Successes and Challenges of Implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

Successes and Challenges of Implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan by Kathleen Allison Watt A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Human Geography Department of Geography and Planning University of Toronto Copyright by Kathleen Watt 2016

Successes and Challenges of Implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Kathleen Watt Master of Arts in Human Geography Department of Geography and Planning University of Toronto 2016 Abstract A common planning response to urbanizing regions is the creation of protected zones or greenbelts at the edge of existing urban development, with the goal of controlling the location of future development while conserving natural features. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002) was created by the Ontario Provincial Government to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine, one of the few remaining large greenspace corridors in southern Ontario that is threatened by the expansion of the Greater Toronto Area. This research investigates the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine. It explores the successes and challenges of implementing the Plan and the proposed changes by the provincial government. Regional town hall meetings and open houses were attended, and interviews and questionnaires were conducted. The results suggest the Plan has effectively protected the Moraine through changing building practices, although the Plan requires some modifications to better protect the Moraine. ii

Acknowledgments I would first like to thank all of the interview participants who contributed to this research. Their perspectives provided valuable insight that contributed greatly to my findings. Special thanks go out to Joyce Chau, Executive Director of EcoSpark; her time and input during the beginning of this research is particularly appreciated. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Tenley Conway. She has provided unconditional support, guidance, and advice throughout my coursework, research, and writing process. As well, special thanks go out to Dr. Laurel Besco and Dr. Virginia Maclaren for serving on my thesis defense committee and providing their expertise in this area. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends. They have been incredibly helpful and supportive while I have completed my studies and pursued my education. This research was conducted with the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council through the Canadian Graduate Scholarships Master s award. iii

Table of Contents Abstract... ii Acknowledgments... iii Table of Contents... iv List of Tables... viii List of Figures... ix List of Appendices...x List of Abbreviations... xi Chapter 1 Introduction...1 Introduction...1 1.1 Overview of Thesis...1 Chapter 2 Literature Review...3 Literature Review...3 2.1 Introduction...3 2.2 Urban Sprawl and Urban Containment Policies...3 2.2.1 Reducing Urban Sprawl...4 2.2.2 Forms of Urban Containment...5 Greenbelts...5 Urban Growth Boundaries...5 Urban Service Areas...6 2.2.3 The Effectiveness of Urban Containment Policies...6 2.3 Importance of the Moraine...7 2.3.1 Ecological...7 Water Systems...7 Habitats...8 Climate Change...8 2.3.2 Economic...9 Aggregate Extraction...9 Agriculture...9 2.3.3 Social and Cultural...9 Recreation...10 Historic...10 2.4 Ontario Land Use Policies...10 2.4.1 Creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Plan...11 2.4.2 Additional Planning Legislation and Policies in Ontario...13 2.4.3 Successes and Challenges of the Ontario Greenbelt...13 2.4.4 Stakeholders Perspectives Regarding Ontario Land Use Policies...15 2.4.5 Requirements for Public Participation...16 2.5 Threats to the Moraine...16 2.5.1 Changes in Land Use and Land Cover...17 2.5.2 Urban Development...18 iv

2.5.3 Resource Extraction...18 2.5.4 The Lack of a Central Regulatory Body...19 2.6 Knowledge Gaps...20 2.6.1 Monitoring the Moraine...20 2.6.2 Monitoring Implementation of the Plan...22 2.6.3 Filling the Research Gap...22 Chapter 3 Study Area and Methods...24 Study Area and Methods...24 3.1 Study Area...24 3.2 Methods...25 3.2.1 Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings...25 3.2.2 Interviews...29 3.2.3 Questionnaire...32 Chapter 4 Successes in Implementing the Plan...34 Successes in Implementing the Plan...34 4.1 Modifies Building Practices and Reduces Urban Sprawl...34 4.1.1 Set the Limits for Settlement Areas...34 4.1.2 Designates Acceptable and Unacceptable Actions...35 4.1.3 Reduces Large Estate Residential Development...37 4.2 Protects Key Natural Features...39 4.2.1 Added Layer of Protection...39 4.2.2 Creates Buffer Zones...40 4.3 Raises Awareness and Protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine...43 4.3.1 Funding...43 4.3.2 Public Awareness and Support...44 4.3.3 Securement of Land and Stewardship...44 4.3.4 Monitoring...46 4.3.5 Restoration...48 Chapter 5 Challenges in Implementing the Plan...49 Challenges in Implementing the Plan...49 5.1 Implementation of the Plan...49 5.1.1 Inconsistent Implementation of the Plan Among Municipalities...49 5.1.2 Boundary Lines...50 5.1.3 Assessments and Appeals Tend to Side with Developers...52 5.1.4 Other Land Use Planning Legislation...53 5.2 Language Used and Legibility of Plan...54 5.2.1 Challenging to Understand and Interpret the Plan...54 5.2.2 Inconsistent Definitions...55 5.3 Transitional Development...56 5.3.1 Continued Development in the Moraine...56 5.3.2 Tracking Transitional Development...59 5.4 Infrastructure...61 5.4.1 Green Energy Infrastructure...61 5.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure...62 v

5.5 Emerging Issues Not Addressed in the Plan...63 5.5.1 Commercial Fill...63 5.5.2 Water Taking...65 5.6 Funding...66 5.6.1 Reduced Funds for Land Securement...67 5.6.2 Reduced Monitoring Efforts...67 5.6.3 Funding and Resources Differ Among Municipalities...68 5.7 Lack of a Central Regulating Body...69 5.8 Leapfrog Development...70 5.9 Minor Development Requires Site Plan Approval...72 5.10 Challenges for Agriculture...73 5.10.1 Restrictions in Expanding and Development...74 5.10.2 High Cost of Farm Land...74 5.10.3 Limitations on the Sale of Agricultural Land...76 5.10.4 Tension with Residential Neighbours...77 Chapter 6 Proposed Changes of Co-ordinated Review...79 Proposed Changes...79 6.1 Plan Introduction...79 6.2 Aligned Plans...80 6.3 Definitions...80 6.4 Agricultural Sector...81 6.5 Directs Urban Growth to Consider Climate Change...83 6.6 Infrastructure...84 6.7 Endangered Species Habitats...85 6.8 Hydrological Features...85 6.9 Excess Soil and Fill...87 6.10 Settlement Area Expansion...87 6.11 Concerns of the Growth Plan...88 Chapter 7 Recommendations, Future Research, and Conclusion...90 Recommendations, Future Research, and Conclusion...90 7.1 Recommendations...90 7.1.1 Plan...90 Maintain Strength of the Plan and Settlement Area Boundary Lines...90 Some Flexibility for Minor Development on Private Property...91 Increase the Minimum Buffer Requirement...92 Create a Sunset Clause for Transitional Development...92 Oversight for Infrastructure...92 Regulations for Issues Not Addressed in the Plan...93 Consistent Language and Definitions...94 7.1.2 Tools...94 Database...94 Workshops...95 7.1.3 Additional Funding...95 Land Acquisition and Securement...95 Monitoring Efforts by Conservation Authorities and ENGOs...96 vi

