Truro Community Forum

in the Minas Basin Watershed!

 Wednesday, February 27^th 2002

Snow Date: Wednesday March 6^th 2002 (same time)

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!

Schedule

Open House - 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (Food and refreshments available)

Discussion - 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Introductory remarks
Focus groups
Wrap up

This Forum is Co-hosted by:

Truro   Community Forum Focus Groups
Discussion Summary
Listed below is the information gathered from each Focus Group including participants
and a summary of discussions.

Forestry Practices Focus Group
Agriculture Focus Group
Development Focus Group
Fisheries Focus Group
Sewage/Water Quality Focus Group

Coordinator: Peter Wells
Facilitator: Anita MacLellan (from CoRDA)
Recorder:
Reporter: Darria Langill

Lead Identified: none

Participants:  Steve Harder*, Ron Taylor*, Darria Langill* Garnet McLaughlin*, Nestor Escara, Thomas Hall
Adrian Samson, Anita MacLellan, Peter Wells

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

Summary of Discussion (notes compiled by Peter Wells)

stream crossings
level of disturbance (forestry practices)
impacts on water quality
improvements on buffers (assessment)
education, changing attitudes
income and employment
exacerbation of flooding
effects of past forestry practices
lack of co-ordination (wood lot owners)
enforcement and monitoring
lack of sustainable forestry practices
developing better integration between areas (land management vs. forestry management)
ensuring stewardship
inform educators (school curriculum)
fragmentation of habitat
government or industry?
sharing of knowledge (Nova Forest Alliance)
lack of value added

forestry practices (clear cutting management; BMPs; education and stewardship)

small wood lot owners – education, youth, publicity(?)

4.0 Actions:

develop management plans for wood lot owners
government requires best practices on crown land
give incentives for good forestry practices (e.g. tax breaks)
improve education

Anita (?)
Nova Forest Alliance
Development Association, RDAs
Registered foresters
Teachers
Small or large working groups
Ecology Action Centre
BOFEP
Greater Fundy Ecosystem

Funding
Manpower
Good leadership
Media and technology
Use universities (e.g. graduate student projects)

1.0 Issues:

stream crossings
water quality
landscape changes (clear cutting)
forestry practices
impacts of forestry practices on water
buffer zones – size and effect
people’s attitude/education re private owners, buffer zones
relationship to flooding
effects of past forestry practices
rate(s) of regeneration
enforcement re new regulations
high % of wood lot owners
lack of communication between wood lot owners
need for low impact forestry (lack of sustainability practices)
linkages to other issues (the need for education in ecology; the need for integrated management).
Education of youth and adults
Too low value of wood lots today
Need for "true stewardship"
Conversion of the influential persons
Education of "the educators" (high school)
fragmentation of habitat for wildlife
linkages to tourism – clear-cuts to highway – tourism and aesthetics
forestry practices re clear-cuts
sharing of knowledge.

2.0 Focus:

what are the major issues?
Is clear-cutting the primary issue? E.g. along Rt. 7.
The issue may be FORESTRY PRACTICES.
education
rapidity of clear-cutting
clear-cutting management
BMP (best management practices)
stewardship – education – transfer of knowledge
how to manage the bad practices
focus on small wood lot owner. But they are connected to the big companies.
Get small pockets of wood lot owners doing the right thing. Demonstrate the right thing.

3.0 Solutions:

education of the small owners
small wood lot owners
53% of (forested land is owned by) wood lot owners across the province
how to reach these people?
A lot of different people i.e. all walks of life
Educate the people who own the land now
The Nova Foresters program
Lots of capacity for training
It’s a long-term issue.

4.0 Actions:

educate the teachers re the issues. "educate the educators".
give the students the options re GMP practices
management or opportunity plans for wood lot owners
better regulations (sustainability) of crown land
better management practices for crown land
upgrade BMP for crown land. Minimum standards are in use now. Review standards for crown land.
Incentives needed for wood lot owners; they might lead to better management of small lots.
A tax incentive for leaving canopies re the Carbon tax.

