APPENDIX A
Regional Growth Management Strategy
Greenlands Strategy Implementation
Conserving our Special Places:
Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes
in the
Region of Waterloo
A Background Technical Report
Executive Summary
There has been a growing awareness in recent years of how landscapes shape our culture,
settlements, and personal identity. The conservation of landscapes has taken on added
importance in light of large scale development which is producing a sameness across our
national and international landscapes. A healthy community with a good quality of life usually
has a strong “sense of place.” The proposed designation and conservation of Environmentally
Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs) in the Region of Waterloo is intended to complement anticipated
economic and population growth and the re-urbanisation of our urban areas.
Designation of ESLs is a goal of the Region of Waterloo’s 40 year growth plan, known as the
Regional Growth Management Strategy . It is also consistent with provincial policy and
principles of the current Regional Official Policies Plan to protect significant natural areas as well
as the connectivity of the landscapes in which they are located. A review of recent scientific
literature in the fields of landscape ecology and conservation biology emphasises the need to
replace the traditional “islands of green” approach to conservation with a systems approach at
the landscape level.
A “vision” of a conceptual ESL as it might appear in 2040 is presented in this report. The vision
portrays a landscape outside the Countryside Line where topography and natural drainage have
resulted in a high concentration of significant natural areas. Even though it is generally unsuited
to concentrated human settlement, the natural cover of the area has been fragmented over the
course of the past two centuries. The ESL recognises existing permitted land uses, and drawing
on the environmental awareness, innovation, and creativity of its stakeholders, it co-exists with
agriculture, limited rural residential use, and small scale commercial and institutional facilities. It
can even accommodate limited aggregate extraction by viewing it as an opportunity to restore
lands to a naturalistic state and reconnect fragmented natural ecosystems. The ongoing
stewardship and the development of compatible new residences and businesses within the area
is guided by an implementation plan (analogous to a community plan) developed by various
stakeholders and recognised in the local and Regional Official Plans. The ESL reflects ongoing
collaboration among groups and individuals devoted to the stewardship of natural and cultural
heritage who collaborate to conserve, enhance, and restore its valuable natural attributes and
particular “sense of place” which contributes in many ways to quality of life by providing scenic
drives, outdoor recreational facilities, and opportunities for fulfilling volunteer work. Lastly, it is
conceived as a great place to live or visit.
Background research and stakeholder consultation has been completed in support of
designating ESLs. Identification and delineation criteria have been developed, reviewed for
scientific validity, and applied to two candidate ESLs, Laurel Creek Headwaters and BlairBechtel-Cruickston. In the fall of 2004, Regional staff consulted with selected stakeholders
associated with the two candidate ESLs in a series of workshops. At these workshops,
participants spoke of the unique character of their areas, and of the value they pla ced on the
natural areas and natural resources. At the same time, they voiced concern over real and
potential threats posed to these areas by rapid large scale development with its accompanying
increase in traffic, impacts on water resources, and inappropriate recreational uses in natural
areas. Participants also envisioned many opportunities for these areas, including the
development of policy to ensure appropriate development, stewardship initiatives, productive
partnerships, and a future region-wide conservation Land Trust.
i
In preparation for an amendment to the Regional Official Policies Plan to designate ESLs, a
policy framework embodying five main principles or goals has been developed based on the
vision, background research, and consultation results which include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Maintain, enhance or restore structure, composition, and environmental functions of the
environmentally sensitive landscape;
Accommodate human presence and activity compatible with the character of the
landscape;
Promote good stewardship practices;
Acquire suitable available lands for public access; and
Co-ordinate with Regional and Area Municipal cultural heritage policies.
The Background Technical Report is being circulated for review and comment by stakeholders,
agencies, and interested members of the public along with a draft amendment to the Regional
Official Policies Plan to create a policy framework and designate the first two ESLs, Laurel Creek
Headwaters and Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston.
ii
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.
Vision 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.
Legal
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
Scientific Basis for Conservation of ESLs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1
Landscape Ecology
4.1.1
Composition
4.1.2
Structure
4.1.3
Function
4.2
Rationale for Protecting Landscapes in Addition to ‘Core’ Natural Areas
4.2.1
A System or Landscape-based Approach
4.2.2
Landscape Mosaics
4.2.3
Restoring Landscape Mosaics
4.3
Key Concepts and Design Principles in Landscape Conservation
4.3.1
Linkages and Corridors in Regional Landscapes
4.3.2
Edge Effects
4.3.3
Compatibility and Conservation of Cultural and Natural Landscapes
5.
Social and Cultural Basis for Conserving ESLs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1
Valued Features, Threats and Opportunities
5.2
Land Values
6.
Definition and Criteria for Identifying ESLs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.
Principles for Conserving ESLs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1
Purpose
7.2
Policy Framework
7.2.1
Maintaining, Enhancing or Restoring Structure, Composition and Environmental
Functions of the ESL
7.2.2
Accommodate Human Presence and Activity Compatible with the Character of the
Landscape
7.2.3
Promote Good Stewardship Practises
7.2.4
Acquire Suitable Available Lands for Public Access
7.2.5
Co-ordinate with Regional and Area Municipal Cultural Heritage Policies
8.
Proposed Process for Designating ESLs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
and Policy Basis for ESLs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provincial Policy Statement
Greenbelt Plan
Regional Official Policies Plan
Regional Growth Management Strategy
5
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 1 – Map of Candidate ESLs in the Region of Waterloo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2 – Illustration of a Landscape as a Patch- Corridor-Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A – Supplemental Scientific Basis for ESL Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
iii
1.
Introduction
Human beings are intimately connected to the earth. It sustains our life processes, feeds us,
receives our waste products, and provides us a place to live, grow, and develop as individuals.
In the process, we are profoundly influenced by the landscape and climate where we live. Our
individual and collective memories are bound up with landscapes almost as much as with
significant people and events. Landscape contributes not only to our well-being and the
structure of our communities, but also to our identity, culture, and outlook on life.
People who travel widely savour the unique character of the places they visit. Character is
derived from the landscape itself and historical human activity. In the latter half of the
twentieth century, modernisation and widespread development began to transform landscapes
and settlements on a massive scale and cause them to resemble one another. A necessary
complement of such rapid growth and development is the need to preserve representative
natural and cultural landscapes. Such places should be more than eco-museums or quaint
heritage theme parks, however. In order to maintain the natural and cultural diversity and the
sense of history or “roots” so necessary to human survival and well-being, such landscapes
must continue to be living and functional communities. In the process, they will continue to
delight future generations, maintain a sense of community for their inhabitants, and contribute
immeasurably to the quality of life of all who live in or near them.
The Regional Growth Management Strategy adopted by Regional Council on June 25, 2003 has
determined that future growth over the coming forty years in the Region will occur through reurbanisation of existing urban areas and new development primarily in the now rural lands of
South Woolwich and North Cambridge. In order to contain and focus future growth and new
development, a “Countryside Line” will be designated around the perimeter of the WaterlooKitchener-Cambridge urban areas and nineteen smaller urban communities in the townships. In
some localities outside the Countryside Line, the landscape is characterised by steep slopes,
rocky soils, wetlands, valleylands, and woodlands which have proved generally unsuitable to
agriculture or significant human settlement. As such, these areas are dominated by natural
features which perform an array of essential ecological processes and sustain diverse natural
ecosystems and the populations of the native flora and fauna which comprise them. Some of
these localities are being considered as Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs).
The Regional Growth Management Strategy document, “Planning Our Future”, sets out major
goals and actions to be taken in the short term. Goal 1, “Enhancing Our Natural Environment”,
calls for the completion of a Greenlands Strategy for the Region and specifically for the initiation
of a process to identify and protect ESLs. The document speaks to maintaining and improving
the connections among natural areas, and protecting “natural ecosystems at a scale where the
ecosystems can maintain themselves and remain open to continuing evolution”. Building upon
the designation of the Region’s first ESL in the extreme northwest corner of the City of Waterloo
and adjoining area of Wilmot Township, the Greenlands Strategy seeks to identify and protect
“other clusters of significant environmental areas…”. As a counterpart to ESLs, the Regional
Growth Management Strategy also provides for the identification and assessment of cultural
heritage landscapes which contribute to our “understanding of history and place” and “unique
character of our community”. As these initiatives are developed in parallel processes, it can be
expected that at least some ESLs and cultural landscapes may overlap.
1
This Background Technical Report follows up on a Discussion Paper titled “Fostering a Culture
of Stewardship: A Greenlands Strategy for the Region of Waterloo” which was released in
October, 2004. It is intended to develop the concept of ESLs and introduce it to the citizens of
Waterloo Region and the councils and agencies which serve them. In addition, it will provide
the scientific, social, and cultural basis for ESLs, and propose criteria by which they may be
identified and delineated. Further, it will consider principles to balance the need to retain the
ecological integrity of the landscapes with the ongoing residential, recreational, and economic
needs of the human population.
Because the concept of ESLs is quite new, and there are few precedents to draw upon, staff
have retained the environmental consulting firm Dougan & Associates of Guelph to carry out
background research and conduct a peer review of preliminary materials drafted by Regional
staff. This material is summarised in the text. Some of the more detailed and specific text is
included in Appendix A.
2.
Vision 2040
To give readers a better “feel” for what the Region could look like in 2040 when the proposed
Greenlands Strategy is fully implemented, the Greenlands Strategy Discussion Paper contained
a short ‘vision’. It spoke to changes on the landscape as well as in the values, attitudes, and
institutions of the Region’s citizens. The following vision builds on that tradition and seeks to
integrate the proposed principles of ESLs to assist the reader to visualise what a hypothetical
ESL might be like to visit and live in the year 2040.
It is a mild sunny morning in mid May, 2040. Accompanied by friends from out of town, we bicycle west
out of the City of Cambridge across the Countryside Line. The late twentieth century subdivisions
suddenly give way to verdant countryside , and an attractive wooden sign on a fieldstone base announces
that we are entering an “Environmentally Sensitive Landscape.” The two-lane road is lined with graceful
trees which cast dappled shade upon us as we ride along. The pavement features subtle markings which
guide us along a scenic tour of the ESL.
On either side, the rolling wooded hills of North Dumfries Township frame small farm fields. Relatively
small family farms, some of them producing lucrative specialty crops, are still the norm in this area.
Hearkening back 250 years to when colourful tallgrass prairie savannas dominated this landscape, a
number of the fields contain native grasses and wildflowers, the seed of which is now harvested for
drought-tolerant, low maintenance plantings along roads and highways. Near them, fruit orchards are in
full bloom. The orchards are relatively new, having been established in recent decades in response to
milder winters and increased energy and shipping costs which encourage local production of food. To the
right, a farmer is plantin g rows of organically-grown vegetables which will be sold at a popular roadside
stand in a few months.
Despite the farms and homes, the landscape has a predominantly natural character. Woodlands cover
much of the area. Over the past generation, the extent of woodlands in this landscape has increased as
landowners retired marginal agricultural fields, or as mined out gravel pits were rehabilitated. In addition,
landowners and urban-based stewardship organisations have been collaborating for many years to create
new hedgerows and wooded linkages among natural areas. Some of these newly enhanced natural
corridors run along creeks and brooks. They allow small animals to move across the landscape largely
unobserved. At this season, they also resound with the singing of a wide array of birds. As we approach
2
the place where the road crosses the creek, we notice that the old culvert has recently been replaced with a
short bridge span which allows amphibians and reptiles to pass safely under the road. The bridge was
jointly financed by the Waterloo Stewardship Network and the Region out of concern for the many turtles
that were being killed at this location despite the turtle crossing signs.
As we turn down a side road, we approach the entrance to one of the new Regional Forest tracts. This is
one of several high quality woodlands recently acquired by the region-wide Land Trust using
contributions from the public. As we pass the parking lot, a group of seniors is looking at a map on a
kiosk debating which of several trails they might follow within the forest and out across the lands of
private individuals who have voluntarily permitted hiking and cross-country ski trails to cross their
properties. One of the hikers is putting in the garbage can a small bag of litter that she picked up along the
trail during the hike. As well as being hikers, these people are also part of a trail steward group which
helps maintain trails on public and private lands.
As the Region’s cities have grown through new development and re-urbanisation, land values in ESLs
outside the Countryside Line have steadily appreciated, and are much prized residential properties
favoured by well-to-do citizens or are handed down from generation to generation by local families. The
area contains many beautifully maintained historic nineteenth century stone houses that give this part of
the township its particular character. There are also two or three newer homes of different sizes and styles
which replaced older houses. In recent decades, the builders of new or renovated homes have taken pains
to ensure that the buildings are compatible with the surrounding landscape, and one has recently won an
architectural award for its sensitivity to local natural and cultural heritage. Most of the houses and farm
buildings are fitted with solar roof panels to generate electricity or heat water. In addition, many homes
are serviced by alternative wastewater treatment systems which have little impact on groundwater.
The ESL contains a surprising number of businesses. Most of them are home-based occupations, but there
are also two Bed & Breakfast operations in large old homes. These businesses cater primarily to local
urban residents in search of a short get-aways in beautiful rural settings less than an hour from their
homes. One of these B&Bs is affiliated with an equestrian facility which operates a network of riding and
hiking trails through meadows and woods and serves light lunches to hikers and visitors. In addition,
there are several artists’ studios on one rural road where visitors come to browse. One of the larger
properties features a small conference and retreat centre in a serene natural setting, while just a kilometre
or so down the road a new hospice is about to open in a rehabilitated gravel pit with a beautiful view over
a restored wetland and pond.
This being North Dumfries, aggregate extraction continues to shape the landscape. As we head back to
Cambridge, we pass an active pit operation. One phase of the pit was mined out two years ago in 2038
and has since been undergoing rehabilitation. Last year, the aggregate company collaborated with the
Ministry of Natural Resources, an ecological restoration class at the university, and an environmental
studies class at a local high school to plant a stand of young native Sweet Chestnut saplings as part of a
plan to help this once plentiful and economically valuable species recover from the blight which
devastated it a century earlier. The planting has been designed to link the Environmentally Sensitive
Policy Area (ESPA) on part of the pit property with a woodland on the adjoining farm. This year the pit
operator and a university ecological restoration class is working with a group of young offenders to
landscape a pond, wetland, and shrub thicket to create a habitat for the rare Blanding’s Turtle which is
native to the township. Negotiations are occurring between the operator and the Land Trust to convey the
property to the Trust once the pit closes in another five or six years so that it may be restored to a park for
passive recreation.
3
We now cycle across the Countryside Line once again back into the city physically tired, but in other
ways refreshed and reinvigorated by our exploration of a wonderful landscape. Our out- of- town guests
are amazed that such a vibrant unspoiled area exists so close to home
The ESL through which we have just time-travelled is a vibrant living landscape. It has some
salient features which will be further discussed in this paper:
•
Due to the nature of its topography and natural drainage, it has a high concentration
of natural areas, many of which are Provincially Significant Wetlands or
Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas, which have over the course of the past two
centuries been fragmented;
•
It is an area where the natural landscape is generally not suitable for large-scale
intensive agricultural operations;
•
The ESL recognises existing permitted land uses. With a measure of environmental
awareness, innovation, and creativity, it can co-exist with agriculture, existing
residences, and small scale commercia l and institutional facilities;
•
The ESL takes a longer term perspective of landscape change. Although permitted
aggregate extraction may be viewed negatively by some in that it re-shapes portions
of the landscape, it may also provide opportunities to restore lands to a naturalistic
state and reconnect fragmented natural ecosystems;
•
While the ESL reflects the natural features present at the time of its initial
designation, its ongoing stewardship and the development of compatible new uses
and activities is guided by an implementation plan (or community plan) worked out
by various stakeholders and recognised in the local and Regional Official Plans;
•
The ESL reflects ongoing collaboration among groups and individuals devoted to the
stewardship of natural and cultural heritage. Environmental scientists, farmers,
landowners, business people, recreational and volunteer groups, social agencies,
municipal and conservation authority staff, and even artists are co-operating to
conserve, enhance, and restore the valuable natural attributes of the ESL;
•
Quite apart from performing a variety of essential environmental functions such as
groundwater recharge, cleansing air, conserving soil and surface water, and
providing habitat for a variety of native flora and fauna, the ESL creates a particular
“sense of place” within the Regional landscape;
•
Both for those who live within it or elsewhere, the ESL contributes in many ways to
quality of life by providing scenic drives, outdoor recreational facilities, and
opportunities for fulfilling volunteer work; and
•
The ESL is a great place to live or visit.
