Community Based Ecological Monitoring in Nova Scotia: Challenges and Opportunities

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2006) 113: 395Ð409 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-9091-7 c Springer 2006

COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

ANDY SHARPE1,∗ and CATHY CONRAD2 1Clean Annapolis River Project, Annapolis Royal, NS, Canada; 2Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada (∗author for correspondence, e-mail:[email protected])

Abstract. This article examines community-based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia, with an emphasis on watershed stewardship groups. It discusses successes to date and future challenges, drawing on examples from the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) and other community groups. The barriers to the generation of robust monitoring datasets and effective participation in watershed management are examined. The article concludes with a discussion of issues to be addressed to ensure that community groups can both gather scientiﬁcally valid ecological data and have meaningful input into the management of their local natural resources.

Keywords: community based, water quality monitoring, watershed management, volunteer

1. Introduction

Public participation has become an increasingly important part of environmental management, with the United Nations Environment Programme stressing public participation as an essential component of sustainability (Au et al., 2000). Eco- logical monitoring is an important component of sustainable development. Unfor- tunately, the reality in many areas of Canada is that, due to government budget cuts, there are large gaps in monitoring activities. Community groups have been encouraged, and have attempted, to fill this gap, but face a large number of challenges. These include limited financial and material resources, availability of robust sampling protocols, and access to scientific expertise. For those groups that have succeeded in collecting scientifically valid monitoring data, there has been little opportunity to participate in the meaningful management of their watersheds. There is currently a disparity between monitoring and management. While community- based environmental stewardship groups are bearing the burden of monitoring their environments, they do not have meaningful access to an integrated decision-making structure.

2. The Context for Community Based Monitoring

Within this paper, community based monitoring (CBM) is understood to mean “a process where concerned citizens, government agencies, industry, academia, 396 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD community groups and local institutions collaborate to monitor, track and respond to issues of common community concern” (Whitelaw et al., 2003, p. 410). CBM seeks to give the community the lead in both collecting data and in using the information generated to promote informed decision-making. It thus promotes sustainability at a community and at a wider level. This paper will examine CBM with respect to the management of watersheds in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. Community based monitoring can provide a number of benefits and opportunities, for both government and the community (Whitelaw et al., 2003). CBM can benefit government through the extension of their monitoring networks, cost sav- ings, promotion of public participation to achieve government goals, and providing an early warning system of ecological changes. Non-governmental organisations and communities can benefit from CBM through the engagement of individuals in local environmental issues, the development of social capital and the opportunity to have input into the management of natural resources. It has been argued that the integration of community based monitoring into resource management is one of the most significant developments in this area since the environmental movement itself (Kenney, 1999).

3. The Challenges of CBM

Community based monitoring, while it has many potential benefits, can also have problems. These have been summarised by Whitelaw et al. (2003) as: volunteer ‘burnout’, lack of participant objectivity, inconsistent funding that causes data frag- mentation, and accuracy of data collection. A number of these are discussed in further detail below. One of the common criticisms levelled at community-based watershed groups is the quality of the water quality data gathered by their staff and volunteers. Natural resource administrators have a responsibility to question the accuracy and validity of all data that is used in decisions on how a resource will be managed. An examination of the literature indicates that, on the whole, water quality data gathered by community groups can be comparable to that gathered by professionals (Fore et al., 2001; Engel and Voshell, 2002; Nicholson et al., 2002). This has been shown to be the case for both biological and chemical water parameters. An important caveat to this conclusion is that community groups must use validated protocols, and have adequate resources for equipment and the regular training of volunteers and staff. A second, but equally important issue is the value that community-based efforts can add to broader watershed monitoring programs. In the United States, insuffi- cient monitoring data exists on two-thirds of the country’s water bodies (Savage, 2002). This lack of monitoring data hampers attempts to assess the status of these water bodies and limits management of the resource. It is highly unlikely that government programs, even with significant cash infusions, would have the capacity to adequately monitor all watersheds in sufficient detail to allow informed COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 397 management decisions to be made. Nicholson et al. (2002, p. 199) states that volunteer data “adds to the database on water quality in areas that are not measured by professionals, with reasonable accuracy”. The authors go on to conclude that the increased spatial and temporal scales of watershed monitoring provided by volunteers can only improve the scientific understanding of the watershed. There remain limitations to the traditional top-down, centralized management of natural resources (Bradshaw, 2003). Moving decision-making closer to the ac- tual resource can lead to the empowerment of communities, with more prudent and flexible resource management. These benefits, however, do not automatically flow from devolution of resource management to the community level. Bradshaw (2003) concludes that for community-based resource management to be successful, assistance with capacity building and maintenance may be required.