Resources for Smaller Municipalities and Conservation Authorities to Implement the Plan...96 7.1.4 Oversight...96 7.2 Contributions and Future Research...97 7.3 Conclusion...99 References...104 Appendices...112 Appendix A Interview Guide Municipality...112 Appendix B Interview Guide Other...116 Appendix C Questionnaire...120 vii

List of Tables Table 3.1 Coding Themes... 27 Table 3.2 Interview participants... 30 viii

List of Figures Figure 3.1 Oak Ridges Moraine Map. Source: The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, 2005... 24 Figure 3.2 Components of the Greenbelt in the Toronto Metropolitan Plan. Source: Neptis Foundation, 2005... 25 ix

List of Appendices Appendix A Interview Guide Municipalities...112 Appendix B Interview Guide Other...116 Appendix C Questionnaire...120 x

List of Abbreviations Act CLOCA EAS EBR ENGO Foundation Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Environmental Assessment Study Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Non-Governmental Organization The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Growth Plan Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe GTA MMAH Moraine OMB Plan PPS STORM TRCA UCP UGB USA Greater Toronto Area Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Oak Ridges Moraine Ontario Municipal Board Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Provincial Policy Statement Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Urban Containment Policy Urban Growth Boundary Urban Service Areas USB Urban Service Boundary xi

Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction 1.1 Overview of Thesis A common planning response to rapidly urbanizing regions is the creation of protected zones or greenbelts at the edge of existing urban development, with the goal of controlling the location of future development while conserving key natural features. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 (the Act ), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002, (the Plan ) are designed to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine (the Moraine ). The Moraine is one of the few remaining large greenspace corridors in southern Ontario, which was and still is, threatened by the expansion of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA; Sandberg, Wekerle, & Gilbert, 2013). Located just north of the City of Toronto, the Moraine is 160 kilometres in length, and performs essential environmental functions, including filtering Ontario s drinking water and providing habitats for flora and fauna (Bradford, 2008; Hanna & Webber, 2010). There are four land use designations within the Moraine: Natural Core Areas (comprising 38% of the Moraine); Natural Linkage Areas (24%); Countryside Areas (30%); and Settlement Areas (8%; MMAH, 2002). Natural Core Areas are designed to protect lands with the largest number of key natural heritage features (ecologically sensitive features), and only existing uses or low intensity recreational or transportation uses are allowed within these lands (MMAH, 2002). Natural Linkage Areas are spaces between Natural Core Areas and Countryside Areas, such as streams and rivers (MMAH, 2002). Permitted land uses within Natural Linkage Areas include aggregate extraction pending thorough review and approval (MMAH, 2002). Countryside Areas protect agricultural and rural lands, while acting as a buffer between urban development and ecologically sensitive areas within the Moraine (MMAH, 2002). Rural settlements are allowed within Countryside Areas, such as hamlets and long-established communities, and major recreational development can occur upon examination and government approval (MMAH, 2002). The final land use designation is Settlement Areas, which are designated for existing and planned residential development to accommodate new growth in the Moraine (MMAH, 2002). Of the four categories of land use established by the Act, Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas are the most ecologically 1

2 sensitive, and use restrictions are aimed at protecting the large number of key natural heritage features within the Moraine (MMAH, 2002). Due to the ecological importance of the Moraine and the threat of urban development, it is important to determine the effectiveness of legislation protecting the Moraine. The Ontario Provincial Government began conducting a review of the Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) ( Growth Plan ), and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2005) in 2015 to determine the changes required in these plans to improve the effectiveness of the policy framework that manages growth and economic activity and protects environmental resources within southern Ontario. In particular, the government s review of the plans considers: the protection of agricultural land, water, and natural areas; infrastructure; community health; job creation in communities; climate change; and improving the implementation of the plans, and better aligning land use policies and plans (MMAH, 2015; Neptis Foundation, 2015). My master s thesis research project will examine changes resulting from the implementation of the Plan from 2002 to 2014. The objective of the thesis research is to assess the effectiveness of the Plan and its implementation in a sample of lower-tier municipalities to potentially help inform the provincial legislative review. The specific research questions are: 1. What successes and challenges have municipalities experienced in implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan? 2. How do stakeholders view the proposed changes and revisions from the 2015 Co-ordinated Land Use Review to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?

Literature Review 2.1 Introduction Chapter 2 Literature Review This literature review provides a context for consideration of the effectiveness of the Act and the Plan protecting the Moraine and incorporates various academic literature, government publications, and reports by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The prevalence of urban sprawl within North America, and its potential causes are examined, which demonstrate the importance of controlling urban expansion. Various urban containment approaches are identified to provide a conceptual framework for the thesis research, including greenbelts (such as the Ontario Greenbelt). Secondly, the ecological, economic, and social and cultural importance of the Moraine are examined to illustrate the importance of protecting the Moraine. Next, the events leading to the creation of the Act and the Plan are examined to help explain the current land use policies. The creation of the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan are also documented to provide context regarding the variety of land use policies in Ontario. The perspectives of various stakeholders regarding current land use policies are also highlighted as they provide important context for considering the pressures at work in balancing environmental considerations with human activities. Threats to the Moraine as identified in the literature and by NGOs are also explored, ranging from changes in land use and land cover, urban development, resource extraction, and the lack of a regulatory body overseeing the monitoring and implementation of the Plan. Finally, the review highlights gaps in the literature, which primarily focus on monitoring changes that take place in the Moraine and monitoring the implementation of the Plan. The review concludes by highlighting the need for additional research into evaluating the effectiveness of current land use policies, and how the thesis research will address these knowledge gaps. 2.2 Urban Sprawl and Urban Containment Policies Urban sprawl has recently dominated the landscape around many North American cities, and is a well-documented phenomena (Soule, 2006; Razin, 2005; Wheeler, 2003; Brueckner, 2000; 3

