in the Minas Basin Watershed!

 Thursday April 18^th 2002
Parrsboro Regional High School
(172 King Street)
Parrsboro, NS

The goal of this Community Forum is to initiate real actions toward sustainable management of the natural and human resources of the Minas Basin Watershed. The Forums will build on past initiatives by government and non-government organizations that have been aimed at identifying issues of concern to the residents of the Watershed

Find out how you can get involved in finding solutions!

Open House –  5:00pm to 6:30pm
(Food and Refreshments available)

Discussion – 6:30pm to 9:30 pm
Introductory Remarks
Focus Groups
Wrap Up

Nancy Roscoe-Huntley, BoFEP Secretariat @902-585-1113 nancy.huntley@acadiau.ca

This Forum is Co-hosted by:

Executive Summary Parrsboro Community Forum

Minas Basin Community Forum, Parrsboro NS – April 18^th 2002

On Thursday April 18^th, 2002, over 160 people gathered to participate in a Community Forum designed to initiate real actions toward sustainable management of the natural and human resources of the Minas Basin Watershed. The Forum was meant to build on current and past initiatives by government and non-government organizations aimed at identifying issues of concern to the residents of the watershed. The structure of the Forum included an Open House with displays, followed by a discussion period where issues were identified and discussed in small groups. The Forum co-hosts were the Cumberland Regional Economic Development Association, the Federation of Nova Scotia Naturalists, the Parrsboro and District Board of Trade and the Shore Drive Community Development Association.

The Open House was a success with 20 displays that exhibited a wide range of information from government programs to local initiatives. The purpose of the Open House was to let people know what activities were being carried out by other groups, and to network and enhance communication between groups. The discussion period began with Peter Wells, Vice Chair of BoFEP giving a short presentation on BoFEP, the Minas Basin Working Group and the goals of the Community Forum. Participants were then asked to prioritize the issues they wished to discuss that evening. The full results of this exercise are displayed in the chart below:

Issues Summary – Minas Basin Community Forum, Parrsboro

Based on the results of the issue prioritizing exercise, four Focus Groups were formed. The Focus Groups were: Fisheries Management, The Fundy Biosphere Initiative, Recreation/Tourism, and Sewage Treatment/Water quality. A summary of discussions held by each Focus Group follows.

Fisheries Management:

1. Lack of communication: One level of this issue lies between fishermen and DFO. There has been a large reduction in the interaction between DFO Fisheries Officers and the fishermen – information that needs to flow between the 2 groups is blocked as a result. The other level lies between fishermen themselves. For example, there is no organized network for the weir fishermen in the area. The clammers have a successful network, and it was suggested that the formation of a more formal fishermen’s network would be both useful and valuable, using the clamming network as a model. This would lead to better communications between fishermen as well as between fishermen and DFO. BoFEP’s Fisheries Management Working Group was suggested as a place to start.
2. The recognition of the Bay of Fundy as unique: It was felt that current management is too broad based and doesn’t take the uniqueness of the Bay into account. Due to the extreme tides, species and ecosystems found in the bay are different than any other area in the Maritimes. Therefore, a limitation imposed in the Yarmouth area may certainly be appropriate for that area, but not for the Bay of Fundy. Perhaps activities in the Bay of Fundy should be managed separately, with more area-specific plans.

Detailed notes of each Focus Group and a full report on Community Forum are available on the BoFEP web page
or contact the BoFEP Secretariat at 902-585-1113 to ask for hard copies of these items.