4
3.
Legal and Policy Basis for ESLs
3.1
Provincial Policy Statement
The Ontario Planning Act is one of the major Acts governing the use and development of
land. The Act provides for Policy Statements which give general direction to planning authorities
concerning matters of provincial interest. Municipalities, in turn, are expected to be consistent
with the directions of the Policy Statements in their Official Plans and planning decisions. Policy
2.1.2 of the current Provincial Policy Statement (2005) states that
The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term
ecological function 1 and biodiversity of natural heritage systems2, should be
maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognising linkages between
and among natural heritage features and areas3, surface water features4 and
ground water features5.
Both the policy and the official definitions of the italicised terms speak directly and indirectly to
the spatial distribution of natural features, in other words, a landscape.
3.2
Greenbelt Plan
In October, 2004, the Province tabled the Greenbelt Protection Bill and issued an accompanying
Greenbelt Plan for a large area surrounding the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. It is
proposed to restrict new development within the Greenbelt and carefully protect its natural
features. The proposed Greenbelt barely touches the Region of Waterloo, but on December 15,
2004, Regional Council forwarded a request to the Province to consider extending the Greenbelt
into the Region to wrap around the south, west, and northwest perimeter of the CambridgeKitchener-Waterloo urban areas.6 The area suggested for designation would more-or-less
overlap the potential ESLs contained in the adopted Regional Growth Management Strategy
document as well as the lands among them. It remains to be seen whether the Province will
accept the Region’s recommendation to extend the Greenbelt into this Region.
1
Defined as: “the natural processes, products or services that living and non-living environments provide or perform
within or between species, ecosystems and landscapes. These may include biological, physical and socio-economic
interactions.”
2
Defined as “a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, linked by natural corridors which are
necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species
and ecosystems. These systems can include lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored
to a natural state”
3
Defined as “features and areas such as significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, fish habitat, significant
woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield,
significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of
natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the
natural landscapes of an area.”
4
Defined as “water-related features on the earth’s surface, including headwaters, rivers, stream channels, inland
lakes, seepage areas, recharge/discharge areas, springs, wetlands, and associated riparian lands that can be defined
by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics.”
5
Defined as “water-related features in the earth’s subsurface, including recharge/discharge areas, water tables,
aquifers and unsaturated zones that can be defined by surface and subsurface hydrogeologic investigations.”
6
Refer to Report P-04-134.
5
3.3
Regional Official Policies Plan
Since the mid 1970s, the Region of Waterloo has progressively identified the essential building
blocks of ESLs. These include Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPAs), Provincially
Significant Wetlands (PSWs), and soon the anticipated designation of the first Environmental
Preservation Area (EPA) to protect critical winter habitat of the Endangered Bald Eagle. In
addition, Area Municipalities have designated Locally Significant Natura l Areas (LSNAs) in their
respective Official Plans.
Over the past decade, there has been a gradual evolution toward recognition of ESLs in
Regional policy. The current Regional Official Policies Plan, approved in 1995, outlines a number
of principles related to Environmental Planning and the Natural Habitat Network which provide a
strong basis for the development of ESLs. These principles emphasis e the need to conserve and
enhance the rich native biodiversity within the Region as well as the interconnections among
significant natural areas in order to maintain the ecological integrity of landscapes. Moreover,
the principles note that development should be viewed as an opportunity to enhance natural
features and functions.
At present, the Region of Waterloo has one ESL. This designation was created by the Ontario
Municipal Board as a result of the Waterloo West Side hearing in 1992-93. Its intent is to
require a comprehensive study of the northwest corner of the City of Waterloo and adjoining
area of Wilmot Township in the event that urbanisation of the area bounded by ESPAs 10, 17,
19 and 76 is proposed.
3.4
Regional Growth Management Strategy
As mentioned earlier, the 2003 Regional Growth Management Strategy calls for “a process to
identify and protect ESLs.” In addition, the Regional Growth Management Strategy Map
identifies the existing ESL and five other areas for consideration as potential ESLs (see Figure
1).
Figure 1.0 – Candidate ESLs in the Region of Waterloo
6
4.
Scientific Basis for Conservation of ESLs
In that ESLs are a relatively new concept, it is essential that they be based on sound ecological
science. To this end, the Region commissioned background research into current concepts and
findings in the fields of landscape ecology, conservation biology and, restoration ecology.
Searches of recent literature in ecological, biological, and agricultural journal databases were
conducted on topics related both to the overall concept of ESLs and to the scientific basis
behind some difficult to define concepts.
4.1
Landscape Ecology
The conservation and management of ecosystems may occur at any scale ranging from a single
natural feature to an entire region. Landscapes are intermediate between the two. A landscape
is a diverse area consisting of inter-related ecosystems of various shapes, sizes, and
characteristics distributed over a large area.
The science of landscape ecology first appeared in the mid twentieth century, and continues to
evolve. Essentially, it deals with three interdependent elements:
1. Composition: the habitat patches and species that make up the landscape
2. Structure:
topography, drainage, and physical configuration
3. Functions:
flows of matter, energy, organisms, genes, as well as disturbances which
bring change to the landscape
4.1.1 Composition
A landscape is composed of a variety of different ecological communities such as woodlands,
wetlands, ponds, watercourses, agricultural fields, and so forth. These communities may be
nested within one another as for example, a pond within a woodland or marsh in an agricultural
field. In turn, each ecological community is made up of a variety of plants, animals, fungi, and
micro-organisms. These species may either be native to the area or introduced from another
part of the world. Within each species there is a range of genetic variety which confers relative
advantages on some members of the population and/or differentiates populations in one area
from those in another area.
4.1.2 Structure
A landscape is structured by its underlying topography. This
in turn influences soil texture, soil moisture regimes, surface
drainage, and the flow of groundwater. Topography, together
with natural and human-generated change, influences the
structural elements of a landscape. Our understanding of
landscape structure is evolving. The classic understanding is
one of habitat patches connected by corridors in a landscape
matrix.7 Figure 2.0 displays a simple patch-corridor-matrix.
Figure 2.0
Landscapes consist of the matrix
(the dominant feature), patches,
and corridors that connect the
patches.
7
Barnes, T. (2000). Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Management.
<www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/for/for76/for76.pdf> (2003, September 16).
Source: (Barnes, 2000)
7
The matrix is the main component within a landscape. Patches are non-linear surface areas that
differ in vegetation type from the surrounding landscape. Examples would include wetlands
in the middle of upland meadows or woodlands not cleared for agriculture. Corridors link
patches together and differ from the matrix on either side. Corridors serve as conduits for
wildlife movement and are more suitable for this purpose than the surrounding matrix.
Examples include streams, valleys or utility corridors.
More recently, landscapes are being thought of as habitat ‘mosaics’ rather than as simplified
patches of core habitat surrounded by a sterile matrix of ‘non-habitat’. Mosaic landscapes
consist of heterogeneous areas containing different landscape features able to support different
types and degrees of ecological functions. ESLs are intended to be sub-Regional scale mosaics
of lands containing clusters of interrelated ecosystems of various sizes, shapes, composition,
and ecological significance.
4.1.3 Function
Landscape functions (or processes) fall into two main categories. First are the continuous flows
of matter and energy and genetic information which occur as plants photosynthesize, as
organisms consume one another in the processes of predation and decay, and as they
reproduce their species. A second category of process is the change leading to and resulting
from disturbance. Disturbance may result from natural causes (e.g., fire, flood, geological
processes) or result from human action (e.g., logging, alteration of the natural drainage,
converting land to urban use). Disturbances change ecosystems so that they favour introduced,
weedy, species or early successional native species at the expense of species which depend on
stable long-established habitat conditions.
4.2
Rationale for Protecting Landscapes in addition to ‘Core’ Natural Areas
In recent decades, growing concern over humanity’s often negative impact on our terrestrial life
support systems is prompting conservation biologists and ecologists to develop strategies at
regional and continental scales to maintain critical ecosystem components and functions.
For more than two decades, researchers have discredited the ‘islands of green’ approach to
natural heritage protection, the principle originating in the 1950s that only ‘core,’ ‘high order,’ or
‘most significant’ ecological features should be conserved. In the context of ongoing urban
sprawl and agricultural intensification, this has been proved false by research on the negative
impacts of habitat fragmentation8 and reports on species decline and loss of biodiversity.
Over the past two decades, the science of conservation biology has shown that
the island strategy, by itself, is inadequate to the formidable challenge of
conserving most living species … The evidence that isolated reserves … gradually
lose native species … is overwhelming. Such gradual degradation can only
8
Fragmentation is the simultaneous shrinking in size (loss) and growing in distance to neighbouring habitats
(isolation) due to intervening human land uses between habitat for native flora and fauna (adapted from Helferty
2002).
8
accelerate as human activity and development increase on surrounding lands.
[However,] the elements of the solution are known: bigness and connectivity.9
The identification of ESLs builds on the traditional ‘islands’ approach to conservation by creating
composite blocks of natural and semi-natural areas that are bigger in area and better connected
than individual natural areas such as ESPAs and PSWs. This approach draws from the
disciplines of landscape ecology and conservation biology and incorporates three key concepts:
1. A ‘systems’ or landscape-based approach recognising the importance and
interrelatedness of compositional elements, physical structures and ecological functions.
2. Landscapes understood as complex mosaics of different habitats and land-uses with
different abilities to provide ecological ‘services’.
3. The necessity to seek out potential opportunities to restore poorly connected natural
landscape features.
The following sections will address principles of natural heritage conservation in fragmented
landscapes, and cultural land-uses compatible with natural heritage conservation.
4.2.1 A Systems or Landscape-based Approach
Recognising that most of North America has been dramatically affected by human activities
which have destroyed, fragmented, or degraded the original natural cover, recent landscape
ecology research and applied technical research conducted in Southern Ontario in particular are
supporting ‘systems’ based approaches to natural heritage protection. As is the case in Waterloo
Region, the landscape is characteris ed as an urban core surrounded by suburbs surrounded by
rural areas, each containing assortments of natural feature fragments that now somehow must
to be connected. The traditional approach of protecting individual natural features has all too
often resulted in their being left isolated in a fragmented landscape, and this in turn has led to
loss of the native species which comprise them. As the Draft Toronto and Region Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy (2004) states: “The fundamental flaw of … traditional
approaches is that they focus on special features, not broader environmental functions …
Natural processes ... can only be maintained if there is substantial natural cover, well
distributed across the landscape”.
The ‘systems’ approach to natural heritage conservation is based upon the previously mentioned understanding of landscapes cons isting of the three interdependent components of
composition, structure, and functions (or processes). This framework for thinking about
landscapes recognises the importance of landscape and ecological functions in relation to the
natural structures or features that are much simpler to see and understand.
In as fragmented a landscape as we have in the Region of Waterloo, the ‘systems’ approach
takes the form of ‘cores’ 10 and ‘linkages / corridors’11 which can be applied at a variety of
9
M.E. Soulé and J. Terborgh, “Conserving nature at regional and continental scales – a scientific program for North
America. Bioscience 49:809-17. (1999).
10
‘Core' habitat basically refers to the habitat required for the main resident populations of plants and wildlife to
survive and complete their life cycle.
9
scales. However, the difficulty lies in determining, at a regional scale, exactly what is ‘core’ and
what is ‘linkage / corridor’ habitat for multiple species in a fragmented network where impacts
and species responses are still poorly understood. The most promising approach might be to
discard the old simplistic concept of blocks of habitat versus non-habitat in favour of landscapes
as mosaics of habitats each of which contributes different compositional elements and
ecological structures, and each of which has been modif ied to different degrees and is able to
support diverse ecological functions.
4.2.2 Landscape Mosaics
Emerging theories of landscape conservation in human-modified landscape mosaics recognise
that lands surrounding ‘core’ natural areas have been altered to varying degrees. While not
negating the importance of protecting ‘core’ areas of ‘high order’ ecological significance, it
stresses the need to improve connectivity in the broader landscape ‘matrix’ through the
identification and protection of features and/or areas that have, until recently, been considered
unimportant from a conservation perspective.
In the Region of Waterloo, most of the larger wetlands and forested tracts have long been
designated as PSWs or ESPAs, but grasslands, small wetlands and woodlands have been largely
overlooked. However, in the current climate of increasing urbanis ation and agricultural
intensification, previously overlooked natural areas are increasingly subject to development
pressures to the extent that once common features and species in the landscape are becoming
rare. For example, populations of some bird species requiring early successional forest,
shrubland, and grassland habitat are reportedly declining despite the fact that nearby ‘high’
quality natural features are being protected. Striking evidence of the ineffectiveness of the
‘islands of green’ approach to conserving regional biodiversity is also apparent closer to home in
the Greater Toronto Area where the number of species of conservation concern has risen to 590
(TRC 2004). ESLs provide one tool for protecting a variety of habitats in the landscape, and, it
is hoped, for preventing common species from becoming rare, and rare species from becoming
extinct.
Current research highlights the value of habitats of varying size, shape and quality for various
groups of wildlife in the relatively new reality of fragmented landscapes. While large contiguous
natural forests are essential for the survival of many area-sensitive12 birds, recent studies also
show that smaller patches of forest in the landscape contribute to the overall abundance of
area-sensitive birds. Mosaics of larger and smaller habitat patches of forest and grassland are
able to provide habitat for many different species. Similarly, recent research on herpetofauna
(reptiles and amphibians) and mammals confirms the importance of preserving both ‘core’ and
associated habitats, and the importance of small habitat patches to some species. To
successfully complete their life cycles all species require:
11
'Linkage / Corridor' habitat basically refers to habitat used to functionally connect populations of flora and fauna
to allow for gene flow and ensure long-term survival.
12
Area sensitive species are those that require large areas of suitable habitat in order to sustain their populations
(OMNR, 2000). Area sensitive species are more susceptible to habitat loss and fragmentation than generalist species
and therefore of greater conservation concern. Individuals from various wildlife groups may be considered area
sensitive (e.g. amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals), but most discussions related to area sensitive species
usually refer to birds. Area sensitive bird species generally fall under 3 categories, depending on their habitat
association: grasslands, wetlands and woodlands area-sensitive birds.
10
•
•
•
a combination of high quality forests and wetlands;
vegetated corridors that allow for movement between upland and wetland habitats; and
vegetated corridors that allow dispersal and movement between populations for their
long-term survival.
Reviewing recent landscape ecology research, one comes to the conclusion that an ESL type of
approach which identifies heterogeneous mosaics of habitat and includes large as well as
smaller habitat patches is warranted.
4.2.3 Restoring Landscape Connectivity
Although it is proposed to identify ESLs as areas of predominant natural cover, they may also
include farm lands and plantations that are being actively managed in a manner compatible
with ESL conservation. Further, lands in temporary uses such as aggregate pits have the
potential to be restored to a natural state.
In severely fragmented landscapes, restoration is required to effectively conserve biodiversity,
and even in moderately fragmented landscapes, restoration provides opportunities for
enhancing connectivity between ‘core’ natural areas, or enhancing degraded ‘core’ areas
themselves. This description would apply to ESLs which could benefit from restoration of some
of specific areas.
The new science of restoration ecology is generally applied in smaller scale, site-specific
contexts rather than at a landscape scale. Despite the dearth of applied research on regional
landscape restoration, the importance of restoration in fragmented landscapes has been
recognized in the Official Plans of a few Southern Ontario upper tier municipalities (e.g., Region
of Peel 2001; former Region of Hamilton-Wentworth), as well as ambitious projects like the
Toronto Region Conservation Terrestrial Heritage Strategy (2004) which has outlined specific
mechanisms for implementing landscape scale restoration in the Greater Toronto Area.