4 Wickersham, 2006; Zipperer, Wu, Pouyant, & Pickett, 2000). Urban sprawl is defined by lowdensity, automobile-dependent, single-family homes, built outside the central city (Soule, 2006). Open space, such as forests and farmland, is often converted to residential development, which can pose significant consequences to the environment (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Soule, 2006). Additionally, urban sprawl often causes added burdens for existing urban areas such as traffic congestion, higher air pollution, decay to older urban centres, and millions of dollars of government spending on additional social services (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Soule, 2006). Many scholars emphasize that as the global population increases, the use of urban containment policies to control urban development will become increasingly important to ensure sustainable growth (Feiock, Tavares, & Lubell, 2008; Ali, 2008; Ding, Knaap, & Hopkins, 1999). Most literature on urban sprawl focuses on the United States, however Canada experiences the same causes of urban sprawl (Razin, 2005). The factors that contribute to urban sprawl in Ontario are: relatively inexpensive land (Hanna & Webber, 2005); minimum-lot size zoning restrictions (McLaughlin, 2012; Talen, 2013); incentives provided to first time home buyers of new housing developments (Sandberg et al., 2013); an increase in the use of personal transportation (Hanna & Webber, 2005); and residents wanting to live closer to nature in the suburbs and commute into the city (McElhinny, 2006; Sandberg et al., 2013; Newbold & Scott, 2013). The GTA is expected to grow from 5.6 million residents in 2009 to 7.45 million by 2031 (Sandberg et al., 2013). The substantial increase in population in the GTA will escalate the demand for housing (Sandberg et al., 2013). The suburbs surrounding the GTA are the fastest growing area in Canada, and threaten the ecological integrity of the Moraine due to their close proximity (Sandberg et al., 2013; Gilbert, Sandberg, & Wekerle, 2009; Pond, 2009b). 2.2.1 Reducing Urban Sprawl Extensive research has been conducted regarding planning approaches to reduce urban sprawl (Webber & Hanna, 2014; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Talen, 2013; Taylor, Paine, & FitzGibbon, 1995; Taylor & Burchfield, 2010; Landis, 2006). Urban containment policies (UCPs) aim to curb urban sprawl through the use of planning guidelines that limit urban expansion. Many urban planning experts such as Nelson, Dawkins, & Sanchez (2007), Woo & Guldmann (2014), Ali (2008), and Wheeler (2003), emphasize the use of UCPs to protect ecologically sensitive land from development. They argue that UCPs protect open space, promote sustainable development, and

5 also retain services, taxes, and development within the central city (Nelson et al., 2007; Woo & Guldmann, 2014). Currently, more than 200 cities worldwide have some form of UCP in place (Woo & Guldmann, 2014). Canada uses a variety of urban containment policies. For example, the National Capital Greenbelt surrounds Ottawa to provide a green zone around the city (Taylor et al., 1995; Gordon & Scott, 2008). Vancouver has recently implemented a new planning policy using an urban containment boundary (Metro Vancouver, 2011; Pond, 2009b; Daoust-Filiatrault & Connell, 2014), and Quebec has land use legislation in place to protect agricultural lands from development (Pond, 2009b; Daoust-Filiatrault & Connell, 2014). 2.2.2 Forms of Urban Containment Scholars have highlighted three common UCPs: greenbelts, Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs); and Urban Service Areas (USAs), also known as Urban Service Boundaries (USBs) (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Bengston, Fletcher, & Nelson, 2004). The terms greenbelt, UGB, and USA are occasionally used interchangeably in the literature, although they are each distinct urban containment policies. Greenbelts A greenbelt is a protected zone of greenspace around a city where urban growth is prohibited, acting as a barrier to urban expansion (Forman, 2008; Vyn, 2012). The first official greenbelt was established in the United Kingdom around the city of London in 1938 (Amati & Yokohari, 2007; Carter-Whitney, 2008; Ali, 2008). It was similar to Ebenezer Howard s concept of a Garden City, which allowed open space for agriculture in close proximity to urban areas (Amati & Yokohari, 2007; Carter-Whitney, 2008; Ali, 2008). Since its development, greenbelts have become a popular UCP in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Asia (Amati & Yokohari, 2007; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Ali, 2008), and less common in the United States and Canada (Tayyebi, Pijanowski, & Tayyebi, 2011). Urban Growth Boundaries An UGB is an urban planning approach designed to limit the physical expansion of an urban community and preserve open space (Wickersham, 2006). UGBs draw a specific line around urban

6 portions of a metropolis where high density development is encouraged, while development is strongly discouraged outside of the boundary line (Seltzer, 2009). Once the UGB line is drawn, land inside and outside the boundary is zoned for specific uses, such as farmland, central business district, or transportation (Hiramatsu, 2014). The terms Urban Containment Boundary or Urban Growth Area are also used to refer to UGBs. Since their creation in the late 1950s, UGBs have become a common UCP in the United States to address urban sprawl; they help ensure high-density development occurs within the specified urban area while protecting open spaces from development (Bengston et al., 2004; Ding, Knaap, & Hopkins, 1999). Much of the literature on UGBs focuses on the United States, particularly on the UGB in Portland, Oregon, which is widely considered successful at reducing urban sprawl while protecting the surrounding forests (Seltzer, 2009; Ding et al., 1999). Urban Service Areas USAs are similar to UGBs in that they draw a line around urban centers, but the USA boundary defines where city provided services will be available in an attempt to prevent growth past the boundary (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Bengston et al., 2004). USAs can be effective in restricting development, and can retain services within a central area (Feiock, Tavares, & Lubell, 2008). They are shown to reduce urban sprawl and prevent other potential negatives of development while accommodating population growth (Feiock et al., 2008). While USAs are growing in popularity within the United States (Woo & Guldmann, 2014), there is relatively little research regarding USAs compared to greenbelts or UGBs. 2.2.3 The Effectiveness of Urban Containment Policies The literature often discusses UCPs based on their level of strictness. Greenbelts are considered the most stringent UCP since they typically allow little change to accommodate new growth (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Amati & Yokohari, 2006). UGBs are considered less stringent than greenbelts since they occasionally allow their boarders to be expanded to accommodate urban growth (Woo & Guldmann, 2014). USAs are the most flexible UCP since they often allow their boundaries to fluctuate based on societal demand (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Feiock et al., 2008). The majority of literature on UCPs consider stringent policies and firm boundary lines more effective at controlling urban sprawl since they limit urban development within specific borders (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Seltzer, 2009). Amati and Taylor (2010), however, argue that greenbelts are