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Fisheries Management
Fundy Biosphere Initiative
Recreation/Tourism
Sewage Treatment/Water Quality

*indicated they would be interested in participating in action group on this topic

Summary of Discussion
(notes compiled by Max Westhead)

Issues:

• Lack of Communication (between DFO and fishermen and between fishermen – i.e., no network of weir fishermen exists)
• Insufficient network to advertise meetings or relay important information such as variation orders
• License classification (current freeze doesn’t allow for transfer of weir licence)
• Over fishing
• Way of life is disappearing (especially weir fishermen)
• Uninformed fishery officers
• No one single point of contact for DFO – often speak with someone from Yarmouth or Sydney
• Limited scientific research on gear type impacts (dragging)
• Needs to be recognition that the Bay of Fundy is a unique ecosystem (e.g., variation orders that apply in Yarmouth don’t necessarily benefit the ecosystem if they’re applied in the Minas Basin). It should be managed in a different way that takes the differences (such as the tides) into account.
• Water quality impacts on clam beds (sewage contamination)
• ATV access becoming limited (ATVs used when clamming)
• Bioinvasions (green crab)
• Habitat destruction (dragging)

• Focus on better communications overall
• Publish column in local papers (monthly?) – suggested by a reporter from the Springhill Parrsboro Record (Susan Belliveau)
• Have fishery officers more involved with fishermen (have them attend meetings, etc.)
• Have one consistent DFO contact for fishermen in the area
• Make a connection with BoFEP’s Fisheries Management Working Group that has proposed an integrated fisheries management plan for the Inner Bay
• Have a united voice/network for fishermen in the Minas Basin (using Mike’s successful clammers association as an example/model). This would increase the strength of the voice and likely have more influence when dealing with DFO on various issues.

Summary:

A wide variety of issues were raised, including habitat destruction by fishing gear, limited knowledge of gear impacts, lack of communication, the acknowledgement of the Bay of Fundy as unique, and clam bed closures due to poor water quality. There were two main issues discussed:

1. Lack of communication: One level of this issue lies between fishermen and DFO. There has been a large reduction in the interaction between DFO Fisheries Officers and the fishermen – information that needs to flow between the 2 groups is blocked as a result. The other level lies between fishermen. For example, there is no organized network for the weir fishermen in the area. The clammers have a successful network, and it was suggested that the formation of a more formal fishermen’s network would be both useful and valuable, using the clamming network as a model. This would lead to better communications between fishermen as well as between fishermen and DFO. The Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership’s Fisheries Management Working Group was suggested as a place to start.
2. The recognition of the Bay of Fundy as unique: It was felt that current management is too broad based and doesn’t take the uniqueness of the Bay into account. Due to the extreme tides, species and ecosystems found in the bay are different than any other area in the Maritimes. Therefore, a limitation imposed in the Yarmouth area may certainly be appropriate for that area, but not for the Bay of Fundy. Perhaps activities in the Bay of Fundy should be managed separately, with more area-specific plans.

   ---

 Focus Group: Fundy Biosphere Initiative

*indicated they would be interested in participating in action group on this topic

Summary of Discussion
(notes compiled by Linda Redmond and Mike Brylinsky)

The Biosphere Reserve focus group was attended by more than 50 individuals and was by far the largest focus group at the Parrsboro meeting. The initial discussion focused mainly on attempts to clarify the purpose of the meeting and the relationship between BoFEP and those promoting the Biosphere Reserve concept. The discussion then moved on to concerns regarding the difficulty of obtaining accurate information on exactly what a Biosphere Reserve is and the process being used to decide if this is what the community wants. The major action items identified dealt mainly with developing means of providing more information on what having a Biosphere Reserve actually entails, and how to provide more opportunity for community input into the process of deciding if this is something worth having. It should be noted that the following list of concerns and actions is based on the comments of individuals and may not represent the opinions of all members of the focus group. The large number of people present, and the large number of concerns and actions identified, did not allow time to attempt to produce a set of concerns and actions that could be considered as those agreed upon by everyone in the group.

