CHARACTERIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY

Transcription

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY
REPORT
BY
Pierre Duchesne, Land Use Planner, MRC de Pontiac
Denis Y. Charlebois, Research Professional, UQO
Submitted to the Mayors’ Council on January 22, 2013
Vin ton P la in , Mm u nic ip ality o f Litc h fie ld
P h o to b y Do m iniq u e Ra tté , S um m e r 2005
Characterization of the Agricultural Territory
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF MAPS ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................... 13
PREAMBLE ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 1
MANDATE ...................................................................................................................................... 19
1.1 CONTEXT AND APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.1 Context ............................................................................................................................................. 19
1.1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.3 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 20
1.1.4 Report Structure .............................................................................................................................. 24
1.1.5 Definition of the Zone Studied ......................................................................................................... 25
1.1.6 Definitions of Agricultural Activities and of Agriculture .................................................................. 25
1.2 WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................................. 26
1.2.1 Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 26
1.2.2 Work Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 2
OVERVIEW OF THE TERRITORY ..................................................................................................... 29
2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 29
2.1.1 Location and Area ............................................................................................................................. 29
2.1.2 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 29
2.1.3 Municipal Organization .................................................................................................................... 32
2.1.4 Population......................................................................................................................................... 33
2.2 BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES .............................................................................................................................. 35
2.2.1 Topography ....................................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.1 Landscape Units and Bioclimatic Domains ...................................................................................... 36
2.2.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 40
2.2.4 Hydrography and Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 42
2.2.5 Geology ............................................................................................................................................. 43
2.2.6 Pedology .......................................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7 Forest Cover ..................................................................................................................................... 48
2.2.8 Maple Stands ................................................................................................................................... 50
2.2.9 Wildlife Habitats ............................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 3
POTENTIALITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR AGRICULTURE ............................................................ 51
3.1 DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN INVENTORIES AND INDICATORS .................................................................... 51
2
3.2 DATA SOURCES............................................................................................................................................ 52
3.2.1 Canada Land Inventory .................................................................................................................... 52
3.2.2 Sugar Bush Operations ..................................................................................................................... 52
3.2.3 Aquatic Environments and Wetlands .............................................................................................. 53
3.3 CHOSEN INVENTORIES ............................................................................................................................... 57
3.3.1 Factors Related to Agriculture (A1) ................................................................................................. 58
3.3.2 Factors Not Related to Agriculture (A2) ........................................................................................... 61
Chapter 4
GOVERNANCE ................................................................................................................................ 68
4.1 TERRITORIAL MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 68
4.1.1 Agricultural Zoning ........................................................................................................................... 68
4.1.2 Land Reserves ................................................................................................................................... 81
4.1.3 Specific Land Rights .......................................................................................................................... 81
4.1.4 Government Directions .................................................................................................................... 82
4.1.5 Overall Development Directions....................................................................................................... 86
4.1.6 . Major Land Use Allocations .............................................................................................................. 91
4.1.7 Interim Control ................................................................................................................................. 94
4.2 LAND OWNERSHIP ...................................................................................................................................... 96
4.2.1 Types and Trends of Land Ownership............................................................................................... 96
4.2.2 Land Values ...................................................................................................................................... 97
4.2.3 Agricultural Properties and Leased Land ......................................................................................... 97
Chapter 5
LAND USE ....................................................................................................................................... 98
5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE TERRITORY AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 98
5.1.1 Agricultural and Agroforestry Sectors .............................................................................................. 98
5.1.2 Tourism, Cottages and Agritourism ............................................................................................... 105
5.2 GENERAL LAND USE ................................................................................................................................. 108
5.2.1 Land Use Types .............................................................................................................................. 108
5.2.2 Destructured Tracts of Land and Sectors in Agricultural Zones .................................................... 108
5.2.3 Protected Real Estate in Agricultural zones ................................................................................... 110
5.3 DENSITY OF LAND USE .............................................................................................................................. 112
5.3.1 Main Types of Use .......................................................................................................................... 112
5.3.2 Agricultural Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 117
Chapter 6
AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 118
6.1 AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM) ........................................................................... 118
6.1.1 Analysis Grids .................................................................................................................................. 118
6.1.2 Making Connections Using GIS ...................................................................................................... 120
6.2 MODEL COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................................. 121
6.2.1 Perception: The Study of the Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture ................................ 121
6.2.2 The Actual Worth of the Territory: The Study of the Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory ..... 123
6.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS: TYPES OF TERRITORY ............................................................................................... 129
3
6.3.1 Expected Use Areas ........................................................................................................................ 130
6.3.2 The Quadrants ................................................................................................................................ 131
6.4 AN ENVIRONMENTAL TYPOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 133
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................... 134
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................. 136
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 139
Appendix 1 - List of Protected Real Estate According to the Property Use Codes ........................................ 139
Appendix 2 - May 3, 2012 Forum Minutes .................................................................................................... 141
Appendix 3 - June 26, 2012 Program – Advisory Committee ....................................................................... 146
4
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1
MANDATE
1.1 CONTEXT AND APPROACH
TABLE 1
Chapter 2
Levels of the Agricultural Territory Analysis Model (ATAM)............................................................. 24
OVERVIEW OF THE TERRITORY
2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 2
Hydroelectric Generating Stations in the RCM of Pontiac ................................................................ 32
TABLE 3
Land Area of the Municipalities of the RCM of Pontiac .................................................................... 33
TABLE 4
Populations of the Municipalities of the RCM of Pontiac ................................................................. 34
2.2 BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES
TABLE 5
Statistics—Hull Regional Landscape Unit.......................................................................................... 37
TABLE 6
Statistics—Lac Sinclair Regional Landscape Unit .............................................................................. 39
TABLE 7
Statistics—Lac Dumont Regional Landscape Unit............................................................................. 40
TABLE 8
Climate in the South of the RCM of Pontiac ..................................................................................... 41
TABLE 9
Watersheds and Sub-Watersheds in the RCM of Pontiac................................................................. 42
TABLE 10 Soil Classification in the Soil Survey by Paul G. Lajoie ...................................................................... 44
TABLE 11 Soil Series Present in the Pontiac...................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 12 Soil Class Distribution According to the Classes of Suitability for Agriculture .................................. 47
TABLE 13 Forest Cover by Municipality ............................................................................................................ 49
Chapter 3
POTENTIALITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR AGRICULTURE
3.2 DATA SOURCES
TABLE 14 Excerpts from the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains ... 54
TABLE 15 Excerpts from the Agricultural Operations Regulation..................................................................... 56
3.3 CHOSEN INVENTORIES
TABLE 16 Soil Capability for Agriculture—Data Classes ................................................................................... 59
TABLE 17 Capability for Forestry—Data Classes ............................................................................................... 60
TABLE 18 Sugar Maple Stands—Data Sets........................................................................................................ 61
TABLE 19 Valid Recreational Features (CLI) ...................................................................................................... 61
5
TABLE 20 Capability for Recreation—Data Classes........................................................................................... 62
TABLE 21 Capability for Ungulates—Data Classes ............................................................................................ 63
TABLE 22 Capability for Waterfowls—Data Classes ......................................................................................... 64
TABLE 23 Wildlife Habitats—Data Classes ........................................................................................................ 65
TABLE 24 Aquatic Environments—Data Classes ............................................................................................... 67
TABLE 25 Wetlands—Data Classes ................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 4
GOVERNANCE
4.1 TERRITORIAL MANAGEMENT
TABLE 26 Designated Agricultural Region under the Act to preserve agricultural land ................................... 70
TABLE 27 Data on agricultural zone land of the Pontiac RCM on 31 March 2011 ........................................... 71
TABLE 28 Area Comparison of the Pontiac RCM’s Agricultural Zone to other RCM’s and equivalent territories
in the Outaouais region ............................................................................................................... 72
TABLE 29 Agricultural Zone Area by Pontiac RCM Municipality ....................................................................... 73
TABLE 30 Number of Decisions Rendered by the CPTAQ According to the Nature of the Application since
2004-2005 .................................................................................................................................... 74
TABLE 31 CPTAQ Decision Making on the Modification of Agricultural Zone Limits in the Pontiac RCM since
2004-2005 .................................................................................................................................... 75
TABLE 32 CPTAQ Decision Making on Implementation of Non-Agricultural Land Use in the Pontiac RCM since
2004-2005 .................................................................................................................................... 76
TABLE 33 CPTAQ Decisions Rendered on Expansion of Existing Non-Agricultural Land Use in the Pontiac RCM
since 2004-2005........................................................................................................................... 77
TABLE 34 CPTAQ Decision Making on Farm Lot Parcelling Out in the Pontiac RCM since 2004-2005 ........... 78
TABLE 35 CPTAQ Decision Making on Other Requests in the Agricultural Zone of the Pontiac RCM since
2004-2005 .................................................................................................................................... 78
TABLE 36
Chapter 5
CPTAQ Decision Making Results under Article 59 of the ARPALAA for all of Quebec................. 79
LAND USE
5.1 AGRICULTURAL AND AGROFORESTRY SECTORS
TABLE 37
Use of Soil for Agricultural Purposes............................................................................................... 99
TABLE 38
Pontiac RCM Agriculture in Numbers ........................................................................................... 102
TABLE 39
Number of Agricultural Businesses According to Primary Revenues ........................................... 103
TABLE 40
Revenues Generated per Production Type ................................................................................... 104
TABLE 41 Tourist Attractions in the Pontiac RCM ......................................................................................... 106
6
5.2 GENERAL LAND USE
TABLE 42
Property Use Codes—General Land Use....................................................................................... 108
TABLE 43
Property Use Codes—Residential Use .......................................................................................... 109
TABLE 44 Property Use Codes—Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying ............................................. 110
TABLE 45
Protected Real Estate Distribution................................................................................................ 111
TABLE 46
Property Use Codes (PUC)—Agricultural Activities....................................................................... 113
TABLE 47
Property Use Codes—Activities Related to Agriculture ................................................................ 114
TABLE 48
Property Use Codes—Forestry Activities ...................................................................................... 115
TABLE 49
Property Use Codes—Services Related to Forestry Activities ...................................................... 115
TABLE 50
Property Use Codes—Recreational Activities ............................................................................... 116
TABLE 51
Property Use Codes—Activities Complementary to Recreation................................................... 117
Chapter 6
AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY ANALYSIS
6.1 AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM)
TABLE 52
Evaluation Grid for Factors of Agricultural Potentialities and Constraints ................................... 119
TABLE 53
Evaluation Grid for Factors of Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory ........................................ 119
TABLE 54
Types of Territory .......................................................................................................................... 119
6.2 MODEL COMPONENTS
TABLE 55
Agricultural Use of the Territory in 2007 ...................................................................................... 124
TABLE 56
Agricultural Use of the Territory in 2012 ...................................................................................... 125
TABLE 57
Agricultural Use of the Territory—Percentage of the Agricultural Zone ...................................... 126
TABLE 58
Intensity of the Agricultural Use of the Territory ......................................................................... 127
TABLE 59
Indicator of the Percentage of Forest Cover ................................................................................. 128
6.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS: TYPES OF TERRITORY
TABLE 60
Environmental Typology ............................................................................................................... 133
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
MANDATE
1.1 CONTEXT AND APPROACH
FIGURE 1 Territory Formation Process ........................................................................................................... 22
1.2 WORKPLAN
FIGURE 2 Work Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 27
FIGURE 3 Committee Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 28
Chapter 4
GOVERNANCE
FIGURE 4 RCM with Pending or Completed Application for Collective Scope under the Provisions of Article 59
of the ARPALAA on 1 March 2012 .................................................................................................. 80
Chapter 5
LAND USE
5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE TERRITORY AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
FIGURE 5 Pontiac RCM Agricultural and Agri-food Industry Highlights .......................................................... 98
FIGURE 6 Maple Syrup Production and Farm Woodlots ............................................................................... 100
FIGURE 7 Number of Agricultural Businesses According to Primary Revenues ............................................ 104
FIGURE 8 Revenues Generated from Production Type ($ million) ................................................................ 104
FIGURE 9 Agricultural Territory Analysis Model (ATAM) .............................................................................. 129
FIGURE 10 Agricultural Territory Analysis Model: The Quadrants .................................................................. 130
8
LIST OF MAPS
Chapter 2
2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW
MAP 1 Location of the RCM of Pontiac ........................................................................................................... 29
MAP 2 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 32
MAP 3 Municipal Organization and Population .............................................................................................. 33
2.2 BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES
MAP 4 Elevation .............................................................................................................................................. 36
MAP 5 Topography and Slopes ....................................................................................................................... 36
MAP 6 Landscape Units and Bioclimatic Domains .......................................................................................... 40
MAP 7 Average Amount of Degree Days Accumulated Between April and October ..................................... 41
MAP 8 Length of the Frost-Free Season ......................................................................................................... 41
MAP 9 Average Length of the Growing Season .............................................................................................. 41
MAP 10 Corn Heat Unit Values .......................................................................................................................... 41
MAP 11 Watershed and Sub-Watersheds ........................................................................................................ 42
MAP 12 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 42
MAP 13 Geology ................................................................................................................................................ 43