Smaller scale approaches for restoration of agricultural lands and abandoned pits and quarries
have potential application within ESLs. In general, these approaches make agriculture less
intensive and maximise opportunities for habitat creation and environmental protection in the
landscape by creating vegetated buffers along streams, leaving winter and spring fallow areas,
preserving non-cropped habitats, leaving winter stubble, restoring and encouraging native
species in remnant woodlots and hedgerows, and moving towards organic farming. There has
also been a growing interest in restoration of abandoned pits and quarries by the aggregate
industry in Southern Ontario.
The extent of habitat loss in much of Southern Ontario is so extensive it requires identification
of restoration opportunities if functional natural heritage systems are to be achieved. There are
several issues to face:
•
•
•
candidate areas for restoration may have little ecological value at present but have
potential long-term ecological significance to the landscape;
short-term costs must be borne to achieve long-term benefits of restoration; and,
areas to be restored may be located on different properties, and it is necessary to
secure landowner commitment to a project which may take several years to achieve.
11
4.3
Key Concepts and Design Principles in Landscape Conservation
Two key concepts in landscape conservation literature are connectivity through linkages and
corridors and edge effects. These concepts are related and are particularly relevant to ESLs
because they provide design principles to guide development of sub-regional scale conservation
areas. While linkages and corridors can be identified at many scales, the emphasis at this time
is on linkages and corridors at the ESL scale (i.e., 1:10,000).
4.3.1 Linkages and Corridors in Regional Landscapes
As the well-known ecologist G. Merriam (1991) noted, “In regional planning and management,
connectivity in general, corridors connecting patch populations, and corridors connecting vital
resource patches, will be critical to retaining ecological integrity"13. Linkages and corridors help
connect isolated natural habitat features or areas. Retaining them in a landscape fragmented
by development and infrastructure allows for movement of fauna and flora between what would
otherwise be isolated habitat patches.
Scientific research and practice continue to demonstrate that functional aquatic and terrestrial
linkages among fragmented natural habitats ensures greater sustainability than having a
number of isolated natural areas. While some research demonstrates potential negative
impacts of connecting habitat patches with linkages or corridors, the benefits of connectivity are
considered to outweigh such potential negative effects as facilitating the spread of undesirable
non-native species of plants and animals to less disturbed habitats; facilitating the spread of
disease among core habitats; and increasing exposure to predators.
Corridors and linkages function on multiple scales, and typically vary in size, shape, and quality
(plant species composition, diversity and structure). Generally corridors are wider and longer
connections which support movement by multiple groups of wildlife as well as plants, even
including large mammals, while linkages are smaller in scale and typically only allow for
movement of species that are more tolerant to habitat fragmentation. Corridors often follow
physiographic features or landforms such as valleylands, moraines and eskers or manmade
landscape features such as powerlines, pipelines, railways and highway rights-of-way,
hedgerows, riparian strips and stream corridors, and shelterbelts.
The value of corridors and linkages has been recognised by many municipalities in southern
Ontario, and about twenty of them provide for some type of natural connections between
habitat patches. The proposed ESLs in the Region of Waterloo require sub-regional connections
between the identified natural patches within an ESL rather than larger scale regional
connections between ESLs.
4.3.2 Edge Effects
‘Edge effects’ is a term used to describe the negative impacts of adjacent land uses on natural
areas in fragmented landscapes. These effects occur because the periphery of natural features
are exposed to a variety of influences such as higher wind velocities, higher light intensity,
13
G. Merriam, “Corridors and Connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments, in D.A. Saunders
& R.J. Hobbs, eds., Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors, Surrey, Beatty & Sons, New York, 1991, p.
133-42.
12
noise, encroachment by adjacent residences, impacts by domestic pets, invasion by invasive
non-native plants. Edge effects can extend into natural areas from 10 metres to one hundred
metres or more, and cumulatively contribute to the loss of native species and the general
deterioration of the area.
A discussion of edge effects is relevant to the delineation of ESLs because these areas are
intended to be discrete, sub-regional scale areas with defined boundaries. If the boundaries of
the natural features and functions identified within the ESLs form the ESL boundary itself, the
natural areas may then be directly affected by existing or anticipated changes in the
surrounding landscape. Edge effects point to the need to reduce fragmentation wherever
possible. To this end, ESL delineation should, to the extent possible, preserve compact habitat
or landscape patches (i.e., circular or oval units rather than dissected or linear patches), ensure
adequate buffers between certain human land uses and protected natural areas, and where
feasible, restore gaps or “bays” in natural areas.
4.3.3 Compatibility and Conservation of Cultural and Natural Landscapes
In that almost all of Southern Ontario, and indeed much of the planet, has been extensively
altered by humans, scientists and governments increasingly recognise that the only feasible
means to protect biodiversity in settled landscapes is to recognise the ecological values of some
types of ‘cultural’ areas associated with ‘core’ natural areas. Although the concept of ‘cultural
landscapes’ is not new, it is only in the 1990s that the term has been adopted and defined by
the international cultural heritage movement and related to natural area conservation. World
Heritage guidelines define cultural landscapes as “a diversity of manifestations of the interaction
between humankind and its natural environment” and divided these “manifestations” into three
categories reflecting different degrees of human influence on the given landscape. The
Provincial government recognises the World Heritage Guidelines and the World Conservation
Union’s (IUCN) protected areas management categories which include cultural landscapes.
The concept of cultural landscapes is compatible with current understanding of landscapes as
products of interactions between humans and the natural environment. It also recognises that
these dynamic landscapes form part of our cultural. In the highly altered Southern Ontario
landscape, there is a real opportunity to develop a conservation approach respectful of both
cultural traditions and natural processes, and in the process foster a sense of place and involve
people in landscape stewardship.
Outside the urban areas, the predominant land use is still agricultural. Actively farmed lands
were largely ignored by ecologists and natural heritage planners in the 1970s and 1980s. In
light of our increasing awareness of habitat loss and fragmentation over the past decades,
however, the countryside has come under increasing research interest in terms of impacts to
remaining natural areas as well as its potential to support biodiversity conservation.
There is evidence showing that farming can be both compatible and incompatible with
biodiversity protection. Studies show significant negative impacts of agriculture, and particularly
intensive agriculture on natural habitats and wildlife populations. A number of studies have
found a strong correlation between the increase in agricultural intensification in North America
and Europe and the decline in native bird species which utilise grassland and shrubland
habitats. Smaller scale impacts associated with intensive chemical usage have been observed
13
on amphibians. There are some obvious conflicts between agricultural and natural areas as, for
example, farmers’ concerns about excessive crop damage by wildlife.
Nevertheless, there appears to be general consensus in the scientific community that
agriculture, and activities typically associated with it such as selective timber harvesting are far
more compatible with habitat and species conservation than urbanisation. While agricultural
land uses may not be ideal from the standpoint of natural heritage conservation, recent
research acknowledges that in the context of already fragmented landscapes, agriculture is
preferable to residential or other type of development. Further, there are also opportunities for
minimis ing potential conflicts between conservation and agricultural objectives through policy or
stewardship initiatives (e.g., conservation programs that address local priorities; reduced
chemical use; tax incentives for larger contiguous tracts of habitat; reduction of field
disturbances during prime nesting; and conservation tillage).
5.
Social and Cultural Basis for Conserving ESLs
Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes are a relatively new concept. Before they can be
implemented, it is essential to evaluate their potential benefits and costs to the persons
immediately affected as well as to society at large. In October and December 2004, Regional
staff hosted five focus group meetings with a variety of stakeholders in two of the candidate
ESLs, Laurel Creek Headwaters and Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston. During these generally convivial
discussions, stakeholders shared detailed local knowledge, insights, concerns, and hopes with
one another and staff which provide greater insight into the social implications of ESLs.
5.1
Valued Features, Threats, and Opportunities
There is no question that the people who live in or near candidate ESLs cherish these special
places. At the focus workshops, participants recognised that their little part of the world had a
unique character. These areas are beautiful and serene. The varied topography comprising a
range of geological features has resulted in a landscape dominated by large interconnected
natural areas sustaining a rich diversity of flora and fauna. Often such areas also contain
buildings and sites of cultural heritage significance. In addition to the aesthetic and ecological
benefits that these areas offer, participants mentioned the wealth of resources present and the
opportunities for low impact recreation.
The candidate ESL areas contain a wealth of resources. Farm operations occupy a good
proportions of the areas, but fields and pastures may be limited by steep topography or
wetlands. The woodlands provide a range of forest products to their owners. Residents are also
aware of the importance of these areas for recharging our groundwater resources. In some
parts of the Region, the rolling topography of the areas overlies valuable aggregate resources.
The candidate ESLs also provide a variety of low-impact recreational opportunities such as
walking, cycling, cross-country skiing, or hunting. As these areas are generally close to the
cities, they attract urban residents to their scenic roadways, trails, Regional Forests, and
privately owned lands which are generously open to limited use by the general public.
14
Participants also identified a number of threats to the unique qualities of the landscapes in
which they live. While the proximity of urban areas is an attraction, it also results in new
development along the boundaries of the urban areas. In turn, this may generate additional
traffic on roads as well as pressure to upgrade and widen those roads. This has the potential to
cause further fragmentation of the landscape and attracts “urban wildlife,” species such as
raccoons, squirrels, Blue Jays which prey on nests of other songbirds. Irresponsible
recreationists may trespass on private property, damage crops, hunt illegally, poach native
plants and animals, litter and dump rubbish, and severely damage trails, soils, and vegetation
by inappropriate use of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles. Agriculture faces challenges in
ESLs where operations may have to be carried out on marginal land. Slopes and soil types in
such areas may be easily erodible and result in sedimentation of wetlands and waterbodies. It is
often better to retire such lands from active cultivation and reforest them. Unfortunately, the
property assessment system contains disincentives to land retirement, and so operators may
feel pressure to continue farming such lands against their better judgment. Further, the
creation of golf courses, aggregate pits, or gated estate homes changes the agricultural
character of the area. Agriculture operations are, in some respects, forced to use what may be
marginal land since the Local water resources may also be under threat from such causes as
road salt, ineffective old septic systems, and leaching from fertilisers, pesticides, and biosolids
applied to fields. New gravel pits usually raise local concerns about impacts to surface and
groundwater resources.
Many opportunities to enhance the ESLs were identified by the workshop participants which
include the following ideas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
provide official recognition for ESLs through designation in Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws;
identify scenic roads within the landscapes and erect appropriate signage;
develop a general stewardship plan for the area that would identify significant
environmental features to be protected, appropriate linkages and other areas which
would be desirable to restore to natural cover, appropriate types of non-farm
development, and hiking trails where they had been agreed to by affected landowners;
implement policies in Official Plans to prohibit incompatible land uses. Existing
agricultural and other uses would be fully recognised. ESLs would accommodate some
level of small scale appropriate new development which did not undermine the
connectivity of the landscape, and was suitably buffered from nearby natural areas. Low
impact recreational uses would be permitted. In areas where aggregate extraction
occurs, policies can require pit rehabilitation to restore natural linkages among residual
natural areas. If extraction is permitted into the water table, the site can be restored by
creating wetlands;
identify and consider removing disincentives in the property tax assessment system
which work against the retirement and/or restoration of marginal farmland;
consider developing a program with financial assistance to assist landowners in reestablish desirable natural linkages identified in stewardship plans for ESLs. Where
sensitive groundwater resources are present, incentives might be considered to assist
landowners replace septic systems with more efficient modern ones;
form partnerships to implement stewardship plans which may involve the co-ordination
of planting projects, co-managing hiking trail networks, and sharing necessary data,
15
•
•
•
5.2
experience, and resources. It has been suggested that stewardship handbooks could be
prepared by and for landowners in the respective ESLs;
educate the public about the values of ESLs. Partnerships with local schools can result in
school excursions to environmentally significant properties and even involve students in
hands-on stewardship initiatives;
promote good stewardship through positive community recognition; and
create a region-wide Conservation Land Trust which would receive donations of
conservation lands or money to purchase or steward them, hold Conservation
Easements, and raise funds for that purpose.
Land Values
Review of recent research on the impact of environmental protection policies and natural areas
on property values indicates that impacts vary with the nature of the natural amenities being
protected, the property’s location, and the type of development and land use restrictions. The
effect of protection policies on a particular parcel of land depends on the balance between the
negative effect of decreased development options (e.g., restricting creation of new lots where
otherwise permitted, limiting expansions to building footprints, or controlling whether or not
trees can be removed) and the positive influence of preserving amenities (e.g., vistas,
recreational opportunities, proximity to natural features, wildlife and trails).14 In most cases, the
positive impacts of protection policies balance or outweigh the negatives. Property values within
and adjacent to protected areas typically match or exceed local averages and are less
susceptible to downturns in the general market. Property owners benefit from environmental
policies because they sustain or enhance ecological features and functions, protect open space
amenity benefits, and provide long-term assurance that valued features will be around for years
to come. Designations will also increase property values as they place a “seal of approval” on
properties, identifying them as something special. The properties are publicly recognised for
their significance, which “like a painting or antique, has an intrinsic value separate and apart
from normal utility derived from the use of the property”15.
In recent decades, there has been a substantial change in how the natural environment is
understood and valued. Steadily increasing public support for environmental conservation
translates into demand for land having environmental values. This puts a premium on
environmental lands near cities, where owners with conservation interests can balance both
urban and rural lifestyles. There is “a general consensus among land agents that the impact of
nature conservation on land values will undoubtedly become more influential in the future”.16 A
variety of local studies in Canada and the United States have demonstrated that a view of a
natural landscape or proximity to natural areas increases property values.
14
N.R. Netusil, “The Effect of Environmental Zoning and Amenities on Property Values: Portland,
Oregon.” Reed College, 2003.
15
J. Kilpatrick, “Historic Districts Are Good for Your Pocketbook: The Impact of Local Historic Districts on
House Prices in South Carolina,” South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 2000.
16
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, “Nature Conservation Designation and Land Values,” 2002.
16
There are few studies that focus on how agricultural lands are affected by environmental
protection policies, but an extensive 2002 study by the Scottish Executive’s Central Research
Unit was able to shed some light on the question. The impact of two major nature conservation
designations in Scotland, Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESAs), on farm land was assessed. Researchers found through a variety of
research models that SSSI or ESA designations had little impact on property values. There
were, however, site specific cases where designation has influenced selling prices. On the
negative side, “designation was more negatively thought of by potential buyers of commercial
farms where it may have a constraining effect on profitability or potential for developments”.
However, through interviews with land agents, “nature conservation interests as a decision
factor in a commercial farm sale was ranked fairly low” among factors influencing land
purchasing decisions. Land agents were also of the opinion that any price depressing impacts of
designation that may have existed in the past appears to be decreasing due to increased public
awareness of environmental issues and support for programs.
In conclusion, the general consensus of recent research is that in most cases, in most places,
natural heritage protection policies positively affect property values, most significantly,
residential properties near urban areas. Policies that serve to protect natural amenities also
protect or raise the property values within and around these amenities, by assuring potential
buyers that what they value will be conserved over time.
6.
Definition and Criteria for Identifying Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes
In order to designate categories of lands in a municipal Official Plan, there must be a
comprehensive definition and scientifically valid criteria to identify those lands. The following
definition is proposed for inclusion in the Regional Official Policies Plan to guide the
identification and delineation of potential ESLs:
An Environmentally Sensitive Landscape (ESL) is a geographically and ecologically
definable landscape that is distinguishable from the surrounding areas by the
concentration, proximity and/or overlap of high order natural environmental features
(e.g., Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas or Provincially Significant Wetlands), other
associated natural features (i.e., stream valleys, woodlands, and specialised habitats),
and supportive environmental functions (e.g., groundwater recharge and ecological
corridors or linkages) which together constitute a heterogeneous landscape mosaic that
contributes significantly to Regional biodiversity conservation.
An ESL may include lands altered for human use and settlement, but should be
predominantly natural and open in character, and be located outside areas irreversibly
transformed by concentrated human settlement or bisected by major highways, or
where widespread commitments to urban development have been made in Area
Municipal Official Plans.
In addition to protecting regional and local biodiversity, and providing a wide range of
ecological functions, ESLs are also intended to fulfill human-centered functions by
providing aesthetic enjoyment, low-impact recreation, scientific research value,
17
archaeological and/or cultural heritage interest as well as accommodating existing
residential, agricultural, commercial, recreational, and resource extraction uses”.