7 more effective if they are slightly flexible, and if they are built with multiple perspectives in mind, such as agricultural, environmental, tourism, and growth, since they will experience greater support among residents. Some critics of UCPs question the entire concept of urban containment, and whether regulatory approaches such as UCPs cause changes in urbanization (Seltzer, 2009). Studies, however, have indicated that UCPs reduce urban sprawl, as well as protect forests and farmland from urbanization (Wickersham, 2006; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Carter-Whitney, 2008). Although others have also found that UCPs are more effective when they are used in conjunction with multiple land use policies (Seltzer, 2009; Fung & Conway, 2007; Boussauw, Allaert, & Witlox, 2013). For example, in order to ensure low-density development patterns are changed to high-density development, a policy aimed at urban compaction should be used in addition to the protective legislation (Boussauw et al., 2013). This has also led scholars to recognize that in order for urban containment policies to be effective, a change in land development patterns is required, where environmental, economic, and social policies are considered (Wickersham, 2006). 2.3 Importance of the Moraine The Moraine performs essential environmental functions, including supporting essential ecological systems such as water systems, providing habitats for flora and fauna, and mitigating climate change. It also supports the economy and contributes to the social and cultural vitality of southern Ontario. Understanding the significance of the Moraine is essential in order to develop effective policies and plans to manage and protect this resource. 2.3.1 Ecological A substantial body of research has examined the ecological significance of the Moraine, demonstrating the importance of the Moraine to broader ecological systems (Bocking, 2005). Water Systems The Moraine is a large expanse of ecologically sensitive land that filters drinking water for more than six million people (Ko & Cheng, 2004), including drinking water to 250,000 residents of the Moraine (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Sandberg et al., 2013). The Moraine is often referred to as the rain barrel of southern Ontario, due to the large amount of water that it collects (STORM, 2010;

8 Bocking, 2005). The layers of gravel and sand that comprise the Moraine play a vital role in water recharge by serving as an aquifer to collect rain and snowmelt and control flooding (Ko & Cheng, 2004; Holysh & Gerber, 2004). Additionally, the Moraine supports 65 river and stream systems both within and below the Moraine (STORM, 2010; Ko & Cheng, 2004; Gerber & Howard, 2002; Howard et al., 1995; Russell et al., 1998). Habitats The Moraine provides habitats for native and endangered animal species (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Sandberg et al., 2013; Bradford, 2008, MMAH, n.d.). The estimated number of breeding bird species residing within the Moraine vary from 166 (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, 2010) to 118 species (STORM, 2010); 77 of which are endangered (Bradford, 2008). The Moraine also supports 51 mammal species, and 73 fish species (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, 2010). Additionally, the Moraine provides corridors for animal movement and migration (MMAH, n.d.; Lemieux, Beechey, and Gray, 2011). Many studies have identified the importance of continuous forest cover and large patches to protect habitats and migration corridors (Savard, Clergeau, & Mennechez, 2000; Findlay & Houlahan, 1996; Austen, Francis, Burke, & Bradstreet, 2001); which illustrates the importance of the Moraine s protection to support wildlife biodiversity. The Moraine also includes many forests, wetlands, and rare vegetation which provide specialized habitats for wildlife (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012; MMAH, n.d.). A total of 1,033 plant species can be found within the Moraine (STORM, 2010), providing diverse vegetation communities such as sand barrens, tallgrass prairies, and savannahs (MMAH, n.d.). In addition to providing habitats, trees and vegetation protect the valuable sandy soils of the Moraine from being blown away (STORM, 2010). Additionally, the Moraine contains some of the largest upland forest areas in southern Ontario (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012). While accounts vary slightly, between 25 percent (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012) and 32 percent of the Moraine is forested (STORM, 2010), compared to only five percent of land surrounding the Moraine (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012). Climate Change The perceived ecological value of the Moraine, and research, tend to focus primarily on its role in filtering water systems and protecting habitats and rarely mention its role in sequestering

9 greenhouse gases, although this important aspect should not be ignored. (Tomalty, 2013; Lemieux et al., 2011). The large number of trees in the Moraine help capture carbon dioxide, acting as a carbon sink (Tomalty, 2012). In an attempt to increase the perceived value of the Moraine, Tomalty (2012) converted the carbon stored within the Moraine to an economic value, estimated at $7.1 million per year due to its mitigating effects on climate change. 2.3.2 Economic The Moraine is an important contributor to the economy of southern Ontario, both directly through businesses that rely upon the resources within the Moraine, as well as indirectly, through its contribution to the broader economy as part of the greater regional transportation network. Aggregate Extraction The Moraine has significant economic value, in part, due to its natural resources. Aggregates such as sand and gravel, peat, and top-soil are extracted from the Moraine for construction within the GTA (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; Sandberg et al., 2013; Fung & Conway, 2007). Approximately one hundred licenced gravel pits operate within the Moraine (Sandberg et al., 2013). This provides a substantial economic base for Ontario, although it also has many detrimental effects on the Moraine, such as disrupting habitat (Sandberg et al., 2013). Agriculture The Moraine is home to many agricultural lands (Sandberg et al., 2013). The warm weather in southern Ontario allows for specialty crops, field and row crops, intensive agriculture, and livestock, which help sustain the GTA (Caldwell & Hilts, 2005; Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; Sandberg et al., 2013). Many agricultural farms have been sold for urban development, resulting in a 16.5 percent decline in farming in the Moraine between 1976 and 1996 (Sandberg et al., 2013). The Plan, however, is designed to protect agricultural lands in the Moraine by preventing the sale of agricultural land for development (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux, Taylor, & Bunce, 2013; Caldwell & Hilts, 2005; Sandberg et al., 2013). 2.3.3 Social and Cultural The Moraine provides many intangible benefits to residents of southern Ontario, and while these impacts are more challenging to measure and document, they are important considerations. Little