5.0 Who to do it?:

use Nova Scotia alliances (forestry); coastal communities network; biosphere group.
Use development associations; RDAs; school boards; registers of forestry (forester associations).
Where to send results of this meeting?
The process is " a bit premature".
Link to model forests initiatives e.g. greater Fundy ecosystem research group.
Send note back to particular organizations for discussions.

6.0 Resources:

need $$.
Need some staff.
Avoid competition between groups.
Technology transfer.
Graduate student theses re the issues e.g. universities.
3^rd phase of model forest (Ron T.); yes, for proposals.

---

Lead Identified: possibly Dick Huggard and/or Brian MacCulloch

Participants:  Brian MacCulloch*, Darrell Hingley*, Desiree Stockermans*, Dick Huggard*, JoAnn Fewer*
Jon Percy, Katherine Mott, Reg Newell, Tom Young, Vincent Deader

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

Summary of Discussion   (notes compiled by Jon Percy)

Agriculture is an important industry in the Minas Basin watershed, employing more people than forestry and the fisheries combined. During the discussion a number of problem areas pertaining to agriculture were identified. Some of these were problems confronting farms and farmers, while others were problems being caused by them.

Availability of adequate amounts of water for irrigation and livestock watering is an ongoing problem in some areas of the watershed. It is anticipated that climate change and global warming will only exacerbate the problem.

Water quality is another critical concern in many areas, not only for farmers but for domestic and industrial water users as well. This is of particular concern to the small but expanding number of organic farmers in the region who need uncontaminated water for their crops.

Excessive or inappropriate use of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) was identified as one of the sources of water contamination. Atmospheric transport of chemical sprays to nearby farmlands can also be a problem at times, particularly for organic growers. Poor livestock husbandry and improper manure handling often leads to contamination of waterways and groundwater. There needs to be better education of farmers about the proper ways of handling chemicals and manures, incentives for acting responsibly and guidance and assistance with adopting new technologies that can significantly reduce water pollution and contaminated runoff.

Much of the best, most fertile farmland in the watershed, particularly around the Truro area is dyked former marshland. This gives rise to a number of problems. There is growing concern about the protection of these farmlands from flooding by the sea, particularly in view of global warming and the associated rising sea level. In addition, Dykeland near some urban centres such as Truro and Wolfville is steadily being encroached upon by commercial or residential development, leading to concerns about loss of prime agricultural land, loss of wildlife habitat and the vulnerability of these developments to flooding from rising sea level and storm surges.

The lengthy network of dykes also provides ready access to coastal and wetland areas, and there is a growing potential for conflict between the growing number of hikers/naturalists/ ecotourists visiting these areas and the local farmers. Farmers are concerned that excessive trampling can damage the vegetative cover of some dykes and cause erosion. They are also worried about their liability if such visitors are injured while on their property and by the potential dangers posed to them by the heavy machinery being used in agriculture or for repairing dykes. The presence of visitors may also interfere with the operation of such machinery. There needs to be greater dialogue and cooperation between farmers and those who are promoting or engaging in nature-oriented activities on marshlands and dykes to find ways of reducing the potential for conflicts.

Farmers are even more concerned about the widespread and growing use of ATVs and other off road vehicles on their farmlands and nearby dykes. Irresponsible riders damage property, harass livestock and tear up the landscape. For example, in some areas productive blueberry barrens are being badly damaged by excessive ATV traffic. There is clearly a need for licensing and education (in safety, common courtesy and basic environmental ethics) of all ATV riders as well as tougher restrictions on where they can operate these vehicles. Satisfactory solutions can only be found if responsible ATV organizations meet and cooperate with legislators and all those being adversely affected by ATVs.

It was felt that the solution to most of these problems requires a combination of effective legislation, clear guidelines, worthwhile incentives to encourage good practices, education awareness raising about the issues. It also requires the promotion of effective dialogue and cooperation between those causing the different problems and those being affected.