Staff drafted criteria which were subsequently revised by the consultants and members of the
Greenlands Co-ordinating Committee. To ensure that only landscapes with very high
environmental valuates are considered for designation, three sub-sets of criteria are proposed,
and the candidate area must meet at least two criteria in each of the sub-sets.
To qualify for designation as an Environmentally Sensitive Landscape, an area must
A.
contain any two of the following designated natural features:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
B.
contain any two of the following associated natural features:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
C.
rivers, major stream valleys, floodplains and associated hazard lands,
woodlands,
forest interior habitat,
significant landforms such as moraines, kettle lakes, kames, eskers, and
drumlins,
Significant Wildlife Habitat identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources, or
specialised habitats such as savannas, tallgrass prairies, rare woodland types,
cliffs, alvars, sand barrens, marl seeps, bogs, fens; and
provide any two of the following environmental functions:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
7.
Environmental Preservation Area,
Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area,
PSW,
Regionally Significant Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest,
Locally Significant Natural Area designated by an Area Municipality,
Significant Valleyland, or
Significant Woodland; and
significant groundwater storage, recharge, or discharge,
sustains a fishery resource,
provides diverse natural habitats,
serves as a natural corridor or provides linkage functions.
Principles for Conserving ESLs
Once ESLs are identified and designated, policies that apply to those designations must be put
in place. At this time, several principles are proposed for consideration as potential Official Plan
policies.
18
7.1
Purpose
The main goal of a potential ESL designation is to conserve the structure, composition and
functions of a significant landscape. Conservation, however, should not be viewed as somehow
“freezing” landscapes at the moment in time when they are designated. Landscapes are
dynamic systems which continuously change due to natural and human forces. The direction of
policy should therefore be to identify landscapes where it is warranted and feasible to conserve
the structural and composition elements in a condition which will permit natura l landscape
functions to continue over time. The preference is to maintain the landscape elements as intact
as possible, and secondarily, to provide for their enhancement or restoration, if necessary,
when development is approved. Policies also need to balance the needs of the human residents
of a landscape and the surrounding community with the desire to conserve natural features.
7.2
Policy Framework
Five main principles or goals , described below, should guide the development of policies for
ESLs.
7.2.1 Maintain, Enhance or Restore Structure, Composition, and Environmental
Functions of the Environmentally Sensitive Landscape
Every potential ESL has been fragmented to some extent by residential use, agriculture, or
roads and railways. The intent of policy should be to limit further fragmentation, promote the
enhancement of natural areas, and even encourage the restoration of natural linkages within
the landscape. Regional and Area Municipal Official Plan policies can restrict new development
which could fragment landscapes. More problematic is aggregate extraction which occurs under
provincial legislation and which can remove natural features and flatten topography. At present,
the Regional Official Policies Plan prohibits extraction within ESPAs and Environmental
Preservation Areas. Extraction is also not permitted in PSWs. Rolling farmland, woodlands, and
non-PSW have less protection. For several years, the Region has required that proposals to
remove natural woodlands in order to mine underlying aggregate must first secure exceptions
to the Tree By-law. Council has granted these exceptions subject to the condition that the
woodlands be replaced at least acre-for-acre and in such a form as will link up residual natural
features on the local landscape. It is proposed that extraction within ESLs be subject to
requirements to enhance natural features and corridors on the post-extraction landscape.
The following specific policies would include:
•
•
•
Developing detailed landscape implementation plans in consultation with local
landowners, agency staff, and other relevant parties to identify significant natural areas
and environmental functions including opportunities to enhance or restore natural areas
and linkages;
Preventing further fragmentation of the landscape by not permitting new development
within significant landscape features or which disrupts potential corridors and linkages;
Requiring enhancement as condition of approval for development pursuant to Planning
Act, Environmental Assessment Act, or Aggregate Resources Act, including the
use of Conservation Easements; and
19
•
Enacting new Tree By-law pursuant to Municipal Act, and secure Area Municipal cooperation for protection of woodlands under one hectare and roadside trees which are
part of scenic roads.
7.2.2 Accommodate Human Presence and Activity Compatible with the Character of
the Landscape
Human presence and activity have shaped every landscape within the Region to a greater or
lesser extent. In ESLs, such human presence may be in relative harmony with the natural
features, and, in the case of heritage buildings, historic bridges, or scenic roads, actually
enhance the aesthetic values of the landscape. The Vision in section three described several
land uses which may be considered to be in harmony with the landscape.
Agriculture has fragmented the continuous forest that covered most of the Region 200 years
ago. Nevertheless, agricultural fields form a landscape matrix that permits many species to
move readily among natural areas. In recent years, the agricultural community has become
more aware of the natural environment in which it operates. New nutrient management
practices are reducing impacts to water resources, and stream corridor naturalisation projects
carried out under the Rural Water Quality Program are enhancing the features and functions of
rural landscapes. Golf courses may be less desirable uses in ESLs due to the relatively high
level of human presence and activity over most of the day and increased road traffic from April
to November, but there may be opportunities where they may be located, designed, and
operated in a manner compatible with maintaining or restoring the structure and functioning of
the landscape.
The following specific policies would include:
•
•
•
Recognising the right to farm in accordance with existing zoning and legislation;
Requiring some level of Landscape Impact Study to assess compatibility of proposed
development or new infrastructure in conjunction with any other Environmental Impact
Studies; and
Developing criteria for potential new development which would be compatible with the
particular features and functions of a particular landscape.
7.2.3 Promote Good Stewardship Practices
The main emphasis of the Greenlands Strategy is fostering a culture of stewardship in our
collective and private actions and attitudes towards out environment. Some aspects of
stewardship can and must be achieved through legislation and regulation. For the most part,
however, stewardship is a reflection of our values and is voluntary. It is essential that we create
a climate where voluntary action is not impeded by disincentives, where it is recognised, and
where feasible , encouraged through policies and programs.
The following specific policies would include:
•
Reviewing tax assessment practices and consider modifications so that landowners are
not penalized for taking marginal land out of agricultural production;
20
•
•
Encouraging voluntary enhancement of woodlands, stream corridors, and other natural
features through technical assistance, co-ordination of activities by volunteer
organisations willing to assist private and public landowners, and incentive programs
where feasible; and
Formally recognis ing examples of good environmental stewardship.
7.2.4 Acquire Suitable Available Lands for Public Access
ESLs in this part of Ontario are generally attractive to human beings as well as native flora and
fauna. Human enjoyment of such areas may be enhanced by promoting appropriate passive
recreational and scientific use. Such areas might be targeted for land acquisition by
municipalities, the Grand River Conservation Authority, or land trusts in order to create publicly
accessible open space. Similarly, such areas are ideally suited to hiking trails either through
dedication or purchase of lands and easements or through voluntary agreements with
landowners.
The following are some specific actions:
•
•
•
•
Acquire suitable available properties for parkland, Regional Forests, Conservation Areas,
or Land Trust properties;
Route trails on public lands, and where landowners agree, on private lands;
Enhance overall integrity and quality of natural features through the management of
land by the public sector for parks, Regional Forests, and Conservation Authorities; and
Develop a volunteer base to assist with stewardship of public natural areas and hiking
trails.
7.2.5 Co-ordinate with Regional and Area Municipal Cultural Heritage Policies
In many instances, natural and cultural heritage values co-exist in the same landscape, and
indeed reinforce one another. Policies can encourage municipal approval authorities and private
landowners to collaborate to conserve natural and cultural heritage landscapes.
The following are some specific actions:
•
•
•
8.
Encourage Area Municipal heritage policies to address landscape context of significant
structures;
Promote scenic roads within and to ESLs; and
Place appropriate roadside signage at entrance to ESLs.
Proposed Process for Designating Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes
This Background Technical Report is intended primarily to flesh out the direction given in the
Regional Growth Management Strategy to designate ESLs. It seeks to provide stakeholders,
citizens, and their elected representatives a fuller understanding of what an ESL would be like in
order to assist them as they comment on its principles and particular features and in the
process help shape the implementation.
21
The Background Technical Report and draft implementing amendments to the ROPP will be
circulated to stakeholders, agencies, and interested members of the public for comment until
May 2005. Staff propose to hold two Open Houses in the vicinity of each of the two proposed
ESLs to facilitate dialogue with all parties concerned. Staff will then seek to hold the official
Public Meeting required under the Planning Act in order to consider the proposed amendments
which will establish the policy framework and designate the first two ESLs, Laurel Creek
Headwaters and Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston. Following the meeting, staff will consolidate
comments in a final version of the amendments for potential adoption by Council.
Additional candidate ESLs have been identified in the RGMS. If the policy framework and two
initial designations are approved, it is proposed to commence work on delineating and
designating the remaining ESLs in consultation with stakeholder groups following adoption of
the new ROPP in 2006.
9.
Conclusion
Over the past 40 years, ecological science has increasingly emphasized the importance of
landscapes in conserving biodiversity. More recently, planning authorities have begun to plan on
a landscape scale using watershed studies and community plans. There has been a gradual
trend in Regional Official Plan policies since the mid 1990s to address landscape issues, and the
new Provincial Policy Statement supports a landscape approach. The time has come to begin to
identify ESLs in the Region of Waterloo and to work with Area Municipalities, other agencies and
organisations, and private landowners to develop and implement policies to conserve these rich
and beautiful areas for the wonder and enjoyment of this and future generations.
22
References
Anderson, S. – “The Effects of Open Space on Single -Family Residential Home Property Values”
Macalester College, 2000.
Barnes, T. (2000). Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Management.
<www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/for/for76/for76.pdf> (2003, September 16).
Dramstad, W. (1996). Landscape Ecology Principles. Landscape Architecture and Land-Use
Planning. Island Press: Washington, D.C..
Grand River Conservation Authority. (1996). Atlas to the Ecoregions of the Grand River
Watershed. (1st ed.). Cambridge, Ontario.
Gutzwiller, K. (2002). Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer-Verlag
New York Inc.: New York.
Kilpatrick, J., “Historic Districts Are Good for Your Pocketbook: The Impact of Local Historic
Districts on House Prices in South Carolina,” South Carolina Department of Archives and History,
2000.
Mitchell, N. & S. Buggey. (2000). Protected Landscapes and Cultural Landscapes: Taking
Advantage of Diverse Approaches. The George Wright Forum 17(1), 35 – 46.
Ontario Ministry of Culture. (2003). Cultural Landscapes in Ontario.
<http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/landscap.htm> (2003, October 6).
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2002). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan. Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (1998). Natural Heritage Reference Manual: For Policy
2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario.
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. (1996). Regional Greenlands System
Implementation (PLA 96-048). Hamilton, Ontario.
Regional Municipality of Niagara. (2000). A Living Legacy: Towards an Environmental
Conservation Strategy for Niagara (95-2). Niagara, Ontario.
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carlton. (1995). Reviewing Natural Environment Policies:
Assessing Significance of Core Natural Areas and Linkages (28-05). Ottawa, Ontario.
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carlton. (1997). Candidate Natural Area Evaluation (28-08).
Ottawa, Ontario.
Regional Municipality of Peel. (2001). Official Plan. Brampton, Ontario.
23
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. (2003). Planning Our Future: Regional Growth Management
Strategy. Kitchener, Ontario.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. (1998). Regional Official Policies Plan 1998 Consolidation.
Kitchener, Ontario.
Regional Municipality of York. (2002). Official Plan. Newmarket, Ontario
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, “Nature Conservation Designation and Land Values,”
2002.
Tyrvainen, L., and Miettinen, A., “Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities,” Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 39(2000): 205-233.
24
Appendix A – Scientific Basis:
Literature Review Prepared by Dougan & Associates, 2004-05
Background research focusing on the most current concepts and findings in the fields of
landscape ecology, conservation biology and, to a lesser extent, restoration ecology was
conducted in order to provide a stronger scientific basis for the proposed designation of
Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs) which the Region of Waterloo first proposed in
the most recent ROPP (1995) and is now working to implement. Literature searches of
ecological, biological and agricultural journal databases were conducted on topics related both
to the overall concept of ESLs (e.g., natural heritage planning on a landscape scale, value of
smaller habitats in fragmented landscapes, the value of cultural landscapes to nature
conservation) and to the scientific basis behind some of the more difficult to define or
controversial criteria behind ESL designation (e.g., appropriate linkages or corridors on a subRegional scale, what types of cultural landscape components are compatible with natural
conservation, appropriate scales for defining a ‘potential’ natural area). The literature searches
focused on papers dealing with fragmented landscapes published over the past five years,
however selected supporting documents published prior to 2000 were also reviewed and
incorporated.
The following review has been divided into four topics intended to address the following
questions related to the defensibility of designating ESLs as sub-Regional landscape mosaics for
habitat conservation:
What is the rationale behind moving beyond the protection of ‘core’ natural areas in fragmented
landscapes, and what are some of the current alternative concepts?
What are some key principles and design tools for achieving effective natural heritage
conservation in a fragmented landscape on a regional/ sub-regional scale?
What types of cultural land-uses are compatible with natural heritage or biodiversity
conservation?
What are some approaches for addressing the issue of scale in landscape level planning?
The concepts and findings summarized in the following sections are intended to answer these
questions to the greatest extent possible with the available information.
Landscape Conservation: A New Paradigm for Natural Heritage Planning
The history of the human race has shown that great crises are often the catalyst for great
discoveries and shifts in thinking. It is not surprising then, that increasing anxiety about
humanity’s domination (and devastation) of terrestrial life support systems (e.g., Soulé and
Terborgh 1999; Riitters et al. 2000; CEC 2001; Forman 2004), and the resulting global warming
and mass extinctions of flora and fauna (e.g., Harrison and Fahrig 1995; McCollin 2000; Fahrig
2000; Blackwell and Dolbeer 2001; Dettmers 2003), is prompting conservation biologists,
landscape ecologists and restoration ecologists to draw on one another’s research and expertise
to develop regional (and continental) scale solutions to maintaining critical ecosystem
components and functions.
For more than two decades, researchers in the ecological sciences have demonstrated that the
‘islands of green’ approach to natural heritage protection is not an effective approach for habitat
conservation, particularly not in the context of ongoing urban sprawl and agricultural
intensification. The original premise that conserving only the ‘core’ or ‘high order’ or ‘most
significant’ ecological features would be an effective conservation tool that guided much of the
natural heritage planning across North America from the 1950’s, and continues to influence
natural heritage policies in many jurisdictions today, has been proven false by a plethora of
25
papers on the negative impacts of habitat fragmentation1 7 (e.g., Saunders et al. 1991; Austen and
Bradstreet 1996; Friesen et al. 1999; Villard et al. 1999; Austen et al. 2001; Boulinier et al. 2001;
Fahrig 2002; Dettmers 2003; Kamler et al. 2003; Weyrauch and Grubb 2004) and, more
recently, the mounting reports on species decline and loss of biodiversity in North America and
around the globe. As Soulé and Terborgh (1999) state: “"Over the past two decades, the science
of conservation biology has shown that the island strategy, by itself, is inadequate to the
formidable challenge of conserving most living species … The evidence that isolated reserves …
gradually lose native species … is overwhelming. Such gradual degradation can only
accelerate as human activity and development increase on surrounding lands. [However,] the
elements of the solution are known: bigness and connectivity".
In the Region of Waterloo, the identification of Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs) is
one of several environmental initiatives aiming to address this issue and build on to the ‘islands’
approach to conservation by creating blocks of natural and semi-natural areas that are bigger
and better connected than the current areas designated as ESPAs and PSWs.
In 1999, Kimberly With put forward the concept of “landscape conservation” as a new paradigm
for bringing together the more ‘species specific’ approach of conservation biology and the more
‘big picture’ approach of landscape ecology. Under this new paradigm she identified five key
contributions that landscape ecology could make to conservation biology, as follows:
The adoption of a landscape perspective in conservation biology.
Facilitating the shift from species to systems management in conservation.
Providing a landscape mosaic perspective in assessing connectivity.
Developing a general landscape ecological theory.
Using landscape design principles to guide conservation efforts.