10 academic research touches upon the impact of recreational land uses, although the historical significance of the area is better documented. Recreation The Moraine has a social importance, as it provides nostalgic and scenic pleasures to residents and peri-urbanists through the feel of nature in close proximity to the City of Toronto (Cadieux et al., 2013). Greenbelts have been shown to increase exercise among residents (Woo & Guldmann, 2014), and many NGOs highlight the numerous recreational activities provided within the Moraine (Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Association, 2015; STORM, 2007b). Government documents identify recreation as either major outdoor recreational areas such as ski hills or golf courses, or parks/natural areas (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; McElhinny, 2006). Hiking along the Oak Ridges Trail, which is 280 kilometres long, is a popular activity within the Moraine (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012; McElhinny, 2006). Cross country skiing, bird watching, and horseback riding are also recreational activities in the Moraine (McElhinny, 2006). While these recreational activities can create economic returns through revenue and jobs, they can also have potentially detrimental effects on the environment (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008). Historic The historical significance of the Moraine is documented in the literature, and its history illustrates the common experience of settlement in Canada (Sandberg et al., 2013; Bocking, 2005; Howard et al., 1995). The Moraine has a varied history of inhabitants. Initially settled by First Nations peoples, the Moraine was subsequently settled by Europeans in the 1780s (Howard et al., 1995). After the American Civil War, Loyalist soldiers who left the United States were given land in the Moraine, and many descendants of these European and American settlers still reside within the Moraine (Howard et al., 1995). Additionally, the Moraine has had a history of unsustainable land use practices, such as clear cutting forests for farming (Howard et al., 1995; STORM, 2010), which serves as a reminder of the consequences of detrimental land use practices. 2.4 Ontario Land Use Policies There are several land use plans within Ontario that are designed to guide land use and development within southern Ontario. In Ontario, land use planning is implemented through local

11 and regional municipalities, although the provincial government determines the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which mandates planning goals (Whitelaw, Eagles, Gibson, & Seasons, 2008). While the provincial government created several regional plans, local municipalities are responsible for its implementation and adjusting the municipal land use policies and bylaws to meet its requirements. Many articles that document land use plans and policies in Ontario include a detailed history of the social and political influences that led to their creation. It is important to recognize the various stakeholders and how their roles led to the creation of the Acts and Plans to better understand the perspectives of those involved. 2.4.1 Creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Plan The following section considers the events leading to the creation of the current Ontario land use policies to better understand the role of residents, environmental organizations, the media, and the government in creating the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan. From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, provincial land use planning and government policies supported low-density residential development in Ontario (Macdonald & Keil, 2012), with urban development encouraged because of its contribution to the local economy (Sandberg et al., 2013). The Ontario Planning Act was modified to allow building applications to be made directly to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the regulatory board which approves development (Macdonald & Keil, 2012). This allowed development applications to effectively bypass local level government and reduce the wait time of development, which promoted urban expansion (Macdonald & Keil, 2012). Environmental concerns were raised in the late 1980s and 1990s regarding the need for protection of natural heritage areas due to the extensive development within the Moraine (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007; Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010; Bocking, 2005). This was supported by scientists and the provincial government who completed a significant amount of research during the same period into the environmental significance of the Moraine and suggested protection and planning approaches (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007; Whitelaw et al., 2008). A significant focus of this research was on the hydrological significance of the Moraine, which filters water within and below the Moraine (Howard et al., 1995; Russell et al., 1998; Gerber & Howard, 2002).

12 Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) used scientific studies illustrating the ecological importance of the Moraine, along with the media, particularly newspapers such as the Toronto Star, to raise the public s awareness of the ecological sensitivity of the Moraine and advocate for its protection (Bocking, 2005; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007; Whitelaw et al., 2008). ENGOs such as Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists (now Ontario Nature), Earthroots, and Save the Rouge Valley System Inc., along with 465 scientists, over 100 citizens groups, and various other organizations were influential in raising the public profile of the Moraine (Earthroots, n.d.; Whitelaw et al., 2008; Macdonald & Keil, 2012). As public awareness grew, lobby groups and the media continued to pressure the provincial government to implement land use policy to protect the Moraine, leading to considerable tension between developers and environmental groups (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). A residential development project in Richmond Hill in 1999 to 2000 has been identified as a pivotal event leading to the creation of the Plan (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Edey, Seasons, & Whitelaw, 2006; Whitelaw et al., 2008). While the OMB had approved the development, over 3,000 residents and lobbyists attended a Town of Richmond Hill Council Meeting in February 2000 to argue against the development, citing the ecological sensitivity of the area (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Whitelaw et al., 2008). The extensive resident advocacy led the OMB to reverse their previous ruling until formal legislation was created (Hanna & Webber, 2010). That new legislation was the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, created by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in May 2001. The Act prevented development in the Moraine for six months while long-term land use planning approaches were developed (Bocking, 2005; MMAH, 2010). A multi-stakeholder advisory panel representing planners, developers, environment, agriculture, and aggregate groups collaborated to discuss long-range planning approaches (Bocking, 2005; Whitelaw et al., 2008). This led the Conservative provincial government to create the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act in November 2001, and the Plan in April 2002 (MMAH, 2010; Edey et al., 2006; Whitelaw et al., 2008). Amati and Taylor (2010) and Whitelaw and Eagles (2007) claim that the multi-stakeholder advisory panel used to inform the Plan was an effective method to incorporate multiple perspectives, which would help increase the success of the Plan.

13 2.4.2 Additional Planning Legislation and Policies in Ontario The first land use legislation to protect environmentally sensitive land in southern Ontario was the creation of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act in 1973 (Whitelaw et al., 2008). It was created after public concern regarding quarrying in the Niagara Escarpment in the 1960s (Whitelaw et al., 2008). This legislation was designed to protect the Niagara Escarpment from development, and has helped lay the foundation for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan. In 2003 the Liberal Party came to power provincially, and in 2005 the Provincial Policy Statement was changed to encourage increased development intensification, limit boundary expansion, and protect ecological resources and agricultural land (Macdonald & Keil, 2012, p. 132). The Liberal government supported the creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and also developed new legislation, the Greenbelt Act and the Greenbelt Plan in 2005, to protect agricultural and ecologically sensitive land in southern Ontario outside the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment (Eidelman, 2010; Newbold & Scott, 2013; MMAH, 2005). The Ontario Greenbelt that resulted from the 2005 Act surrounds the Greater Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario and is comprised of the Niagara Escarpment, Protected Countryside, and the Moraine. Additionally, the Places to Grow Act and related Growth Plan were created in 2005 to support the Greenbelt Plan (Eidelman, 2010). The Places to Grow legislation designates where urban development can occur, focusing on infill, and specifies that 40 percent of all development must occur within existing urban areas after 2014 to reduce urban sprawl (Eidelman, 2010; Newbold & Scott, 2013; Neptis Foundation, 2015). The UCP literature has emphasized the effectiveness of using several policies for ecological conservation as well as to direct urban growth (Seltzer, 2009; Fung & Conway, 2007; Boussauw, Allaert, G., & Witlox, 2013). These four policies collectively aim to protect ecologically sensitive areas from development, while also designating where development should occur to accommodate the expected growth in southern Ontario. 2.4.3 Successes and Challenges of the Ontario Greenbelt In order to create more effective greenbelts, it is essential to understand the successes and challenges of their implementation. Several studies have investigated the successes and challenges