1) From Note keeper (Desiree Stockermans)

agriculture promotion
modelling the amounts of water used in agriculture.
Community development issues

agricultural impact on water quality
agricultural chemical use
interest in organic farmer is increasing, but there is a problem in convincing conventional farmers from changing to organic.
Dykeland/marshland should not be built on; marshland is very unstable.
Good land stewardship of the marshland
70 marshland groups, 250 km of dykes, 40,000acres of farmland behind dykes.
Urban development on marshland - infringing on marshland, floodplains and wildfowl habitat
Marshland ecosystem is enhanced: bird watching tourist attractions
Marshlands in Masstown are closed to the public.
Limited access to marshland for ecotourism from farmers
How can we help farmers to open the marshlands to ecotourism.
Cooperation with farmers to permit access for soft adventure tourism is needed.
Put together an education package.
Great issue for many farmers is development0 (on class 2 land) and ATV use.
Lower class land (class 3 and 4) takes more fertilizer energy and therefore more runoff.
Use of dykes for recreation (walking) can cause loss of vegetation which could lead to erosion and damage.
Grand Pre dykes -conflicts between farmers and walkers ; use of large farm machinery can be a danger to visitors.

pesticides
water quality issue
water quantity issue
ATV use and development on farmland.

3.0 Solutions:

use plants that require less water; restore wetlands - act like a sponge, holds more water - rivers will be higher.
Water quality- education and awareness
Limits on spreading manure on frozen ground
Concrete storage areas for manure
Composting
Dried manure
Research
Draining through a wetland and then out to a river
Use incentive programs - partnership with landowners to create wetlands; demonstration projects.

Education
Work with ATV groups
Safety/ethics courses [through the ATV rider safety training program;
Develop sites for ATVs similar to snowmobile clubs..
Give our support to motor vehicle branch to certify ATV’s.
Bring together ATV groups, farmers, trail associations, snowmobile groups

How much is being used?
Gauge that measures the exact amount of chemicals that are applied to soil
Add water to chemicals just before it is applied
Use foam sprays
New technology
Combine legislation, cooperation
Incentive programs
Organic agriculture centre of Canada

2) Coordinators Notes (Jon Percy):

In region agriculture employs more people than forestry and the fisheries combined
Water issue - quality - organic growers
Protection of saltmarsh land from flooding and rising sea level (very rich land)
Also concern about building on agricultural land
Access to agricultural land for ecotourism
Protection of farmland
Develop land for ecotourism purposes and protect it
Problem with ATV activity on farmland - farmland/crops damaged; harassment of livestock; blueberry barrens damaged by ATV traffic
Requires education and working with ATV organizations; perhaps restriction to particular areas
Pollution - pesticide use
Pressures from development is big issue for farmers
ATV’s big issue for farmers
Ecotourism traffic on dykes near wetlands
Interference with farmers driving large machinery
Water quality and water quantity problems - problems going to get worse
Loss of wetland
How much pesticide is used in the watershed?

Education - broad involving kids and adults.
Manure storage - roofed to prevent rain infiltration - 1/3 less storage space needed.
Farmers are going to buck legislation - need to use incentive programs and demonstration projects
Contamination progress - incentive programs rather than taking to court/.
For ATVs: Require ATV riders to take course - safety and environmental ethics/ATVs are registered but riders are not licensed/Work with ATV groups - raise ecological concerns/Designated areas for rallies etc.

3) Flip chart Notes: (Tom Young)

Water (impact on wells etc.)
Agricultural chemical use (how it affects watershed and public health)
Interest in organic farming
Dykeland has high value for agriculture (natural fertility
Dyked marshland is unstable… not suited for development
Marshland Act (limited use - agriculture only)
Commercial development on agricultural marshland causes: loss of wildlife habitat/flooding/loss of agricultural productivity
in rural areas farmers may limit coastal access
cooperation with farmers to permit access for soft adventure and ecotourism needed - example: Debert, Onslow, Glenholme
inappropriate (careless use of agricultural chemicals)
It all comes down to the fact that farmers have to make a living
Greatest issue for farmers is development of class 2 land such as marshland
Lower class land takes more energy, fertilizer… more run off
Use of dykes for recreation (walking) leads to damage…. Costly for farmers (e.g. Wolfville)
Liability of recreational users
ATVs are greatest problem because they are everywhere.