4. Community Based Monitoring: The Context for Nova Scotia

There has been a rapid growth in recent years of CBM, in both Nova Scotia and other areas of Canada. This growth can be traced back to a number of factors, including: a) Reductions in funding for ecological monitoring by government agencies (Sharpe et al., 2000), (Au et al., 2000). b) Recognition of the need to involve communities and stakeholders in the planning and delivery of sustainability (Cuthill, 2000). c) Increasing mistrust of government’s care of the environment (Au et al., 2000). d) The continued rise in environmental consciousness (Chicoine, 1996).

Nova Scotia, unlike some other Canadian provinces, lacks a comprehensive policy framework for the management of watersheds and water resources. At present, there is no Nova Scotia equivalent to Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, or New Brunswick’s Water Resource Classification System. In 2002, the Provincial Drink- ing Water Strategy was published, the scope of which was principally limited to water resources used for human consumption (DOEL, 2002). This Strategy identi- fies the need to extend management to watershed resources beyond drinking water, but provided no clear timeline or dedicated resources towards this. In 2004, as part of a broader review to the Nova Scotia Environment Act, a number of amendments were proposed which would clarify the Minister of Environment’s role in water resource management (DOEL, 2004). The legislative timetable for the introduction of these amendments is unknown. Recent surveys conducted by the Clean Annapolis River Project (Sharpe and Sullivan, 2003) of the non-governmental sector in the province of Nova Scotia have identified a significant number of community groups that are involved in environmental stewardship activities (Figure 1). These groups vary considerably in their 398 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD . Location of Environmental Stewardship Groups in Nova Scotia. Figure 1 COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 399 make-up, some being comprised of a small number of hard-working volunteers, and others having large memberships, fixed offices, and permanent staff. These community groups undertake a broad range of activities on a continuum ranging from advocacy through comprehensive ecological monitoring. In Nova Scotia, in the absence of conservation authorities and government agencies mandated with the monitoring and protection of non-drinking watersheds, stewardship groups are plentiful and monitoring activities abundant. The extent to which these stewardship groups are involved in watershed management, however, is extremely limited.

5. Analysis of Community Based Watershed Monitoring in Nova Scotia

Community watershed groups undertake water quality monitoring activities in more than 10 of Nova Scotia’s watersheds. Since the early 1990’s they have gathered in excess of 55 monitoring-years of water quality data at over 200 sampling sites. This monitoring is undertaken in lakes, streams and rivers, estuaries, and nearshore marine settings. These watershed groups are active in monitoring a range of water quality parameters, including:

• Biological (e.g. benthic invertebrates, fecal coliform bacteria); • Physical (e.g. total suspended solids, temperature); and • Chemical (e.g. dissolved oxygen, nitrates and pH).

Community based watershed monitoring in Nova Scotia has made considerable progress, but there remain signiﬁcant challenges. The following discussion will examine a number of issues facing these groups, steps that have been taken to address their concerns, and outstanding problems. These issues are: a) establishment of new monitoring programs; b) ability to collect valid monitoring data; c) ability to share data and conduct comparative analyses between watersheds; d) engaging members of the public in ecological monitoring; e) funding and resourcing of ecological monitoring; and f) opportunity to participate in establishing integrated watershed management plans.

5.1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MONITORING PROGRAMS

The proliferation of stewardship groups engaged in monitoring activities presents unique challenges and opportunities. As new groups emerge, they have differing needs, and may beneﬁt from support in the administration of their organisations, guidance in the design of their monitoring programs, and mentoring. 400 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD

Given the importance of informed environmental stewards, the provision of access to environmental monitoring methods and technology is critical. In response to the demonstrated needs of their groups, faculty at Saint Mary’s University, under the direction of Dr. Cathy Conrad, established the Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Network to further existing relationships with community groups and foster new ones. The Network is housed in the Department of Geography at Saint Mary’s University campus, and provides an information resource to community members. A Community-University Liaison Ofﬁcer provides this function. A faculty network supports this individual with varied expertise established to answer speciﬁc queries. These queries typically cover areas such as:

• How to monitor/measure the environmental quality of the ecosystems in their community (based on Environment Canada’s Ecological Monitoring and Assess- ment (EMAN) Protocols); • How to “access” scientiﬁc and social scientiﬁc data related to the environment; and • How to use this data and utilize technology as a tool to further their understanding of their communities.

