The first ten chapters of this technical document focus on identifying and prioritising significant wildlife habitat. There are, however, six other types of natural heritage features identified in the Natural Heritage Component of the Provincial Policy Statement. To be ecologically functional, the best examples of all of the natural heritage features should be identified and protected. The mosaic of natural heritage features on the landscape and the connections among them is known as a Natural Heritage System (OMNR 1999).

The other natural heritage features (in addition to significant wildlife habitat) are significant wetlands, the significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant ANSIs, and fish habitat. Methods for identifying and protecting these features are presented in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) and supporting technical documents, where available.

Once all natural heritage features have been identified, they should be mapped. This map then should be closely examined to see if a functional natural heritage system has been put in place. Key questions to ask:

Are there examples of all seven types of natural heritage features on the map? Note that there may be no examples of some of these in certain planning authority's jurisdictions. For instance, there may be no endangered or threatened species, significant wetlands, or ANSIs in some municipalities. Significant woodlands and valleylands are not designated on the Canadian Shield. Conceivably, planning authorities that straddle the Shield could have significant woodlands or valleylands in part of their jurisdiction, but not on the Shield. If not all types of natural heritage features are represented in the municipality, the planning authority should confirm that they do not exist and have not been overlooked.

Is all fish habitat adequately protected by the natural heritage system? Unlike the other six types of natural heritage features, where the best examples are protected, all fish habitat is considered equal under the federal Fisheries Act. If development is allowed to proceed that have negative impacts on fish habitat, the proponent and possibly even the planning authority may be in contravention of the Fisheries Act.

Are there good connections among natural areas? If there are isolated areas, thought should be given to connecting them to the remainder of the natural heritage system. This may not need to be a corridor per se, but it could be a series of smaller natural areas that could act as stepping stones for species travelling across the landscape. Some of the evaluated natural heritage features (i.e. non significant wetlands or wildlife habitat) that did not stand out as best examples might be included in the natural heritage system if they fulfil a linkage function.

11.1 Gap analysis

A gap analysis is the process of determining what is unrepresented or under represented from a planning area. The OMNR techniques for undertaking a gap analysis are presented in Appendix E. It should be referred to for more detail, but a brief overview is provided below.

After the natural heritage system has been mapped and examined in the above broad fashion, it should be looked at in more detail. The first step, if it were not undertaken during initial phases, should be to break the planning area into physiographic units. This could be done at a variety of scales:

  • Site region. Some planning areas will be in more than one site region.
  • Site district. Many planning areas will be in more than one site district.
  • Physiographic area. Most planning areas will have more than one physiographic unit within their boundaries, as defined by Chapman and Putnam (1984).
  • Soil types. All planning areas will contain more than one soil type.

All of these units (where applicable) should be indicated on the natural heritage system map. Then each of the types of natural heritage features should be re-examined to see if they are adequately represented in each physiographic unit.

This analysis may reveal large disparities within the natural heritage system. For instance, all of the significant woodlands may be in one physiographic unit, and unrepresented in others. If most of the municipality were on a forested moraine, it may have been decided that significant woodlands should be 30 ha in size. By applying this criterion to the entire municipality, none of the woodlands on till plains may have met the size criterion. Once the planning area is subdivided into physiographic units, it may be obvious that there is a need for more than one set of criteria. In this example, woodlands as small as 4 ha or even 2 ha might be significant on the till plain although the 30 ha criteria may remain in place on the forested moraine.

Wetlands are another good example. Using the same scenario, the moraine may have several significant wetlands as well as many other wetlands that did not achieve provincial significance. On the till plain, there may be no significant wetlands according to the wetland evaluation system and the PPS. Wetlands in general may be small and rare on this physiographic unit, so the planning authority may wish to protect the best examples of these wetlands.

At the broad scale, the natural heritage system should be evaluated for distribution of natural areas and features within the physiographic units that the planning authority has decided to use. Once this has been completed and criteria adjusted as necessary to ensure as complete a representation as possible within each unit, it is time to look at it at a finer scale. Failure to look holistically at natural heritage features at least within major physiographic units may result in certain significant features being overlooked, subsequently lost, and possibly unnecessary challenges of the natural heritage system at the Ontario Municipal Board.

