Conceptualizing landscape as either cultural or natural leads to an hierarchial biotic or biogeographic landscape classification system. This system has three components: urban, agricultural or natural “islands”; each of these can be surrounded by a dominant matrix of one of the others. This simple landscape typology provides a planning framework at various scales of jurisdictional interest. The difficulties of developing landscape management strategies for the urbanizing portion of Southern Ontario, predominantly in agricultural use, are illustrated by examining historical and cultural land-use trends. Selecting from a list of 42 technical principles for environmental management, the specific landscape planning and management strategies applicable to the various landscape scales — Federal, Provincial, Watershed, County, and Urban, and for various types of projects are examined. The question of resource inventory, mapping, and evaluative procedures for cultural-historical resources, and for renewable and non-renewable natural resources is then addressed in the context of policy planning and plan preparation for the Waterloo Regional (County) government. Eight years of advice from the Regional Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee illustrates the role such advisory committees can play in the land-use planning and evaluation process appropriate to a Regional Municipality government structure, as well as the political difficulties such advisory committees engender. For these two lower governmental levels, appropriate use of base maps of biophysical, (abiotic, biotic) cultural—historic, and agricultural features coupled with the use of environmental assessment and environmental design, can facilitate environmental management intervention at critical junctures. Patterns of urban growth, urban and agricultural water supply, energy conservation, sewage, recycling of solid wastes, agricultural drainage, inappropriate crop uses of agricultural land, degradation of woodlands, renovation of gravel pits and valley-lands, urban rehabilitation, development of environmental data banks, and management/ownership of high-quality natural or sensitive areas require action. Because local governments are more knowledgeable about cultural and regional nuances, direct transfer payments or block grants to local governments might better achieve environmental quality objectives rather than more upper-level planning legislation, or regulation. An expanded role for the private sector in environmental management is outlined.