MAP 14 Pedology .............................................................................................................................................. 46
MAP 15 Forest Cover ......................................................................................................................................... 49
MAP 16 Types of Forest Cover........................................................................................................................... 49
MAP 17 Maple Stands ...................................................................................................................................... 50
MAP 18 Wildlife Habitats.................................................................................................................................. 50
Chapter 3
3.3 CHOSEN INVENTORIES
MAP 19 Soil Capability for Agriculture According to the CLI ............................................................................. 59
MAP 20 Soil Capability for Agriculture According to Paul G. Lajoie .................................................................. 59
MAP 21 Soil Limitations According to the CLI ................................................................................................... 59
MAP 22 Soil Limitations According to Paul G. Lajoie ......................................................................................... 59
9
MAP 23 Forestry Capability according to the CLI .............................................................................................. 60
MAP 24 Capability for Sugar Maples ............................................................................................................... 61
MAP 25 Land Capability for Extensive Recreation According to the CLI ........................................................... 62
MAP 26 Land Capability for Wildlife According to the CLI ................................................................................ 65
Chapter 4
GOVERNANCE
MAP 27 Agricultural Zone .................................................................................................................................. 73
MAP 28 Map 28: CPTAQ Decisions .................................................................................................................... 80
MAP 29 Land Reserves ...................................................................................................................................... 81
MAP 30 Individual Property Rights ................................................................................................................... 82
MAP 31 Major Land Use Allocations ................................................................................................................ 94
MAP 32 Interim Control .................................................................................................................................... 96
4.2 LAND OWNERSHIP
MAP 33 Geographic Breakdown and Land Ownership ..................................................................................... 97
MAP 34 Land Values ......................................................................................................................................... 97
MAP 35 Owner and Lessee Farmers .................................................................................................................. 97
Chapter 5
LAND USE
5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE TERRITORY AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
MAP 36 Cultivated Land ................................................................................................................................. 105
MAP 37 Livestock Animal Units: Beef Cows .................................................................................................... 105
MAP 38 Livestock Animal Units: Dairy Cows .................................................................................................. 105
MAP 39 Livestock Animal Units: Horses .......................................................................................................... 105
MAP 40 Livestock Animal Units: Sheep ........................................................................................................... 105
MAP 41 Livestock Animal Units: Pigs ............................................................................................................... 105
MAP 42 Livestock Animal Units: Chicken ....................................................................................................... 105
MAP 43 Livestock Animal Units: Other Poultry .............................................................................................. 105
MAP 44 Livestock Animal Units: Other Animal Production............................................................................. 105
MAP 45 Fallow, Plantations and Loss of Forestry Area ................................................................................... 105
MAP 46 Agrotourism, Agri-food Tour, and Tourist Routes ............................................................................ 107
10
5.2 GENERAL LAND USE
MAP 47 General Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 108
MAP 48 Destructured Tracts of Land and Sectors ........................................................................................... 110
MAP 49 Protected Real Estate ......................................................................................................................... 111
5.3 INTENSITY OF LAND USE
MAP 50 Agricultural Use.................................................................................................................................. 114
MAP 51 Forestry Use ....................................................................................................................................... 115
MAP 52 Recreational Use ............................................................................................................................... 117
MAP 53 Agricultural Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 117
Chapter 6
6.2 MODEL COMPONENTS
MAP 54 Land Capability for Agriculture (A11)................................................................................................. 122
MAP 55 Land Capability for Forestry (A12) ..................................................................................................... 122
MAP 56 Presence of Sugar Maple Stands (A13) .............................................................................................. 122
MAP 57 Sum of Factors Related to Agriculture (A1) ....................................................................................... 122
MAP 58 Land Capability for Recreation (A21) ................................................................................................. 122
MAP 59 Land Capability for Wildlife (A22) ...................................................................................................... 122
CARTE 60 Land Capability for Wildlife—Ungulates (A221).............................................................................. 122
MAP 61 Land Capability for Wildlife—Waterfowl (A222) ............................................................................... 122
MAP 62 Presence of Wildlife Habitats (A223) ................................................................................................. 122
MAP 63 Presence of Aqueous Environments and Wetlands (A23) ................................................................. 123
MAP 65 Macro-Indicator of Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture (MIPCA) ...................................... 123
MAP 66 Intensity of Agricultural Use (2007) (B1)............................................................................................ 127
MAP 67 Intensity of Agricultural Use (2012) (B1)............................................................................................ 127
MAP 68 Forest Cover (B2) ............................................................................................................................... 128
MAP 69 Land Value (B3) .................................................................................................................................. 128
MAP 70 Macro-Indicator of Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory (MIDAT) ............................................... 128
6.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS: TYPES OF TERRITORY
MAP 71 Agricultural Territory Analysis Model (ATAM) ................................................................................... 129
MAP 72 Expected Use Areas............................................................................................................................ 130
11
MAP 73 “Southwest” Quadrant: Agricultural Pontiac ..................................................................................... 131
MAP 74 “Northeast” Quadrant: Non-Agricultural Pontiac .............................................................................. 131
MAP 75 “Southeast” Quadrant: “Exceptional Use” Areas .............................................................................. 132
MAP 76 “Northwest” Quadrant: Areas with Agricultural Business Opportunities ......................................... 132
12
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AC
Administration Committee
ARLUPD
Act Respecting Land Use Planning and Development
ARPALAA
Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities
ATAM
Agricultural Territory Analysis Model
AZDP
Agricultural Zone Development Plan
BDTQ
Base de données territoriales du Québec (Quebec territorial database)
CÉGEP
Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (General and vocational college)
CLI
Canada Land Inventory
CN
Canadian National
CPTAQ
Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (Quebec commission for
the protection of the agricultural territory)
EAE
Entreprise agricole enregistrée (Registered agricultural operation)
GIS
Geographic Information System
GRD
Geographically Referenced Data
GRDB
Geographically Referenced Database
LabMIT
Laboratoire de modélisation et d’intelligence territoriale (Territorial intelligence and
modelling laboratory)
L’ATINO
L’Agence de traitement de l’information numérique de l’Outaouais (Outaouais digital
data processing agency)
13
LDC
Local Development Centre
LU
Land Unit
LUTC
Land Use and Territory Committee
MAMROT
Ministère des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de l’Occupation du territoire
(Quebec department of municipal affairs, regions, and land use)
MAPAQ
Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (Quebec
department of agriculture, fisheries, and food)
MDDEP
Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (Quebec
department of sustainable development, environment, and parks)
MIADT
Macro-Indicator of Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory
MIPCA
Macro-Indicator of Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture
MRNF
Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (Quebec department of natural
resources and wildlife)
MTQ
Ministère des Transports du Québec (Quebec department of transportation)
PAC
Planning Advisory Committee
PUC
Property Use Code
RCM
Regional County Municipality
UPA
Union des producteurs agricoles (agricultural producers’ union)
UT
Unorganized Territory
UQO
Université du Québec en Outaouais
14
PREAMBLE
This document was jointly prepared by Pierre Duchesne, Chief Land Use Planner, and Denis Y. Charlebois,
researcher with LabMIT at UQO in Gatineau, respectively under the supervision of Régent Dugas, Director of
Territory for the RCM of Pontiac, and Reda Bensouda, LabMIT Coordinator.
This project was made possible thanks to the teamwork in a working group made up of Pierre Duchesne;
Denis Y. Charlebois; Amy Taylor, Rural Development Officer with the LDC of Pontiac, who verified the state of
knowledge about the agricultural territory; and Guy Tellier, Computer and Geomatics Technician with the
RCM of Pontiac, who produced the cartographic appendix for the report and developed the project
geodatabase with Jean Stöckli, Instructor in the Département de géomatique/cartographie at the CÉGEP de
l’Outaouais à Gatineau, LabMIT partner.
The working group was joined by the members of the PAC…:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robert (Bob) Griffin, Agricultural Producer, UPA representative, President;
Rita Payne, Agricultural Producer, UPA representative, Vice-President;
Donald (Donny) Graveline, Agricultural Producer, UPA representative;
John A. (Jack) Lang, Mayor of the municipality of Clarendon, RCM representative;
Lori Ann Russet, Municipal Councillor for Alleyn-et-Cawood, municipal representative;
Denis Larivière, Resident of the municipality of Campbell’s Bay, citizen representative.
…of the LUTC…:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ross Vowles, Mayor of the municipality of Thorne, president;
Brent Orr, Mayor of the municipality of Bristol;
John Griffin, Mayor of the municipality of Bryson;
William (Bill) Stewart, Mayor of the municipality of Campbell’s Bay;
John A. (Jack) Lang, Mayor of the municipality of Clarendon;
Michael McCrank, Warden of the RCM of Pontiac, Mayor of the municipality of Litchfield, ex officio
member;
Raymond Durocher, Deputy Warden of the RCM of Pontiac, Mayor of the municipality of FortCoulonge, ex officio member.
15
…and by Jean-Jacques Simard, Agronomist, who acted as a consultant during the project, particularly during
the June 26–27, 2012, meeting and field visit with the advisory committee, made up of the following people:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pierre Duchesne, Chief Land Use Planner, RCM of Pontiac;
Guy Tellier, Computer and Geomatics Technician, RCM of Pontiac;
Amy Taylor, Rural Development Officer with the LDC of Pontiac;
Denis Y. Charlebois, Researcher with LabMit, UQO;
Guillaume Charest-Hallé, Director—land use planning and environment, Fédération UPA—Outaouais–
Laurentides;
Richard Maheux, President, Fédération UPA—Outaouais–Laurentides;
Denis Dubeau, President, syndicat de base UPA du Pontiac;
Douglas (Doug) Gauthier, President of the Office des producteurs de bois du Pontiac;
François Biron, Land Use Planning, Innovation and Agro-environmental Advisor, Direction régionale
de l’Outaouais-Laurentides, Outaouais sector, MAPAQ;
Isabelle McComeau, Agronomist, Centre de services agricoles de Shawville, MAPAQ;
Yannick Gignac, Acting Director, Direction régionale de l’Outaouais, MAMROT;
John A. (Jack) Lang, Mayor of the municipality of Clarendon;
Winston Sunstrum, Mayor of the municipality of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes.
…joined by all the members of the PAC except Denis Larivière, resident of the municipality of Campbell’s Bay,
citizen representative.
In summary, the main events that made this project possible were the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
May 3, 2012: Forum with the advisory committee;
June 26, 2012: Presentation of a preliminary version of the report and the cartographic appendix to
the advisory committee;
June 27, 2012: Field visit with the advisory committee;
November 19, 2012: Strategic meeting with the leaders of the RCM;
December 3, 2012: Presentation of the report and the cartographic appendix to the PAC;
December 11, 2012: Presentation of the report and the cartographic appendix to the greater LUTC;
January 22, 2013: Submission of the report to the Council of Mayors;
Winter 2013: Presentation of the report and the cartographic appendix to the advisory committee.
16
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture has always been a part of the landscape in the Pontiac. It has left its mark on the geography and
history of many of its communities, especially in the ways of occupying the territory, which influence it.
Agriculture as it is practiced today faces many challenges, including globalization and market diversification.
By its resolution ADM-2012-05-20 adopted on May 15, 2012 by the AC and agreed upon by the Council of
Mayors on May 22, 2012, the RCM of Pontiac has resolved to develop an AZDP based on its strategic plan
(Vision Pontiac 2020) and with the following objectives:
•
•
Encourage dynamic, agriculture-centred occupation of the agricultural zone;
Plan the development of the agricultural zone based on:









•
Government directions for land use planning;
The characteristics of the agricultural zone and the surrounding territory;
The potentialities and constraints for the development of agricultural activity;
The other planning undertaken in the Région administrative de l’Outaouais and in the RCM of
Pontiac;
A strategic partnership with the main agricultural development agents;
The principles of sustainable development;
The directions laid out in the land use and development plans of the RCM of Pontiac;
The multi-functionality and plurality of agriculture;
The valorization of the agricultural landscape.
Emphasize agricultural potential with the goal of increasing or diversifying agricultural activities;



Promote the development of activities that complement agriculture;
Contribute to harmonious cohabitation between agricultural and non-agricultural land use;
Foster greater territorial multi-functionality in devitalized areas.
On the same occasion, the RCM asked the LDC of Pontiac to mandate an internal person to prepare a request
for financial aid in response to the invitation from MAPAQ.
On the one hand, the goal of characterizing the agricultural territory is not only to establish an overview of
the territory and agricultural activities in order to reach a diagnosis as part of an AZDP, but also to identify the
viable and dynamic agricultural areas and the destructured tracts of land in the agricultural zone in order to
promote agricultural development and occupation throughout the RCM.
17
On the other hand, the goal of the AZDP is to emphasize the agricultural zone of the RCM by promoting the
sustainable development of agricultural activity. In practical terms, this means emphasizing agricultural
businesses and their products, increasing or diversifying production, fostering the recognition of multifunctionality in agriculture, and promoting the development of activities that complement agriculture, such
as agritourism and on-farm processing. These objectives correspond with the vision laid out in the Pronovost
Commission’s green paper on Quebec’s bio-food policy.
18
Chapter 1
1.1
MANDATE
CONTEXT AND APPROACH
1.1.1 Context
Characterizing the territory is part of a larger context of emphasizing the territory and its agricultural activity
as part of an AZDP. This planning tool aims to foster the development of the full agricultural potential of the
RCM while complementing other planning processes, such as the land use and development plan. It is based
on a cooperative process among the main actors concerned by agricultural development in the RCM and on
developing an overview of agriculture in the region and identifying potential agricultural development.
The mandates and objectives of this process will be to:
•
•
•
•
•
Emphasize agricultural potential with the goal of increasing and/or diversifying agricultural activities;
Promote the development of activities that complement agriculture, such as agritourism;
Contribute to harmonious cohabitation between agricultural and non-agricultural land use;
Foster greater territorial and activity multi-functionality in devitalized areas.
Therefore, it will be of utmost importance to support the development of agriculture in the RCM of Pontiac so
that it:
•
•
•
Recognizes and defines its role in a region traditionally known for cattle and field crops;
Respects its natural environment and focusses on sustainable development in its various fields of
work;
Is publicly recognized as a healthy industry, both financially and in the quality of its products.
1.1.2 Objectives
Characterizing the agricultural territory of the RCM of Pontiac is the first step in a major project emphasizing
the territory and the agricultural activity in the RCM of Pontiac. In addition, it will provide the opportunity to
consult a wide range of actors in the field, represented by both experts and all citizens, as part of developing
an AZDP in the RCM of Pontiac. The main goal of this initiative is to establish a detailed overview of the
territory and of the agricultural activity in the RCM of Pontiac in terms of potentialities and constraints for
agriculture and of how the territory is occupied.
19
In order to meet this objective, the following steps were taken to characterize the agricultural territory:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developing an up-to-date overview of the territory and the activities throughout the territory of the
RCM;
Consulting actors in general and agricultural actors in particular;
Characterizing the spaces used for agriculture in the territory of the RCM;
Identifying the agricultural issues and concerns that are specific to the territory of the RCM;
Building an agricultural database using a combination of statistical and geographic data;
Taking stock of the potentialities and constraints related to agricultural use of the territory.
This characterization goes beyond the agricultural zone as it is described in the ARPALAA, since the impact of
the activities in this zone goes beyond its borders. Similarly, we cannot minimize the importance of certain
activities, because they have a considerable impact on the agricultural world and can even put pressure on its
development.
This characterization is extremely important, since 24% of municipal land in the RCM of Pontiac is agricultural
land. The most recent revised Land Development Plan, in effect since February 23, 2001, recognizes the
importance of agriculture through the goals and objectives it sets. Nevertheless, creating a plan of action is
essential in order to support and plan the development of agricultural activities and related activities, which
are extremely important in the territory of the Pontiac.
Therefore, this initiative aims to create an overview of the territory and the agricultural activities that will
make it possible to later make a diagnosis as part of an AZDP. This will make it possible to efficiently face new
challenges and issues in the development of the agricultural territory in the RCM of Pontiac and to better
support existing agricultural dynamism, local initiatives, changing practices, and the emphasis of the territory.
This characterization therefore has multiple goals. The data collected will be used to better understand and
define the dynamics present in the territory in order to better contextualize the agricultural character of the
region and thus support activities that uphold this agricultural character.
1.1.3
Approach and Methodology
Approach
The tools used to characterize the agricultural territory include geographic information systems (geomatics),
spatial analysis, and statistics. A detailed overview was produced by mapping and documenting on a macro
scale the variables related to the territory and agricultural activities. The current state of agriculture in the
territory of the RCM of Pontiac and the changes in agricultural activities over the past few years were not
evaluated because this could be done as part of an agricultural zone development plan.