2.0 Solutions:

Water quantity issues:
Find plants that need less water
Awareness, stewardship (educational)
Loss of wetlands to development, agriculture
Incentive programs for good practices

Limits on spreading manure on frozen ground
Redesign liquid manure storage facility (roofed design)
Drier manure
Composting
Research
Educate young people
Need ways to ensure good practices if we want to eat
Tile drainage; constructed wetland
Create partnerships
Shared cost of constructed wetland

Renegades, don’t care
Rules and regulations
Requirement for riders to take courses - certification
Letters of support to ATV riders safety training
Need infrastructure for ATVs
Write to motor vehicle branch
Support concerns of federation of agriculture
Put environmental issues into training courses
Cooperative ventures
Find out how much pesticide is used in agriculture; how much nitrates etc.
New technology can reduce overuse of fertilizers and pesticides
Key- start with incentive programs

Combine: Legislation + Cooperation + Awareness + Understanding. 

Lead Identified: none

Participants: Amanda Park, Leslie Keiley, John Charles, David Yorke, Vangie Yorke, Rod MacLennan
Hank Kolstee, Elena Garcia, Weidong Deng, Angela Bond*, Janet Bowdridge, Ross Hall, Michael Logan
Anna Parks*, Tony Bowron, Maxine Westhead

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

Summary of Discussion  (notes compiled by Maxine Westhead)

Note: Given that only 3 out of the 15 or so people in this session were from the local area, there was some hesitancy in the group to really delve into the topic. Specific issues couldn’t be addressed in detail because participants didn’t feel familiar enough with the area. The issue was tackled at a broad level, and it was recommended that a local group flesh out each of the specific points raised during brainstorming.

Development on low lying areas (flood plains)
Storm surges
Erosion
Flooding
Property rights (ownership)
Access rights to and along coast
Causeways (tidal restrictions)
Physical alteration of coastline
Climate change and sea level rise
Ecotourism
Infilling of wetlands (no regulations for small wetlands)
Drainage of wetlands
No inspections for septic systems (estimated 40% failure rate)
Agriculture (run-off)
Environmental Impact Assessments (not strict enough)
Urban sprawl
Mining (titanium, top soil, aggregate, mineral extraction)
Jurisdictional gaps, overlaps and grey zones
Municipal run-off (sewage, pollution)

.0 Focus:

We attempted to ‘clump’ the above points into 2 groups

Risks to humans from the environment

Risks to the environment from humans

We found that many of our points could easily fit into both, so the process was abandoned. We did feel, however, that most were captured under the following two headings

A.  Zoning issues

B. Provincial legislation (environmental protection)

To focus on actions and solutions, we walked through these two broader issues.

3.0 Solutions

Need to amend the Municipal Act and the Provincial Environmental Impact Assessment process

4.0 Actions

Lobbying by interest groups at all levels (local/municipal and provincial)
Contacting the Department of Municipal Affairs and appropriate Provincial Departments
Education and awareness of the issues and need for changes

5.0 Who should be involved?

Bring representatives from each of the municipalities to address zoning issues
Land owners
Local community (community-based meetings)

6.0 Resources Needed

Time (change of this kind is a long process)
People (staff, volunteers, etc.)
Money
Sound information
Access to information

3.0 Solutions

Need to amend current legislation for stronger environmental protection

4.0 Actions

Education and awareness
Action by individuals, groups and government departments
Need to create a strategy
Lobby MLAs
Need short, medium and long term solutions/actions

5.0 Who should be involved?

All

6.0 Resources Needed

Education (perceived vs. actual problems – e.g. recent coverage of storm surges in media)
Science

Participant Quote:
"We are shifting from personal ownership and property rights to the community’s right to protect their natural areas."

