools for fish to rest in. The Inverness South Anglers completed in-stream restoration work on this tributary in 2007, creating a noticeable improvement in fish habitat conditions there. More scientific data to assess fish populations in the restored and unrestored areas would be useful and relatively easy to do.

Photo: Lisa Rankin

3. Action Plans a. Monitoring, Assessment and Research

The first phase of the Stewardship Plan identified the environmental issues that were of most concern from the community’s perspective. The second phase of the project involved gathering some preliminary scientific data on these topics. This information-gathering stage must continue, in order for the community to have factual information on which to make informed decisions. While we have learned a lot about our watershed over the past two years, there is much more ecological information that needs to be gathered in order to gain a holistic understanding of the state of our watershed.

Specific action items include:

6

i. Water Quality

• Conduct annual monitoring for nutrients and physical parameters. Pay particular attention to ammonia and dissolved oxygen levels; eliminate sulphide measurements. • When dissolved oxygen levels decline mid-summer, investigate the cause by sampling at intermittent points upstream. • Add sites beside the breakwater at Mabou Bridge and beside the sewage treatment plant to our sampling protocol. Particularly observe ammonia and dissolved oxygen levels at these sites. • Incorporate flow and depth measurements in the streams where nutrient samples are taken. Include a detailed site description of vegetation, potential inputs, etc. • Investigate circulation patterns in the Harbour, but particularly in the area by the breakwater beside Mabou Bridge and the sewage treatment plant. This will help determine how nutrients, organic matter and/or sediments are transported. • Conduct an ‘advanced profile’ of Mabou Harbour. This would involve taking samples and measurements (e.g., nutrients, dissolved oxygen) in the middle of the Harbour at different depths. This would be a good indicator of how the Harbour is assimilating impacts, as the water would be well mixed in the middle. • Conduct an historical investigation, using aerial photographs and local knowledge, to determine historical land use patterns that are still potentially causing impacts. ii. Sediments • Develop and implement a protocol for gathering baseline information on suspended sediment levels (including organic matter), with a pilot project on the Mull River. Use this information to determine where the largest amounts of sediment are generally coming from. • Investigate where suspended sediments are being deposited in the Harbour. This would require information such as particle size, velocities, input and output sediment export rates and flushing rates of the Harbour. • Get a sediment core from the deepest part of the Harbour. Analyze it for nutrients and other potential pollutants that may have accumulated in that spot over time. iii. Aquatic Species • Participate in the CAMP program to monitor biological diversity in Mabou Harbour. • Investigate why Mabou Harbour has high biodiversity but low abundances compared to other estuaries around the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and what this means about the overall ecosystem health.

Photo: Shauna Barrington

• Conduct an annual assessment of the artificial oyster reefs to determine levels of oyster recruitment and the evolution of the oyster population on these reefs. • Add more quarried rock to the successful reefs to create a more concentrated area for oyster spat to settle on.

7

• Investigate the natural oyster population dynamics, factors affecting spat recruitment, and what methods can be used to improve the success rate of the artificial oyster reefs. iv. Fish Habitat • Carry out stream habitat assessments on other tributaries of Shea’s Brook and the Mull River (e.g., Glendyer Brook). Submit this information to DFO and the Inverness South Anglers Association. • Conduct either a redd count in the fall or electrofishing (mark recapture) this summer in the restored and unrestored areas to assess fish populations. • Complete at least 30 culvert assessments per field season. Work closely with DFO to refine the monitoring protocol. Evaluate our GPS calibration methods. • Install baffles (structures to help fish swim up sloping waterways), and remove trash racks and debris from culverts identified through previous monitoring. b. Capacity Building & Partnerships

During the Stewardship Planning Project, the community has been successful at building its capacity for this type of initiative. The community itself has greatly increased its participation in this project, and the committees have been successful at beginning and fostering partnerships with government, academia and industry. This increased community participation and our stronger partnerships have resulted in a much more robust, efficient and effective project. It is imperative that momentum in this area continues to grow.

Specific action items include: • The Community Steering Committee will continue to meet as a community watershed stewardship group. • Increase the number of community volunteers trained to carry out the CAMP monitoring program. Have at least one training session with students from the local high school. • Train three to five more volunteers to carry out stream habitat and culvert assessments. • Recruit a high school student to act as a representative on the Community Steering Committee. • Continue to foster our relationship with DFO and NS Fisheries and Aquaculture. Work closely with these partners on CAMP, oyster reefs, stream and culvert assessments. • Collaborate with St. Francis Xavier University, particularly on the monitoring, assessment and research action plans. • Collaborate with the Municipality of the County of Inverness, Public Works Department, to get the sewage treatment plant replaced. Work with municipality on the design of a new plant. • Support the work of the MHCMPC and the Mabou Harbour Shellfish Producers Association to encourage development of the oyster aquaculture industry through re-opening of harvesting areas. • Collaborate with the Waterfront Committee on the environmental assessment component of their dredging project next to the breakwater at the Bridge. • Work with DFO to engage the provincial Department of Transportation and Public Works on repairing culverts that are too steep or high for fish to swim through.

8

• Collaborate and communicate with the agricultural community and hobby farmers. • Keep in contact with other community-based stewardship groups by engaging in networking opportunities (e.g., attending conferences, workshops). • Identify and engage other potential partners from government, academia, and industry. c. Public Education & Communications

The committees feel that public education is the most appropriate and effective method for encouraging the general public to become better stewards of the watershed. Therefore, initiatives in environmental education are seen as very important, and will help mobilize the community towards reaching the stewardship goals. In keeping with the Stewardship Plan Guiding Principles, public communications should always emphasize the positive actions individuals and groups have taken to improve the conditions of our watershed.