The Network also serves as a forum to share information between community groups, via a dedicated web site and periodic newsletters and workshops. In the ﬁrst year of operation for example, the Network worked on projects including:

• Sediment monitoring with the Sackville Rivers Association; • Water quality monitoring in the Nine Mile River; • Trails mapping and species identiﬁcation with the Friends of Belchers Marsh; and • Aiding in the establishment of forest monitoring plots with the Five Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust.

5.2. ABILITY TO COLLECT VALID MONITORING DATA

A frequent concern expressed of CBM is its ability to generate valid monitoring data. As was noted above, it has been shown that community groups can produce data of high quality, provided the groups are adequately resourced, and use robust protocols with trained volunteers. There are a number of community groups in Nova Scotia which have successfully developed long-term monitoring records, including the Sackville Rivers Association (SRA) and Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP). The SRA is a volunteer, non-proﬁt organization that was organized in 1988, with the objectives: a) to restore and preserve the Sackville River watershed’s natural habitat for the enhancement of adjacent communities and properties; and COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 401 b) to heighten people’s awareness and concern for the cleanliness of urban and rural watersheds.

The SRA has evolved from working strictly on restoration and educational issues towards comprehensive environmental monitoring. The association has undertaken many monitoring activities in response to frustration with the lack of detailed information regarding the physical health of their watershed. Activities are carried out independently or in partnership with government agencies (such as the Depart- ment of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada) or universities. Examples include monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment and water quality, in con- junction with their restoration and educational initiatives. In the absence of detailed and long-term data, it can be frustratingly difficult to quantify the successes of the organization. Has the physical condition of the watershed that they are mandated with protecting continued to decline? Have their efforts been successful? Have they made a difference? These are the questions that the organization would like to answer through their monitoring efforts. Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) operates the Annapolis River Guardians, a volunteer-based water quality-monitoring program on Nova Scotia’s Annapolis River. The program, which has been active since 1992, has involved more than 90 volunteers in the collection and analysis of over 3500 water samples. Through its administration by a community-based organisation and the use of volunteers, the cost of the program has been kept to a minimum, allowing it to conduct annual monitoring on the river, now in its fourteenth consecutive session. Community-based monitoring programs, like those administered by government or other organisations, face on-going challenges to ensure accuracy and validity of their monitoring data. A key question is whether community groups can put in place systems to avoid data quality problems and, when they do occur, allow the problems to be identified and rectified quickly. For example, during the summer of 2003, several of the water samplers used by the Annapolis River Guardians became contaminated with a bacterial species. This type of contamination was unprecedented over the then 11 year history of the program. Through a subsequent investigation, and with the assistance of microbiologists at Acadia University and Environment Canada, the contaminated equipment was identified and taken out of service. In consultation with provincial and federal environmental officials, a new sampling protocol was developed that will hopefully avoid a repeat of this incident. While the scientific literature indicates that community watershed groups have the ability to generate data of adequate accuracy and precision, this can only be achieved with sufficient resources, through the use of standardised protocols, and use of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures. Community watershed groups must ensure that QA/QC procedures are incorporated into the study design of every monitoring program. For this to occur, groups need guidance, training, and support to put the necessary procedures in place. As a result of the 2003 equipment event described above, CARP is currently developing a Quality 402 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD

Assurance Project Plan for its water quality monitoring programs, based on a tem- plate used by community groups in the United States (US EPA, 2004).