11.1.1 Gap analysis of vegetation communities

As part of the process of identifying significant woodlands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat, it is likely that planning authorities will have a good idea of what vegetation communities occur within their jurisdiction. Examination of FRI maps, air photos, watershed studies, and other information will help confirm vegetation community types. The distribution of vegetation communities should be examined within the entire municipality and within the different physiographic units.

This is frequently a very enlightening process. It may become apparent that there are certain rare habitats throughout the planning area. In this case, they could be considered significant wildlife habitat for the entire municipality. What is often surprising is that some of the most common vegetation communities in the planning area may be rare or unrepresented in some physiographic units. For example, upland white cedar coniferous forest may be common to abundant on the portion of the planning area that is on the Shield, but rare in the agricultural portion of the area. Disparities in the distribution of vegetation communities may be even more profound if the planning authority is examined at the soil-type level.

Certain planning areas may contain small portions of a different forest region. For example, some may have Carolinian and Great-Lakes St. Lawrence forest regions, or Great-Lakes St. Lawrence and Boreal forest regions. It is essential that good representation of each type be maintained.

As in the case of looking at the broad scale of distribution of the major types of natural heritage features, it may be necessary to have different criteria for vegetation communities by physiographic unit to ensure good representation within the planning area.

There may have been vegetation communities within the planning area that no longer exist. Prairies and savannahs are classic examples, with less than one percent of the original coverage of these habitats remaining. Many wetlands have also been lost (about 70 percent in the south), so that certain types of wetlands may have been lost entirely from the planning area, or wetlands may have disappeared from certain physiographic units.

One source of information for determining historical vegetation community distribution is the notes of the original land surveyors. They were commissioned to survey the land before extensive land clearing. This information has been mapped and is available from the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture, and Recreation, and from the Natural Heritage Information Centre. The quality of this information varies, depending on the interest and identification skills of the surveyor. However, these maps may be invaluable in identifying areas where there were prairies, savannahs, specific forest types and wetlands.

Another technique for identifying where wetlands previously occurred, is to examine older topographical and soil maps. Areas on old topographical maps where there are wetland symbols or organic soils indicated on soil maps were likely previous wetlands. A series of wetland approximation maps has been prepared using this information. The maps are available from Environment Canada.

The current distribution of vegetation communities within the planning authority's jurisdiction compared to historical times may give a very good indication of which communities are currently poorly represented and, if rehabilitation is planned, where it can be focused.

11.1.2 Gap analysis of species

At the finest level of gap analysis, planning authorities should look at the distribution of species within their jurisdiction. This, of course, requires a more intimate knowledge of the ecology of the area than looking at vegetation communities.

Initially, this might be done at a guild level, by lumping species with similar broad habitat characteristics together. For instance, by examining the various atlases, it may become apparent that area-sensitive bird species and amphibians are well distributed in the portion of the planning area that is on the Niagara Escarpment, but rare to absent on the clay plain below it. Again, different criteria for the maintenance of habitat for these species should be derived for different physiographic units. This analysis will also demonstrate which species are lacking habitat in certain portions of the planning area.

A gap analysis for individual species may also be undertaken. This may be done at the physiographic unit level within the planning area, or species that are lacking from the planning area entirely may be identified. This may be done by consulting the various atlases, knowledgeable individuals, and a CAC, if the planning authority has one.

Some species appear to be shifting their ranges southward, such as ravens, black bears, and fishers. Planning authorities that are currently near the range of these species (where they still do not occur) should consider if there is a need to provide habitat for them. In certain cases, it may be necessary to consider whether these species are desirable in the planning area before attempting to rehabilitate habitat for them. For instance, in a planning area that is experiencing significant human population growth, it may not be desirable to encourage black bears.

By examining the atlases, particularly, the breeding bird atlas, it may become apparent that certain species occur adjacent, or even all around, the planning area, but are absent within it. In these instances, these species may be targets for restoration work to provide habitat for them.