Priority topics for educational initiatives include: the importance of buffer zones,

proper well and septic system construction, drinking water sampling procedures, erosion prevention, watershed processes, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) specific to each of the industries operating in the watershed (e.g., forestry, agriculture, fishing). For agriculture, specific BMPs to promote would include proper manure storage and fencing cattle out of streams. Specific action items include: • Publish the Watershed Quarterly newsletter in colour. Distribute to all residences in the watershed and to our external partners. Incorporate a Question & Answer column. • Communicate the results of any scientific studies in this watershed to the general public in non-technical language through fact sheets and/or workshops with the scientist(s) involved. • Engage local high school students through classroom presentations and field trips. • Develop and distribute brochures on priority topics within the watershed. • Update our website to include meeting notices and events. Link this website to the main Mabou website. Advertise all meetings and events at visible spots within the community. • Incorporate a strong public education component into fundraising events. d. Funding As with many community-based non-profit organizations, raising enough funds to carry out the desired actions can be a challenge. Human resources required for these action plans include a full-time coordinator and two summer students. Equipment that will need to be purchased for the monitoring programs includes: a GPS unit, digital camera, manual level and tripod, and nutrient kits. Specific action items include:

9

• Establish a strong Fundraising Committee. This committee will determine the most effective methods of raising funds (e.g., seeking grants, special event fundraisers, soliciting donations, generating revenue, etc). • Maintain and update a database of potential granting organizations (e.g., government programs, foundations, corporate funds). Write and submit proposals according to their deadlines. • Evaluate different possibilities for local fundraising events, such as fishing derbies, ceilidhs, film festivals, or celebrity roasts. 4. Conclusion

The local and scientific knowledge we have gathered over the past few years has

revealed some preliminary information on the state of the Mabou Harbour watershed. Although there are a few areas of concern, overall this watershed is still a healthy one. We are fortunate to have relatively good water quality and a healthy ecosystem; many other watersheds today are facing severe water quality problems that are extremely difficult to fix (e.g., pollutants in the groundwater). It is therefore important for the community to be proactive about keeping our water supplies clean and to prevent serious problems from occurring.

In conclusion, both the Community Steering

Committee and the MHCMPC are satisfied that the Stewardship Planning project has been very successful. The community has come together to collectively decide on a focused action plan to guide our activities. In addition, public awareness about watershed stewardship has been increased. This project has also allowed the community to build a solid network of active participants and partners. It is now time to keep the momentum rolling and to put our plans into action!

Photo: Lynda Campbell

10

References Cicin-Sain, B. & Knecht, R.W. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2006. Ecological Restoration of Degraded Aquatic Habitats: A Watershed Approach. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Gulf Region. Godin, C. 2007. Preliminary Review of Data Collection: Mabou Watershed Culvert Assessment Pilot Project. Presentation to the MHCMPC, November 13, 2007. Mabou Harbour Coastal Management Planning Committee (MHCMPC). 2008. Mabou Harbour Oyster Reef Creation Project: Annual Monitoring Report 2007. Draft report prepared for Department of Fisheries & Oceans. Mabou Harbour Coastal Management Planning Committee. 2006. Mabou Harbour Oyster Reef Creation Project: As-Built Report. Prepared for Department of Fisheries & Oceans. MacArthur, D., Craig, C. & Walter, D. 2004. Re-evaluation Report Nova Scotia Shellfish Growing Area NS-05-010-001 Mabou Harbour. Environment Canada: Environmental Protection Branch. Manuscript Report No. EP-AR-2004-10. MacInnis, C. Area Chief, DFO Oceans and Habitat, Antigonish Office. Personal communication. February 1, 2008. MacLean, V. 2005. Towards an Integrated Coastal Management Approach for Mabou Harbour and Watershed. Fourth year Interdisciplinary Studies in Aquatic Resources project, St. Francis Xavier University. Routledge, M. & Rafuse-McCarthy, L. 2008. General Water Presentation, presented at the Stewardship Action Planning Workshop, January 12, 2008. Sephton, T.W. & Bryan, C.F. 1989. Changes in the abundance and distribution of the principal American Oyster public fishing grounds in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Journal of Shellfish Research, 8(2): 375-385. St. Francis Xavier University (St. F.X.). 2007a. Mabou Harbour Characterization 2008: Preliminary Results. Presentation by the Geochemistry of Natural Waters Class (ESCI 305) at the Stewardship Action Planning Workshop, November 18, 2007. St. Francis Xavier University. 2007b. Investigations of the Water Chemistry in Mabou Harbour and Inflows. Report prepared for the MHCMPC by the Geochemistry of Natural Waters Class (ESCI 305). St. Francis Xavier University. 2007c. Preliminary Report on Mabou Harbour Coring. Report prepared for the MHCMPC by the Geochemistry of Natural Waters Class (ESCI 305). Theriault, M.-H. & Courtenay, S. 2008. Nutrient concentrations in Coastal Waters of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Collected During the September 2006 Sampling of the Community Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP). Prepared for Environmental Non Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) Participating in the Community Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP) in 2006. Weldon, J., Courtenay, S. & Garbary, D. 2007. The Community Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP) for measuring Marine Environmental Health in Coastal Waters of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: 2005 Overview. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2708. Weldon, J., Garbary, D., Courtenay, S., Ritchie, W., Godin, C., Thériault, M-H., Boudreau, M. & Lapenna, A. 2005. The Community Aquatic Monitoring Project (CAMP) for Measuring Marine Environmental Health in Coastal Waters of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: 2004 Overview. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2624.

11