Although the term ‘landscape conservation’ has not been widely adopted by researchers in either
of these disciplines, many of them have recognized the value and the urgent need for this
merging of the ‘landscape’ and ‘conservation’ approaches on both a theoretical and an applied
level, and over the past 5 years a number of studies have emerged illustrating the importance of
looking at species conservation at a broader scale (eg. Villard 1999; Soulé and Terborgh 1999;
Austen et al. 2001; Joyal et al. 2001; Haila 2002; Lee et al. 2002; Fischer et al. 2004).
From this research, a number of key concepts have emerged:
The need for ‘systems’ or landscape based approaches to ecological / conservation planning that
recognize the importance and interrelatedness of compositional elements, physical structures
and ecological processes.
The need to look at landscapes in a more complex way, recognizing a mosaic of different
habitats and land-uses with different abilities to provide ecological ‘services’.
In cases where connectivity cannot be improved with existing natural features, it is necessary to
examine potential restoration opportunities.
Landscape Approaches to Ecological / Conservation Planning
‘Systems’ based approaches to natural heritage protection are increasingly supported by both
the landscape ecology research (e.g., Hobbs 1997; Villard et al. 1999; Fahrig et al. 2002; Lee et
al. 2002) and the applied technical research conducted in southern Ontario (e.g., Kettle 1999;
17
Fragmentation is the simultaneous shrinking in size (loss) and growing in distance to neighbouring habitats
(isolation) due to intervening human land uses between habitat for native flora and fauna (adapted from Helferty
2002).
26
Diamond et al. 2002; Helferty 2002; TRC 2001; TRC 2004). This approach recognizes that
there are few, if any places in the world, that have not been dramatically impacted by human
activities, resulting in the loss, fragmentation and degeneration of the original natural cover
which not so long ago dominated the North American landscape (CEC 2001). It recognizes that
in many municipalities what remains are urban areas surrounded by suburban areas
surrounded by rural areas, each containing assortments of natural feature fragments that now
somehow need to be connected (McIntyre and Hobbs 1999). It recognizes that simply
delineating and protecting large natural features has led to the further isolation (i.e.,
fragmentation) of these features in the landscape and a related loss of native species which
needs to be halted and, if possible, reversed. As the Draft Toronto and Region Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy (2004) states: “The fundamental flaw of … traditional
approaches is that they focus on special features, not broader environmental functions …
Natural processes ... can only be maintained if there is substantial natural cover, well
distributed across the landscape”.
The foundation of the ‘systems’ approach to natural heritage planning and management lies in
the division of a given landscape into three interdependent components (adapted from Wiens
2002):
composition (e.g., vegetation or land-use type, organisms)
structure (e.g., topography, drainage, soils)
process or function (e.g., population dynamics, nutrient cycling, disturbance)
These components are considered as interrelated but provide a framework for thinking about
landscape effects on ecological systems that recognizes the importance of landscape and
ecological processes or functions in relation to the natural structures or features that are much
simpler to see and understand.
In an already fragmented landscape (as we have in the Region of Waterloo and much of North
America), the ‘systems’ approach broadly manifests itself in the creation of a ‘cores’ 18 and
‘linkages / corridors’ 1 9 and can be applied at a variety of scales. However, the difficulty lies in
determining exactly what is ‘core’ and what is ‘linkage / corridor’ habitat when doing landscape
planning at a regional scale for multiple species in a fragmented network where impacts and
species responses are still poorly understood (Lambeck and Hobbs 2002). Looking at the
landscape as a mosaic of areas each contributing different compositional elements, ecological
structures and ecological processes or functions provides a more realistic framework. The most
promising approach might be to discard the simplistic concept of blocks of habitat versus nonhabitat in favour of landscapes as mosaics of areas modified to different degrees and able to
support diverse ecological functions.
18
‘Core' habitat basically refers to the habitat required for the main resident populations of plants and wildlife to
survive and complete their life cycle.
19
'Linkage / Corridor' habitat basically refers to habitat used to functionally connect populations of flora and fauna
to allow for gene flow and ensure long-term survival.
27
Figure 1. An illustration of the shift in ecological theory from a simplified patch (ie. habitat)
and matrix (ie. non-habitat) perception of the landscape to a more complex mosaic perception
of landscapes being comprised of a variety of patches providing different degrees of ecological
features and/or functions (from Wiens 1995).
Approaches to & Rationale for Conserving Natural Mosaics in Fragmented Landscapes
The paradigm of landscape conservation in human-modified landscapes tries to move away
from the simplified view of the landscape as consisting of habitat patches surrounded by a
matrix of land uses without any ecological significance (see Figure 1). Instead, the new
emerging theories are providing a framework for recognizing different degrees of alteration in
the lands surrounding ‘core’ natural areas or patches (Saunders et al. 1991; McIntyre and Barrett
1992; Wiens 1995; McIntyre and Hobbs 1999; Barnes 2000; Tjallingi 2000; Vos et al. 2001;
Fischer et al. 2004). These theories are not a complete break from the ‘islands of green’ concept,
but build on it by continuing to recognize the importance of protecting ‘core’ areas of ‘high
order’ ecological significance, while improving connectivity in the broader landscape
(sometimes referred to as the ‘matrix’) through the identification and protection of features
and/or areas that have, until recently, been considered unimportant from a conservation
perspective.
In the case of the Region of Waterloo, while most of the larger wetlands and forested tracts have
been recognized as significant and designated as PSWs or ESPAs, grasslands and smaller
wetlands and woodlands have been, until now, largely overlooked. However, in the current
climate of increasing urbanization and agricultural intensification, many previously overlooked
natural areas are increasingly subject to development pressures to the extent that features and
species that were once common in the landscape are becoming rare. As Dettmers (2003) points
out, the practice conserving only ‘high’ quality natural features (e.g., mature forests) in the
northeastern United States has led to the decline of younger forests and shrublands to the point
that a significant decline in the abundance of bird species requiring these types of habitat has
occurred. Striking evidence of the ineffectiveness of the ‘islands of green’ approach to
conserving regional biodiversity is also apparent closer to home in the Greater Toronto Area
where the number of species of conservation concern has risen to 590 (TRC 2004). ESLs
provide one tool for protecting a variety of habitats in the landscape and, hopefully, for
28
preventing common species from becoming rare in the Region, and rare species from going
extinct.
On a more applied and taxa-specific level, current research has shown the importance of looking
at habitats of varying size, shape and quality to understand how various groups of wildlife are
able to survive in the relatively new reality of the fragmented landscape. While research
continues to show that larger patches of contiguous natural area, and particularly forested area,
are required for the survival of many area - sensitive20 birds (Austen and Bradstreet 1996; review
by Lundmark 2004), recent studies show that the presence of smaller patches of forest in the
surrounding landscape also contributes to the overall abundance of area -sensitive bird species
(Austen et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2002; Davis 2004) and that both the extent of habitat cover as well
as its configuration are directly related to bird species abundance (Villard 1998; Villard et al.
1999). Fahrig (1998) reports that for birds, fragmentation affects population survival when
distances between breeding habitat covers less than 20% of the landscape. Friesen (1999) and
(Friesen et al. 1999a, b), without discounting the critical importance of having large forested
blocks, point out that smaller woodlands (ie. 3 – 14 ha) also provide viable habitat for some
area-sensitive bird species, and that some neotropical migrant birds are even able to breed
successfully in smaller patches. Fraser and Stutchbury (2004) also report extensive movement
of an area-sensitive bird species among small forest fragments. In one of the few study on
grassland (rather than forest) birds, Davis (2004) concludes that while protection of large
contiguous tracts of grasslands is important for protection of some native species, small native
prairie patches with minimal edge habitat also contribute significantly to grassland passerine
conservation.
In Ontario, rehabilitation guidelines for the Great Lakes Areas of Concern sets targets of 20 ha
to 2000 ha patches for area sensitive forest birds, and notes a significant decline in species when
patches fall from 200 ha to 100 ha (Environment Canada et al. 1998). However, the OMNR
(2000) also points out that larger and smaller habitat patches, both forest and grassland, are
able to provide habitat for different species of birds. According to the OMNR (2000), the larger
and least fragmented forest stands within a planning area w ill support the most significant
populations of forest area sensitive birds. Ideally such forests should cover about 30% of the
regional landscape to provide minimal conditions for these species and include several large
woodlands of at least 30 ha. For area sensitive grassland bird species, large grassland or
meadow areas ranging from 1 to more than 30 ha are required depending on the species in
question. For example, the endangered Henslow’s Sparrow requires at least 30 ha, Bobolinks,
Savanna Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows require at least 10 ha, and at least 1 to 2 ha may be
adequate breeding habitat for 1 or 2 pairs of birds of some species.
The research on herpetofaunal use of the landscape which has emerged over the past few years
also supports the importance of preserving both ‘core’ and associated habitats, as well as the
theory that small habitat patches can be critical to some species. As Helferty (2002) points out,
while life-cycle patterns of amphibians are variable (i.e., some spend most of their life cycle in
woodlands [e.g., Faccio 2003], others in wet areas [e.g., Richter and Azous 2000a]), all species
require:
a combination of high quality forests and wetlands,
20
Area sensitive species are those that require large areas of suitable habitat in order to sustain their populations
(OMNR, 2000). Area sensitive species are more susceptible to habitat loss and fragmentation than generalist species
and therefore of greater conservation concern. Individuals from various wildlife groups may be considered area
sensitive (e.g. amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals), but most discussions related to area sensitive species
usually refer to birds. Area sensitive bird species generally fall under 3 categories, depending on their habitat
association: grasslands, wetlands and woodlands area-sensitive birds.
29
vegetated corridors that allow for movement between upland and wetland habitats, and
vegetated corridors that allow dispersal and movement between populations for their long-term
survival.
In their study of nine amphibian species, Guerry and Hunter (2002) found that most species
(seven) were more likely to occur in areas where ponds were associated with upland forest. In
Regosin et al.’s (2003) study of Wood Frogs they found that use of ponds versus associated
upland forest was seasonal and so surveys in the wrong season could result in erroneous species
inventories which in turn could bring about loss of critical habitat. In a unique study on two
turtle species in Maine, Joyal et al. (2001) reported that these animals used multiple small
wetlands (ie. <0.4 ha) throughout the year (including seasonal and permanent ponds, forested
swamps and wet meadows), as well as nearby uplands for nesting, dormancy and traveling
(notably, traveling distances between wetlands ranged from 70 – 1620 m). Semlitsch and Bodie
(2003) found large areas of upland forest within 127 – 290 m of a breeding wetland to be
essential for amphibian and reptile survival, and that breeding wetlands were typically small (ie.
as small as 0.2 ha). The use of vernal pools (defined as seasonal waterbodies generally less than
0.8 ha) as essential breeding habitat for many species of salamanders, frogs and shrimps
(Calhoun and Klemens 2002) also points to the importance of small, ephemeral wetland
habitats. In her review, Helferty (2002) found most amphibians disperse up to 1 km (although
juveniles can migrate up to 6 km) as long as they have suitable ‘corridors’ to travel in. Although
studies indicate that forested corridors with natural ground cover are preferred, amphibians are
also able to move across hedgerows, vegetated ravines, meadows and even active and
abandoned agricultural fields (Helferty 2002; Guerry and Hunter 2002; Rothermel and
Semlitsch 2002; Calhoun and Kelemens 2002; Weyrauch and Grubb 2004).
In addition to birds and herpetofauna, another category of wildlife worthy of consideration in
fragmented natural habitats is small mammals. Although responses of small mammals in the
context of fragmentation has not been well-studied, the few studies that have been done further
support the need to conserve heterogeneous habitat mosaics in the landscape. In their study of
terrestrial small mammals in the Puget Sound Basin, Richter and Azous (2000c) found that
forested lands associated with wetlands were critical to maintaining diversified populations, and
that the greatest species richness occurred in areas where more than 60% of a 500 m buffer
around the wetland was forested. Small mammal use of hedgerows as corridors in rural settings
has also been documented (Wegner and Merriam 1979; Merriam 1991; Hess and Bay 2000).
Further evidence of the ecological significance of small waterbodies at the regional level is
provided by Williams et al. (2003) who examined the macrophyte and macroinvertebrate
diversity in rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in southern England.
They found that ponds contributed more to regional biodiversity than rivers or streams
indicating that small waterbodies can make significant contributions to biodiversity in this
context. Notably, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) whose jurisdiction
includes the region of Waterloo, also recognizes the significance of relatively small wetlands and
considers all wetlands of 0.5 ha as well as smaller wetlands associated with other natural
heritage features or functions as significant.
The evidence above presents a strong case for an ESL approach to conservation which identifies
heterogeneous mosaics of habitat and includes large as well as smaller habitat patches. As
Houlahan and Findlay (2003) state: “[E]ffective wetland conservation will not be achieved by
merely through the creation of narrow buffer zones between wetlands and intensive land uses,
but rather will require maintaining a heterogeneous regional landscape containing relatively
large areas of natural forest and wetlands”.
30
In terms of theoretical frameworks designed to capture the variety of habitat requirements of
different wildlife groups and different species within those groups, there are several that have
emerged over the past decade or so (i.e., McIntyre and Barrett 1992; McIntyre and Hobbs 1999;
Wiens 2002; Vos et al. 2001; Fischer et al. 2004). The paper by Fischer et al. (2004) presenting
‘habitat contours’ as an alternative theory seems to have the greatest potential for regional
planning applications through Geographic Information System (GIS) tools in the future.
This theory visualizes the landscape as a map of overlaid habitat suitability contours for
different species and recognizes variation among species allowing it to convey more complexity
than previous models (which can have negative consequences for conservation). This model
recognizes that exclusively focusing on patches is not enough to conserve many species in
modified landscapes and provides a more holistic approach able to highlight differing species
requirements at different spatial scales.
Unfortunately, this theory would have limited applications at this time for the Region of
Waterloo and many other municipalities because of the need for detailed species data for
multiple species. However, some progressive municipalities are developing mechanisms for
applying landscape ecology theory through the use of GIS on a larger scale by using broader
screening tools such as reserve selection algorithms and gap analysis being applied to data on
vegetation cover type and other topographic features (eg. Weber and Wolf 2000; Lambeck and
Hobbs 2002; TRC 2004). These approaches are comparable to the approach proposed for the
identification and delineation of ESLs in the Region of Waterloo (see Sections 3 and 4 in this
report). As these tools and their applications evolve, it may become more feasible for
municipalities to plan based on more species-based empirical data in the future.
The Role of Restoration in Landscape Conservation
Although ESLs are to be identified and delineated based on the predominance of natural
features and areas supporting natural functions, ESLs may also include some lands that are
being actively managed (e.g., low to moderate intensity farming, plantations) in a manner that is
considered compatible with ESL conservation, or are being used in a way that is relatively
temporary (e.g., a quarry) that could eventually be restored to a natural state. An extensive
review of the restoration literature was outside the scope of this study, however the topic is
discussed briefly because of its important role in landscape conservation in fragmented habitats,
and its relevance to ESLs.
McIntyre and Hobbs (1999) and Hobbs (1999) propose four categories of landscape alteration
states (as shown in Figure 2) to help create a framework for landscape conservation and
restoration that acknowledges that landscapes have varying degrees of naturalness (or
fragmentation) rather than pristine ‘core’ habitats surrounded by what Haila (2002) calls
“ecological deserts”.
31
Figure 2. The four landscape alteration states (intact, variegated, fragmented and relictual)
showing (a) the degree of habitat destruction in each and (b) modifications of the remaining
habitat that might typically be associated with increasing levels of destruction (from McIntyre
and Hobbs 1999).
This concept, as shown in Figure 2, presents four landscape alteration states representing a
range from very natural to very unnatural:
Intact = at least 90% natural
Variegated = 60% - 90% natural
Fragmented = 10% - 60% natural
Relictual = less than 10% natural
In severely fragmented and relictual landscapes, restoration is required to effectively conserve
biodiversity, and even in moderately fragmented and variegated landscapes, restoration
provides opportunities for enhancing connectivity between ‘core’ natural areas, or enhancing
degraded ‘core’ areas themselves. The latter scenario would be applicable to ESLs which could
be described as variegated, and able to benefit from some restoration to better conserve the
natural areas contained within them.