Coordinator: Shayne McQuaid
Facilitator: Rosalie Prest (from CoRDA)
Recorder: Denise Kennell
Reporter: Mike Parker

Lead identified: Denise Kennell, Cobequid Salmon Association

Participants:  Denise Kennell*, Oscar Huntley, Paul MacIsaac*, Ivan Polley*, Naomi Shalit*, Tricia Lovell,
Andrew Magloire*, Mike Parker*

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

Summary of Discussion     (notes compiled by Robin Musselman)

1.0 Issues:
1) Atlantic Salmon

- Was very valuable
- Economic and recreational significance
- Endangered status
- Lack of public concern
- No active increase in management of the species
- Need to track  developments  that  contributed to and continues to affect stock decline
- Affect on food chain (humans etc.)
- Indicator Species (Atlantic Salmon)

2) Habitat Degradation

- Agriculture
- Mining
- Forestry
- Extensive Damange
- Define Specific impacts
- Restoration enhancement

3) Research

- Why stock decline?
- No funding  for  Atlantic Salmon (compare Western Canada versus Eastern Canada)

4) Structures

- Affect on fish passages
- Culverts/dams

5) Water Quality

- Human development
- What is being dumped into the water
- Public awareness (two programs: Living by the water, Yellow fish program)

6) Economic Development

- Lack of fishery (commercial/recreational)

7) Aquaculture

- Disease
- Predators
- Chemicals
- Shellfish

8) Over harvesting

9) Community Involvement (management)

- Education
- Community groups (public awareness, community has to buy into the idea)
- Funding
- Research
- Change in Policy (legislation, working together)
- Corporations need to be involved (water disposal issues, educated)
- Enforcement of existing legislations
- Best management practices

- Management plan/cooperative agreements
- CoRDA, CSA, BoFEP, CCWIC and Government Departments need to take a lead
             in top two solutions: education of community groups (ie. schools, hands on initiatives)
- Technical and scientific assistance
- Timeline – YESTERDAY!
- Regional economic development
- Links to what is affected by the loss of Atlantic Salmon
- Communication (media, newspaper)

- Nova Scotia Agricultural College (all learning institutions)
- CoRDA, CSA, BoFEP, CCWIC, Government Departments

- Process needs to continue
- Timing needs to be Saturday (more time and more community involvement)

---

Coordinator: Pat Hinch
Facilitator: Linda Redmond (from NSDOE)
Recorder:
Reporter: Linda Redmond

Lead Identified: None

Participants: Cathy Enright, Christopher Greene*, Dornia Basurto, Filiphina Gojar, Cameron Deacoff,
Pat Hinch, Tom Rudolph* (also interested in forestry), Alexia McLaughlin*, Stacie Carroll*, Linda Redmond

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

Summary of Discussion      (notes compiled by Pat Hinch)

Water Quality and Sewage Issues

1) technology - research
2) water conservation - lack of knowledge
3) water contamination - sewage, roads runoff - agriculture/silviculture - affect on organisms
4) forest harvest practices
5) different methods of wastewater treatment efficiency with regard to removing pathogens
6) lack of wastewater treatment in coastal communities
7) shoreline naturalization - lack of education on the importance
8) desired level of water quality wanted by the community (wastewater treatment)
9) lack of water quality monitoring program network
10) affect of water diversion for irrigation on water levels
11) community education - water quality issues - science and not communicating ? and/or do not have the science
12) atmospheric deposition affects on water quality
13) environmental practices - affects could harm the water quality
14) non-compliance of existing rules

includes from above Issue #: 2, 7, 11, 14, 13

includes from above Issue # : 14, 9, 8

includes from above Issue #: 1, 5, 2, 6, 11

includes from above Issue#: 10, 13

3.0 Solutions:

Focused on two priority focus areas: Education and Sources of Contamination/Impacts of practices

Flush it- forget it
Public needs to know the affects of what they put into the sewage system
Educate on:
alternatives
hazards (cost more in the short term)
water conservation - usage (wells, reservoirs) - water is not necessarily a renewable resource - needs to come from somewhere (potential contamination)
cost as a disincentive - metering (save water)
knowledge of water flows, groundwater tables (potential for contamination even from own practices)
development - lack of zones - runoff from carwash, etc.
dug wells versus drilled wells - runoff knowledge needed
water cycle education

· affects on watershed - agriculture, forestry, sewage, what goes down the drain into wastewater, road runoff , diversion (irrigation, dams, etc.), linkage of water flow with what=s in the water (quality)

· groundwater - over pumping, lack of vegetation, siltation – sediments

· riparian zone condition

· what do we know about these sources, science experience, best knowledge/practices - appreciation of gaps - solutions - programs of education

Executive Summary Truro Community Forum

Minas Basin Community Forum, Truro NS – February 27^th, 2002

On Wednesday February 27^th, 2002, over 50 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 Colchester Regional Development Agency and the Cobequid Salmon Association.