• This meeting was not very well publicized.
• Do not understand what BoFEP is and how it is affecting lives around here.
• No one knew what this meeting was about - a pamphlet came in the mail and an article ran in the Citizen on April 6, which was pro BoFEP – there was no radio advertisement.
• Why was the River Herbert community not informed of this meeting?
• Why is it that local politicians did not know BoFEP was holding this meeting?
• Some families have homesteaded here since1817 and feel they are doing just fine. Why do we need BoFEP to determine how we should manage our resources?
• BoFEP is saying we need improvement - we are doing it wrong - denuded forests, septic runoff, etc. If we are this bad, why do they want to make a Biosphere Reserve?
• Perhaps this task should be left to other groups such as fisheries and other government agencies.
• We are being kept in the dark about the details of the proposed Biosphere Reserve.
• When we ask questions we do not get answers that are presented with honesty and integrity – the partners appear to be playing a shell game – for example, we were informed that this was the next Biosphere Reserve meeting, but are now being told that this is not a Biosphere Reserve meeting - we’re being lied to.
• The proponents of the Biosphere Reserve are not showing the bad stuff with respect to how the Biosphere Reserve will affect us.
• We have not been given a straightforward answer as to what a Biosphere Reserve is.
• Not clear what a UNESCO sponsored Biosphere Reserve is.
• We need to know what is being proposed for the core, buffer, and transition zones of the Biosphere Reserve.
• Although concerns are often voiced, they are not heard or acted upon by anyone.
• Before any decisions can be made regarding the development of a Biosphere Reserve proposal, there has to be direct answers to many questions
• If a community ‘dries up’ as a result of establishing a Biosphere Reserve, it may not be reversible.
• There is a concern that backyards will become closed and public access to beaches and parks will be controlled.
• If a house located in a Biosphere Reserve burns down will the insurance company tell you to build elsewhere but not back in the reserve?
• Not clear why was this area was picked for a Biosphere Reserve.
• Not clear how a Canada - United Nations agreement would affect fishing, farming, and everything else.
• Not clear how a Biosphere Reserve will affect tax assessments.
• Not clear what the Biosphere reserve will do to bring in more tourists that are not already coming here.
• When this focus group report is written it may be interpreted as the concerns and opinions of all people in Parrsboro when in actuality it may have been only one individual that expressed a particular concern or opinion

Suggested Actions/Solutions:

• Ensure that a public vote will be taken to determine if the community supports the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve.
• This vote should be limited to Nova Scotian resident landowners (was not clear if this means only those owning land within the proposed Biosphere Reserve).
• Approach the three area county governments to determine the level of government involvement and government position on the Biosphere Reserve.
• Have an organization chart produced that helps people determine who they should go to in order to voice their concerns – this chart should clearly indicate ownership on the side of the government.
• Ensure a complete assessment is done to determine how a Biosphere Reserve will impact the coastal communities along these shores.
• Request that all forms of media be used to promote information dissemination and notices of meetings about the Biosphere Reserve.
• Find out where the whole plan for sustainability is and how can it become public knowledge.
• Obtain a copy of the Southwest Nova Biosphere Reserve application which was approved by three levels of government
• Find out why the State of Kentucky legislated against Biosphere Reserves.
• Obtain a full explanation as to how sovereignty will be affected by core (what you can do to your own property and how can you use it).
• Determine where the money is coming from to pay for control of the core, buffer, and transition zones.
• Determine whom, if anyone will gain financially from the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve.
• Find out who is funding the Biosphere Reserve proposal.
• Prepare a set of 12-15 questions to bring to the 6 May Biosphere Meeting in Advocate (perhaps based on the concerns reported here). Select 12-15 members from those present at this focus group to ask these questions and get the answers.
• Make the proponents of the Biosphere Reserve more proactive in providing answers to questions asked by the community.

• That a decision will be made without a vote- we want a vote
• Want honest answers to questions
• That concerns are heard once they leave the community
• Need publicity -meetings - everybody has to be in the know
• What is the government involvement?
• Need information about BoFEP and the Biosphere - what are they? How will they affect us?
• How will Biosphere affect our daily living - farming, fishing, family homesteads
• Insurance if living within the Biosphere
• Why was our area picked for a Biosphere?
• Has there been an assessment done - community impacts?
• What are the rules and regulations?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks?
• How come we were not consulted about the project?
• Want reports written to reflect "participants"
• What are the core -buffer - transition zones / areas? What are the affects?