There are multiple steps: take stock of, verify, and update existing data; collect new relevant data; and
combine all this data in order to determine the current state of the territory and of agricultural activities in
the RCM of Pontiac.
20
In the preparation of this overview, several documents and databases proved necessary for performing our
work well.
This is a non-exhaustive list of the documents and databases we used:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Real estate assessment role of the RCM of Pontiac, 2007 and 2012;
Revised Land Development Plan of the RCM of Pontiac, 2001, and amendments;
Interim Control By-Laws of the RCM of Pontiac, 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2012;
Government policy directions for land use planning, 2001, 2005 and 2007;
MAPAQ farm registration cards;
Cultivated areas, Financière agricole du Québec, 2008;
CPTAQ annual management reports, 2004–2005 to 2010–2011;
Base de données territoriales du Québec;
Redacted data from L’ATINO;
Agricultural statistics from Statistics Canada, 2006 and 2011;
Orthophotos, 2011.
Methodology
In the study of the dynamics of a territory, numerous parameters need to be taken into account. A territory
can be seen as a system of relationships between a community and a geographic space 1. These relationships,
which can be of economic, sociopolitical, cultural, or ecological nature, have utilitarian dimensions and
aesthetic dimensions. Geographic spaces that traditionally provided food may be infused with strong
symbolism. This aspect of the relationship between a community and its geographic space helps with
understanding territorial identity and belonging. However, in agricultural territory characterization, it is more
appropriate to focus on the utilitarian aspect of these relationships. The emotional aspect is more relevant to
history, heritage, and tourism development.
Because territorial dynamics are complex, studying them should involve referring to strong concepts. The
model shown in the following figure, the Territory Formation Process, is proposed as an aid for analyzing
agricultural territory dynamics.
The model proposed by LabMIT 2 recommends seeing the territory as an evolving process, from vision to
territorial governance to development. The process starts with a VISION (t1), a perception of the
characteristics of the territory, which may be favourable in varying degrees to implementing activities that a
category of actors want to put into action. This vision leads to various forms of land utilization, that is, to
1
See MOINE, A. (2006), Le territoire comme un système complexe : un concept opératoire pour l'aménagement et la géographie. L'Espace
géographique, 2006/2 Volume 35, p. 115–132.
http://www.cairn.info/revue-espace-geographique-2006-2-page-115.htm
2
GAGNON et al. (2009), Le rôle de la spatialité dans l’organisation des territoires ; Guide de géomatique structurale, LabMIT, Université du Québec
en Outaouais et Cégep de l’Outaouais, Gatineau.
21
DEVELOPMENT of the geographic space (t3), depending on not only the means available, but also the ability
of the actors who are present to put the underlying vision into action. This ability to act, called territorial
GOVERNANCE (t2), is mainly composed of political and legal aspects, which need to be controlled in order to
adequately manage the territory. However, for the needs of this analysis and to simplify the scope, only the
VISION and DEVELOPMENT factors will be considered. It is assumed that the political and legal factors
contribute to the emergence of the vision of the territory.
FIGURE 1
Territory Formation Process
According to this model, on the one hand, the VISION (t1) of the territory is described by a series of indicators
that allow the characteristics of each place in the geographic space to be interpreted as favourable or
unfavourable to agriculture. For example, the “land capability for agriculture” measures the suitability of a
place for agriculture. A high capability means a high suitability of a given place for agricultural activities,
whether these activities are already taking place or not. This is known as a study of the potentialities and
constraints for agriculture. Chapter 3 of this report presents the indicators for potentialities and constraints
for agriculture that were chosen for the agricultural territory analysis model presented in Chapter 6. The main
indicators are the following:
Factors Related to Agriculture
A11 – Land Capability for Agriculture
A12 – Land Capability for Forestry
A13 – Presence of Sugar Maple Stands
22
Factors Not Related to Agriculture
A21 – Land Capability for Recreation
A22 – Land Capability for Wildlife
A221 – Land Capability for Wildlife – Ungulates
A222 – Land Capability for Wildlife – Waterfowl
A223 – Presence of Wildlife Habitats
A23 – Presence of Aqueous Environments and Wetlands
On the other hand, the indicators of the DEVELOPMENT (t3) of the territory also allow the characteristics of
each place to be interpreted, but related to the actual presence and the intensity of agricultural activities. In
this case, the indicators measure the agricultural dynamism of the territory, which can vary in rate depending
on various characteristics. The indicators for agricultural dynamism of the territory are the following:
B1 – Intensity of Agricultural Use
B2 – Forest Cover
B3 – Land Value
Like the indicators of potentialities and constraints for agriculture, the indicators for agricultural dynamism
have a rate. Each characteristic of territorial dynamism is given a value on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being very
dynamic and 7, not dynamic).
Finally, each category of indicators (potentialities and constraints for agriculture, agricultural dynamism of the
territory) is represented by a “macro-indicator” that sums up the data of each indicator. These macroindicators are called the “macro-indicator of potentialities and constraints for agriculture” (MIPCA) and the
“macro-indicator of agricultural dynamism of the territory” (MIADT).
Each indicator has a rate. Each territorial characterization is given a value on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being very
favorable, 7, very unfavorable). The values given to each place are compiled at each level of the model, as
shown in the following table.
23
TABLE 1
Level
5
4
Levels of the Agricultural Territory Analysis Model (ATAM)
Description
ATAM1
Macro-Indicators
3
MIPCA2 Sums and Individual
MIADT3 Indicators
2
Individual MIPCA2 Indicators
1
Sub-Indicators for Wildlife
Capability
Indicators
Types of Territories
A – MIPCA2 Sums
B – MIADT3 Sums
A1 – Sum of Factors Related to Agriculture
A2 – Sum of Factors Not Related to Agriculture
B1 – Intensity of Agricultural Use
B2 – Forest Cover
B3 – Land Value
A11 – Land Capability for Agriculture
A12 – Land Capability for Forestry
A13 – Presence of Sugar Maple Stands
A21 – Land Capability for Recreation
A22 – Land Capability for Wildlife
A23 – Presence of Aqueous Environments and
Wetlands
A221 – Land Capability for Wildlife – Ungulates
A222 – Land Capability for Wildlife – Waterfowl
A223 – Presence of Wildlife Habitats
Notes
1. Agricultural territory analysis model
2. Macro-indicator of potentialities and constraints for agriculture
3. Macro-indicator of agricultural dynamism of the territory
The indicators are presented in chapters 3 and 5 of this report. Chapter 6 presents an analysis of the
agricultural territory using the proposed model.
1.1.4
Report Structure
This report contains several chapters that establish an overview of the territory and the agricultural activities
in the RCM of Pontiac. It is in itself an essential component of an agricultural zone development plan and will
be useful in the next revision of the RCM Land Use and Development Plan, especially in the agricultural
section. It also discusses the many challenges inherent in land use planning, especially in relation to
identifying and defining the boundaries of destructured tracts of land in the agricultural zone.
24
Besides the introduction, it contains the following chapters:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mandate (Chapter 1);
Overview of the Territory (Chapter 2);
Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture (Chapter 3);
Governance (Chapter 4);
Land Use (Chapter 5);
Agricultural land Analysis (Chapter 6).
This report includes a cartographic appendix. The maps are presented in the same order as the text they refer
to. Conversely, the text references the cartographic appendix by indicating in purple the maps it refers to.
1.1.5
Definition of the Zone Studied
The characterization mainly involves the municipal land in the RCM of Pontiac, where the entire agricultural
zone established by the ARPALAA is found. Agriculture in the RCM of Pontiac is mainly practiced in this part of
the territory. The zone studied also takes into account the data available for characterization.
1.1.6
Definitions of Agricultural Activities and of Agriculture
Before we discuss the characterization of the agricultural territory, it is important to take note of the
definitions of agricultural activities and of agriculture according to section 1 of the ARPALAA.
Agricultural Activities
The practice of agriculture, including the practice of allowing land to lie fallow, the storage and use, on a
farm, of chemical, organic or mineral products and of farm machinery and equipment for agricultural
purposes.
Where carried out by a producer on his farm with respect to farm products from his operation or,
secondarily, from the operations of other producers, activities relating to the storage, packaging, processing
and sale of farm products are considered to be agricultural activities.
Agriculture
The cultivation of the soil and plants, leaving land uncropped or using it for forestry purposes, or the raising of
livestock, and, for these purposes, the making, construction or utilization of works, structures or buildings,
except immovables used for residential purposes.
25
1.2
WORK PLAN
A work plan was established before the start of the project. It includes the main steps and the means used to
characterize the agricultural territory of the RCM of Pontiac. It also includes a work schedule, which was
revised three times in the course of the project.
1.2.1
Steps
The main steps were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Data gathering,
Cartography,
Drafting the report (preliminary version),
Input from the main stakeholders, and
Drafting the final report.
Data gathering took place throughout most of the project: certain data were not available or had not yet
been requested at the beginning of the project, since the need for them was not felt until later on. A new
request for data then had to be made with those who held these data, slowing down the project.
Cartography was performed over several months starting as soon as data were acquired or made available by
the main data holders. We began drafting the report as soon as the information and data were available or
complete.
1.2.2
Work Schedule
The characterization of the agricultural territory really began in the spring of 2011, when L’Agence de
traitement de l’information numérique de l’Outaouais (L’ATINO) provided redacted data specific to pedology
and the land capacity for agriculture, after concluding an administrative agreement with the ministère de
l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ). Around the same time, the RCM acquired
digital orthophotos covering its agricultural territory in cooperation with several organizations in the region.
In the winter of 2012, MAPAQ provided the most recent redacted data specific to agricultural businesses,
according to the above-mentioned agreement. These data were organized into animal unit classes and
production types. However, some data were missing and had to be re-requested from MAPAQ. These data
were mostly on the location of registered agricultural businesses, the location of lands owned and rented by
agricultural producers, corn heat units, crop types and farm income by farm type (according to income level).
The RCM was to use these data to make maps of agricultural dynamism and farm types on its territory.
26
The following diagram shows the work schedule.
Work Schedule
February
December
November
October
September
2013
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2012
Month
January
FIGURE 2
Steps
1. Data gathering
2. Cartography
3. Drafting the report (preliminary version)
4. Input from the main stakeholders
5. Drafting the final report
During the project, the RCM of Pontiac established an advisory committee with the mandate of examining the
cartography and the report content. The advisory committee, made up of representatives of the RCM of
Pontiac, the LDC of Pontiac, MAPAQ, MAMROT, and UPA, met at a forum on May 3, 2012, in order to share
their knowledge of the territory and the agricultural activities in the RCM of Pontiac. Preliminary maps were
presented for this purpose and many suggestions were made for how to improve their content. The
proceedings of this forum are included in Appendix 1 of this report.
The advisory committee met again on June 26, 2012, to take stock of how well the project was going. Several
participants also took part in the field visit on June 27, 2012, which had the following objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
Investigate the main map features presented at the June 26, 2012, meeting;
Identify the types of land use in the agricultural zone (agriculture, agroforestry, and forestry);
Identify the areas with a high concentration of agricultural land units (dynamic) and the areas where
there are less (viable);
See examples of destructured tracts of land and protected buildings in the agricultural zone;
Identify agricultural activity-related uses, such as cattle and dairy farms, feed lots, etc.
The proceedings of the June 26, 2012, meeting and the proposed itinerary of the June 27, 2012, field visit are
provided in Appendix 2 of this report.
The figure on the following page lists the roles and responsibilities of the committees established for the
agricultural territory characterization project.
27
FIGURE 3
Committee Roles and Responsibilities
DRAFTING COMMITTEE
WORKING COMMITTEE
STEERING COMMITTEE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CHARACTERIZATION
Land Use Planning Section
Responsible for drafting the characterization report.
Members
1. Pierre Duchesne, Chief Land Use Planner, RCM of Pontiac;
2. Denis Y. Charlebois, Researcher with LabMIT, UQO.
Responsible for developing the cartographic appendix of the report. Collaborated closely with the
drafting committee on the project.
Members
1. Guy Tellier, Computer and Geomatics Technician, RCM of Pontiac;
2. Jean Stöckli, Geomatics Specialist and Cartographer, LabMIT, Cégep de l’Outaouais;
3. Jean-Jacques Simard, Agronomist, External Consultant.
Recorded the work completed and gave directions on work to do.
Members
1. Régent Dugas, Director of Territory, RCM of Pontiac;
2. Reda Bensouda, LabMIT Coordinator, UQO.
Responsible for supporting the drafting committee and the working committee by providing
technical expertise as needed. Gave advice, opinions, and recommendations on the project as it
advanced.
Members
1. Amy Taylor, Rural Development Officer, LDC of Pontiac;
2. Guillaume Charest-Hallé, Director for Land Use Planning and Environment, Fédération
régionale de l’UPA Outaouais–Laurentides;
3. Richard Maheux, President, Fédération régionale de l’UPA Outaouais–Laurentides;
4. Nicolas Brodeur, Union and Communications Agent, Fédération régionale de l’UPA
Outaouais–Laurentides;
5. Denis Dubeau, President, syndicat de base du Pontiac, UPA;
6. Douglas Gauthier, President, Office des producteurs de bois du Pontiac;
7. François Biron, Land Use Planning, Innovation and Agro-environmental Advisor, direction
régionale de l’Outaouais, MAPAQ;
8. Isabelle McComeau, Agronomist, Centre de services agricoles de Shawville, MAPAQ;
9. Yannick Gignac, Acting Director, direction régionale de l’Outaouais, MAMROT;
10. John A. Lang, Mayor, municipality of Clarendon;
11. Winston Sunstrum, Mayor, municipality of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes.
The report and the cartographic appendix were presented to the PAC on December 3, 2012, and to the LUTC
on December 11, 2012. All the mayors were invited to the second meeting so they could express themselves
and develop a strategic position with regard to an agricultural zone development plan. A meeting is planned
for the winter of 2013 in order to present the final report and the cartographic appendix to the advisory
committee. The final report and the cartographic appendix are to be submitted to the Council of Mayors on
January 22, 2013.
Throughout the project, the chief land use planner of the RCM of Pontiac regularly informed the PAC and the
LUTC of how the project was going and took suggestions for how to improve the contents of the report and
the cartographic appendix.
28
Chapter 2
2.1
GENERAL OVERVIEW
2.1.1
Location and Area
The RCM of Pontiac occupies an area of 13 848.26 km2. Its neighbours to the east are the RCM of the Collinesde-l’Outaouais and of the Vallée-de-la-Gatineau, to the north, the RCM of the Vallée-de-l’Or, and to the west,
the RCM of Témiscamingue. To the south, the RCM of Pontiac borders the County of Renfrew, in Ontario,
with the Ottawa River separating the two. It contains 18 municipalities and one unorganized territory: Alleynet-Cawood, Bristol, Bryson, Campbell’s Bay, Chichester, Clarendon, Fort-Coulonge, Lac-Nilgaut, L’Île-duGrand-Calumet, L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, Litchfield, Mansfield-et-Pontefract, Otter Lake, Portage-du-Fort,
Rapides-des-Joachims, Shawville, Sheenboro, Thorne, and Waltham.