The Open House was a success with 24 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 Jo Ann Fewer from CoRDA giving a brief introduction on activities going on in the area. Then Dr. Graham Daborn, Chair of BoFEP, gave 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:

Based on the results from the above chart, five Focus Groups were formed to discuss these issues. The Focus Groups were: Agricultural Practices, Development, Fisheries Management, Forestry Practices and Sewage Treatment/Water quality. A summary of discussions held by each Focus Group follows.

Agricultural Practices:

During the discussion a number of problem areas pertaining to agriculture were identified. Some of these were problems confronting farms and farmers, while others were problems being caused by them. The major issues identified were availability of water (for irrigation and livestock); water quality (for all users); excessive or inappropriate use of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides); development on farmland (especially on dykeland); and the increased use of nature tourists and ATV’s on farmland (coastal and barrens). It was felt solutions to most of these problems requires a combination of effective legislation, clear guidelines, worthwhile incentives to encourage good practices, education awareness raising about the issues. It also requires the promotion of effective dialogue and cooperation between those causing the different problems and those being affected.

Development:

Several key issues were identified as subjects of concern: namely, species decline (especially salmon as the indicator species and the absence of any research being done to find out what is causing the rapid decline), habitat degradation (including obstructions to fish passage), water quality, economic development in relation to the value of the recreational fishery, over harvesting, and aquaculture (with concerns as to the impacts this fishery has on natural stocks). Community involvement with an integrated resource management approach in partnership with "expert agencies" was seen as the correct approach to take. Solutions included education, community buy-in, funding, research, co-management in the implementation or changes in policy and legislation, corporate involvement, better enforcement, and Best Management practises

Forestry Practices:

In this focus group several issues were brought up during the brainstorming session but the group concluded the general area of concern could be termed "forestry practices". This would include clear-cutting; best management practices; education and stewardship. In talking about solutions to the problem of forestry practices, the group decided to focus on the small wood lot owners, since they own 53% of forested land in Nova Scotia. Strong emphasis was placed on educating small woodlot owners through the Nova Scotia Foresters Program and other training mechanisms. Other actions discussed were to develop management plans for wood lot owners; better management practices and regulations on crown lands; provide incentives for wood lot owners; and implement a tax incentive for leaving canopies re: the carbon tax. Responsibility for these actions were thought to be best pursued by development associations and established alliances in Novas Scotia (such as model forests, coastal communities etc.).

Sewage Treatment /Water Quality:

After a brainstorming session on water quality and sewage concerns his session was able to group the issues raised into four categories; 1) Education; 2) Compliance and Monitoring; 3) Science and Technology; and 4) Contamination Sources and Impacts of Practice. They proceeded to focus on discussing solutions and actions for two areas they thought were a priority: Education and Sources of Contamination/Impacts of Practices. Education should focus on educating on: alternatives, hazards, water conservation, cost as a disincentive, knowledge of water flows and groundwater tables, development, dug versus drilled wells and the water cycle. Solutions raised when talking about sources of contamination was to find out the affects on the watershed from development (agriculture, forestry, sewage, wastewater, road runoff, and diversion practices (irrigation and dams). They also discussed the need to know the impacts of development on groundwater and riparian zone conditions.

Summary

Each Focus Group was able to identify specific actions that could to be taken to address the issues identified. In late spring when all the initial Community Forums have been completed, the Minas Basin Working Group will be holding discussions with those people who identified themselves as the leads for each Focus Group as well as other interested individuals. The purpose of these discussions will be to developing strategies to advance and implement these actions. If you wish to take part in these discussions, please contact Nancy Roscoe-Huntley, BoFEP Secretariat at 902-585-1113.

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.