*indicated they would be interested in participating in action group on this topic

Summary of Discussion
(notes compiled by Jon Percy)

The principal tourist concerns raised were the poor state of the roads in the area and the lack of advertising of the many tourism attractions in the region. The overwhelming interest of most members of the Focus Group was on outdoor recreation. The use of ATV's as recreational vehicles has increased dramatically in many rural areas in recent years and the Chignecto Peninsula is no exception. However, over the past few years some large areas of crown land in this region have become off-limits to motorized vehicles with the creation of the Cape Chignecto Provincial Park and the establishment of a number of protected wilderness areas. ATV users feel that they have been suddenly barred from using many long established trails arbitrarily and without proper consultation. It was generally felt that there should be an amendment to the Wilderness Protected Areas Act to allow some motorized access in certain areas. There was a general recognition that irresponsible riders damage trails and habitats and greatly harm the public image of the sport. However, it was pointed out there are many responsible riders who want to practice their sport in a manner that does not harm the environment. Many of these belong to ATV associations that work to establish and properly maintain a specific network of trails. It was felt that such associations could also play an important role in training and deploying "Trail Wardens" to monitor the trails and promote responsible use. This might involve a "trail pass" system that would provide funds for the ATV associations to maintain the trails and carry out educational and safety programs. A well-developed trail system might encourage more ATV tourism in the area such as has happened with snowmobiles in New Brunswick It was recognized that some natural areas might be too sensitive for ATV traffic. There was a willingness to work with environmental groups to identify and avoid such vulnerable areas. It was suggested that ATV organizations such as the ATV Association of NS (ATVANS) might meet with representatives of the Federation of Nova Scotia Naturalists (FNSN) to discuss their differing interests and work together so that the sport can develop in a manner that does the least harm to the environment. FNSN has recently developed a set of guidelines for ATV use and these might serve as a basis for initial discussions. FNSN might also assist the association in developing an environmental education program for its members. The sport cannot be allowed to grow in an uncontrolled manner- it is in everyone's interest to work together to ensure that environmental and other concerns are properly addressed.

• Recreational use
• Closing of land areas to ATV use (also to horseback riders)
• Need for multi use trails
• Wilderness areas have already been designated
• ATV use is an expanding sport/ also potential for ATV-based tourism
• Tourist concerns re: quality of roads ("we are attracting tourists and then wrecking their cars".
• Lack of advertising of tourist attractions in area
• Neglect of Fundy area by NS tourism Department… compare with "New Brunswick's Bay of Fundy" approach of NB tourism department.
• Protected areas have been cut off for ATV users.
• Need to do more to promote motorized tourism (ATV and snowmobiles) in NS, similar to what they are doing in NB.

• Need to set up meetings between ATV user groups, relevant government departments and environmental groups.
• Need to consider having an amendment to the Wilderness Act to allow motorized vehicle access to some areas.
• Need to work with ATV clubs and encourage use of trail wardens and trail maintenance activities.
• Allow trail organizations to develop a trail pass system so that only users who are members of official groups can use the trails.
• Reps of ATV groups (ATVANS) and Federation of NS Naturalists should meet and discuss FNSN guidelines for ATV use and the concerns of both groups and how they can cooperate to improve the situation.

1. Crown land access for motorized sports (protected areas). And equestrian shared use.
2. Quality of roads and advertising
3. Recommend that motorized sports be promoted as year round tourism similar to NB.
4. Have meetings "local"; discuss issues "sensitive areas"
5. Amendment to WPA Act; With public consultation
6. Limit "control" access "permit only"; organized trail pass.
7. Take part in discussions with naturalist group
8. Maintain access to existing trails.