Located to the west of the urban area made up of Gatineau and Ottawa, the capital of Canada, the RCM of
Pontiac is accessible by Highway 148 on the Quebec side and Highway 17 through Renfrew and Pembroke on
the Ontario side. The majority of its population lives in the Ottawa valley, in the south-western part of its
territory, near the Quebec–Ontario border. The RCM of Pontiac is also near the large markets of Canada and
the north-eastern United States.
The RCM of Pontiac is part of the Outaouais administrative region, and more specifically, the region that
residents identify as Pontiac—which includes the municipality of Pontiac. This municipality, however, is part
of the RCM of the Collines-de-l’Outaouais, which is part of Canada’s National Capital Region.
Map 1: Location of the RCM of Pontiac
2.1.2
Infrastructure
Road Network
The highway network of the RCM of Pontiac is made up of a “national” highway, regional highways, and
feeder routes: 148, 301, 303, and 366. These roads are under provincial jurisdiction and MTQ is responsible
for their maintenance. Route 148 is a provincial highway, commonly referred to as a national highway. It is
the main entryway into the RCM of Pontiac from Gatineau in the south-east on the Quebec side. Route 148
ends on Morrison Island in the municipality of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes. West of the Quebec–Ontario border, it
continues under the name of King’s Highway 148 and leads to downtown Pembroke, 6 km from the border.
Routes 301 and 303 provide access to the territory of the RCM of Pontiac from the Quebec–Ontario border.
Route 301 has two main sections. The first section is a regional highway linking the municipalities of Cambell’s
Bay and Kazabazua. At Kazabazua it connects to Route 105 coming from Gatineau in the south and going to
Maniwaki in the north. The second section is a feeder route connecting the Quebec–Ontario border near
Portage-du-Fort with Route 148 south of Bryson. Route 303 connects the municipalities of Portage-du-Fort
29
and Otter Lake. It passes through Shawville, where it intersects with Route 148, and through the village of
Ladysmith in the municipality of Thorne, where it intersects with Route 366. Route 366 connects Route 301 in
the municipality of Thorne with the Lac-des-Loups sector in the municipality of La Pêche, where it continues
on to connect with Route 105 and Autoroute 5 near Wakefield north of Gatineau.
The other MTQ feeder routes are the following: chemin de Chapeau-Waltham (municipalities of Chichester
and Waltham), chemin de Chapeau-Sheenboro (municipalities of Chichester and Sheenboro), chemin de
Pembroke or route de Chapeau (municipality of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes), chemin Thomas-Lefebvre up to the
village of Davidson (municipality of Mansfield-et-Pontefract), chemin de la Chute and rue Beaume from Route
148 to the village of Fort-Coulonge (municipalities of Mansfield-et-Pontefract and Fort-Coulonge), chemin des
Outaouais up to the village of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet (municipality of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet), and chemin
de Bristol and chemin River (municipality of Bristol).
The local road network is well developed and mainly consists of gravel roads serving the entire municipal
territory of the RCM of Pontiac. Feeder roads are generally paved when they serve one or more centres of
activity in the municipal territory.
The RCM of Pontiac is also accessible by the Ontario road network via Highway 17 (Trans-Canada), Highway
635 (towards Rapides-des-Joachims), and Highway 653 (towards Portage-du-Fort) and by the road network of
the County of Renfrew (County Road 4 and County Road 40) and the City of Pembroke.
Other Transportation Infrastructure
A railroad crosses the territory of the RCM of Pontiac in the south. More specifically, this railroad, which
crosses the territories of the municipalities of Bristol, Clarendon, Litchfield and Portage-du-Fort, is part of the
Beachburg subdivision, which goes from Ottawa to Pembroke, in Ontario, passing through the County of
Renfrew and the RCM of Pontiac. A 3-km section branches off the main line to serve the Pontiac regional
industrial park, north of the village of Portage-du-Fort. In 2008, the Quebec Railway Corporation sold most of
its divisions to CN, including the Ottawa Central Railway, which had been running the Beachburg subdivision
since 1998. In 2009, because of the worldwide economic crisis and the decrease in the demand for natural
resources, CN added the Beachburg subdivision to its list of potential railways to close down. The RCM of
Pontiac, however, wishes to maintain rail service for goods and passengers on this railway, which crosses its
territory. This is because of its strategic economic importance. Maintaining this rail service would also allow
agricultural products from the Pontiac to be transported to external markets.
The river network mainly consists of the Ottawa River, which, up until recently, was a waterway navigated by
pleasure craft. The Ottawa River is also known for whitewater rafting, especially the L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet
sector, which offers suitable challenges for this type of activity. The Coulonge, Noire, and Dumoine rivers are
also excellent for canoeing and kayaking. The Ottawa River is part of a “route bleue”—the Kichi Sibi canoe
trail. This 60-kilometer-long trail travels down the Ottawa River from Chichester to Bryson. It was inaugurated
in the summer of 2012.
30
The recreational trail network mainly consists of the Cycloparc PPJ, a 92-km-long cycling route that is the
main branch in a vast trail network crossing several municipalities in the RCM of Pontiac. The Cycloparc PPJ is
part of the “Route verte,” an extensive network of cycling routes over 5000 km long crossing the southern
regions of Quebec. More specifically, the Cycloparc PPJ crosses the municipalities of Britsol, Clarendon,
Shawville, Litchfield, Campbell’s Bay, Mansfield-et-Pontefract, Fort-Coulonge, Waltham, and L’Isle-auxAllumettes. Its future connection to the network of cycling paths of the National Capital of Canada, passing
through the municipality of Pontiac, will attract more users and make it better known throughout the region
and elsewhere in the province. During the summer, this vast cycling network puts the region’s agricultural
and agroforestal landscapes on display for the many bicycle enthusiasts who travel across them.
In the winter, the Cycloparc PPJ becomes a snowmobile trail and is part of the network of snowmobile trails
of the Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec. (This snowmobile trail is referred to as TransQuebec 43.) Regional trails 308 and 311 connect to this trail. Regional trail 308 links Fort-Coulonge and
Gracefield, passing through Forêt de l’Aigle, and regional trail 311 links Shawville to Kazabazua, passing
through Ladysmith and Danford Lake. Further away, these regional trails join the Trans-Quebec 13 trail, which
connects Gatineau with Grand-Remous, passing through Maniwaki. Many local trails connect to the TransQuebec 43 trail and regional trails 308 and 311 and travel through the territories of the municipalities of
Bristol, Clarendon, Thorne, Otter Lake, Litchfield, Mansfield-et-Pontefract, L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, Chichester,
and Sheenboro.
An extensive network of logging roads serves the northern part of the municipal territory of the RCM of
Pontiac and the unorganized territory of Lac-Nilgaut. Starting from the south of the RCM of Pontaic, the main
logging roads are chemin du Bois-Franc, chemin du Lac-Usborne, chemin Schyan, and chemin Dumoine. In
addition, these roads provide access to cottages, hunting, and fishing in this vast territory.
Telecommunications and Hydroelectric Infrastructure
The main telecommunications infrastructure consists of cell phone towers (wireless communication), radio
communications towers, and fire communications towers located in several municipalities of the RCM of
Pontiac.
The following table shows the hydroelectric generating stations, which are run-of-the-river type dams. These
dams are run by Hydro-Québec and Ontario Power Generation, government corporations of Quebec and
Ontario respectively, and by private-sector companies. The main power transportation installation, belonging
to Hydro-Québec, is a 120-kV power line connecting the Wyman, Cadieux, and Bryson transformation stations
and the Pontiac regional industrial park. These are located, respectively, in the municipalities of Bristol,
Bryson, L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet, and Litchfield. A Hydro-Québec distribution centre is located on Route 148 in
Campbell’s Bay. Hydro-Québec also owns several dams and reservoirs in the zone studied; the most
well-known is the Rocher-Fendu dam in the municipality of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet.
31
A hydroelectric generating station is a factory where mechanical energy from water is transformed into
electrical energy. A hydroelectric dam is constructed in the river in order to accumulate and regulate large
amounts of water for hydroelectricity production.
TABLE 2
Hydroelectric
Generating
Station
Bryson
1
Chute-des-Chats
Chenaux
Des Joachims
Joey-Tanenbaum
2
W.-R.-Beatty
Hydroelectric Generating Stations in the RCM of Pontiac
Owner
Hydro-Québec
Ontario Power Generation
and Hydro-Québec
Hydro-Pontiac
Hydro-Pontiac
Power
(MW)
Date First
Operated
56
79
1925
1931
Ottawa River
Ottawa River
Bryson
Pontiac
144
429
17
12
1950
1950
1994
1917–1995
Ottawa River
Ottawa River
Ottawa River
Noire River
Portage-du-Fort
Rapides-des-Joachims
Mansfield-et-Pontefract
Waltham
River System
Municipality
Notes
1. The Chute-des-Chats hydroelectric generating station is located a few meters outside the limits of the RCM of Pontiac, to the east of the
municipality of Bristol.
2. First commercial hydroelectric generating station in Canada, dating from the early twentieth century. Previously owned by the Pembroke Electric
Light Company, it has belonged to Hydro-Pontiac since 1995. One of the 1918 turbines is still used today to serve surrounding villages and the city
of Pembroke, in Ontario.
Sources: Ministère des Ressources naturelles, Hydro-Québec, Ontario Power Generation and Hydro-Pontiac, sites consulted November 28, 2012.
Map 2: Infrastructure
2.1.3 Municipal Organization
The RCM of Pontiac is made up of 18 municipalities and one UT. The following table lists the municipalities
and provides information on their geographic code, their type, and their area according to the 2012 MAMROT
Répertoire des municipalités du Québec (directory of municipalities in the province of Quebec). As shown, the
municipalities with the largest area in the RCM of Pontaic are Sheenboro, Mansfield-et-Pontefract, and Otter
Lake. Conversely, the smallest municipalities are Fort-Coulonge, Campbell’s Bay, Bryson, Portage-du-Fort, and
Shawville.
32
TABLE 3
Code
84005
84010
84015
84020
84025
84030
84035
84040
84045
84050
84055
84060
84065
84070
84082
84090
84095
84100
84902
840
Land Area of the Municipalities of the RCM of Pontiac
Municipality
Bristol
Shawville
Clarendon
Portage-du-Fort
Bryson
Campbell’s Bay
L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet
Litchfield
Thorne
Alleyn-et-Cawood
Otter Lake
Fort-Coulonge
Waltham
L’Isle-aux-Allumettes
Chichester
Sheenboro
Sub-total
Lac-Nilgaut
Pontiac
Type
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Village
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Village
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Township
Municipality
Municipality
Municipal Territory
Unorganized territory
Regional County Municipality
2
Area (km )
235.00
5.40
348.40
4.20
3.70
3.50
147.40
214.10
181.80
325.30
494.60
3.20
525.10
401.80
234.20
235.40
634.00
257.10
4 254.20
9 851.50
14 105.70
Area (ha)
23 500
540
34 840
420
370
350
14 740
21 410
18 180
32 530
49 460
320
52 510
40 180
23 420
23 540
63 400
25 710
425 420
985 150
1 410 570
Source: MAMROT, Répertoire des municipalités, 2012.
Map 3: Municipal Organization and Population
2.1.4
Population
The RCM of Pontiac is home to more than 14 300 permanent residents. They live in urban centres, which are
the villages of Chapeau (L’Isle-aux-Allumettes), Fort-Coulonge/Mansfield, Campbell’s Bay, and Shawville; in
intermediate urban centres, which are the villages of Bryson, Davidson (Mansfield-et-Pontefract), L’Île-duGrand-Calumet, Otter Lake, and Portage-du-Fort; and in many local centres (small rural communities, like
hamlets) spread all across the municipal territory (not including the unorganized territory) of the RCM of
Pontiac. In addition, there is an estimated seasonal population of more than 11 300 seasonal residents along
the Ottawa River and at the shores of several lakes, especially in the municipalities of Alleyn-et-Cawood,
Litchfield, Otter Lake, and Thorne.
The permanent, seasonal, and total populations of each municipality of the RCM of Pontiac are presented in
the following table.
33
TABLE 4
1
2
3
4
5
Populations of the Municipalities of the RCM of Pontiac
Code
Municipality
84050
84005
84025
84030
84090
84015
84060
84902
84035
84082
84040
84065
84055
84020
84100
84010
84095
84045
84070
840
Alleyn-et-Cawood
Bristol
Bryson
Campbell’s Bay
Chichester
Clarendon
Fort-Coulonge
Lac-Nilgaut
Litchfield
Otter Lake
Portage-du-Fort
Shawville
Sheenboro
Thorne
Waltham
Pontiac
Permanent
1
Population
168
1 128
647
775
368
1 183
1 377
0
731
1 345
456
2 204
1 109
266
131
1 664
130
292
384
14 358
Number of
Cottages and
2
Cabins
282
585
2
0
81
351
0
538
113
616
221
421
629
21
63
0
255
440
184
4 802
Seasonal
3
Population
Total
4
Population
600
1 381
5
0
194
826
0
1 272
244
1 485
586
1 126
1 401
50
129
0
625
931
453
11 308
768
2 509
652
775
562
2 009
1 377
1 272
975
2 830
1 042
3 330
2 510
316
260
1 664
755
1 223
837
25 666
Seasonal
5
Percentage
78.1%
55.0%
0.8%
—
34.5%
41.1%
—
100.0%
25.0%
52.5%
56.2%
33.8%
55.6%
15.8%
41.1%
—
82.8%
76.1%
54.1%
44.1%
Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 census data
Source: Assessment role summary, RCM of Pontiac, 2011, PUC 1100: Cottage or cabin
The seasonal population was calculated as follows: permanent population (3rd column) ÷ number of private residences occupied by habitual
residents (according to the community profile in the 2011 census from Statistics Canada) X number of cottages and cabins (4th column).
The total population was calculated as follows: permanent population + seasonal population.
The seasonal percentage was calculated as follows: seasonal population ÷ total population X 100.
From 2006 to 2011, the year of the last Statistics Canada census, the permanent population of the RCM of
Pontiac went from 14 586 to 14 358 inhabitants, a 1.6% decrease. During the same period, the municipalities
that saw the greatest decrease in population were the following: Alleyn-et-Cawood (-32.3%), Thorne (-31.6%),
Rapides-des-Joachims (-23.8%), and Sheenboro (-22.2%). The municipalities of Portage-du-Fort (-5.0%),
Chichester (-5.2%), Clarendon (-5.2%), Litchfield (-5.6%), Bristol (-6.8%), L’Isle-aux-Allumettes (-6.8%), and
L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet (-6.9%) also saw a significant decrease in their permanent population. Conversely, the
following municipalities experienced population growth during this period: Otter Lake (+14.1%), Waltham
(+6.7%), Mansfield-et-Pontefract (+6.2%), Shawville (+4.9%), Bryson (+4.7%), Campbell’s Bay (+4.0%), and
Fort-Coulonge (+1.4%).
