This document summarizes a stewardship plan for the Mabou Harbour Watershed in Nova Scotia. It finds the watershed currently in relatively good health but identifies some concerns, including sedimentation, low dissolved oxygen levels, and elevated bacteria and phosphates. To address these issues, the plan outlines four action areas: 1) Continuing water quality monitoring and research into topics like dissolved oxygen and salmon populations. 2) Building community capacity and partnerships to expand monitoring efforts. 3) Public education initiatives on best practices, drinking water, and erosion. 4) Raising funds to implement the action plan through a fundraising committee.

1. Mabou Harbour Watershed Stewardship Plan
Phase Two: Action Plans
Photo: Nancy Cameron
Community Steering Committee
February 27, 2008

2. 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: sbarring@dal.ca
i

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 25o
C in the summers. Most of the
freshwater streams in the watershed stayed below 20o
C, 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

8. 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 u
land-uses as the major sources. In a separate
study, it was found that Mabou Harbour h
high level of silicate compared to other
estuaries, likely due to the natural weatherin
coastal 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

9. 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

10. 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 c
the types of fish and shellfish presen
Fish 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

11. (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

12. 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

13. • 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

14. • 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

15. • 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

16. 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