Despite the fact that the science of restoration ecology has been around about as long as the
fields of conservation biology and landscape ecology, restoration ecology continues to be applied
largely in smaller scale, site-specific contexts leaving important landscape scale questions of
how to effectively restore functional ecosystems dominated by native species unanswered
(Hobbs 1999). Some researchers have laid out clear objectives and steps for identifying,
designing and implementing landscape scale restoration (e.g., Pywell and Putwain 1996; Hobbs
32
1999), but there are only a handful of examples where restoration has actually been undertaken
on a regional scale (e.g., Kissimmee River in Florida), and none, to the best of our knowledge,
have been in Canada. In their impassioned paper on regional-scale conservation, Soulé and
Terborgh (1999) call for a virtual “revolution in restoration ecology” whereby management
systems for control of invasive species, recovery of native species, and provision of natural
processes in disturbances are implemented on a regional scale in North America. Despite the
dearth of applied research on this scale, it is notable that the importance of restoration in
fragmented landscapes has been recognized by a few southern Ontario upper tier municipalities
in their Official Plans and policies (e.g., Region of Peel 2001; former Region of HamiltonWentworth as cited in CDGL 1999), as well as ambitious projects like the TRC (2004) Terrestrial
Heritage Strategy which has outlined specific mechanisms for implementing landscape scale
restoration in the Greater Toronto Area.
Some smaller scale approaches for restoration identified for agricultural lands and abandoned
pits and quarries are, however, worth mentioning since they have potential application within
ESLs. Strategies for integrating limited amounts of restoration in the rural landscape while still
allowing for the continuation of agricultural activities are described by Fedorowick (1993),
Stolton et al. (1996), Tilt (2002), VanBuskirk and Willi (2004) and Vickery et al. (2004). In
general, these approaches relate to making agriculture less, rather than more, intensive and
maximizing opportunities for habitat creation and environmental protection in the landscape
(e.g., vegetated buffers along streams, leaving winter and spring fallow areas, preserving noncropped habitats, leaving winter stubbles, restoring and encouraging native species in remnant
woodlots and hedgerows, moving towards organic farming). Restoration of abandoned pits and
quarries in southern to natural cliff and talus habitats has been studied by the Cliff Ecology
Research Group at the University of Guelph for nearly a decade (e.g., Larson 1996; Ursic et al.
1997; DeGruchy et al. 2001; Matthes et al. 2003). There has been a growing interest in this type
of rehabilitation by the aggregate industry in Ontario as can be seen in the types of articles
published in the Canadian Land Reclamation Association’s (CLRA) official pu blications.
While the extent of habitat loss in southern Ontario (Larson et al. 1999) is so extensive it
requires identification of restoration opportunities if functional natural heritage systems are to
be achieved, there will certainly be some challenges to face. Key challenges will likely be related
to: (a) presenting a case for the protection of lands that have limited ecological value at present
but have the potential to be of ecological significance with some intervention and management,
and (b) the short-term costs associated with the long-term benefits of restoration (e.g., Oehler
2003).
Some Key Concepts and Design Principles in Landscape Conservation
Two key concepts that emerge out of the landscape conservation body of literature dealing with
fragmented landscapes are connectivity through linkages and corridors, and edge effects. These
concepts are related and are particularly relevant to ESLs because they provide some design
principles to guide the development of sub-Regional scale conservation areas, in some cases,
actual specifications of minimum habitat requirements for certain groups of wildlife species.
While linkages and corridors can be identified on many scales, the emphasis of the discussion
below will be on linkages and corridors suited to the scale at which ESL are being examined and
assessed (i.e., 1:10,000). (Further details on the assessment approach is provided in Section 4 of
this report).
Linkages & Corridors in Regional Landscapes
33
"In regional planning and management, connectivity in general, corridors connecting patch
populations, and corridors connecting vital resource patches, will be critical to retaining
ecological integrity" (Merriam 1991).
Linkages and corridors are landscape features that help connect together isolated natural
habitat features or areas. The basic premise behind retaining linkages and corridors is that, in
the context of a landscape fragmented by various types of development and other infrastructure,
these components allow for movement of fauna and flora between what would otherwise be
isolated habitat patches. Corridors and linkages can (and should) function on multiple scales,
and typically vary in size (width and length) as well as quality (plant species composition,
diversity and structure). Although the terminology is used inconsistently in the literature,
generally corridors refer to wider and longer connections able to support movement by multiple
groups of wildlife as well as plants, and in some cases large mammals, while linkages tend to be
at a smaller scale and typically only allow for movement of species that are more tolerant to
habitat fragmentation. Corridors often follow physiographic features (i.e. , landforms) such as
valleylands, moraines and eskers and on a regional scale, examples of potential corridors
include powerlines, pipelines, railways and highway rights-of-ways, hedgerows, riparian strips
and stream corridors, ridge systems, and shelterbelts (Adams and Dove 1989; Helferty 2002).
Scientific research, and practice, continues to demonstrate that maintaining functional aquatic
and terrestrial linkages among fragmented natural habitats ensures greater sustainability than
having a number of isolated natural areas (e.g., Noss 1993; Forman 1995a,b; Harrison and
Fahrig 1995; Fleu ry and Brown 1997; Beier and Noss 1998; Fahrig 2002; TRC 2004). While
there is some research demonstrating the potential negative impacts of connecting habitat
patches with linkages or corridors (e.g., increased immigration rates may reduce genetic
variation among certain populations; facilitate the spread of undesirable, non-native species of
plants and animals to less disturbed habitats; facilitate the spread of disease among core
habitats; increase exposure to predators), and there is much research yet to be done (Goodwin
2003), the bulk of the existing evidence shows that, in a fragmented landscape, the benefits of
connectivity far outweigh the potential costs (Naiman et al. 1993; Beier and Noss 1998;
Environment Canada et al. 1998; Soulé and Terborgh 1999; Barnes 2000; Kirchner 2003).
In terms of ideal sizes for corridors there are no standards in the literature because optimal
sizes, which have been examined for a number of wildlife species and groups, vary so much
between and within taxonomic groups (see Table 1). Necessary width of corridors also depends
on habitat structure and quality within individual corridors, nature of the surrounding habitat,
and human use patterns (Adams and Dove 1989). However, there are some general principles
and guidelines that can be extrapolated from the literature:
The longer the corridor, the wider it should be. For example, in southern Ontario, a natural
corridor of about 0.5 km wide extended through the settled areas (as has been identified in the
Province’s Draft G reenbelt Plan 2004) is recommended for maintaining a healthy natural
heritage system on a relatively large scale (Diamond et al. 2002).
A corridor should be wide enough to shelter the animal species from predators, allow for
movement, and provide nesting and feeding opportunities for a slower moving groups of wildlife
groups (Forman 1995a,b; Spackman and Hughes 1995; Fleury and Brown 1997).
In general, a corridor that is continuously 100 m wide allows for the movement of many species
but not breeding or feeding (Environment Canada et al. 1998; Forman 1995a)
There is also evidence that even narrow linkages such as fencerows connecting woodlands can
help relieve the isolating effects of fragmented landscapes as well as provide habitat for
migrating birds and small mammals (Wegner and Merriam 1979; Merriam 1991; Hess and Bay
2000; Aude et al. 2004).
34
For herpetofauna, the importance of habitat heterogeneity is evident in their corridor
requirements as well as their breeding habitats. As Burbrink et al. (1995) state: “Although we
cannot separate the effects of habitat heterogeneity and distance from the core area on the
observed species richness at our sites, nevertheless, our data clearly suggests that width per se
should not be the primary consideration for corridor dwellers. To design a successful corridor, at
least for riparian species, habitat heterogeneity must be considered directly”. This is further
confirmed in Helferty’s (2002) review paper, as well as studies by Rothermel and Semlitsch
(2002), and Semlitsch and Bodie (2003).
Some authors suggest that the requirements of species that are high on the food chain (so-called
‘umbrella species’) should be utilized as a minimum estimate of necessary width for corridors
(e.g., Fleury and Brown 1997; Soulé and Terborgh 1999; Diamond et al. 2002). However, in the
context of southern Ontario (and certainly the Region of Waterloo), the rarity of large mammals
in urbanizing landscapes makes their use as an umbrella species problematic and can lead to
overlooking habitats critical to other species. Helferty (2002) argues that amphibians are a
much more appropriate ‘keystone’ species because of their relative abundance in southern
Ontario and their need for habitat heterogeneity, functional connectivity, and relatively long
dispersal distances. However, a recent review by Roberge and Angelstam (2004) discounts the
value of umbrella species and argues that since fulfilling habitat requirements for any one single
species cannot ensure conservation of all co-occurring species it is best to adopt a multi-species
strategy based on systematic selection procedures. This approach is in keeping with the
framework proposed by Fischer et al. (2004) and is something to consider for future directions
in natural heritage planning in the Region of Waterloo, as more species data is collected and
becomes available.
Table 1. Corridor widths required by different groups of wildlife: Examples from the literature.
Corridor “Type”
Target Species Required Size
Comments
(Source)
or Species
Group
Wetland – Upland
Amphibians
Up to 1 km between
Terrestrial habitat must be
Corridor (Helferty
wetland and terrestrial
naturally forested.
2002)
habitat
Wetland – Upland
Amphibians
159 – 290 m
Terrestrial habitat must be
Corridor (Semlitsch
naturally forested.
and Bodie 2003)
Reptiles
127 – 289 m
Wetland – Upland
Amphibians
152 – 1510 m;
Migratory distances vary
Corridor (Calhoun
salamanders at the lower with species.
and Klemens 2002)
end of this range and
frogs at the upper end
Terrestrial Corridor
Eastern
20 – 460 m; most
90% of use in wooded areas
(Merriam 1991)
Chipmunk
frequent usage in the 20
40 m range
Stream Corridor
Herpetofauna &
At least 30 m width on
The corridor should have
(Rudolph and
Other Vertebrates either side of the stream; mature trees.
Dickson 1990)
more if adjacent
landscape is cleared.
Stream Corridor
Herpetofauna
100 m width on either
Wider corridor not needed if
(Burbrink et al. 1995)
side of the stream +
upland w oodlands found
require habitat
nearby.
heterogeneity outside
35
corridor
At least 75 – 175 m width
on either side of the
stream
At least 25 - 125 m width
on either side of the
stream.
Stream Corridor
(Spackman and
Hughes, 1995)
Stream Corridor
(Croonquist and
Brooks, 1993)
Birds
Stream Corridor
(Spackman and
Hughes, 1995)
Hedgerows /
Fencerows
(Wegner and
Merriam, 1979)
Small Mammals
Not available.
Resident &
Migrating Birds
Small Mammals
Not available.
Not specified
(Fleury and Brown
1997)
Not specified
(Fleury and Brown
1997)
Based on review
of corridor width
needs for birds
Based on review
of corridor width
needs for
mammals
Resident Juvenile
Birds
4 – 90 m
Stream Corridor
(Mactans et al. 1996)
Breeding Birds
The corridors should be
forested.
25 m provided some
dispersal & breeding
opportunities; 125 m
supported full complement
of bird communities
Most species traveled below
or just above the annual
high water mark.
These groups readily moved
along fencerows connecting
isolated woods in an
otherwise agricultural
landscape.
2m
Based on findings from only
2 papers.
At least 100 m width on
either side of the stream.
This width facilitated
movement of juveniles.
Certainly, the value of corridors and linkages has been recognized by many municipalities in
southern Ontario, and in a review of 25 upper tier Official Plans, CDGL (1999) found 20 of them
provided for some type of natural connections between habitat patches. In the context of ESLs
in the Region of Waterloo, the focus is on the sub-regional connections between the identified
natural patches within the ESL rather than larger scale regional connections between ESLs. For
the purposes of this study we have used 200 m as the maximum distance between habitat
patches for them to be considered connected, with no requirements for minimal width (see
Section 4).
The Relevance of Edge Effects in Natural Heritage Planning
‘Edge effects’ is a term used to describe the negative impacts of adjacent land uses on natural
areas in fragmented landscapes. These effects focus on the impacts related to the fact that the
periphery of the natural feature is exposed, and include various abiotic and biotic factors (e.g.,
greater exposure to wind, light and noise; encroachment by adjacent residences; impacts by
domestic pets; establishment by non-native and/or invasive plant species). These impacts can
extend into a natural area from the defined edge from 10 – 600 m (Murcia 1995; Burke and Nol
1998; Dougan 2002; Helferty 2002) or further, and cumulatively can contribute to the loss of
may native species from a natural area and its overall decline. Notably, most edge effect studies
have used woodlands as their natural feature and equivalent ‘distance to edge’ impact figures are
not so readily unavailable for grassland and wetland habitats.
While many scientific and applied studies have used 100 m as the distance in from the edge that
captures most negative impacts (Forman 1995a; Austen and Bradstreet 1996; Burke and Nol
1998; Diamond et al. 2002; Halton Region 2002; FON 2004), several authors have pointed out
36
that edge effects can often extend up to 200 m into natural habitats in urban or urbanizing
settings (Environment Canada et al. 1998; Helferty 2002). Houlahan and Findlay (2003) found
that the negative impacts associated with road density on amphibian diversity extended from
200 m to 3000 m from the habitat edge, and Forman (2004) found that the presence of multilane highways impacted the presence and breeding activities of birds up to 1200 m into the
natural area from the edge.
Current and ongoing research conducted in ‘core’ habitats adjacent to residential developments
in the Region of Waterloo has found significant declines in bird density and diversity
(particularly neotropical migrants) associated with the edge effects of development (Cheskey
2003; Friesen and Zantinge 2003). This local evidence is supported by comparable studies
elsewhere that have reported significant declines in forest bird diversity and abundance
associated with increasing densities of housing developments adjacent to retained forests
(Germaine et al. 1998; Kluza 2000). Comparable findings have been reported for amphibians
associated with wetlands in urbanizing areas (Knutson et al. 2000; Azous and Richter 2000a).
A discussion of edge effects is directly relevant to the delineation of ESLs because these areas are
intended to be discrete, sub-regional scale areas with defined boundaries in which the potential
impacts of edge effects should be considered in policy development. If the boundaries of the
natural features and functions identified within the ESLs form the ESL boundary itself, then
these features may be directly impacted by existing or anticipated changes in the surrounding
landscape.
Furthermore, the significance of edge effects points to the need to reduce fragmenta tion
wherever possible. To this end, ESL delineation should preserve compact habitat or landscape
patches (i.e., circular or oval units rather than dissected or linear patches) to the greatest extent
possible, ensure adequate buffers between certain land uses and protected natural areas and,
where feasible, restore gaps or “bays” in natural areas.
Cultural & Natural Landscapes: Opportunities Co-existence and Conservation
Given that almost all of southern Ontario, and indeed much of the planet, has been impacted
extensively by human settlement and related activities, it is increasingly being recognized by
scientists, governments and other bodies that the only feasible solution to the protection of
biodiversity on multiple scales in settled landscapes is to recognize the ecological values some of
these ‘cultural’ areas associated with ‘core’ or more pristine natural areas, and work towards
their combined preservation and co-existence (e.g., CEC 2001; Anon 2002; Anon 2004).
Although the concept of ‘cultural landscapes’ is not new, it is only within the past decade or so
that the term has been adopted and defined by the international cultural heritage movement,
and explored in the context of natural area conservation (Mitchell and Buggey 2000). In many
respects, this concept is consistent the latest theories landscape conservation (described in
Section 2.1 of this report) in so far as it recognizes that most landscapes today are a product of
interactions between humans and the natural environment, however it differs by also
recognizing that these dynamic landscapes form part of our cultural heritage as much as
monuments or structures. Another key difference between cultural and natural landscape
conservation is that the former values the human role in landscape changes while the latter
tends to regard most human impacts as detrimental to that landscape. Nonetheless, in the
context of southern Ontario where the landscape has been so extensively altered, there is an
opportunity for developing a conservation approach that is respectful both of cultural traditions
and natural processes. As Mitchell and Buggey (2000) point out, a cultural landscape
perspective recognizes how historical and present land uses have altered the landscape, as well
the contributions some types of cultural landscapes can make to sustainable land use and, in
37
some cases, conservation of biological biodiversity. They further point out that by
acknowledging the ongoing and changing human role in altering the landscape, this approach
lends itself to fostering a sense of place and involvement by individuals in landscape
stewardship.