In the above table, the seasonal percentage is especially high in the municipalities of Sheenboro, Alleyn-etCawood, and Thorne, with the number of seasonal residents greatly exceeding that of permanent residents.
In the municipalities of Bristol, L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, Litchfield, Otter Lake, and Waltham, there are almost as
many seasonal residents as permanent residents. There is no seasonal population or almost none in the
municipalities of Campbell’s Bay, Fort-Coulonge, Shawville, and Bryson. In the municipality of Portage-du-
34
Fort, seasonal residents are few and account for only 15.8% of the total population. Overall, the seasonal
percentage varies according to the number of cottages in each municipality.
Map 3: Municipal Organization and Population
2.2
BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES
2.2.1
Topography
Physiographically, the RCM of Pontiac is located at the intersection of two immense land masses: the Saint
Lawrence lowlands and the southern Laurentian Mountains. The Saint Lawrence lowlands are a vast plain
along the Saint Lawrence River and which includes the Ottawa Valley in the west. The southern Laurentian
Mountains form the southern border of the Canadian Shield, which is one of the oldest geological formations
in the world and which covers a large part of Canada. The Saint Lawrence lowlands and the southern
Laurentian Mountains determine not only the very remarkable landscape, but also how human beings occupy
it.
Agriculture has a strong presence in the Ottawa Valley, in the south. The climate and land there are better
suited for agriculture. The topography in this area is characterized by an average elevation of 115 metres. The
slope is gentle, since the change in elevation happens gradually over long distances (average slope of 2% and
maximum slope of 25 m/km).
The southern Laurentian Mountains, in the north, are made up of low hills, plateaus, and depressions broken
by scattered highlands with an average elevation of 240 to 389 metres. The highest elevations reach 570
metres in parts of the centre and east of the unorganized territory. At the south of this area, agriculture is
present in places, but is marginal or declining, and located in the few valleys, which are east of Otter Lake and
north of Ladysmith.
In the zone studied, two summits have elevations above 400 metres: the unnamed mountain overlooking
Manny Lake north of Sheenboro, which is 420 metres high, and Mount Dubé north of Chapeau in the
municipality of Chichester, which is 410 metres high. There are other summits of 350 metres and above in
this part of the territory of the RCM of Pontiac: the unnamed mountain (390 metres) overlooking Lake à la
Truite north of Sheenboro, Mount Chilly (390 metres) north-west of Fort-Coulonge in the municipality of
Mansfield-et-Pontefract, Mount O’Brien (390 metres) south-west of Danford Lake, the Polish Hills (360
metres) north of Otter Lake, and the Lacharity Hills (360 metres) south of Danford Lake.
Around 87% of the territory of the RCM of Pontiac has gentle slopes of less than 5%, and less than 1/100, or
1%, of the territory has slopes of greater than 16% (L’ATINO, 2004). The steepest slopes are mainly situated
along the edge of the Canadian Shield where it meets the Ottawa plain. In the centre and the east, these
slopes vary between 2% and 5%, sometimes up to 9%, and become gentler towards La Vérendrye wildlife
reserve.
35
Map 4: Elevation
Map 5: Topography and Slopes
2.2.2
Landscape Units and Bioclimatic Domains
Regional landscape units come from the ecological reference framework, which is a decision-making tool that
uses interpreted ecological maps to show the main ecological parameters of a territory at various spatial
levels and according to the types of ecosystems. The ecological reference framework divides the territory into
ecological units using eight levels of generalization going from the generic to the specific. It uses permanent,
structuring variables within the territory, which vary with the level of generalization. Of these variables, the
geology, landforms, slope, and surface deposits are used to describe the territory and determine its capability
of supporting various types of activities, especially agricultural activities.
The south of the RCM of Pontiac is made up of three regional landscape units: Hull, Lac Sinclair, and Lac
Dumont. Regional landscape units are portions of the territory with the same main permanent ecological
features as regards landscape and vegetation. Each regional landscape unit has a spatial organization (or
pattern) specific to it and different from the adjacent regional landscapes. The ecological features used to
define units are geology, surface deposits, relief, elevation, hydrography, and bioclimate.
Bioclimatic domains are territories with a climate that is homogenous enough that the same types of
vegetation are observed at sites with average, meaning neither unfavourable nor favourable, soil conditions,
drainage conditions, and exposure. In the province of Quebec, there are ten bioclimatic domains, six of which
are in the southern part of the province.
The following tables summarize the characteristics of the regional landscape units in the south of the RCM of
Pontiac that could affect agricultural activities in these regions.
Hull Regional Landscape Unit
This regional landscape unit consists of a narrow strip along the Ottawa River between Sheenboro in the west
and Montebello in the east. The relief is that of a gently rolling plain with a few hills. The hills are located
mainly in the sections along the Canadian Shield, at the northern limit of the unit, where some summits are as
high as 260 m. The average elevation, 115 m, is much lower than in the units located farther north. The
average elevation range is very low—less than 30 m. The bedrock consists mainly of crystalline rocks, but
there are also sedimentary rocks (limestone, dolomite) in the Gatineau and the sectors.
Marine deposits cover nearly half of the landscape unit. Clay deposits are by far the most common type, and
they form a uniform plain in some spots. Sandy marine deposits are located in the western part of the unit,
especially L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, where they have been partly reshaped by the wind and form now-stable
dunes. In the Fort-Coulonge sector, large fluvial deposits have been left by the Ottawa River. In addition, a
few fluvial deposits are present at the foot of the hills of the Canadian Shield along the northern limit of the
unit. Finally, between L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet and the city of Gatineau, areas of solid rock are many and vast.
36
Other than the Ottawa River and its numerous channels, which form the southern border of the unit, the
river system is little developed and bodies of water are very rare.
The unit is part of the maple–bitternut hickory bioclimatic domain. However, very few of the vegetation
groups characteristic of this domain are still present. The climate is moderate subhumid continental, except
for the Allumettes Island sector, which has more of a moderate continental climate. The unit therefore has
one of the mildest climates in Quebec and one of the longest growing seasons. The potential vegetation of its
mesic sites, sites where conditions are neither very humid nor very dry, is maple–basswood forest, maple–
yellow birch forest, or maple–red oak forest, depending on the soil type and depth. Eastern white pine and
red pine forest occupies upper slopes and xeric sites—dry sites. Mesic sites at the bottom of slopes and sites
with poor drainage have fir–red maple forest, and organic deposits are characterized by cedar bogs.
Private forests cover a large part of the territory; nevertheless, agricultural land occupies more than a third of
its area. The occupation of the land was shaped by townships, and the road network, well developed, is set
up with roads at right angles to each other. The population is mainly concentrated in the greater Gatineau
area. In the RCM of Pontiac, almost the entire population is concentrated in rural settlements: villages and
hamlets scattered throughout the unit.
TABLE 5
Statistics—Hull Regional Landscape Unit
Total Area
Average Elevation
Average Slope
Average Elevation Range
Maximum Slope
Climate
Average Annual Temperature
Growing Degree Days
Growing Season Length
Aridity Index
Average Annual Precipitation
Snow Cover
Snow Fraction
Land Use
Agriculture
Forest
Urban
2 233 km2
115 m
2%
28 m
25 m/km
5.0 °C
2 800 to 3 400 °C
180 to 190 days
200 to 225
800 to 1 000 mm
200 cm
25%
38%
59%
3%
Source: Robitaille, André and Saucier, Jean-Pierre, in Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional, Les Publications du Québec, 213 pages.
37
Lac Sinclair Regional Landscape Unit
This landscape unit is located to the northwest of the city of Gatineau. In the RCM of Pontiac, it goes as far as
Lake Lawless north of Campbell’s Bay. The relief is mostly uneven and consists of a tight, broken network of
hills and high hills. The average elevation range, however, is minimal, barely more than 100 m. Summits are
low at 350 to 400 m of elevation. The southern border, which runs along the Ottawa Valley, is marked by
several rocky escarpments, whereas in the north, the slopes are less steep. The bedrock is mainly composed
of crystalline metamorphic rock (paragneiss, amphibolite, marble).
Rock surfaces are omnipresent, and they alone occupy more than 40% of the unit. Gentle and moderate
slopes have a thin till cover. Thick till is very rare and found only at the bottom of a few narrow depressions.
Glacial outwashes are found in the larger valleys. A few bogs are found in poorly drained depressions.
In the RCM of Pontiac, the river network is made up of a few lakes. The main ones are the Sparling, Johnson,
Mecham and Barnes lakes, all located in the municipality of Thorne. The Quyon River crosses the territory.
The unit is part of the maple–basswood bioclimatic domain. The climate is subpolar humid continental. It is
characterized by a long growing season. The potential vegetation of its mesic sites is maple–basswood and
maple–ironwood forest, and at the bottom of slopes, maple–yellow birch forests. Sites that tend to be xeric
are inhabited by maple–red oak forest and hemlock forest, the latter being found mainly on rocky outcrops.
Hydric sites are occupied by yellow birch–pine forest and sugar maple–red maple forest, whereas organic
deposits are characterized by cedar bogs.
The land is mainly covered with forests, and agriculture is nonexistent. Private forests occupy the majority of
the territory. However, recreational tourism and cottage culture are well developed in this unit, especially
with Gatineau Park towards the east. The village of Ladysmith is in this unit.
38
TABLE 6
Statistics—Lac Sinclair Regional Landscape Unit
Total Area
Average Elevation
Average Slope
Maximum Slope
Climate
Growing Degree Days
Aridity Index
Snow Cover
Snow Fraction
Land Use
Agriculture
Forest
Urban
1 120 km2
240 m
11%
101 m
83 m/km
2.5 to 5.0 °C
2 600 to 3 000 °C
180 to 190 days
200 to 225
900 mm
200 to 250 cm
25%
—
100%
—
Source: Robitaille, André and Saucier, Jean-Pierre (1998), in Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional, Les Publications du Québec, 213 pages.
Lac Dumont Regional Landscape Unit
This unit is located about 75 km northwest of the city of Gatineau. The relief is moderately uneven and made
up of hills with rounded summits and gentle to moderate slopes. The average elevation range is just over
100 m. Summits are not very high and rarely reach 400 m. There are some rocky escarpments and small
encased valleys, especially in the south along the border with the Ottawa Valley, and a few expansive
depressions at the easternmost end. The bedrock is crystalline in nature and made up of metamorphic rocks
(migmatite, amphibolite, marble, paragneiss). The southern border runs along a geological border between
sedimentary rock and the crystalline rock forming the Canadian Shield.
Solid rock is exposed in more than a third of the unit, especially at summits and on moderate to steep slopes.
Thin till covers most gentle slopes, whereas thick till is fairly rare and is found at the bottom of narrow
depressions. Vast glacial outwashes occupy the flat areas in the eastern part of the unit.
The river network is made up of lakes with mainly irregular shapes. The main lakes are McGillivray Lake and
Dumont Lake. The Coulonge River runs across the centre of the territory from north to south before joining
the Ottawa River.
The unit is part of a sub-region of the maple–yellow birch bioclimatic domain. The climate is subpolar humid
continental. It is characterized by a medium-length growing season. The potential vegetation of mid-slope
mesic sites is maple–yellow birch forest. However, the potential vegetation of maple–basswood forest
persists on a large portion of mesic sites. Upper slopes are occupied by maple–ironwood forests. Sites with
39
high drainage, such as thin sediments and rocky outcrops, are occupied by maple–red oak forest and Eastern
white pine or red pine forests. Sites with moderate to imperfect drainage are occupied by fir–red maple
forests, and organic deposits are occupied by cedar bogs.
Forest covers almost all of the territory. It is mostly in the public domain, but part is also private property,
mostly along the southern and eastern borders of the unit. The forest is almost completely uninhabited.
TABLE 7
Statistics—Lac Dumont Regional Landscape Unit
Total Area
Average Elevation
Average Slope
Maximum Slope
Climate
Growing Degree Days
Aridity Index
Snow Cover
Snow Fraction
Land Use
Agriculture
Forest
Urban
3 596 km2
264 m
9%
101 m
78 m/km
5.0 °C
2 600 to 3 000 °C
170 to 180 days
150 to 225
800 to 1 000 mm
200 to 250 cm
25%
—
100%
—
Source: Robitaille, André and Saucier, Jean-Pierre, in Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional, Les Publications du Québec, 213 pages.
Map 6: Landscape Units and Bioclimatic Domains
2.2.3
Climate
The RCM of Pontiac is mainly characterized by a moderately cold and humid climate in the north. In the
south, the climate is milder and is suitable for agriculture. In fact, the growing season there is one of the
longest in Quebec. The south of the RCM of Pontiac is where the Hull regional landscape unit described above
is located. In the following table, the data on the climate in this part of the territory of the RCM are those
presented in Table 4, “Statistics—Hull Regional Landscape Unit.”
40
TABLE 8
Climate in the South of the RCM of Pontiac
CLIMATE
Average Annual Temperature1……………………………………………...................
Growing Degree Days2………………………………………………………………………..
Growing Season Length3………………………………………………………….
Aridity Index 4………………………………………………………………………………………..…
Average Annual Precipitation5……………………………………………………………..…
Snow Cover6…………………………………………………………………………………….….
Snow Fraction7…………………………………………………………………………………………..
5.0 °C
2 800 to 3 400 °C
180 to 190 days
200 to 225
800 to 1 000 mm
200 cm
25%
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Average annual air temperature is expressed in degrees Celsius. It is calculated using the daily average temperatures.
A growing degree day is each degree of temperature each day above the reference temperature, which is 5.6 °C.
Number of days the daily average temperature is greater than 5.6 °C.
Average annual number of months when there are moisture (water) deficits in the soil multiplied by 100.
Average total annual amount of liquid and solid precipitation (in millimetres).
Sum of the precipitation accumulated on the ground in the form of snow (in centimetres).
Fraction of the average annual precipitation that falls in the form of snow (expressed as a percentage).
Source: Robitaille, André et Saucier, Jean-Pierre, in Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional, Les Publications du Québec, 213 pages.
More specifically, the average amount of degree days accumulated between April and September varies
between 2 815 and 3 001 growing degree days. It varies between 3 002 and 3 189 growing degree days in the
south-easternmost part of the RCM, in the Bristol sector. The length of the frost-free season varies between
122 and 134 days annually in the south of the RCM of Pontiac, but it varies between 135 and 147 days
annually in the Bristol sector. The corn heat unit values are between 2 507 and 2 766, and can reach 3 026 in
the Bristol sector. It goes without saying that the climate affects agricultural activities, especially which types
of crops can be grown.
Corn heat units (CHU) are used to predict when during the growing season phenological stages, such as
maturity, will occur. They also indicate the capability of a region for corn production. CHUs are also used to
indicate the heat that various hybrids and cultivars need to reach maturity (Agro-météo Québec, 2012).