5.3. ABILITY TO SHARE DATA AND CONDUCT COMPARATIVE ANALYSES BETWEEN WATERSHEDS

There exists a tremendous need for a set of peer-reviewed, scientifically robust water quality protocols in Nova Scotia. These protocols would need to be written in enough detail so as to allow comparability of data between sites, while allowing sufficient flexibility to allow the method to be adapted to varying conditions. Community watershed groups would further benefit from a set of guidelines, indicating when and where these protocols are most applicable. Watershed groups in Nova Scotia are currently making use of a variety of parameters (Dissolved Oxygen, Suspended Solids, Nutrients, Fish Abundance and Di- versity, Invasive Species, Native Plants, Stream Morphology, and Riparian Habitat Assessment) but because of slight differences in methodology, the data is not comparable. It is furthermore unclear to watershed groups which of these parameters are most important for their particular circumstances. It is highly likely that some of the above parameters are currently being measured in situations where unwar- ranted. This represents both a waste of limited resources, and a lost opportunity to track a more important parameter. The introduction of a standardised benthic invertebrate monitoring protocol to the Atlantic provinces is an important success for Environment Canada’s Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN). Prior to the introduction of the CABIN (Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network) protocol, benthic invertebrate monitoring was used infrequently and with a variety of methodologies (Reynoldson et al., 1999; Bailey et al., 2003). CABIN provides a scientifically robust, accessible, and standardised approach for community watershed groups to monitor the abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrate communities. The CABIN protocol has been used by 10 groups in Nova Scotia since its introduction in 2002, with a total of 37 samples being collected. As the method makes use of the Reference Condition Approach with the data being held in a central database, the results from different watersheds can be compared. Beyond consistent field procedures, which standardised protocols will provide, community groups require assistance with the management and sharing of data once it is collected. Data management in this respect entails both ‘in-house’ procedures for inputting, archiving and retrieval of field data, and mechanisms to allow the data collected by one or more groups to be compared and analysed. If in-house procedures are inadequate, there is the risk that field data may be corrupted or lost, particu- larly with staff turnover. Having the ability to aggregate water quality data from more than one group or watershed has the potential to significantly increase the value of the monitoring effort, and allow trends to be tracked over much wider spatial scales. COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 403

5.4. ENGAGING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ECOLOGICAL MONITORING

Recent research (Overdest et al., 2004) indicates that environmental monitoring initiatives can not only improve community environmental and civic capacity, but also add substantial social capacity that can have measurable impacts. Social capital refers to the strength, density and intensity of connections among and between individuals and groups of individuals within a community (Overdevest et al., 2004). A community that has a high social capacity would be one whose members know each other, share experiences and form common bonds (Lesser, 2002; Lin, 2001). In the context of groups who are organized around an environment or particular environmental problem, strong social capital may certainly be desirable in terms of the communities’ ability to monitor, communicate and share information. Engaging members of the public remains a challenge for those dedicated members of stewardship groups. Issues include the capacity to build social capital, volunteer recruitment and retention, making volunteers feel valued, and avoiding volunteer frustration caused by the inability to solve environmental problems. A common frustration that has emerged among a number of groups in Nova Scotia is the “monitoring for the sake of monitoring” concern. Members understand the value of undertaking ecological monitoring, but in the absence of the data generated being meaningfully integrated into resource management decisions, frustrations emerged. Many groups would rather focus on the prevention of problems rather than monitoring an obvious decline in the system. An example involves sediment runoff in urban areas around Halifax. Members of resident’s associations and watershed groups have the capacity to monitor sediment and associated water quality parameters to provide “proof” to government employees that a problem exists. In the absence of enforcement and compliance, however, frustration can quickly result in members no longer wanting to participate.

5.5. FUNDING AND RESOURCING OF ECOLOGICAL MONITORING

Securing funds and resources is an on-going challenge for most community groups, as there is at present no core funding for CBM, at either the provincial or federal levels. While funding can frequently be obtained for new projects or initiatives, resourcing on-going projects, such as ecological monitoring, is much more problematic. This undermines the ability to develop long-term datasets in order to identify meaningful ecological trends. In recent years many of the monitoring responsibilities that were once conducted or funded by government agencies have been shifted to stewardship groups; however this shift in monitoring responsibility has not included a transfer of funds to stewardship groups. Support of community groups can be a highly efﬁcient means for government to achieve shared environmental objectives, including CBM. This was found to be the case in a recent examination of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP), a community based initiative administered by Environment Canada (Gardner Pinfold, 404 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD

2002). Based on an analysis of audited ﬁnancial statements, the report concluded that it would have cost Environment Canada 12 times the current ACAP program budget, if the department had directly delivered the same outputs as the 14 ACAP organisations, over the period 1997 to 2002. During this period, the program created a total of 482 person years of employment and generated taxa- tion revenues of CAN$8 Million to provincial and federal governments. Based, on these conclusions, the question remains; how can government afford not to support CBM? The lack of consistent and adequate funding is unfortunately one of the biggest issues for many groups. With more stewardship groups emerging, competition for small grants will inevitably intensify. The president of the Sackville Rivers Association laments that they unfortunately “live by the grant and die by the grant”.