The concept of cultural landscapes ties into ESLs in two ways:
it supports the classification of lands that were once under management for human uses (e.g.,
plantations, pastures, older pits and quarries) but have been abandoned and become naturalized
as ‘natural’ areas, and
it supports the inclusion of lands are currently under management for human uses (e.g.,
plantations, pastures, agricultural fields, quarries) on the grounds that they may be compatible
with biodiversity conservation in their current state or potentially restored once their present
land use is abandoned.
Given that an ESL will be an area that is predominantly covered by identified natural features
and functions, the more ‘cultural’ areas within those boundaries are to be included based on
their potential to support (or at the very least not cause further damage to) biodiversity
protection.
damage to) biodiversity protection.
Defining Cultural versus Natural Landscapes
In 1992, after much debate, cultural landscapes were recognized by the UNESCO Heritage
Convention, and in 1995 guidelines for the interpretation of cultural landscapes were developed.
World Heritage guidelines define cultural landscapes as “a diversity of manifestations of the
interaction between humankind and its natural environment” and divided these
“manifestations” into 3 categories reflecting different degrees of human influence on the given
landscape (Mitchell and Buggey 2000). In Ontario, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
(1995) recognizes the concept of ‘cultural landscapes’ and defines the term “cultural heritage
landscape” as “a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified
by human activities”. Furthermore, the Provincial government recognizes the World Heritage
Guidelines and the IUCN’s protected areas management categories (Anon 2002; Ontario Parks
2002) which include categories related to cultural landscapes, while the Federal governm ent has
begun to identify cultural landscapes in the Ottawa area (Anon 2004). However, the
mechanisms for applying these definitions still need to be resolved on a planning level.
While the Region of Peel (2001) recognizes both cultural and natural heritage and the
interrelationship between them in their Official Plan, one of the few municipalities to actually
develop policy for cultural landscapes in southern Ontario is the Town of Caledon in their
Official Plan Amendment No. 173 (2002). Currently, Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Caledon
include existing rural and agricultural areas, historic villages and settlement areas, and heritage
roads. Notably, this policy calls for a Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and requires
Cultural Heritage Impact Statements for proposed developments in identified areas.
In terms of clearly distinguishing between cultural and natural areas, the Ecological Land
Classification (ELC) system for southern Ontario provides some concrete direction. In southern
Ontario the OMNR has been working on developing and refining an ELC system for southern
Ontario since the mid-1990’s. The first approximation of this system, which was published in
1998 (Lee et al. 1998) and has become the standard in the province, was based on the
characterization of vegetation communities as they existed “pre-European settlement”. It was
quickly recognized that while the system was useful for identifying vegetation communities that
had not been extensively impacted by landscape changes over the pa st 200 years, it had limited
38
use for the wide range of habitats in southern Ontario that had been substantially impacted by
recent anthropogenic activities. Initially, the original ELC communities defined in the 1998
approximation were considered ‘natural’ and the other communities not yet defined were
considered ‘cultural’ or ‘semi-natural’. However, as the thinking in the fields of cultural
landscapes and conservation have evolved, the latest draft approximation of the ELC system has
also evolved to recognize many of these formerly ‘semi-natural’ habitats (eg. abandoned farm
fields or plantations that have naturalized, naturally regenerating shrub communities) as
‘natural’ and restrict the term ‘cultural’ to (a) lands under active and ongoing management for
human use (eg. agricultural lands, sports fields) and (b) lands permanently transformed for
human services or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, active pits and quarries) (H. Lee, pers.
comm. 2004).
The inclusion of any landscape where natural processes are dominant, including lands that were
once actively managed for human use but are now naturalized, as ‘natural’ is consistent with the
current scientific thinking in landscape ecology and conservation biology (see Section 2.1 ) and
provides a clear distinction between ‘cultural’ and ‘natural’ landscapes.
Compatible Land Uses within Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs)
Outside the urban areas in the Region of Waterloo, the predominant land use is still agricultural,
as it is in many municipalities in southern Ontario. Although actively farmed lands were largely
ignored by ecologists and natural heritage planners in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in the context of
increasing habitat loss and fragmentation over the past decade or so, the countryside has been
increasingly explored in terms of its impacts to remaining natural areas as well as its potential to
support biodiversity conservation.
Although there is evidence showing that farming can be both compatible and incompatible with
biodiversity protection, there appears to be general concensus in the scientific community that
agriculture, and activities typically associated with it (such as selective timber harvest from rural
woodlots) is far more compatible with habitat and species conservation than urbanization.
While it is recognized that agricultural land uses are not the ideal land-use from a natural
heritage conservation perspective, the research does acknowledge that in the context of
landscapes already fragmented by agriculture that are now being faced with increasing
urbanization, agricultural lands are generally a preferred alternative to residential or other type
of developments (e.g., Marzluff and Ewing 2001; Jobin et al. 2003; Nickerson and Hellerstein
2003).
Figure 3. An illustration of the relative
importance of different agents of habitat
fragmentation showing that urbanization
is expected to have the greatest local effect
on native wildlife because it provides the
most dissimilar land cover and rarely
reverts to a more natural condition (from
Marzluff and Ewing 2001).
Notably, there are studies showing significant negative impacts of agriculture, and particularly
intensive agriculture on natural habitats and wildlife populations. A number of studies have
found a strong correlation between the increase in agricultural intensification in North America
and Europe and the decline in native bird species typical of the countryside that utilize grassland
39
and shrubland habitats (Freemark 1999; Dettmers 2003; Murphy 2003; Peterjohn 2003;
Vickery et al. 2004). Smaller scale impacts associated with intensive chemical usage have been
observed on amphibians (Calhoun and Klemens 2002; Comis 2003). In addition, there are
some obvious conflicts between agricultural and natural area. For example, farmers have
legitimate concerns about the costs and inconveniences of crop damage (e.g., Rollins and Briggs
1998; Tilt 2002).
However, there are also opportunities for minimizing these impacts through policy or
stewardship initiatives (e.g., conservation programs that address local priorities; encouraging
reduced chemical use; promoting larger contiguous tracts of habitat in exchange for tax benefits;
encouraging reduction of field disturbances during prime nesting; encouraging conservation
tillage) (Fedorowick 1993; Lewandrowski and Ingram 1999; Tilt 2002; Johnson 2003). Several
studies have shown that conversion to organic agriculture is important in making farming more
compatible with habitat and wildlife conservation (Stolton et al. 1996; Aude et al. 2004; Vickery
et al. 2004). Given the evidence that some wildlife species are using active and abandoned
farmland as migratory corridors in fragmented landscapes, and in some cases for foraging and
even breeding (TRCA 1998; Richter and Azous 2000a, b; Helferty 2002; Rothermel and
Semlitsch 2002; Weyrauch and Grubb 2004), it is logical to try and make farming practices and
wildlife conservation as compatible as possible.
Issues of Scale in Conservation Planning
With all the recent advances in mapping technologies, and the adoption of GIS as the tool of
choice for natural heritage planning, the issue of scale is increasingly being recognized as crucial
for the delineation of appropriate-sized habitat patches, and ecological corridors and linkages
(Riitters 2000; MacNally 2000; Weber and Wolf 2000; Vos et al. 2001; City of London 2003).
A number of conservation biologists and/or landscape ecologists have explored differential
responses of wildlife groups (primarily birds, but also amphibians) to different patch sizes and
proportions of forest or wetland cover across a given landscape and found differential responses
between species and taxonomic groups (Villard 1998; Richter and Azous 2000a,b; Austen et al.
2001; Boulinier et al. 2001; Fahrig 2002; Lee et al. 2002; Mayer 2003). However, while
supporting the validity of a landscape approach to conservation planning, this information does
not really assist natural heritage planners in the practical implementation of regional-scale
conservation. As Margules (2000) points out, there is a pressing need for tools to bridge the gap
between local scale reductionist science and landscape scale planning and decision-making.
These tools need to improve the measurement of biodiversity so that it is more precise and
consistent across regions, and integrate a measure of probability of persistence of biodiversity
conservation while also accommodating tangible social and economic goals.
Vos et al. (2001) have developed a promising tool which they call Ecologically Scaled Landscape
Indices (ESLI) for integrating habitat network requirements of an array of species that greatly
differ in their response with landscape pattern and change because of different spatial
requirements and different movement capacities. These ESLI are indicator species that
represent clusters of species from different taxonomic groups representing different ecological
profiles (e.g., area requirements, sensitivity to fragmentation, extinction risk, colonization
ability). Although, as the authors state,
there are some limitations to the use of empirical data alone (e.g., interpretation of occupancy
for habitat fragments can be overoptimistic because of the time lag between habitat loss and
species loss) and these tools are still in their infancy, it is possible that eventually landscape
managers can use viability thresholds of indicator groups to detect fragmentation problems by
having GIS of habitat types and apply ESLI for indicator groups. This would provide a much
more accurate measure of biodiversity at a regional scale.
40
The identification of ESLs in the Region of Waterloo represents a coarse attempt to create such a
tool for conservation at the sub-regional scale using combinations of identified ecological
features and functions to delineate areas with ecological value that are an intermediate scale
between individual natural features and regional-scale natural heritage networks. At this level,
it was determined that working at a scale of 1:10,000 would be the most appropriate and
practical approach.
Literature Cited
Adams, L. W., and L. E. Dove. 1989. Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban Environment: a Guide
to Ecological Landscape Planning and Resource Conservation. National Institute for Urban Wildlife,
Columbia, Maryland.
Anon. 2002. Cultural Landscapes in Ontario. Government of Ontario, Toronto, ON.
Anon. 2004. Parks, Heritage and Development: Cultural Landscapes. National Capital Commission,
Ottawa, ON.
Arbuthnot, B. 2004. Golf Course Pesticide Mitigation Through Design. 1 81 p. Landscape Architecture .
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.
Aude, E., K. Tybirk, A. Michelsen, R. Ejrneas, A. B. Hald, and S. Mark. 2004. Conservation value of
herbaceous vegetation in hedgerows - does organic farming make a difference? Biological Conservation
118: 467 - 478.
Austen, J. W., and M. S. W. Bradstreet. 1996. Report on the Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Woodland
Biodiversity in southern Ontario and Recommendations for Woodland Conservation. Prepared for the
Laidlaw Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Ontario Heritage Foundation, Ontario
hydro, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and The Richard Ivey Foundation.
Austen, M. J., C. M. Francis, D. M. Burke, and M. S. W. Bradstreet. 2001. Landscape context for
fragmentation effects on forest birds in southern Ontario. 103: 701 - 714.
Barnes, T. G. 2000. Landscape ecology and ecosystems management. Pp. 1 - 8. URL:
<www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/for/for76/for76.pdf> (2003, September 16)
Bastian, O. 2001. Landscape ecology - towards a unified discipline? Landscape Ecology 16: 757 - 766.
Beier, P., and R. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12: 1241 1252.
Bender, D. J., T. A. Contreras, and L. Fahrig. 1998. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis
of the patch size effect. Ecology 79: 517 -533.
Bergsma, B. 2004. City of London Process to Implement Policies and Develop Guidelines to Identify
Ecologically Significant Woodlands. 14 p. City of London Case Study, London, ON.
Bishop, C. A., J. Struger, D. R. Barton, L. J. Shirose, L. Dunn, A. L. Lang, and D. Shepherd. 2000.
Contamination and wildlife communities in stormwater detention ponds in Guelph and the Greater
Toronto Area, Ontario, 1997 and 1998. Part I - Wildlife Communities. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 35(3):
399 - 435.
Blackwell, B. F., and R. A. Dolbeer. 2001. Decline of the red-winged blackbird population in Ohio
correlated to changes in agriculture (1965-1996). Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 661 - 667.
Boulinier, T., J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, J. R. Sauer, C. H. Flather, and K. H. Pollock. 2001. Forest
fragmentation and bird community dynamics: inference at regional scales. Ecology 82: 1159 - 1169.
Burbrink, F. T., C. A. Phillips, and E. J. Heske. 1998. A riparian zone in so uthern Illinois as a potential
dispersal corridor for reptiles and amphibians. Biological Conservation 86: 107 -116.
Burke, D. M., and E. Nol. 1998. Edge and fragment size effects on the vegetation of deciduous forests in
Ontario, Canada. Natural Areas Journal 18: 45 - 53.
Calhoun, A. J. K., and M. W. Klemens. 2002. Best development practices: Conserving pool-breeding
amphibians in residential and commercial developments in the northeastern United States. 57 p.
Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.
CDGL. 1999. Natural Heritage Planning Policy in Ontario: A Review of County and Regional Official
Plans. 47 p. Prepared for WWF-Canada in partnership with OPPI, MOE, OMNR and MMAH by The
Community Development Group Ltd. (CDGL).
41
CEC. 2001. The North American Mosaic: A State of the Environment Report. Commission for
Environmental Coorperation, Montreal, Quebec.
Cheskey, E. 2003. Landbird Monitoring on the West Side of Waterloo 2003 Year Report: Part One. 19 p.,
City of Waterloo. Unpublished report.
City of London. 2000. Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands,
London, ON.
City of London. 2003. Significant woodlands policy review and preliminary evaluation of woodland
patches in the City of London using GIS analysis.
City of Mississauga. 2003. Mississauga Plan.
City of Waterloo. 1999. Laurel Creek Subwatershed Monitoring Program 1999 Progress Report.
Comis, D. 2003. Farming without harming. Agricultural Research 51: 12 - 15.
Croonquist, M. J., and R. P. Brooks. 1993. Effects of habitat disturbance on bird communities in riparian
corridors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48: 65-70.
Davis, S. K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: Effects of patch size, patch shape, and
vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. The Auk 121: 1130 1145.
De Gruchy, M. A., U. Matthes, J. A. Gerrath, and D. W. Larson. 2001. Natural recovery and restoration
potential of severely disturbed talus vegetation at Niagara Falls: assessment using a reference system.
Restoration Ecology 9: 311-325.
Dettmers, R. 2003. Status and conservation of shrubland birds in northeastern US. Forest Ecology and
Management 185: 81 - 93.
Diamond, M., J. Dougan, N. Helferty, E. Ho dge, Niblett, P. , M. Rose, and S. Rowe. 2002. Natural
Heritage Systems in Urbanizing Settings: Sustainable Practices for the Oak Ridges Moraine. 83 p.
+appendices. Prepared on behalf of Save the Rouge Valley Systems Inc. and the City of Toronto.
Dougan, J. 2002. Natural Heritage Protection Under OPA 129: Performance Evaluation. 17 p.
+appendices. Prepared for Save the Rouge Valley Systems Inc.
Dougan&Associates. 2003. Natural Areas Inventory: Town of Fort Erie Settlement Areas, Final Draft.
Dwyer, J., and J. M. Lindsay. 2003. Nature Counts Project: Hamilton Natural Areas Inventory. Hamilton
Naturalists Club, Hamilton.
Eagles, P., W. Elrick, D. Foster, S. Muirhead, M. Stewart, J. van de Hulst, and C. Waterston. 1976. South
Wellington Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study. 272 p. Centre for Resources Development.
Environment Canada, CWS, OMNR, and MOE. 1998. A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in
Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Pages 76 p. Prepared for the Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan
Steering Committee by Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (OMNR) and Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE).
Faccio, S. D. 2003. Postbreeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and Spotted Salamanders in
Vermont. Journal of Herpetology 37: 479 - 489.
Fahrig, L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecological
Modeling 105: 273-292.
Fahrig, L. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological
Applications 12: 346 -353.
Fedorowick, J. M. 1993. A landscape restoration framework for wildlife and agriculture in the rural
landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 27: 7 - 17.
Fischer, J., D. B. Lindenmayer, and I. Fazey. 2004. Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours
as a conceptual landscape model. Conservation Biology 18: 1245 - 1253.
Fleury, A. M., and R. D. Brown. 1997. A framework for the design of wildlife conservation corridors with
specific application to southwestern Ontario. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 163 - 186.