*indicated they would be interested in participating in action group on this topic

Summary of Discussion
(notes compiled by Pat Hinch)

The Water Quality breakout session identified a wide variety of issues of concern including: inconsistent sourcing and quality of water, problems with wells such as mineral contamination, rising tides, acceleration of erosion, impacts of chemical use and clear cutting on runoff, water quality, quantity, and the water table; lack of regulations for spraying and for farm manure leaching; garbage on beaches; effluents from fish farming and the introduction of foreign substances; need for environmental impact surveys before a project starts; need to use "natural" waste treatment systems; enforcement of regulations; access to water testing and current information/databases on water quality/quantity; expense of water testing; impacts of chemical sprays on human health; the importance of thinking about long term impacts; the importance of education, having a strong united voice, taking action, and celebrating successes.

Participants then organized these concerns under three key issues:

1) water contaminants (groundwater, ocean, and streams) and connection to food

-chemicals

-pharmaceuticals

-effluents

2) forestry /fish/ farm impacts; and

3) communication/connections between government and people

In terms of action, the group recommended that those who have an interest in water, make a connection with BOFEP through the website, print news, e-news, meetings with speakers, membership on BOFEP or the Minas Basin Working Group. They recommended that a survey be conducted of groundwater quality and quantity, which includes predictions for the future. They identified the need to take initiative, be creative, to form local groups to coordinate activities and/or to connect with existing groups, to obtain information on the use/regulations/effects of blueberry chemicals, to use the internet to communicate, obtain copies of relevant information reports, to develop a network for information, and to review examples of existing groups and the issues they are working on. They also emphasized the importance of taking action now and recommended that BOFEP form an action group on water involving existing organizations currently engaged in this issue and a coordinator.

Comments/Concerns:

-sourcing of water inconsistent and water quality for household use unreliable

-problems with wells

-river and stream water quality unknown

-mineral contamination

-geology - water table depth -need up to date maps of aquifers

-unstable geology of the area

-rising tides

-erosion speeding up

-impacts of herbicides, and clear cutting on water quality, water table, and nature

-regulations for spraying?

-farm manure leaching/laws

-chemical spraying and runoff

-effluents from fish farming - introduction of foreign substances

-connection between aquaculture -coastal environments - other

-need to complete surveys before environment project starts

-need to use "natural" waste system - natural wetland

-sewage treatment septic tanks?

-activity connected with clear cutting - runoff, quality, quantity, gas/diesel

-problems with enforcement of regulations

-access to water testing and current information, databases

-water testing more than bacterial, mineral testing is expensive (in-organic) NOT chemicals

-connection between sprays and (ill) health

-importance of a strong united voice!

-educating about the issues is important

-celebrate successes

-unite for a common front

-take action!

-think about long-term impacts

-build up on low-lying areas

-garbage on coast and on beaches

Key issues:

1) water contaminants (groundwater, ocean, and streams) and connection to food

-chemicals

-pharmaceuticals

-effluents

2) forestry /fish/ farm impacts

3) communication/connections b/n government and people

Actions:

-connect with BOFEP

-website

-print news

-meetings with speakers

-sign up

-BOFEP should have e-news

-take initiative

-form local groups to coordinate activities

-connect existing groups

-local contact people who are already involved in groups

-use creative solutions ex. ACAP-review examples

-get information on use/regulations/effects of blueberry chemicals

-use Internet to get information out!

-ask for a survey of groundwater quality and quantity and predictions for the future - get copies of reports

-develop a network of information

-do it now

-review examples of existing groups - examples: Parrsboro Economic Development Association, Atlantic Coastal Action Program, Fundy Shore Drive Community Development Association, Clean Annapolis River Project, ADDA, West Colchester Development Authority, CORDA, CREDA

-link with/join existing groups

-form an action group on WATER including BOFEP/ADDA/Econ Dev./Board of Trade/ WCCDA/ Fundy Shore (5 Groups plus Coordinator)