5.6. OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS

For CBM to achieve its full potential, the results generated must feed into local policy and decision-making. The contribution of volunteers and community groups must be valued, with the opportunity for these stakeholders to contribute to the management of the shared resource, such as a watershed. In Nova Sco- tia, there is limited evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case. One of the active residents associations in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), the Portland Estates Residents’ Association (PERA), became concerned about increasing volumes of sediment moving off construction sites into two lake systems in their community. The Portland Estates Residents’ Association started basic monitoring and requested assistance from the municipality. Eventually, all three levels of government were brought in to attempt to ameliorate the problem. Unfortunately, the volunteer initiative was not successful due to a lack of action on the part of the government agencies involved. Volunteers were left ask- ing the question—“where do we go from here?”. As Boyd (2003) notes, it is “. . . disturbing that Canadian water quality continues to face major challenges from industrial, municipal, individual, agricultural, and international contamination.” (p. 41) and that “Considerably more resources need to be dedicated to enforcement, and procedural obstacles need to be dismantled so that the public can enforce the law where the government lacks either the resources or the political will.” (p. 41). During 2003, CARP conducted a study to examine the effectiveness of the Annapolis River Guardian program in raising public awareness and education, improving local environmental policy, and influencing decision making (Sharpe and Sullivan, 2004). The study identified that, while the program may have con- tributed to increased public awareness of environmental issues generally, there were some people in certain areas of the watershed who had limited awareness of the COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 405 program. While the program has been successful in establishing an objective and credible long-term dataset, the study found that there has been little direct impact on local policy and decision-making. The public profile of the program, which peaked in 1994, has remained at a relatively low, but constant level, for the past 5 years. The Kings County Lake Monitoring Program provides an example of how community based ecological monitoring can yield scientifically valid data that in turn drives local decision-making, in this case, land-use planning. Since 1997, the County of Kings has administered a volunteer-based lake-monitoring program for 10 lakes within the municipality (Municipality of the County of Kings, 2004). The volunteers, typically lake residents, collected monthly water samples during the ice-free months. The water quality data allows the trophic status of the lake to be evaluated and development pressure assessed. Municipal planners and elected officials use this information in guiding land-use decisions for the lakes and their watersheds. The program enjoys widespread support with both the community and elected councillors. In 2002, Kings County Council voted to extend the program for another five years ( M. MacIntyre, personal communication). The Kings County monitoring program is one of a very few programs in Nova Scotia where this level of interaction between CBM and resource management exists. It is suggested that this interaction is principally due to the fact that the program is operated by government, in this case a municipality. For many other community groups, the experience is quite different. Even with recognized and long-standing groups in the province, there remains the issue of a general lack of management and institutional integration of monitoring activities leading to watershed management. Groups like the SRA become frustrated with the feeling of monitoring for the sake of monitoring in the absence of government taking their results and integrating them into prevention and restoration. A fish kill that occurred in the Sackville Rivers watershed exemplifies this frustration. On the evening of July 12, 2002, the President of the Sackville Rivers Association called the provincial toll-free emergency response number to report a massive fish kill in the Little Sackville River. Although the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia’s Provincial Government have emergency response teams to deal with such situations, confusion over which department and which level of government should take the lead role delayed the response of emergency officials and perhaps resulted in the un- necessary death of thousands of fish and aquatic species. Also, because the incident occurred outside of regular government business hours, few officials with the expertise to handle the situation were available. In this particular case, the Nova Scotia De- partment of Environment and Labour assumed the “lead” role because the incident occurred as a result of a water main break, a land-based activity managed under the provincial government’s legislation; however the impacts of the event occurred in an aquatic ecosystem, which is mainly governed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Unfortunately, the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour lacked the expertise, resources, training, staff, and coordination capabilities 406 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD to comprehensively respond to the situation. Once this department took the lead role, federal government departments dissolved their responsibilities. The municipal government did not become involved in the emergency response on any formal level. An important lesson learned in this situation was that all tiers of government need to work together to establish better emergency response protocols and all government agencies need to work collaboratively when responding to such environmental emergencies. In this case, the SRA was instrumental in providing background information about the watershed to government officials; however, they were not fully involved in discussions and decisions that were made after the incident occurred. This case has left the SRA and other watershed groups wondering why they should be working so hard to protect and monitor the health of the aquatic environment when their input into the decision making process is so often disregarded. Ironically, there was in fact a silver lining to the fish kill in the Sackville watershed. At least 4000 fish were found dead in the river, enabling a local zoologist to conclude that “. . . we can now see the association has been remarkably successful, given what they started with and what they’ve produced in the end.” (The Weekly News, July 24, 2002).