11.2 Restoration and rehabilitation opportunities

Gap analysis will have identified what natural heritage features, vegetation communities, species and functions are absent from all or a portion of the planning area, and also what features are degraded and would benefit from rehabilitation.

Many organisations and local clubs are actively involved in habitat and species restoration. A small number of examples are listed in Appendix F. The gap analysis described above may provide a starting point for restoration efforts within a planning area.

Several excellent documents deal with habitat restoration and rehabilitation. Planning authorities as well as private organisations that wish to improve their natural environment are urged to consult them.

Riley and Mohr (1994) summarise the ecological principals behind establishing a natural heritage system and identify municipalities that were deficient in forest cover.

Noss (1995) provides valuable information on using physiographic units as the basis for ecological frameworks.

A manual prepared by Environment Canada, OMNR, and the Ministry of the Environment (1998) identifies targets for habitat restoration for aquatic and terrestrial habitats and indicates which species might be expected at lower thresholds of restoration.

The Waterfront Regeneration Trust (1995) have a book on restoring natural habitats. This is a practical manual that gives advice on how to decide what to restore, and then how to do it.

The Temperate Wetland Restoration Guidelines (OMNR, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Ducks Unlimited Canada, 1998) describe the ecology of wetlands and provide step-by-step details on how to create or restore a wetland. This manual goes through the entire process from initial planning to as-built drawings and monitoring requirements.

It is recommended that before habitat restoration and rehabilitation efforts be considered the proponent should consult the aforementioned publications. Some of them define the philosophy and rationale for conducting restoration; some provide targets, while others are how-to manuals.

Several sources of funding may be available to those wishing to undertake habitat restoration. Many of these funds are channelled through government agencies and nationally or provincially based private organisations. Funding sources and partnerships change depending on agency priorities. It is recommended that the agencies listed in Appendix F be contacted to inquire about available programs and partnership opportunities. Some specific programs and suggestions are provided below:

  • The Community Fisheries/Wildlife Involvement Program (CFWIP) is sponsored by OMNR. Projects that involve habitat improvements for fisheries and/or wildlife may be funded. Generally, OMNR will fund materials necessary for habitat rehabilitation work if labour required to conduct the work is volunteered by a group or landowner.
  • The Eastern Joint Habitat Venture (EJHV) encourages conservation and restoration of wildlife habitat, particularly if it benefits waterfowl and contributes to achieving the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Grants are given to landowners and stakeholders that improve habitats, especially wetlands.
  • Ducks Unlimited Canada will provide assessments of habitat restoration and creation on private and public land if it has the potential to improve habitat for waterfowl. If there will be positive benefits, Ducks Unlimited will do the necessary habitat management provided that the landowner enters into a long-term agreement to protect the habitat. Management undertaken by Ducks Unlimited and also those projects funded by the Eastern Joint Habitat Venture may assist planning authorities in achieving their targets for certain habitat types and species. Wetlands created for waterfowl also benefit all other groups of wildlife and contribute to biodiversity.
  • The planning authority should check to see if it is in a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC). The International Joint Commission has identified these areas as having significantly degraded water quality. Sixteen of these sites occur in Ontario, and the objective is to improve habitat in all of them so that they can be de-listed. Rehabilitation plans are in place for all sixteen sites. If restoration plans of the municipality are likely to contribute to the rehabilitation programs identified for the AOC, the Great Lakes Cleanup Fund may assist with funding.
  • Local conservation authorities may have programs for private landowners that help defray costs of habitat restoration, such as for tree planting. Co-ordination with the conservation authority may help to target landowners where a high priority for habitat management has been identified.
  • If there are highly significant habitats within the municipality, such as Carolinian forests, prairies, or savannahs, groups such as Carolinian Canada, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Habitat Canada and Wetlands International may be interested in assisting with habitat restoration.
  • Consider setting up a foundation that raises funds from the public. This has been a proven success at many natural areas (e.g. Second Marsh). This needs a dedicated core of individuals who can effectively communicate goals, needs, and results to the public.