14 that arise through the use of greenbelts (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Fung & Conway, 2007; Amati & Taylor, 2010; Woo & Guldmann, 2014). Studies that examine the Ontario Greenbelt have found that it successfully protects water systems, habitats, and large amounts of agricultural land from development (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Ali, 2008). The Ontario land use policy and legislation is sometimes considered an example of successful ecologically-conscious land use planning and is used to inform other greenbelts (Bradford, 2008; Amati & Taylor, 2010; Carter-Whitney, 2008). Despite its success at protecting ecologically sensitive areas, there are several challenges associated with the implementation of the Ontario Greenbelt and the Plan. Fung and Conway (2007) identify several weaknesses of the Plan, in particular protecting the Moraine: boundary definition; inconsistent goals and policies; leapfrog development and increased housing costs; a lack of support for the agricultural industry; and little consideration for existing municipal policies. The broader literature on greenbelt successes and challenges primarily focuses on challenges with identifying boundary lines, the lack of a regulatory body to implement large-scale land use policy, and leapfrog development and housing prices. Identifying boundary lines of the Moraine is a challenge of the Plan due to ecological boundaries crossing municipal boarders (Bradford, 2008; Fung & Conway, 2007). Additionally, interagency cooperation can be a challenge in the implementation of the Plan since several levels of government and various municipalities are involved (Bradford, 2008). The lack of consistent and clear goals and policies can also hinder the consistent application of land use regulations (McWilliam, Brown, Eagles, & Seasons, 2014; Fung & Conway, 2007). Experts have emphasized the importance of a larger regulatory body to implement and oversee large-scale land use policies, although this has not occurred within the Moraine (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Webber & Hanna, 2014). The issues of leapfrog development and increasing housing costs are dominant concerns raised in the literature by Vyn (2012), Newbold & Scott, 2013, McLaughlin (2012), Hanna and Webber (2005); Fung & Conway (2007); and Forman (2008). Leapfrog development refers to urban expansion that leaps over protected areas, which results in development outside of the greenbelt area (Vyn, 2012; Forman, 2008). Leapfrog development is widely considered a negative aspect of UCPs since it can take the form of low-density development, can lead to the loss of nearby open land (Vyn, 2012; Pond, 2009a), and can increase the number of commuters through a greenbelt

15 (Newbold & Scott, 2013). Research regarding development in southern Ontario has highlighted that the Ontario Greenbelt does not include all agricultural land, therefore agriculture or land outside of the Greenbelt is at risk of leapfrog development (Pond, 2009a; Newbold & Scott, 2013). Many studies have examined the effect of UCPs on land values in North America and have found that they reduce the supply of available land for development, thereby increasing land prices (Wickersham, 2006; Landis, 2006; Orfield & Luce, 2009; Hiramatsu, 2014; Amati & Yokohari, 2007; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; McLaughlin, 2012). Wekerle and Abbruzzese (2010) have alluded to a rise in housing prices within the Moraine as a result of the land use policy protecting the Moraine. The literature, however, acknowledges that various factors contribute to housing and land values (Fung & Conway, 2007; Seltzer, 2009). 2.4.4 Stakeholders Perspectives Regarding Ontario Land Use Policies Support from the community regarding land use policies is shown to increase their success (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Ali, 2008). Several articles have examined various perspectives regarding the Ontario Greenbelt and the Places to Grow legislation (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Caldwell & Hilts, 2005; Cadieux, Taylor, & Bunce, 2013). Environmental organizations such as the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, as well as residents, praise the current land use policies in protecting the Moraine from development (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Fung & Conway, 2007; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010; Hanna & Webber, 2005). Municipalities have had mixed reactions to the Ontario Greenbelt and Growth Plans (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Fung & Conway, 2007). Some municipalities object to the plans because they feel the legislation stops or slows their growth, while others embrace its efforts to protect the land (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Webber & Hanna, 2005). Many stakeholders involved with agriculture, including farmers, are not supportive of the legislation (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux et al., 2013). Several articles highlight that the Ontario Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan reduce the ability of farmers to sell their land for development, which many farmers disapprove of (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux et al., 2013). Furthermore, while the legislation protects agricultural land from development, it does not provide additional resources to support the community (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux et al., 2013). Finally, the development industry in Ontario is not supportive

16 of the Moraine, Greenbelt or Growth Plans since they limit the amount and type of development that can occur (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Fung & Conway, 2007). 2.4.5 Requirements for Public Participation It is considered by many in the field of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and environmental planning to be an essential step to include public participation in environmental issues and government policies and decisions (O Faircheallaigh, 2010; Noble, 2015; Hartley & Wood, 2005; Stewart & Sinclair, 2007). There are many benefits to public participation and stakeholder involvement in environmental issues and government policies, such as increasing transparency and accountability (Hartley & Wood, 2005); allowing the community to influence outcomes of decision making; providing a wider range of perspectives and benefits; developing broader solutions; and potentially avoiding litigation, just to name a few (O Faircheallaigh, 2010; Noble, 2015). Public participation can take place in many forms, such as public meetings, workshops, and community advisory committees (Chess & Purcell, 1999; Noble, 2015), and more recently web-based forums such as social media (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010). In an effort to increase public involvement and knowledge regarding environmental issues, the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) was created in Ontario. The EBR ensures residents are informed of decisions that affect the environment (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2015). The EBR provides platforms and tools for public participation and government transparency, such as the Environmental Registry, which provides public notices to inform residents of environmental issues being proposed by government ministries; the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, who is an independent officer that improves the effectiveness of the EBR; and applications for review and investigation, which allows stakeholders and the public to have input into proposed applications and legislation (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2015). 2.5 Threats to the Moraine To help develop effective policies and plans to manage and protect the Moraine, it is essential to understand the threats to the Moraine. Through a comparison of various greenbelts internationally, Carter-Whitney identified four common threats and challenges that greenbelts face: development pressure; natural resource extraction; protecting agriculture; and transportation infrastructure

