Connecting the Green Dots: The Natural Heritage Reference Manual
Woodlands, wetlands and wildlife are integral parts of our natural environment, inherently connected to our communities. In Ontario, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) provides direction for land use planning related to natural heritage features and systems. It also provides important direction for other land use decisions, such as urban expansion or aggregate extraction, that often conflict with environmental protection measures.
In April 2010, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) published the second edition of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (the “Manual”). The Manual provides MNR’s direction on what planning authorities, such as municipalities, planning boards and conservation authorities, should consider when creating, reviewing or approving land use policies or vetting development proposals.
Contents |
One-Window Planning System
Up until the mid-1990s, MNR, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and other ministries all reviewed and approved planning documents and applications. Each ministry was an approval authority and provided a separate position based on its mandate. Each could appeal decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
In 1996, this process changed with the introduction of the municipal plan review and the one-window planning service, which were designed to streamline and co-ordinate the review of land use planning applications. Under the new processes, the approval authority is either the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) or the municipality. When MMAH is the approval authority (one-window planning service), ministries can provide input to MMAH on policy positions and technical reviews when requested (e.g., for official plan amendments). When the municipality is the approval authority (municipal plan review), ministries like MNR and MOE do not officially review planning applications. Other than MMAH, ministries cannot appeal municipal decisions to the OMB. To aid municipalities in their new role, MNR, MOE and other ministries share data and create reference manuals, such as the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, on specific technical issues related to the PPS and matters of provincial interest.
Natural Heritage Reference Manual
The Manual synthesizes MNR’s recommended technical criteria and approaches for planning authorities to implement PPS natural heritage policies on the ground (e.g., during the development, review and approval of official plan amendments and during the review and approval of development applications). It also provides guidance for matters before provincial boards and tribunals, such as the OMB. MNR revised the Manual to be consistent with the 2005 PPS policies and to update its technical information based on advancements in our understanding of natural heritage over the last decade.
For example, the Manual provides guidance in the following areas:
- Recommending evaluation criteria and standards for municipalities to identify significant woodlands and
significant valleylands. The ECO has previously commented on the lack of evaluation criteria for significant woodlands and recommended in our 2008/2009 Annual Report that MMAH’s 2010 review of the PPS should introduce effective mechanisms for protecting significant woodlands, including mechanisms for woodland evaluation, designation, tracking and reporting;
- Recommending adjacent land widths for natural heritage features where development may affect features’
ecological functions (in most cases, these areas have been increased from the 1999 edition of the Manual);
- Providing guidance for planning authorities to determine whether there are “no negative impacts” from
proposed development and site alteration (e.g., what should be included in an environmental impact study) on natural heritage and potential mitigation measures;
- Providing guidance for municipalities to update their official plans and zoning by-laws to reflect any changes
to criteria between the first and second edition of the Manual; and
- Increasing emphasis on the connectivity and linkages between natural heritage features.
Natural Heritage System Planning
The Manual synthesizes MNR’s recommended technical criteria and approaches for planning authorities to implement PPS natural heritage policies on the ground (e.g., during the development, review and approval of official plan amendments and during the review and approval of development applications). It also provides guidance for matters before provincial boards and tribunals, such as the OMB. MNR revised the Manual to be consistent with the 2005 PPS policies and to update its technical information based on advancements in our understanding of natural heritage over the last decade.
For example, the Manual provides guidance in the following areas:
- Recommending evaluation criteria and standards for municipalities to identify significant woodlands and
significant valleylands. The ECO has previously commented on the lack of evaluation criteria for significant woodlands and recommended in our 2008/2009 Annual Report that MMAH’s 2010 review of the PPS should introduce effective mechanisms for protecting significant woodlands, including mechanisms for woodland evaluation, designation, tracking and reporting;
- Recommending adjacent land widths for natural heritage features where development may affect features’
ecological functions (in most cases, these areas have been increased from the 1999 edition of the Manual);
- Providing guidance for planning authorities to determine whether there are “no negative impacts” from
proposed development and site alteration (e.g., what should be included in an environmental impact study) on natural heritage and potential mitigation measures;
- Providing guidance for municipalities to update their official plans and zoning by-laws to reflect any changes
to criteria between the first and second edition of the Manual; and
- Increasing emphasis on the connectivity and linkages between natural heritage features.
Natural Heritage System Planning
Prior to European settlement, large connected forests, wetlands and other natural areas covered most of southern Ontario. As the population increased, urban and suburban development, farms, aggregate pits, roads, railways and utility corridors spread across the landscape. Approximately 80 per cent of woodlands, 72 per cent of wetlands and more than 99 per cent of prairies and savannahs have been lost in southern Ontario since pre-settlement times.