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper has sought to examine the current state of community based watershed management in Nova Scotia, Canada. For a variety of reasons discussed above, there has been an increase in the number of community groups involved in water quality monitoring activities. These groups have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the effective management of water resources, if they are given the appropriate support and opportunities. A limited number of groups have been successful in establishing a long-term monitoring record. Upon examination, these groups share a number of common features, including:

• Management by a steering committee composed of members from the community, academia, government agencies, and the private sector; • Adequate long-term funding; • Access to scientiﬁc expertise in data collection and interpretation procedures; • A strong program to communicate the results of monitoring activities to both the community and to those volunteers actually collecting the data; and • Engagement of politicians and decision makers by the volunteers (as opposed to employees being paid to run the program.

Based on these features, outlined below are a number of recommendations, which the authors believe will facilitate community based monitoring achieving its COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 407 full potential. These recommendations are organised around the six issues addressed above in Section 5.

6.1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MONITORING PROGRAMS a) Formalise the establishment of the Community-Based Environmental Monitor- ing Network, with core funding. b) Establish a mentoring program for new groups undertaking monitoring programs, with access to advice on protocols, study design and information management. Provide opportunities for community and all levels of government to meet, network and build trust; with more dialogue and formal collaboration.

6.2. ABILITY TO COLLECT VALID MONITORING DATA c) Require the incorporation of QA/QC procedures into monitoring programs as a condition of funding.

6.3. ABILITY TO SHARE DATA AND CONDUCT ANALYSIS BETWEEN WATERSHEDS d) Develop and adopt scientiﬁcally robust, peer-reviewed protocols for water quality parameters. e) Develop a data management structure to allow groups to better manage data internally and share data between groups/agencies.

6.4. ENGAGING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ECOLOGICAL MONITORING f) Increase the capacity of groups to engage the public in ecological monitoring, leading to meaningful input into the decision-making structure.

6.5. RESOURCING OF ECOLOGICAL MONITORING g) Provide ﬁnancial and material resources to community-based groups where they fulﬁl ecological monitoring functions. h) Establish a mechanism to provide core support for CBM, as community groups cannot be expected to bear the full weight of government downloading.

6.6. OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

i) Provide examples, strategies and opportunities to enhance participation in integrated watershed management, where community groups are a meaningful partner in the process. 408 A. SHARPE AND C. CONRAD