17 (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Macdonald & Keil, 2012). While all four of these threats are relevant to the Moraine, research has focused on changes in land use and land cover, the lack of a central regulatory body to monitor and implement the Plan, urban development, and resource extraction. These threats are on-going and continue to threaten the Moraine despite the current land use legislation. 2.5.1 Changes in Land Use and Land Cover Changes in land use and land cover are common methods of assessing the effectiveness of a land use policy and monitoring urban development. Changes in land use and land cover represent the conversion of land to other uses, which tend to negatively affect the environment. For example, many studies have documented the conversion of agricultural land to urban land uses, which decreases the amount of agricultural land used for production (Savard, Clergeau, & Mennechez, 2000; Lambin et al., 2001). Forest cover can also be reduced through infrastructure or residential development (Findlay & Houlahan, 1996; Austen et al., 2001; Lambin et al., 2001; Erickson, 1995; Sohl, Loveland, Sleeter, Sayler, & Barnes, 2010), which can negatively impact the ecological integrity of the Moraine and the habitats it provides (Findlay & Houlahan, 1996). Changes in land use and land cover can also negatively affect the ecological health of the Moraine. Contaminants from urban and rural uses have been shown to enter groundwater, which can affect water quality (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.). Recreational activities in the Moraine and urban encroachment from residential areas pose a risk to the health of the Moraine (McWilliam et al., 2014). For example, the conversion of agricultural land or forested areas to create golf courses and ski hills requires the clearing of land, and the significant use of water and pesticides, which can affect the water system (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015; Watchorn, Hamilton, Anderson, Roe, & Patterson, 2008). Additionally, while agriculture is protected within the Countryside Area of the Moraine, a study by Watchorn et al. (2008) found that there were changes in water quality within the Moraine that correlate with an increase in agriculture, and that the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers correspond with shifts in pollen and algae species in the water. These examples illustrate the impact that changes in land use and land cover can have on the environment, and the threat that it can pose to the Moraine.

18 2.5.2 Urban Development Current literature continually stresses the need for effective management practices to protect the Moraine from urban development, sprawl, and encroachment (Tomalty, 2012; McWilliam et al., 2014; Lemieux et al., 2011; Sandberg et al., 2013). Sandberg (2013) and Environmental Defence (2014) have identified urban development and a growing population as a continued threat to the Moraine. Additionally, planning applications that were submitted and/or approved prior to the creation of the Act in November 2001, known as transitional land have been grandfathered and are allowed to occur despite being in the Moraine (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010; Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010). The development of infrastructure, including paved roads, pipes, and power lines, also pose significant risks to the Moraine since they cut through the Ontario Greenbelt and facilitate urban sprawl (Environmental Defence, 2014). Almost 90 percent of the Moraine is privately owned, which is approximately 170,000 hectares (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). The Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust was created in 2000 to oversee the conservation of private land within the Moraine, primarily through purchasing private land, conservation easements, and land donations to land trusts, which provide tax incentives for residents who donate their land or legally protect it from future development (Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010; Logan & Wekerle, 2008). While conservation easements and land trusts are commonly used to protect ecologically sensitive land from development, Sandberg, Logan, and Wekerle (2008), argue that these methods privilege the wealthy of society by allowing them to retain control of their land while the public is not allowed access to it. Notwithstanding such social considerations, tax incentives, conservation easements, and land trusts are pragmatic tools to protect the vast expanses of privately owned lands within the Moraine, although they have been utilized in a limited way within the Moraine. 2.5.3 Resource Extraction The removal of many resources within the Moraine is considered a significant threat to its ecological health and integrity. Aggregate extraction involving pits and quarries removes valuable sands and soils and disrupts natural habitats (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Global Forest Watch, 2008). While the Plan states that new aggregate extraction is permitted in the Natural Linkage Areas only with a strict assessment, Sandberg et al., (2013) claim that the conditions allowing extraction are fuzzy and therefore easily passed (p. 194). The Moraine Technical Working Committee papers

19 documented the potential impacts of topsoil removal and peat extraction, and highlight that extraction of this material requires the substantial alteration of existing landforms (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994, p. 25). Additionally, the extraction of peat often reaches the water table and it is virtually impossible to return a peat extraction site to an after use that even approximates its former ecological state (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994, p. 25). While there are often provisions made to ensure that pits and quarries are rehabilitated, the forest fragmentation and damage to the land is very challenging to return to its original state (Sandberg et al., 2013). Additionally, dumping contaminated excess soil and fill from brownfield construction projects on agricultural lands, commonly referred to as commercial fill is a threat identified by the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance and Environmental Defence (2014). Contaminants in the soil can leach into the water system and food that is grown in the Ontario Greenbelt (Environmental Defence, 2014). Water is often taken from the Moraine to support municipal water supplies, golf courses, and commercial water-bottling for export, which can deplete the amount of water in the Moraine (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.; Sandberg et al., 2013). Water-taking is not included in the Plan, but instead allowed through provincially granted permits under the Ontario Water Resources Act (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). 2.5.4 The Lack of a Central Regulatory Body A significant issue raised in the literature is the lack of monitoring of the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine (Global Forest Watch, 2008; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). Several studies have highlighted the importance of a regulatory body to oversee the implementation of land use policies (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Webber & Hanna, 2014), since the Plan is currently implemented by the local municipalities (Webber & Hanna, 2014). Sandberg, Logan, and Wekerle claim that many previous government responsibilities, such as monitoring the protection of the Moraine, have been delegated to citizens groups and volunteers, enabling the government to step away from the financial and ecological responsibility of monitoring the Moraine (Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010; Logan & Wekerle, 2008; Sandberg et al., 2013). Several government-appointed organizations and ENGOs oversee certain aspects of the Moraine s protection and monitoring, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition,

20 Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, and STORM, just to name a few (Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). These organizations are often considered to be underfunded (Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010). 2.6 Knowledge Gaps While there has been a significant body of research regarding the ecological importance of the Moraine, there are substantial gaps in the research, particularly with reference to the Plan. These knowledge gaps in relation to the thesis research fall into two categories: 1) monitoring the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine; and 2) evaluating the consistent implementation of the policies under the Plan. 2.6.1 Monitoring the Moraine Until the late 1980s very little research existed regarding the ecological significance of the Moraine (Bocking, 2005). In the 1990s, prior to the creation of the Act and the Plan, a significant body of research was undertaken illustrating the ecological importance of the Moraine. Since the creation of the Act and the Plan, relatively little government research has examined the ecological, economic, and social health of the Moraine. There has also been little research into the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine. A publication by Bradford (2008) regarding an evaluation of water provisions in the Moraine calls for continued monitoring and evaluation of the Moraine as a whole to determine the effectiveness of the current legislation. Many ENGOs also call for additional monitoring of the Moraine, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan at meeting protection goals (Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010; Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015; Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, 2011). While few studies have focused on land use and land cover change within the Moraine, many studies on land use and land cover change on a global scale or international context examine the effects of urbanization (Lambin et al., 2001; Erickson, 1995; Sohl et al., 2010; York & Munroe, 2010). A report by Global Forest Watch Canada (2008) did examine changes in land use and land cover within the Ontario Greenbelt from 1997 to 2007. The study found that the most land use change in the Ontario Greenbelt took place within the Moraine portion (Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008). Across the entire Ontario Greenbelt, urban/builtup accounted for 68% of the land