Map 7: Average Amount of Degree Days Accumulated Between April and October
Map 8: Length of the Frost-Free Season
Map 9: Average Length of the Growing Season
Map 10: Corn Heat Unit Values
41
2.2.4 Hydrography and Wetlands
A watershed refers to the movement of water in a geographic area. Every drop of water in a watershed flows,
through either runoff or drainage, towards the main watercourse or one of its tributaries. The boundaries of a
watershed are natural borders called drainage divides, which follow ridge lines (high points in the landscape).
The entire territory of the RCM of Pontiac is part of the Ottawa River watershed, which is made up of the subwatersheds of the following rivers: Dumoine, Coulonge, Gatineau, Noire, Penniseault, Quyon, Schyan and
Serpentine (Bernard creek). The zone studied as defined in sub-section 1.1.5 of this report is part of the subwatersheds of the following rivers: Coulonge, Gatineau, Noire, Quyon and Serpentine. These sub-watersheds
have the most risk of environmental problems related to agricultural activities. Agricultural activities can have
a significant impact on water quality when they are practiced upstream.
TABLE 9
Watersheds and Sub-Watersheds in the RCM of Pontiac
River
Coulonge
Dumoine
Gatineau
Noire
Penniseault
Quyon
Schyan
Serpentine
Area (km2)
5 237
4 312
23 878
2 647
141
423
582
228
Percentage (%) of Watershed
Located in the RCM of Pontiac
91
51
6
100
100
61
100
10
Source: MDDEP, 2012.
As for wetlands, they occur in many locations around the territory and have varying areas. The highest
concentration and largest areas of wetlands are located in the south of the municipality of Bristol (Bristol
marsh), in the north of the municipality of Clarendon (on both sides of Route 303), in the north-west of the
municipality of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet (Rocher-Fendu sector and Barry River), in the south of the
municipality of Mansfield-et-Pontefract (near the village of Fort-Coulonge), and in the centre and east of the
municipality of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes.
By definition, a wetland is an area of land flooded or saturated with water long enough for processes that
characterize wetlands to begin. Ponds, marshes, and bogs are examples of wetlands.
Map 11: Watershed and Sub-Watersheds
Map 12: Wetlands
42
2.2.5
Geology
Gneiss is the most common material in the Canadian Shield, which covers about 83% of the territory of the
RCM of Pontiac. Gneiss is a granite-like magmatic rock that was metamorphosed millions of years ago by
extreme temperature and pressure conditions. The south of the RCM of Pontiac is mainly limestone of
sedimentary origin, which forms when calcium carbonate and/or shells and animal skeletons in aqueous
environments precipitate and cement. The presence of limestone along the banks of the Ottawa River is a
legacy of the Champlain Sea, an ancient saltwater sea that covered, just after the last ice age, what is now the
Saint Lawrence lowland, including the Ottawa Valley. Bedrock geology has a great influence on soil type and
therefore soil characteristics.
Map 13: Geology
2.2.6
Pedology
General Soil Data
The soils in the Pontiac were described by the pedologist Paul G. Lajoie in his survey done for the counties of
Gatineau and Pontiac in the 1960s 3. This soil survey classes soils based on various factors including texture
(clay, sand, silt, and mixtures) and their capability for agriculture. The soil series is the foundation for
categorizing soils for agriculture.
The suitability of soils for agriculture is presented in the soil survey report. Soils are divided into five classes,
which are presented along with their characteristics in the following table.
3
LAJOIE, Paul G. (1962), Soil Survey of Gatineau and Pontiac Counties, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Quebec
Department of Agriculture and MacDonald College, McGill University.
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/pq/pq24/index.html
43
TABLE 10
Class
Soil Classification in the Soil Survey by Paul G. Lajoie
Characteristics
I
The soils have natural properties (topography, texture, structure, fertility, drainage, lack of
rocks) that make them suitable for most commonly cultivated crops, including row crops.
II
Although these soils are well suited for most crops, they have some limitations, especially with
regard to drainage. They are generally better for large-scale farming than row crops. These soils
are rich in humus and require little added fertilizer.
III
These soils generally have few stones and are suitable for a wide range of crops. They may
suffer from various drawbacks, such as imperfect or poor drainage. Their natural fertility is
generally low, but additives and fertilizers make it possible to obtain acceptable output from
these soils.
IV
The soils in this class are highly limited for agriculture. They can be used for forage crops and
intensive pasturing. The natural fertility of and level of organic matter in these soils are
generally low.
V
The soils in this class are generally unsuitable for agriculture. Although they have a high amount
of rocks, they can be used as pasture.
The following table lists the soil series found in the zone studied and the class each one belongs to.
44
TABLE 11
Symbol
Ac
Ag
At
Atl
Au
Auh
Aul
B
Be
Bel
Bf
Bfs
Bn
Ca
Cb
Cl
Cp
Ct
Cv
D
Di
Dm
Dr
F
Ft
G
Gt
Gu
I
Ie
If
J
Jl
Jv
Soil Series Present in the Pontiac
Name
Achigan
St. Agathe
Allumette
Allumette
Alluvial undifferentiated
Brandon
Bevin
Bevin
Brébeuf
Brébeuf
St. Bernard
Calumet
St. Colomban
Coulonge
Chapeau
Coteau
Courval
Dalhousie
Diable
St. Damase
Demers
Farmington
St. Faustin
St. Gabriel
Gatineau
Guindon
Ivry
Ivry
Ivry
St-Jude
St-Jude
St-Jovite
Texture
Very fine sand
Fine sandy loam
Very fine sandy loam
Loam to silt loam
Sandy to gravelly surface
Clayey surface
Silty to loamy surface
Clay
Fine loamy sand
Sandy loam
Silt loam
Loam
Sandy loam
Land type
Fine sandy loam
Clay
Sandy loam
Clay loam
Fine sand
Loamy sand
Silt loam
Land type
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Loamy sand and sandy loam
Fine sand
Wind-eroded phase
Very fine loamy sand and sandy
loam
Sand
Sandy loam
Class
III
V
III
III
IV
IV
IV
II
III
I
I
I
I
IV
V
III
II
I
III
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
V
III
IV
IV
IV
III
III
I
45
Symbol
La
Lcs
Le
Lk
Swamps
Mk
Mo
Moc
Mol
Mt
Ot
Pc
Pcl
Pm
R
Rn
S
Sp
Th
Up
Vf
Name
Larose
Lachute
Lesage
Lakefield
Morin
Morin
Morin
Mont-Rolland
Ottawa
Pontiac
Pontiac
Piedmont
Ste. Rosalie
Ripon
Soulanges
Ste. Sophie
St. Thomas
Uplands
Vaudreuil
X
Landslides
Xl
Landslides
Xs
Landslides
A.R.
Eau
Îles
Texture
Land type
Gravelly sandy loam
Land type
Swampy land
Muck
Sand
Coarse sand
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Sand
Silt loam to silty clay loam
Loam
Sandy loam
Clay
Loamy sand
Sand
Very fine sand
Sand
Fine sand
Landslides and gullies with clayey
surface
Landslides and gullies with loamy
surface
Landslides and gullies with sandy
surface
Class
V
I
III
V
n. a.
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
I
I
III
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
III
Rocky outcrops
Water
Islands
V
n. a.
n. a.
II
II
V
Map 14: Pedology
Location of Soils and the Agricultural Zone
While soils with a high capability for agriculture are generally found in the agricultural zone, soil class
distribution in the territory is quite variable. Therefore, we are presenting the soil class distribution in the
zone studied according to the previously described classification system.
46
TABLE 12
Soil Class Distribution According to the Classes of Suitability for Agriculture
Area in Hectares
Class of Suitability for Agriculture
Municipality
I
In the Agricultural Zone
84005 Bristol
84010 Shawville
84015 Clarendon
84020 Portage-du-Fort
84025 Bryson
84030 Campbell’s Bay
84035 L’Île-Grand-Calumet
84040 Litchfield
84045 Thorne
84050 Alleyn-et-Cawood
84055 Otter Lake
84060 Fort-Coulonge
84065 Mansfield-et-Pontefract
84070 Waltham
84082 L'Isle-aux-Allumettes
84090 Chichester
84095 Sheenboro
Sub-total
Outside the Agricultural Zone
84005 Bristol
84010 Shawville
84015 Clarendon
84020 Portage-du-Fort
84025 Bryson
84030 Campbell’s Bay
84035 L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet
84040 Litchfield
84045 Thorne
84050 Alleyn-et-Cawood
84055 Otter Lake
84060 Fort-Coulonge
84065 Mansfield-et-Pontefract
84070 Waltham
84082 L'Isle-aux-Allumettes
84090 Chichester
84095 Sheenboro
Sub-total
Total
Unclassed
Soils
II
III
IV
V
2 242
14
4 559
2 023
5
3 167
4 205
57
7 397
1
5 832
171
7 782
2
2 645
129
2 629
196
9
2 725
1 280
1
60
1 610
2 051
426
392
2 653
1 949
749
16 998
207
9 984
33
59
46
10
18
21
108
1 171
613
149
157
17
282
279
173
55
293
3 410
20 408
372
26
462
151
80
179
321
135
66
60
1 067
11 051
Total
1 468
2 309
621
2 107
773
371
5
58
38
11
1 457
1
2 073
392
6 343
2 076
925
31 452
323
7
0
1 853
84
3 659
617
48
19 876
1 218
1 053
828
2 371
1 034
15 353
50
2
28
142
129
794
17 075
247
25 730
2
1
136
8 162
8 149
1 003
0
1 786
1
5 992
1 949
13 974
7 156
3 091
94 456
215
135
603
69
2 645
101
4 806
292
18
39
292
958
515
154
185
815
617
204
30
53
4 901
24 777
76
3 782
2 289
4 276
8 506
9 237
16
2 416
640
2 471
556
592
42 701
74 153
643
5
1 867
0
220
4
747
7 752
10 507
21 887
30 818
75
12 988
10 799
1 334
4 929
1 220
105 795
121 148
201
1
232
19
29
52
909
956
710
1 361
3 180
29
1 254
666
384
161
57
10 201
10 995
3 750
286
7 585
379
400
251
5 764
12 782
17 065
32 418
43 546
321
17 891
13 067
4 625
5 732
2 215
168 076
262 532
0
62
194
1 698
47
From this distribution, we can calculate that 50% of the soil in the agricultural zone has a high suitability for
agriculture (classes I, II, and III). We can also see that over 9 300 hectares of soil in these classes is located
outside of the agricultural zone.
2.2.7
Forest Cover
Forest covers more than half of the municipal territory that is entirely or partially located in the zone studied.
The most forested municipalities are Alleyn-et-Cawood, Otter Lake, and Thorne, which are more than 80%
forest. The portions of the municipalities of Chichester, Mansfield-et-Pontefract, and Sheenboro that are not
part of the zone studied are almost entirely forested. In these sectors, agriculture is marginal or declining,
when it is present. It is practiced on valley floors and hillsides.
The agricultural plain occupies more land in the municipalities of Bristol (to the north and south of the
forested area in the centre), Clarendon (in the south and in the Shawville area), and L’Isle-aux-Allumettes (in
the Demers-Centre and Saint-Joseph areas), where forests cover less than 50% of all municipal land. The
agricultural plain also occupies, though less so, the territories of the municipalities of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet
(in the centre) and Litchfield (Vinton plain and to the north-east of Campbell’s Bay), where forest covers less
than 2/3 of the entire municipal territory. In the municipalities of Chichester (particularly around Nichabau),
Mansfield-et-Pontefract (Mansfield Township to the north of Fort-Coulonge), Sheenboro (Sheen Township),
and Waltham (Waltham Township), forest covers a range of areas depending on the apparent dynamism of
the agricultural activity in the municipality.
48
TABLE 13
Forest Cover by Municipality
Total Forest Cover1
Municipality
Area
(ha)
2
Area (ha)
Hardwood
3
Percentage
(%)
Area
(ha)
Mixed
4
Percentage
(%)
Area
(ha)
Softwood
4
Percentage
(%)
4
Area
(ha)
Percentage
(%)
Alleyn-et-Cawood
32 530
27 008.5
83.0
15 238.5
56.4
10 313.3
38.2
1 456.7
5.4
Bristol
23 500
11 253.0
47.9
2 250.7
20.0
7 243.8
64.4
1 758.5
15.6
Bryson
370
288.9
78.1
115.5
40.0
161.3
55.8
12.1
4.2
Campbell's Bay
350
110.6
31.6
33.9
30.7
76.7
69.4
0.0
0.0
Chichester
23 540
13 202.2
Note 5
5 024.4
38.0
7 323.6
55.5
854.2
6.5
Clarendon
34 840
16 891.9
48.5
4 182.7
24.8
9 754.3
57.7
2 954.9
17.5
320
147.3
46.0
30.4
20.6
78.9
53.5
38.1
25.9
Fort-Coulonge
14 740
8 239.0
55.9
1 948.1
23.7
4 708.3
57.1
1 582.6
19.2
23 420
11 199.5
47.8
3 089.4
27.6
6 789.8
60.6
1 320.4
11.8
Litchfield
21 410
14 087.9
65.8
6 790.7
48.2
6 642.2
47.1
655.0
4.7
52 510
23 307.5
Note 5
13 925.2
59.8
8 444.4
36.2
938.0
4.0
Otter Lake
49 460
41 302.6
83.5
24 753.0
59.9
14 454.2
35.0
2 095.4
5.1
Portage-du-Fort
420
309.4
73.7
33.7
10.9
210.1
67.9
65.6
21.2
Shawville
540
70.8
13.1
19.8
28.0
51.0
72.0
0.0
0.0
Sheenboro
63 400
8 883.2
Note 5
3 516.9
39.6
4 757.5
53.7
608.9
6.9
Thorne
18 180
15 278.9
84.0
6 916.4
45.3
6 847.5
44.8
1 515.1
9.9
Waltham
Total
40 180
14 497.4
Note 5
7 528.6
51.9
6 259.7
43.2
709.1
4.9
399 710
206 078.7
Note 5
95 397.8
46.3
94 116.4
45.7
16 564.5
8.0
Notes
1.
Total forest cover in the zone studied.
2.
Area according to the 2012 Répertoire des municipalités from MAMROT.
3.
Percentage of the total area of the municipality.
4.
Percentage of total forest cover.
5. The total forest cover is only partly located in the territory of the municipality included in the zone studied. Therefore, the percentage of the total
municipal area cannot be calculated.
Source: RCM of Pontiac, 2012.
Hardwood and mixed forest covers 92% of the municipal territory wholly or partly located in the zone
studied. There is an equal amount of hardwood and mixed forest. Mixed forest covers more than 50% of
several municipalities, with the highest percentages in the municipalities of Bristol, Campbell’s Bay, L’Isle-auxAllumettes, Portage-du-Fort, and Shawville. Hardwood forest is mainly located in the municipalities of Bristol,
Clarendon, Fort-Coulonge, L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet, and Portage-du-Fort, and it accounts for more than 15%
of the total forest cover in these municipalities.