References

Au, J., Bagchi, P., Chen, B., Martinez, R., Dudley, S. A. and Sorger, G. J.: 2000, ‘Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli, and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students’, J. Environ. Manage. 58, 213Ð230. Bailey, R. C., Norris, R. H. and Reynoldson, T. B.: 2003, Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the Reference Condition Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 184 pp. Boyd, D.: 2003, Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Environmental Law and Policy. UBC Press, Vancouver, 469 pp. Bradshaw, B.: 2003, ‘Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management’, Can. Geographer 47(2), 137Ð150. Breckenridge, L. P.: 1998, ‘Nonproﬁt environmental organisations and the restructuring of institutions for ecosystem management’, Ecol. Law Quarterly 25, 692Ð702. Cantwell, M. and Day, J. C.: 1998, ‘Citizen initiated river basin planning: The Salmon Watershed example’, Environments 25(2/3) 80Ð90. Chicoine, G.: 1996, ‘Citizen-Science Partnerships: A Step Toward Community-based Environmen- tal Management?’ Unpublished Masters’ thesis, Master of Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Cuthill, M.: 2000, An interpretive approach to developing volunteer-based coastal monitoring pro- grammes, Local Environ. 5, 127Ð137. DOELÐDepartment of Environment and Labour: 2002, ‘A Drinking Water Strategy for Nova Scotia Ð A comprehensive Approach to the Management of Drinking Water’, Province of Nova Scotia, 42 pp. DOEL Ð Department of Environment and Labour: 2004, ‘Environment Act Ð Proposed Amendments’, Province of Nova Scotia, 24 pp. Engel, S. R. and Voshell, J. R., Jr.: 2002, ‘Volunteer biological monitoring: Can it accurately assess the ecological condition of streams?’ Amer. Entomologist, Fall issue 2002, 164Ð 177. Fore, L., Paulsen, K. and O’Laughlin, K.: 2001, ‘Assessing the performance Of volunteers in monitoring streams’, Freshw. Biology 46, 109Ð123. Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd.: 2002, An Evaluation of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP): Economic Impact and Return on Investment, Prepared for Environment Canada, Halifax. Gaweda, J.: 2002, River Talk: A Report on VolunteerWater Monitoring in Ontario. A Report Prepared for the Citizens’ Environment Watch, 27pp. Israel, B., Schultz, A. Parker, E. and Becker, A.: 1998, ‘Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health’, Ann. Rev. Public Health 19, 173Ð 202. Kenney, D. S.: 1999, ‘Are community-based watershed groups really effective? Confronting the thorny issue of measuring success’, Chronicle Community 3(2), 33Ð37. Lesser, E. L. (ed.): 2002, Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, Butterworth- Heinemann, Boston, MA. Lin, N.: 2001, Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University Press, New York. Lopez, C. and Dates, G.: 1998, ‘The Efforts of Community Volunteers in Assessing Watershed Ecosystem Health’, In: D. Report, R. Costanza, P. Epstein, C. Gaudet and R. Levins (eds.), Ecosystem Health, Blackwell Science, pp. 103Ð128. Municipality of the County of Kings, ‘Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program’, available at http://www. county.kings.ns.ca/comdev/lakemon/. Site accessed September 16, 2004. COMMUNITY BASED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN NOVA SCOTIA 409

Nicholson, E., Ryan, J. and Hodgkins, D.: 2002, ‘Community data Ð where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data’, Water Sci. Technol. 45, 193Ð200. Overdevest, C., Huyck Orr, C. and Stepenuck, K.: 2004, ‘Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues’, Res. Human Ecol. 11(2), 177Ð185. Pinho, O.: 2000, ‘Community involvement in projects to reduce nonpoint source pollution’, J. Shellfish Res. 19(1), 445Ð447. Reynoldson, T. B., Bombardier, M., Donald, D., O’Neill, H. J., Rosenberg, D. M., Shear, H., Tuominen, T. and Vaughan, H.: 1999, Strategy for a Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network. NWRI Contribution No. 99Ð248. 26 pp. Savage, R. H.: 2002, ‘Sample Problem’, The Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum, September/October 2002. Savan, B., Morgan, A. and Gore, C.: 2003, ‘Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of the universities: The case of citizens’ environment watch’, Environ. Manage. 31(5), 561Ð568. Semper, J.: 2004, The Significance of Community-Based Watershed Groups: A Study of the Sackville Rivers Association, Unpublished. Undergraduate honours thesis, Saint Mary’s University, Envi- ronmental Studies Program, 74 p. Sharpe, A. and Sullivan, D.: 2003, ‘Community Science in Atlantic Canada: A Survey of Water Quality Monitoring Programs’ Clean Annapolis River Project, Poster presentation at EMAN National Science Meeting 2003, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Sharpe, A. and Sullivan, D.: 2004, ‘The Effectiveness of the Annapolis River Guardians: Influences on Public Policy, Decision-Making and Environmental Awareness’ Clean Annapolis River Project, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. Sharpe, T., Saven, B. and Amott, N.: 2000, Testing the waters, Alternatives 26, 30Ð33. Sinclair, A. J. and Diduck, A.: 2001, ‘Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative leaning perspective’, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 21, 113Ð136. The Weekly News (Bedford-Sackville) July 24, 2002 Volume of Fish Prove Efforts WorkÐZoologist (Yvette d’Entremont) (ed.). United States Environmental Protection Agency: 2004, ‘The Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans’. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/qappcovr. htm. Site accessed September 8, 2004. Whitelaw, G., Vaughan, H., Craig, B. and Atkinson, D.: 2003, ‘Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 88(1Ð3), 409Ð418. Yarnell, P. and Gayton, D.: 2003, Community-based Ecosystem Monitoring in British Columbia: A Survey and Recommendations for Extension. Forrex Series 13, 37 pp.