21 use conversion; golf courses accounted for 15%, and the creation and expansion of quarries and pits accounted for 13% of the land use change (Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008). Statistics Canada tracked changes in areas converted to settlement landscapes using data from 1971, 2000, and 2011 in the Lake Ontario and Niagara Peninsula area (Statistics Canada, 2015, Statistics Canada, 2015b), although there has been little examination of changes in land cover within the Moraine specifically, or within the four land use designations in the Moraine (Natural Core, Natural Linkage, Countryside, and Settlement Areas). EcoSpark and STORM conduct a monitoring program called Monitoring the Moraine: Moraine Watch. The program examines changes in land use in the Moraine using volunteers (EcoSpark & STORM Coalition, 2010). The results are often published in Monitoring the Moraine status reports that document changes in land use as observed by volunteers (EcoSpark & STORM Coalition, 2012). A report by the Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition (2015) examined existing forest cover, forest interior, and forest riparian cover within the Moraine and Ontario Greenbelt. The report found that forest cover is being maintained in critical areas of the Moraine, although there is no evidence of restored or enhanced forest conditions, which is a goal in the Plan (Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015). These studies collectively illustrate the prevalence of changes within the Moraine and emphasize the importance of protecting and monitoring land use and forest cover change within the Ontario Greenbelt and Moraine to ensure the protection of these ecologically sensitive areas (Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008; Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015). There are many additional ecological aspects regarding the implementation of the Plan that have not been fully investigated. Little research has been conducted as to the protection of habitats for animals within the Moraine, or changes in the number and population health of species since the creation of the Plan. Additionally, very little research has monitored the land use or land cover conversion due to resource extraction, or the impact of this extraction on the broader landscape. While Global Forest Watch Canada (2008) documented the expansion of pits and quarries in the Ontario Greenbelt, their study did not look at changes within the Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas specifically,

22 and it included change several years prior to the Plan s adoption, as opposed to determining specifically the effect of the Plan in relation to resource extraction. There has been relatively little research documenting the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting agricultural land within the Moraine. During the early 1990s the Ministry of Natural Resources (1994) conducted an examination of the effects of recreation on the Moraine, although there has been little research into the effects of recreational activities on the Moraine since the creation of the Plan. The extent of leapfrog development as a result of UCPs is a well-documented phenomena globally (Landis, 2006; Vyn, 2012), although there has been limited research regarding leapfrog development in southern Ontario. An examination of leapfrog development as a result of the Ontario Greenbelt was conducted by Newbold and Scott (2013), although little research has been completed on the extent of leapfrog development specifically surrounding the Moraine or as a result of the Plan. 2.6.2 Monitoring Implementation of the Plan While the successes and challenges of implementing the Greenbelt Plan have been examined by Carter-Whitney (2008) and Ali (2008), there has been limited research into the successes and challenges of implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Local municipalities were directed to bring local land use policies into accordance with the Plan (MMAH, 2002), although there has been little evaluation of the process. An interim evaluation was commissioned in 2006 by several ENGOs such as STORM and EcoSpark, which evaluated the time-frame required by the municipalities to amend their by-laws to support the Plan (Crandall & Fahey, 2006), although there has been very little monitoring to determine whether the new policies are being implemented, or their success at protecting the Moraine. 2.6.3 Filling the Research Gap The Plan has been in place for approximately 14 years, which is sufficient time to evaluate its effectiveness at reducing urban sprawl and protecting agricultural and ecologically sensitive land. Several ENGOs such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust and STORM emphasize that more research and data are required regarding the effects of the legislation protecting the Moraine prior

23 to the government s review of the plans including the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, 2010). A review of the literature suggests that there has never been a comparative assessment examining changes in land use and land cover within the Moraine. Thus far, land use and land cover research has focused on the larger Ontario Greenbelt, and has not specifically examined changes since the creation of the Plan in 2002, to present day, 2016. This research will consider the general trends in changes in land use and land cover within the Moraine to help determine the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine. While there is some research into the perspectives of stakeholders regarding the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, there has yet to be a comprehensive review of the successes and challenges of the implementation of the Plan. A review of the existing literature suggests that there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine, and how the Plan can be strengthened prior to the provincial government s review of the legislation. This research will evaluate the successes and challenges in implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan to determine the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine. The proposed changes to the Plan by the provincial government from the co-ordinated review are also investigated. This research will explore potential methods to strengthen the Plan and improve the protection of the Moraine, while ensuring sustainable communities to meet population demands. The outcomes of this research will potentially help inform the legislative review, and will contribute to environmental planning literature regarding urban containment policies.

Study Area and Methods 3.1 Study Area Chapter 3 Study Area and Methods The area of study in this research is the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area is 190,000 hectares, and spans 160km in length from the Niagara Escarpment in the west to the Trent River System in the east (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). The average width of the Moraine is 13 km (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). There are a total of 32 municipalities in the Moraine; 24 lower-tier municipalities and eight regional and county uppertier municipalities (STORM, 2007a). Sixty percent of the Moraine is located in the Greater Toronto Area (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.a). Figure 3.1. Oak Ridges Moraine Map. Source: The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, 2005. About the Moraine. Retrieved from http://www.moraineforlife.org/living/aboutmoraine.php. The Moraine is located within the larger Ontario Greenbelt covered by the Greenbelt Plan. The Niagara Escarpment and Protected Countryside are the other protected areas of land within the Greenbelt. All are located in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Figure 3.2). 24

25 Figure 3.2. Neptis Foundation. 2005. Neptis Commentary on the Draft Greenbelt Plan. Retrieved from http://www.neptis.org/publications/neptis-commentary-draft-greenbelt-plan. 3.2 Methods A variety of qualitative research methods were utilized during this research to explore diverse perspectives and illustrate a more comprehensive view of the successes and challenges in implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. These methods include attending Coordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings, interviews, and a written questionnaire. Written documents such as land use acts and plans, and written comments by various stakeholders such as conservation authorities and ENGOs submitted for the co-ordinated review that were available online or provided by interview participants were also reviewed. This project was approved by the Ethics Review Board at the University of Toronto. 3.2.1 Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings In preparation for the Ontario Provincial Government s Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing hosted 17 regional town hall meetings. The Coordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings ( regional town hall meetings ) took place from March 2015 to April 2015 across municipalities in the Greater Golden