FON. 2004. Suggested Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario,
DRAFT. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995a. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995b. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. 10: 133 - 142.
Forman, R. T. T. 2004. Road ecology's promise: What's around the bend? Environment 46: 8 - 21.
Fraser, G. S., and B. J. M. Stutchbury. 2004. Area sensitive forest birds move extensively among forest
patches. Biological Conservation 118: 377 - 387.
Freemark, K. 1999. Farmlands for farming and nature. Pages 124 - 128 in J. A. Wiens and M. R. Moss,
eds. Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association for Landscape Ecology, Colorado.
42
Friesen, L. 1998. Impacts of urbanization plant and bird communities in forest ecosystems. Forestry
Chronicle 74: 855 - 860.
Friesen, L. 1999. Conserving Small Woodlots: For the birds? Pages 23 in A. Kettle, ed. Southern Ontario
Woodlands: The Conservation Challenge: Conference Casebook. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
Friesen, L., M. D. Cadman, and R. J. MacKay. 1999a. Nesting success of neotropical migrant songbirds in
a highly fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13: 338 - 346.
Friesen, L., V. E. Wyatt, and M. D. Cadman. 1999b. Pairing success of wood thrushes in a fragmented
agricultural landscape. The Wilson Bulletin 111: 279 - 281.
Friesen, L., and C. Zantinge. 2003. Wood Thursh Nesting Study in Forested Hills in the City of Waterloo
and Rural Control Sites in Waterloo Region, 2003. 18 p., Canadian Wildlife Service.
Gartshore, M. E., D. A. Sutherland, and J. D. McCracken. 1987. The Natural Areas Inventory of the
Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk 1985 -1986. The Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario.
Germaine, S. S., S. S. Rosenstock., R. E. Schweinsburg, and W. S. Richardson. 1998. Relationships among
breeding birds, habitat, and residential development in greater Tuscon, Arizona. Ecological Applications
8: 680 - 691.
Goodwin, B. J. 2003. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecology
18: 687 - 699.
GRCA. 2003. Wetland Policy. Approved by the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Guerry, A. D., and M. L. Hunter Jr. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and
agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. 16: 745 - 754.
Haila, Y. 2002. A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape
ecology. Ecological Applications 12: 321 -334.
Halton Region. 2002. Rationale and Methodology for Determining Significant Woodlands in the Regional
Municipality of Halton. Halton Region 2002 Official Plan Review.
Harrison, S., and L. Fahrig. 1995. Landscape pattern and population conservation. Pages 293 - 308 in L.
Hansson and L. Fahrig, eds. Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman & Hall, New York.
Heagy, A. E. 1995. Hamilton-Wentworth Natural Areas Inventory. Volume I: Summary Report, Regional
Context and Watershed Summaries. Hamilton Naturalists' Club, Hamilton, Ontario.
Helferty, N. J. 2002. Natural Heritage Planning for Amphibians and their Habitats. 71 p. Supplementary
Report for Oak Ridges Moraine Richmond Hill Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Save the Rouge Valley
System Inc. and the City of Toronto.
Hess, G. R., and J. M. Bay. 2000. A regional assessment of windbreak habitat suitability. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 61: 237 - 254.
Hewitt, N., and M. Kellman. 2004. Factors influencing tree colonization in fragmented forests: an
experimental study of introduced seeds and seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management 191: 39 - 59.
Hobbs, R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning
37: 1 - 9.
Hobbs, R. J. 1999. Restoration ecology and landscape ecology. Pages 70 - 77 in J. A. Wiens and M. R.
Moss, eds. Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association for Landscape Ecology Fifth World,
Colorado.
Houlahan, J. E., and C. S. Findlay. 2003. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species
richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60: 1078 1094.
Jobin, B., B. S., M. Grenier, L. Belanger, C. Maisonneuve, D. Bordage, and B. Filion. 2003. Landscape
changes and ecological studies in agricultural regions, Quebec, Canada. Landscape Ecology 18: 575 - 590.
Johnson, P. E. 2003. Agriculture and wildlife - more than peacefully coexistent. Agricultural Research 51:
2.
Joyal, L. A., M. McCollough, and M. L. Hunter Jr. 2001. Landscape ecology approaches to wetland species
conservation: a case study of two turtles species in southern Maine. Conservation Biology 15: 1755 - 1762.
Kamler, J. F., W. B. Ballard , E. B. Fish, P. R. Lemons, K. Mote, and C. C. Perchellet. 2003. Habitat use,
home ranges, and survival of swift foxes in a fragmented landscape: conservation implications. Journal of
Mammalogy 84: 989 - 995.
Kirchner, F., J. Ferdy, C. Andalo, B. Molas, and J. Moret. 2003. The role of corridors in plant dispersal: an
example with the endangered Ranunculus nodiflorus. The Journal of the Society for Conservation
Biology 17: 401.
Kluza, D. A., C. R. Griffin, and R. M. DeGraaf. 2000. Housing developments in New England: effects on
forest birds. Animal Conservation 3: 15 - 26.
43
Knutson, M. G., J. R. Sauer, D. A. Olsen, M. J. Mossman, L. M. Hemesath, and M. J. Lannoo. 1999. Effects
of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in
Iowa and Wisconsin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13: 1437 - 1446.
Lambeck, R., and R. J. Hobbs. 2002. Landscape and regional planning for conservation: Issues and
practicalities. Pages 360 - 380 in K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological
Conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Larson, B. M., J. L. Riley, E. A. Snell, and H. G. Godschalk. 1999. The Woodland Heritage of Southern
Ontario: A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
Larson, D. W. 1996. Brown's Woods: An early gravel pit forest restoration project, Ontario, Canada.
Restoration Ecology 4: 11-18.
Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. L. Riley, P. Neave, D. Cuddy, H. Stewart , K. Coleman, and P. Uhlig. 1998. An
Ecological Community Classification for Southern Ontario: A First Approximation. 76 p. Southern Region
Science and Technology Transfer Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,Terrestrial Ecosystems
Branch, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Peterborough, Ontario.
Lee, M., L. Fahrig, K. Freemark, and D. J. Currie. 2002. Importance of patch scale vs landscape scale on
selected forest birds. Oikos 96: 110 - 118.
Lewandrowski, J., and K. Ingram. 1999. Policy considerations for increasing compatibility between
agriculture and wildlife. Natural Resources Journal 39: 229 - 257.
Lovett-Doust, J., M. Biernacki, R. Page, M. Chan, R. Natgunarajah, and G. Timis. 2003. Effects of land
ownership and landscape level factors on rare-species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario,
Canada. Landscape Ecology 18: 621 - 633.
Lundmark, C. 2004. Protecting species on private land. Bioscience 54: 88.
Machtans, C. S., M. Villard, and S. J. Hannon. 1996. Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors
by forest birds. Conservation Biology 10: 1366 - 1379.
MacNally, R. 2000. Dealing with scale in ecology. Pages 10 -17 in J. A. Wiens and M. R. Moss, eds. Issues
in Landscape Ecology. International Association for Landscape Ecology Fifth World Congress, Colorado.
Margules, C. 2000. Conservation planning at the landscape scale. Pages 83 - 87 in J. A. Wiens and M. R.
Moss, eds. Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association for Landscape Ecology, Colorado.
Marzluff, J. M., and K. Ewing. 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds:
A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9:
280 - 292.
Matthes, U., J. A. Gerrath, and D. W. Larson. 2003. Experimental restoration of disturbed cliff-edge
forests in Bruce Peninsula National Park, Ontario, Canada. Restoration Ecology 11: in press.
Mayer, A. L., and G. N. Cameron. 2003. Landscape characteristics, spatial extent, and breeding bird
diversity in Ohio, USA. Diversity and Distribution 9: 297 - 311.
McCollin, D., L. Moore, and T. Sparks. 2000. The flora of cultural landscape: environmental determinants
of change revealed using archival sources. Biological Conservation 92: 249 - 463.
McIntyre, S., and G. W. Barrett. 1992. Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation. Conservation
Biology 6: 146 - 147.
McIntyre, S., and R. Hobbs. 1999. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its
relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13: 1282 - 1292.
Merriam, G. 1991. Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. Pages
133 - 142 in D. A. Saunders and R. J. Hobbs, eds. Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey,
Beatty & Sons, New York.
Mitchell, N., and S. Buggey. 2000. Protected landscapes and cultural landscapes: Taking advantage of
diverse approaches. The George Wright Forum 17: 35 - 46.
Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. TREE 10: 58 - 62.
Murphy, M. T. 2003. Avian population trends within the evolving agricultural landscape of eastern and
central United States. The Auk 120: 20 - 34.
Naiman, R. J., H. DéCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3: 209 - 212.
Ndubisi, F., T. DeMeo, and N. D. Ditto. 1995. Environmentally sensitive areas: A template for developing
greenway corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning 33: 159 - 177.
Niagara Region. 2004. Policy Plan Office Consolidation: Regional Strategy for Development and
Conservation. The Regional Municipality of Niagara.
Nickerson, C. J., and D. Hellerstein. 2003. Protecting rural amenities through farmland preservation
programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32: 129 - 144.
44
Oehler, J. D. 2003. State efforts to promote early-successional habitats on public and private lands in the
northeastern Unites States. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 167 - 177.
OMNR. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR. 2004. Landform Conservation on the Oak Ridges Moraine: A Guideline for Applying the
Landform Conservation Policies of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources.
Ontario Parks. 2002. IUCN Protected Areas Management Categories, Toronto, ON.
PEIL (Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd.), Dougan & Associates, C. Portt & Associates, Naylor
Engineering, and Prof. P. Chrisholm. 2004. Hanlon State-of-the-Subwatershed Study. Final Report.
Peterjohn, B. G. 2003. Agricultural landscapes: can they support healthy bird populations as well as farm
products? The Auk 120: 14 - 19.
Pywell, R., and P. Putwain. 1996. Restoration and conservation gain. Pages 204 - 221 in I. F. Spellberg, ed.
Conservation Biology. Longman.
Region of Peel. 2001. Official Plan, Brampton, ON.
Region of Waterloo. 1998. Regional Official Plan Policie s, December 1998 Consolidation. Section 4.3
Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas. Region of Waterloo.
Region of Waterloo. 2004a. Progress Report on Greenlands Strategy Implementation and Greenlands
Strategy Discussion Paper: A Regional Growth Management Strategy Initiative. Submitted to chair Jim
Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee by the Department of Planning, Housing
and Community Services, October 5, 2004. File # D04-90/GL. 5 p. + attachement.
Region of Waterloo. 2004b. Towards a Policy Framework for Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes: A
Preliminary Discussion Paper (Preliminary DRAFT: For Discussion Only). Version Date: Wednesday,
August 18, 2004 (Docs#116631). 18 p.
Regosin, J. V., B. S. Windmiller, and J. M. Reed. 2003. Terrestrial habitat use and winter densities of the
wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Journal of Herpetology 37: 390 - 394.
Renken, R. B., W. K. Gram, D. K. Fantz, S. C. Richter, T. J. Miller, K. B. Ricke, B. Russell, and X. Wang.
2004. Effects of forest management on amphibians and reptiles in Missouri Ozark Forests. Conservation
Biology 18: 174 - 188.
Richter, K. O., and A. L. Azous. 2000a. Amphibian distribution, abundance, and habitat use. Pages 143 165 in A. L. Azous and R. R. Horner, eds. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future . Lewis
Publishers, New York.
Richter, K. O., and A. L. Azous. 2000b. Bird communities in relation to watershed development. Pages
275 - 283 in A. L. Azous and R. R. Horner, eds. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future .
Lewis Publishers, New York.
Richter, K. O., and A. L. Azous. 2000c. Terrestrial small mammal distribution, abundance, and habitat
use. Pages 201 - 218 in A. L. Azous and R. R. Horner, eds. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for
the Future. Lewis Publishers, New York.
Riitters, K., J. Wickham, R. O'Neill, B. Jones, and E. Smith. 2000. Global-scale patterns of forest
fragmentation. Conservation Ecology 4: 3.
Roberge, J., and P. Angelstam. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool.
Conservation Biology 18: 76 - 85.
Rollins, K., and H. C. Briggs III. 1996. Moral hazard, externalities, and compensation for crop damages
from wildlife. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 368 - 386.
Rothermel, B. B., and R. D. Semlitsch. 2002. An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of
forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conservation Biology 16: 1324 - 1332.
Rudolph, D. C., and J. G. Dickson. 1990. Streamside zone width and amphibian and reptile abundance.
The Southwestern Naturalist 35: 472 - 476.
Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18 - 32.
Semlitsch, R. D., and J. R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology
12: 1129 - 1133.
Semlitsch, R. D., and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian
habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17: 1219 - 1228.
45
Smith, A. E., O. Weldon, W. Slaugter, H. Peeler, and N. Matripragada. 1993. A greenhouse system for
determining pesticide movement from golf course greens. Journal of Environmental Quality 22: 864 867.
Soulé, M. E., and J. Terborgh. 1999. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales - a scientific
program for North America. BioScience 49: 809 - 817.
Spackman, S. C., and J. W. Hughes. 1995. Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological
conservation: Species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA. Biological
Conservation 71: 325 - 332.
Stolton, S., B. Geier, IFOAM, and J. A. McNeely. 1996. Introduction: The relationship between nature
conservation, biodiversity and organic agriculture. 13 p. Organic Agriculture is Essential for Conserving
Biodiversity and Nature . IFOAM - IUCN - AIAB.
Tilt, N. 2002. Wildlife Wise. Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association and Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Guelph, ON.
Tjallingii, S. P. 2000. Ecology on the edge: Landscape and ecology between town and country. Landscape
and Urban Planning 48: 103 - 119.
Town of Caledon. 2002. Amendment No. 173 to the Official Plan of Caledon Planning Area. 15 p. Town of
Caledon.
TRC. 2001. Regional Watershed Monitoring Program 2001: Status Report. Toronto and Region
Conservation.
TRC. 2004. DRAFT Toronto and Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. 57 p. +appendices.
Toronto and Region Conservation.
TRCA. 1993. Environmentally Significant Areas Criteria. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
TRCA. 1998. State of the Subwatershed Report: Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Subwatersheds. Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority.
Ursic, K. A., N. C. Kenkel, and D. W. arson. 1997. Revegetation dynamics of cliff faces in abandoned
limestone quarries. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 289 - 303.
VanBuskirk, J., and Y. Willi. 2004. Enhancement of farmland biodiversity within set-aside land.
Conservation Biology 18: 987 - 994.
Vickery, J. A., R. B. Bradbury, I. G. Henderson, M. A. Eaton, and P. V. Grice. 2004. The role of agrienvironment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in
England. Biological Conservation 119: 19 - 39.
Villard, M. A. 1998. On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogmas in avian
conservation. The Auk 115: 801-805.
Villard, M. A., M. K. Trzcinski, and G. Merriam. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative
importance of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774 783.
Vos, C. C., J. Verboom, P. F. M. Opdam, and C. J. F. Ter Braak. 2001. Towards ecologically scaled
landscape indices. The American Naturalist 183: 24 - 41.
Weber, T., and J. Wolf. 2000. Maryland's green infrastructure - using landscape assessment tools to
identify a regional conservation strategy. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 265 - 277.
Wegner, J. F., and a. G. Merriam. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a wood and
adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 349 - 357.
Weyrauch, S. L., and T. C. Grubb. 2004. Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the
distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: and information-theoretic
approach. Biological Conservation 115: 443 - 450.
Wiens, J. A. 1995. Landscape mosaics and ecological theory. Pages 1 -10 in L. Hansson and L. Fahrig, eds.
Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman & Hall, New York.
Wiens, J. A. 2002. Central concepts and issues of landscape ecology. Pages 3 - 21 in K. J. Gutzwiller, ed.
Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Williams, P., M. Whitfield, J. Biggs, S. Bray, G. Fox, P. Nicolet, and D. Sear. 2003. Comparative
biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England.
Biological Conservation 115: 239 - 341.
With, K. A. 1999. Landscape conservation: A new paradigm for conservation of biodiversity. Pages 78 - 87
in J. A. Wiens and M. R. Moss, eds. Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association for Landscape
Ecology Fifth World Congress, Colorado.
46