Map 15: Forest Cover
Map 16: Types of Forest Cover
49
2.2.8
Maple Stands
Maple stands of all sizes are identified using the data from the MRNF’s 4th inventory. These stands, which
have different areas, are mainly located in the north of the zone studied. They are mainly made up of sugar
and/or red maple with shade-tolerant hardwood. Farther south, maple stands are rare or absent. When they
are present, their area is too small for maple syrup production, given the limited number of taps that can be
made.
Map 17: Maple Stands
2.2.9
Wildlife Habitats
The wildlife habitats identified on the thematic map are those protected under the Act respecting the
conservation and development of wildlife (L.R.Q., c. C-61.1). These protected wildlife habitats are waterfowl
gathering areas, muskrat habitats, white-tailed deer gathering areas (winter deer concentration areas), bird
colonies (islands and peninsulas), heronries (nesting areas), and wood turtle habitats. Few of these habitats
are located in or near the agricultural territory. When they are, they can pose a challenge to agricultural
activity.
Map 18: Wildlife Habitats
50
Chapter 3
There must already be an understanding of the potentialities for agricultural practice and the constraints that
can shape its development in order to understand the dynamics of the agricultural land. These potentialities
and constraints comprise an ensemble of perceptions that are generally based on scientific data. They can
also come from a subjective interpretation of the land by a variety of stakeholders. This type of perception is
becoming more frequent in territorial planning through characterization. While this characterization is quite
desirable, it is not included in this report. The concept of perceptions and values associated with a place stem
mainly from scientific and geographically referenced data inventories.
The potentialities are described in the inventories on agricultural and forestry capabilities, which can be
found in the pedagogical surveys of Paul G. Lavoie or in the Canada Land Inventory. The ecoforestal inventory
of Quebec provides valuable data on the location of sugar bushes. The constraints on the practice of
agriculture are numerous: natural (ecological), cultural (historic and heritage-related), and others such as the
land capability for recreational and tourist activities.
It is suggested that, in order to gain a general understanding of the ensemble of these potentialities and
constraints, an analytical model of the potentialities and constraints for agriculture be created.
3.1
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN INVENTORIES AND INDICATORS
Understanding a territory means giving meaning to the geographic space and to what happens within that
space. To understand the geographic space, geographically referenced data are used. For example, data can
be found on topics such as relief, soil types, hydrography, etc. The data related to a particular topic are called
“inventories”:
“Observation and identification of the sensitive manifestations that influence spatial dynamics —regional
disparities, local differentiations and conflict zones— make it possible to develop a series of pertinent
inventories that empirically document the various territorial issues at play. 4”
The concept of “indicator” applies to the interpretation of inventory data with the purpose of generalizing
and establishing links between various inventories.
“To ensure that the simple description of observed phenomena leads to a generalization, the inventory
data are classified and compiled into a series of spatial indicators. 5”
4
GAGNON, S. et al. (2009), Toward an Objective Understanding of Spatial Dynamics: Description of a Methodology and Two Case Studies in
Québec, UQO-CRDT, p.15.
5
Id.
51
To summarize, inventories are a series of data that show the various characteristics of a given geographic
space, without common reference or language that indicate their contribution to the overall comprehension
of the space. Indicators are transformed inventories, interpreted with a standardized grid for a given sector
(for example, the agriculture sector) in order to understand the impact of the presence of any geographic
factors on the development of the sector in question.
3.2
DATA SOURCES
To know the potentialities and constraints for using land for various purposes, reference must be made to
credible and objective data sources. The sources used for the study of the potentialities and constraints of
agricultural land include the Canada Land Inventory, the presence of sugar bushes (MRNF), and the presence
of aquatic environments and wetlands.
3.2.1
Canada Land Inventory
The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) is one of the largest knowledge generators on land capability in Canada’s
history. This large study was conducted under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA). Covering
over 2.5 million km2, the CLI was created for planning land use according to the capabilities for agriculture,
forest, recreation, and wildlife.
3.2.2
“The Canada Land Inventory is a comprehensive multi-disciplinary land inventory of rural Canada,
covering over 2.5 million square kilometers of land and water. Land capability for agriculture,
forestry, wildlife, recreation, wildlife (ungulates and waterfowl) was mapped. Over 1000
mapsheets at the 1:250,000 scale were created during the 1960's, 70s, and early 80's. Although
the information is old, and better information is available for some areas as part of more recent
soil surveys, the interpretations are still largely valid, and many jurisdictions still use them for
land use planning purposes. There are seven classes used to rate agricultural land capability.
Class 1 lands have the highest and Class 7 lands the lowest capability to support agricultural land
use activities. Subclasses are used to identify specific limiting factors for each class.”
(CanSIS, http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/cli/intro.html)
Sugar Bush Operations
Sugar bush operations for the purpose of collecting maple sugar and syrup are an integral agricultural activity
protected by the Quebec government. With 71% of global production coming from Quebec (2008) 6, the
maple syrup industry is a major component of the province’s agricultural economy. Since 1978, the Quebec
government has added provisions to the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural
Activities in order to protect this resource specifically in agricultural regions identified under the Act.
Section 27. No person may, except with the authorization of the commission, use a sugar bush
situated in a designated agricultural region for any other purpose, nor fell maple trees there, except
for the purposes of selection or thinning within the framework of forest management. 7
6
7
Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec, Maple Production. http://www.siropderable.ca/Product_en.aspx
Governement of Quebec, An Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities, RSQ C P-41.1
52
In Section 1, the Act defines sugar bush types that are subject to protection and their minimum area:
“A forest stand identified by the letters ER, ERFI, ERFT, ERBB, ERBJ or ERO on the forest inventory maps
drawn up by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune [the department of natural
resources and wildlife] is presumed to be suitable for the production of maple syrup within the
meaning of this Act.”
(7) “sugar bush” means a forest stand, covering an area of at least four hectares, suitable for the
production of maple syrup.
For the purpose of characterizing the agricultural territory, all of the sugar maple stands, no matter the area,
were listed using the MRNF’s 4th Inventory. This was done so as to avoid narrowing the scope of the Act when
it came to the identification criteria for maple sugar bushes. It was also done because the spatial information
is not very differentiable at the working scale (the entire south half of the RCM).
3.2.3
Aquatic Environments and Wetlands
The presence of surface water is a factor that limits the land use possibilities of a geographic space for
agricultural purposes in a number of ways.
On one hand, agricultural activity is, by nature, impossible on water bodies and water courses. In order to
represent these features, we have used the Government of Canada’s database called the “National Hydro
Network” (NHN). This database has both polygonal and linear elements. The polygons represent the large
water bodies and water courses. The linear network represents the lesser water courses. Due the extreme
impossibility of practicing agriculture on aquatic surfaces, all of the areas identified as being in water bodies
and water courses are automatically excluded from the model presented in Chapter 6 of this report.
On the other hand, areas with an intermediate humidity level are designated “wetlands”. Although wetlands
were previously filled to reach or increase the area needed for cultivation, this practice is no longer
acceptable today. This is because advances in the study of ecosystems over the past few decades have shown
that wetlands are not only purifiers, but also one of the bases of biodiversity in territories, a key component
to life on earth. This development led to the Quebec government adopting the Protection Policy for
Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains (RRQ, c Q-2, r 35) and certain provisions from the
Agricultural Operations Regulation (RRQ, c Q-2, r 26). In our opinion, these two regulations bring about
limitations and constraints to agricultural activity in varying degrees. The segments causing the limitations are
listed in the following tables.
TABLE 14 Excerpts from the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains
53
Section
3.2
Measures relating to lakeshores and riverbanks
All structures, undertakings and works are in principle prohibited on lakeshores and riverbanks.
The following structures, undertakings and works may be permitted provided they are consistent
with other protection measures recommended for floodplains:
(…)
e) the following vegetation-related undertakings and works:
- forest management activities subject to the Forest Act and its regulations;
- sanitation cutting;
- harvesting of 50% of stems 10 cm or more in diameter, provided that at least 50% of the forest
cover is maintained in private woodlots used for forestry or agricultural purposes;
(…)
f) cultivation of soil for agricultural purposes provided that a strip of vegetation at least 3 m wide,
measured from the high-water mark, is preserved and, where there is a bank and the top of the
bank is less than 3 m from the high-water mark, provided that the width of the strip of vegetation
to be preserved is a minimum of 1 m wide at the top of the bank.
(…)
54
3.3
Measures relating to littoral zones
All structures, undertakings and works are in principle prohibited in littoral zones.
The following structures, undertakings and works may be permitted provided they are consistent
with other protection measures recommended for floodplains:
(…)
e) creation for agricultural purposes of inlet or diversion channels for the catchment of water in
cases where an authorization must be obtained under the Environment Quality Act (chapter Q-2)
for the creation of such canals;
(…)
4.2
Measures relating to the high-velocity zones of floodplains
All structures, undertakings and works are in principle prohibited in the high-velocity zone of a
floodplain and in identified floodplains where high-velocity zones are not distinguished from lowvelocity zones, subject to the measures under Subsections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
4.2.1
Permitted structures, undertakings and works
Despite the principle set forth above, the following structures, undertakings and works may be
allowed in those zones, provided they are consistent with the protection measures applicable to
lakeshores, riverbanks and littoral zones:
(…)
j) agricultural land drainage works;
k) forest management activities that do not require filling or the removal of fill, and that are
subject to the Forest Act (chapter F-4.1) and its regulations;
l) agricultural activities that do not require filling or the removal of fill.
55
4.2.2
Structures, undertakings and works eligible for an exemption
4.2.2. Structures, undertakings and works eligible for an exemption
Certain structures, undertakings and works may also be permitted if they are consistent with
other protection measures applicable to lakeshores, riverbanks and littoral zones, and if they
have been exempted pursuant to the provisions of the Act respecting land use planning and
development (chapter A-19.1). Annex 2 to this Policy lists the criteria that a metropolitan
community, a regional county municipality or a city exercising the powers of a regional county
municipality should use to determine the eligibility of an application for an exemption. The
following structures, undertakings and works are eligible for an exemption:
(…)
i) any undertaking:
- to expand an agricultural, industrial, commercial or public facility;
(…)
TABLE 15 Excerpts from the Agricultural Operations Regulation
Section
1
The object of this Regulation is to protect the environment, particularly water and soil, against
pollution caused by certain agricultural activities.
6
It is prohibited to erect, lay out or expand a raising or storage facility in a watercourse, lake,
swamp, natural marsh or pond and the 15 m area on each side or around those areas, measured
from the high-water mark, if any.
The first paragraph applies to sections of watercourses whose total flow area (average width
multiplied by average height) is greater than 2 m2.
30
The spreading of fertilizers is prohibited in the following areas:
(1) a watercourse or body of water as well as within its riparian strip the boundaries of which
are defined by municipal by-law; and
(2) in the absence of a riparian strip defined by municipal by-law:
56
Section
(a) in a watercourse, a lake, a swamp having a minimum area of 10,000 m2 or a pond as well
as within its 3 m riparian strip; and
(b)
in an agricultural ditch and within a 1 m strip from it.
The presence of bodies of water, water courses, and wetlands pose constraints for agricultural activity,
ranging from minor limitations to complete impediment. In Chapter 6 of this report, the geographical
elements listed above will be listed according to their degree of limitation to agriculture caused by aquatic
areas and wetlands.
3.3
CHOSEN INVENTORIES
In order to build a complete dossier from which to analyze the potentialities and constraints for agricultural
activities, a certain number of inventories were chosen from the aforementioned sources. These inventories
are classified in two groups: factors that enhance agriculture and factors that impede agriculture. Each
chosen inventory will indicate whether or not it is possible for a given portion of land to support agricultural
activities. An interpretation scale, which we will discuss in further detail in Chapter 6 of this report, will show
in seven classes, the scope of possibility between “favourable” and “unfavourable”. For now, the topics
chosen for the geographically referenced inventories are the following:
1) Factors related to agriculture: maple stands and land capability for agriculture and forestry;
2) Factors not related to agriculture: aquatic environments and wetlands, and the land capability for
recreation and wildlife 8.
The subsections that follow outline each inventory, its purpose in the context of characterizing the
agricultural territory, and technical information.
8
This comprises the presence of wildlife habitats and capability for ungulates and waterfowl.
57
3.3.1
Factors Related to Agriculture(A1)
Land Capability for Agriculture
The study of agricultural capability is typical of the CLI. The CLI groups the soil capability for field crops in
seven classes, from very high to very low. Organic soils are classed as “O” and unclassified soils are classed as
“8.”Subclasses provide additional information for analysis purposes. However, only the main classification is
being taken into account for the purposes of this project. The whole of the CLI has a structure similar to that
of agricultural capability: capability in seven classes, with subclasses and additional information.
The components to retain from the study of land capability for agriculture are the following:
“In this classification the mineral soils were grouped into 7 classes on the basis of soil survey
information. Soils classed as 1,2,3 or 4 were considered capable of sustained use for cultivated field
crops; those in classes 2 and 6 for perennial forage crops; those in class 7 for neither.”
Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Agriculture
Data Source:
The CLI data is available online through Geogratis, a portal managed by GeoConnections (Government of
Canada).
Data Set:
Source:
Table:
Field:
CLI—Land Capability for Agriculture
Geogratis, http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/cli250k.html
annnl where nnnl corresponds to the NTS9 mapsheet code at the scale 1:250000 (ex.: a031g)
CLASS_A
The aforementioned data classes are in the following table:
9
The National Topographic System of Canada
58
TABLE 16
Soil Capability for Agriculture—Data Classes
Field Value
CLASS_A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
O
W
Valid CLI Classes
No significant limitations
Moderate limitations—moderate conservation practices required
Moderately severe limitations—restricted range of crops or special conservation practices
required
Severe limitations
Forage Crops—improvement practices feasible
Forage Crops—improvement practices are not feasible
No capability for arable culture or permanent pasture
Unclassified areas
Organic soils
Water
Note: Unclassified areas (8) and bodies of water (W) are blank in the thematic map (null value, <nul>).
The interpretation of soil capability for agriculture will be discussed in Chapter 6 of this report.
Map 19: Soil Capability for Agriculture According to the CLI
Map 20: Soil Capability for Agriculture According to Paul G. Lajoie
Map 21: Soil Limitations According to the CLI
Map 22: Soil Limitations According to Paul G. Lajoie
Because of their larger scale, the soil capability for agriculture maps and the soil limitation maps from Paul G.
Lajoie are more widely used by CPTAQ when making decisions about an agricultural zone. For the purpose of
characterization, only data from the Canada Land Inventory are used for the model in Chapter 6 of this
report.