Historically, environmental planning focused on protecting areas on a feature-by-feature basis. For example, some forms of development would not be allowed within a feature, such as a provincially significant wetland. Yet, development would be allowed around it, potentially isolating it and impairing many of its key ecological values. This resulted in smaller, disconnected “islands of green” that were surrounded by houses, buildings and roads. This fragmentation of ecosystems – a key driver of biodiversity loss in southern Ontario – leads to habitat degradation and loss, accelerates species conversion and loss from edge effects, and facilitates the invasion by non-native species. The long-term survival of plants and animals is threatened when their ability to disperse to other natural areas is reduced.
Rather than planning for the protection of individual features, the concept of landscape or natural heritage system planning is a more effective method of maintaining, conserving and restoring fragmented natural landscapes and biodiversity. The PPS defines a natural heritage system 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.”
Natural heritage systems planning allows the whole to be considered as a collection of interacting parts, rather than viewing such things as wetlands and woodlands as discrete and disconnected entities. A number of jurisdictions, including those in British Columbia, Florida, Germany and the Netherlands, are now using this concept to maintain or restore linkages between features and to address other issues, such as climate change, ecological resilience, ecosystem services and community public health.
The PPS does require that “the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.” However, it fails to take the critical next step and actually require municipalities to identify and plan for natural heritage systems. Thankfully, some municipalities and conservation authorities have voluntarily undertaken the preparation of natural heritage system plans (see Figure 4.1.1).
In southern Ontario, a patchwork of natural heritage systems has been identified at the municipal, watershed and regional levels (e.g., the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine). However, there is still no “big picture” or coarse-scale natural heritage system developed by the government for southern Ontario that connects the local and regional features, functions and linkages.
In the absence of a provincially defined system, environmental organizations, occasionally in collaboration with MNR, have taken the lead to fill this gap. For example, in 2002 the Nature Conservancy of Canada, in partnership with MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre, expanded Carolinian Canada’s Big Picture project to identify key natural areas and linkages in southern Ontario. Unfortunately, these types of exercises carry little, if any, legal weight as they are not considered to be Ontario government policy.
Figure 4.1.1. The general status of natural heritage systems (NHSs) developed and incorporated into municipal official plans in southern Ontario. Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010.
ECO Comment
The ECO commends MNR on its development of the new Natural Heritage Reference Manual, particularly with its increased emphasis on linking and connecting wetlands, woodlands and other natural heritage features. MNR has brought important ecological knowledge into the land use planning process. This Manual should serve as a useful tool for municipalities and other planning authorities that are either beginning or in the process of identifying and planning their local natural heritage systems.
Our understanding of the importance of planning for natural heritage systems and providing connectivity among natural heritage features has evolved considerably in the last decade. While MNR amended the Manual to reflect much of this progress, the PPS itself remains relatively unchanged. This is a critical flaw undermining the specific application of the Manual and, more broadly, the knowledge gained in recent years. The ECO has repeatedly reported that the PPS fails to adequately protect natural heritage features and systems because of its
“development-first, environment-second” approach to land use planning. It also ignores the reality that landscape features and functions drive land uses (and their constraints) as much as, if not more, than our economy does.
While the PPS states that natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, it fails to require that municipalities identify and plan local systems. Some municipalities and conservation authorities, nevertheless, have developed or are developing plans for protecting natural heritage systems and have been or are integrating them into official plans. These municipalities and conservation authorities are to be commended. The ECO urges MMAH to amend the PPS to require that all municipalities identify natural heritage systems and include them in their official plans.
Where they exist, local natural heritage systems are extremely beneficial, but they may lack the added direction of big picture thinking tying them to the broader landscape. In southern Ontario, the government has not publicly released a complete coarse-scale or overlay natural heritage system. While the government has identified natural heritage systems in specific land use plans, such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, they only cover a small portion of southern Ontario. To stem the loss of biodiversity, perhaps our province’s greatest challenge in the decade ahead, the ECO believes that it is imperative for MNR to develop a coarse-scale natural heritage system for southern Ontario. This provincial direction is needed by municipalities to build upon when identifying and planning their fine-scale systems to connect greenlands.
| Recommendation 4:
The ECO recommends that MNR develop a coarse-scale, overarching natural heritage system for southern Ontario |
| Previous section: Part 4 – Planning Solutions |
| Next section: An Incentive for Private Land Conservation |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Connecting the Green Dots: The Natural Heritage Reference Manual." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 52-55.