Land Capability for Forestry
In the context of agriculture, forestry is considered an agricultural activity and is often complementary to
agriculture. From the standpoint of resource usage in an agriculture operation, these two activities share a
set of resources: workforce (family or employee), equipment, buildings, and land. Therefore, it is reasonable
that a strong capability for forestry be equated with a strong capability for agriculture.
The data on forestry capability are equivalent to the data on agricultural capability. This inventory measures
the land’s capability for forest productivity.
“In this classification all mineral and organic soils are grouped into one of seven classes based
upon their inherent ability to grow commercial timber. The best lands of Canada for commercial
59
tree growth will be found in Class 1 and those in Class 7 cannot be expected to yield timber in
commercial quantities. These represent the extremes.”
Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Forestry
Data Source:
Data Set :
Source :
Table:
CLI—Land Capability for Forestry
fnnnl where nnnl corresponds to the NTS mapsheet code at the scale
1:250000 (ex.: f031g)
CLASS_A
Field:
The aforementioned data classes are in the table below:
TABLE 17
Capability for Forestry—Data Classes
Field Value
CLASS_A
CLI Classes
1
No important limitations—productivity greater than 111 cubic feet per acre per year.
2
Slight Limitations—productivity of 91-110 cubic feet per acre per year
3
Moderate limitations—productivity from 71-90 cubic feet per acre per year
4
Moderately severe limitations—productivity from 51 to 70 cubic feet per acre per year
5
Severe limitations—productivity from 31-50 cubic feet per acre per year
6
Very severe limitations—productivity from 11-30 cubic feet per acre per year
7
Severe limitations precluding the growth of commercial forests
8
Unclassified areas
W
Water
Note: Unclassified regions (8) and bodies of water (W) are blank in the thematic map (null value, <nul>).
Forestry capability will be further discussed in Chapter 6 of this report.
Map 23: Forestry Capability according to the CLI
Sugar Maple Stands
As previously mentioned, the presence of sugar maple stands is an important indicator of a given piece of
land being able to support agricultural activity.
The proposed data sets are outlined in the following table.
60
TABLE 18
Sugar Maple Stands—Data Sets
Field Value
Maple Stands
Included
Absent
Valid Classes
ER, ERBB, ERBJ, ERBJRX, ERBJSB, ERBP, ERBPRX, ERCR, ERCRPB, ERCRRX, ERCRSB, EREO,
EREOPB, EREOPU, EREORX, ERER, ERERPB, ERERRX, ERFH, ERFI, ERFIPB, ERFIPU, ERFIRX,
ERFT, ERFTPB ERFTPU, ERFTRX, ERFTSB, ERFX, ERFXRX, ERFXSB, ERPE, ERPEPB, ERPERX,
ERPESB, ERR
Other codes of forest cover
Sugar maple stands in terms of agricultural activity will be discussed further in Chapter 6 of this report.
Map 24: Capability for Sugar Maples
3.3.2
Factors Not Related to Agriculture (A2)
Land Capability for Recreation
Recreational activities, by nature, differ from production activities such as agriculture and forestry. With
emotional or contemplative relations to land, these activities are often incompatible with production
activities. The recreational activities according to the CLI are outlined below.
TABLE 19
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
Valid Recreational Features (CLI)
Description
Angling
Beach
Canoe Tripping
Deep Inshore Water
Vegetation
Waterfalls and Rapids
Glacier
Historic Site
Gathering and Collecting
Organized Camping
Landforms
Small Surface Waters
Lodging
Code
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Description
Upland Wildlife
Cultural Landscape Pattern
Topographic Patterns
Rock Formations
Skiing Areas
Thermal Springs
Deep Water Boat Tripping
Viewing
Wetland Wildlife
Miscellaneous
Family Boating
Man-made Features
61
The data on the capability for extensive recreation give an overview in seven classes of the land’s capability to
support outdoor recreational activities.
“Seven classes of land were differentiated on the basis of the intensity of outdoor recreational
use, or the quantity of outdoor recreation, which may be generated and sustained per unit area
of land per annum, under perfect market conditions.”
Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Recreation
Data source :
Data Set:
Source:
Table:
CLI—Land Capability for Recreation
rnnnl where nnnl corresponds to the NTS mapsheet code at the scale
1:250000 (ex.: r031g)
CLASS_A
Field:
TABLE 20
Capability for Recreation—Data Classes
Field Value
CLASS_A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Valid CLI Classes
Land units in this class have a very high capability for outdoor recreation.
Land units in this class have a high capability for outdoor recreation.
Land units in this class have a moderately high capability for outdoor recreation.
Land units in this class have moderate capability for outdoor recreation.
Land units in this class have moderately low capability for outdoor recreation.
Land units in this class have low capability for outdoor recreation.
Land units in this class have very low capability for outdoor recreation.
Special Cases—See the metadata from the files on recreational activity
Note: Polygons classified as special cases are blank on the thematic map. (null value, <nul>).
Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Recreation
Land capability for recreation will be discussed further in Chapter 6 of this report.
Map 25: Land Capability for Extensive Recreation According to the CLI
62
Land Capability for Wildlife
Similar to recreational capability, land capability for wildlife is an indicator of a given area of land’s ability to
support a wide range of activities that are generally minimally compatible with agricultural activity: hunting
and wildlife observation are examples of these. Two inventories from the CLI, ungulates and waterfowl,
discuss wildlife. The presence of wildlife habitats, as outlined in an MRNF inventory, is an additional indicator
of a localized restriction to agricultural activity. This section will discuss the three inventories.
Ungulates
Land capability for ungulates is an indicator of the areas conducive to hunting and wildlife observation.
“In general, the needs of all ungulates are much alike: each individual and species must have a
sufficient quality and quantity of food, protective cover, and space to meet its needs for survival,
growth, and reproduction. The ability of the land to meet those needs is determined by the individual
requirements of species or group of species under consideration, the physical characteristics of the
land, and those factors, such as climate, that influence the plant and animal communities.”
Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Ungulates
Data Source:
Data Set:
Source:
Table:
Field:
TABLE 21
Field Value
CLASS_A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CLI—Land Capability for Ungulates
unnnl where nnnl corresponds to the NTS mapsheet code at the scale
1:250000 (ex.: u031g)
CLASS_A
Capability for Ungulates—Data Classes
Valid CLI Classes
Lands having no significant limitations to the production of ungulates.
Lands having very slight limitations to the production of ungulates.
Lands having slight limitations to the production of ungulates.
Lands having moderate limitations to the production of ungulates
Lands having moderately severe limitations to the production of ungulates.
Lands having severe limitations to the production of ungulates.
Lands having limitations so severe that there is no ungulate production.
Unclassified Areas
Note: Unclassified Areas are blank on the thematic map. (null value, <nul>).
63
Waterfowls
Like in the previous section, the land capability for waterfowls is an indicator of the areas conducive to
hunting and wildlife observation, thus delimiting reserved areas in some cases.
“In general, the needs of all waterfowl are much alike; each individual and species must be
provided with a sufficient quality and quantity of food, protective cover, and space to meet its
needs for survival, growth, and reproduction. The ability of the land to meet these needs is
determined by the individual requirements of the species or group under consideration, the
physical characteristics of the land, and those factors that influence the plant and animal
communities. The land is divided into areas on the basis of physiographic characteristics
important to waterfowl populations. The degree of limitation associated with each area
determines its capability class.
Capability ratings are established on the bases of the optimum vegetation stage (successional
stage) that can be maintained when good wildlife management is practiced.”
Source: Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Waterfowls
Data Source:
Data Set:
Source:
Table:
CLI—Land Capability for Waterfowls
wnnnl where nnnl corresponds to the NTS mapsheet code at the scale 1:250000
(ex.: w031g)
CLASS_A
Champ:
TABLE 22
Capability for Waterfowls—Data Classes
Field Value
CLASS_A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Valid CLI Classes
Lands having no significant limitations to the production of waterfowl.
Lands having very slight limitations to the production of waterfowl.
Lands having slight limitations to the production of waterfowl.
Lands having moderate limitations to the production of waterfowl.
Lands having moderately severe limitations to the production of waterfowl.
Lands having severe limitations to the production of waterfowl.
Lands having such severe limitations that almost no waterfowl are produced.
Special cases
Note: Polygons listed as special cases are blank on the thematic map. (null value, <nul>).
Land capability for wildlife will be discussed further in Chapter 6 of this report.
64
Map 26: Land Capability for Wildlife According to the CLI
Wildlife Habitats
Wildlife habitats also present a constraint to agricultural activity. Although this constraint is generally
localized or situated in the peripheral areas of intensive agricultural land, the level of nuisance for the
agricultural activities can be relatively large locally. In addition, while wildlife interpretation activities can
consolidate this natural component’s spatial base, the constraint can be significant. The cases of the
Canadian goose in the Plaisance area of the Outaouais region and the snow goose of lac Saint-Pierre near
Trois-Rivières are good examples of the difficulties related to the cohabitation of wildlife and agricultural
activity.
Data source:
Data set:
Source:
Table:
Field:
MRNF
TABLE 23
Wildlife Habitats—Data Classes
Field Value
Wildlife Habitat
Presence of Wildlife Habitats
Valid CLI Classes
TOPONYM
Waterfowl Gathering Area
Campbell’s Bay
Baie-Féline
O'Brien Bay (Northwest of Allumettes Lake)
Bryson
Chenal-du-Grand-Calumet
Chutes-du-Grand-Calumet (0.5 km to the south)
Grand-Marais de Bristol
Rapides-des-Allumettes (Morrison Island)
Sand Bay (East)
Muskrat Habitat
Baie-de-Georges
Dirty Cut Bay
Baie Armstrong
Knox Landing North
65
Field Value
Wildlife Habitat
Valid CLI Classes
Grand-Marais-Sud
Grand-Marais-Nord-Ouest
Baie Cowley
White Tail Deer Yards
Aylwin Station
Davidson
Île-du-Grand-Calumet
Ladysmith
Venosta
Heronry
Lac Hart (1 km east)
Lac à Roger (2.5 km to the southeast)
Lac Hardwood (1.1 km to the southeast
Bird Colony
Sand Bay Island or Peninsula (2.0 km to the southeast)
Ecological Reserve
Chênaie-des-Îles-Finlay
Absence of Wildlife Habitats
The remainder of the zone studied
Map 18: Wildlife Habitats
Aquatic Environments and Wetlands
As mentioned in sub-section 3.2.3, aquatic environments and wetlands impose a wide variety of limitations
on to the practice of agriculture. The data on aquatic environments (bodies and courses of water) come from
the federal department of natural resources. Polygonal elements were the only elements available on an
appropriate scale for this study. The data on wetlands comes from the MDDEP.
Aquatic Environments
Data source:
Data set:
Sources:
Table:
Field:
Natural Resources Canada –Geobase
The aforementioned data classes are in the following table.
66
TABLE 24
Aquatic Environments—Data Classes
Field Value
Aquatic Habitats
Presence of an
aquatic
environment
Absence
of an aquatic
environment
Valid Classes
RHN_Pontiac_REGIONHYDRO
Wetlands
Data Source:
Data Set:
Sources:
Table:
Field:
MDDEP
The aforementioned data classes are in the table below:
TABLE 25
Wetlands—Data Classes
Field Value
Wetland Habitats
Presence of wetlands
Absence of wetlands
Valid Classes
m_humides_ss_0507
Aquatic environments and wetlands as limitations to agricultural activity will be discussed further in Chapter 6
of this report.
Map 12: Wetlands
67
Chapter 4
GOVERNANCE
Governance means the coordination process that enables political, economic, and administrative powers to
be exercised by stakeholders holding different degrees of decision-making power at every level of the
national, regional, and local structures. Concretely, this means a greater participation of the organized civil
society in formulating and implementing decisions.
4.1
TERRITORIAL MANAGEMENT
Territorial management means acts of improvement that stem directly from pertinent territorial authorities.
This also includes the ensemble of land management acts, regulations, and policies. Territorial management
is divided into six classes: agricultural zoning (under one of the Quebec government’s act protecting
agricultural land and activities), land reserves and specific land rights (stemming from the senior levels of
government), government policy directions for land use planning (from the Quebec government), the main
planning orientations, and general policies on land use from the RCM, which the local authorities follow.
These actions comprise the acts of agricultural land use and development.
4.1.1
Agricultural Zoning
Agricultural zoning was first outlined in the Act to preserve agricultural land, which later became the Act
Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities. This law is the foundation for
ensuring the protection of Quebec’s agriculture heritage and the development of agriculture.
Adopting the Act to preserve agricultural land
In December 1978, when the climate was ideal for change, the Quebec government adopted the Act to
preserve agricultural land, which took effect retroactively until November 9, 1978. “So on November 9, 1978,
use of any territory identified by government decree for purposes other than agriculture, breaking up of land,
removal of top soil, and logging maple trees on a sugar maple operation of is prohibited.”
The goal of the Act is to secure a lasting territorial basis for the practice of agriculture, and to promote, in
keeping with the concept of sustainable development, the preservation and development of agricultural
activities and enterprises in the agricultural zones established by the regime. The act applies to the government
and to the departments and agencies of the government. The Act prevails over any inconsistent provision of a
general law or special Act applicable to a community or municipality. The act also prevails over any
incompatible provisions of land use and development plans, master plans, and zoning, subdivision, or
construction by-laws.
68
The Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ) was created under the Act to
preserve agricultural land in order to secure the preservation of the agricultural land and to monitor the
implementation of laws for which it is responsible.
Territory delimitations of a designated agricultural region
Between 1978 and 1981, the Quebec Government identified, by decree, six agricultural regions designated
under the Act to preserve agricultural land. In the Pontiac RCM, the designated agricultural region
corresponds to the municipal land outlined in the table below. After the designation was made, the Minister
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food filed a provisional plan that identified the reserved area in respect to the
fifteen Pontiac RCM municipalities referred to in the act. The provisional plans describe the reserved area
and, as the case may be, are accompanied with a technical description of its boundaries. Boundaries may be
indicated by using the boundaries of lots bearing a separate number, the cadastral boundaries, metes and
bounds or other natural or artificial geographical boundaries.
Until 1983, alongside its usual activities, the CPTAQ completed, with the help of each municipality, the
negotiation process that lead to the adoption of decrees establishing agricultural zones.
69
TABLE 26 Designated Agricultural Region under the Act to preserve agricultural land
Government Decree
9 November 1978
(first decree)
7 November 1981
(sixth decree)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Municipalities
1
Bristol (CT)
Bryson (VL)
Campbell’s Bay (VL)
Clarendon (CT)
Grand-Calumet (CT)
Litchfield (CT)
Portage-du-Fort (VL)
Shawville (VL)
Alleyn-et-Cawood (CU)
Chichester (CT)
Fort-Coulonge (VL)
Lac-Nilgaut (TNO)
Chapeau (VL)
Isle-aux-Allumettes-Partie-Est (CT)
Isle-des-Allumettes (CT)
Mansfield-et-Pontefract (CU)
Leslie-Clapham-et-Huddersfield (CU)
Rapides-des-Joachims (SD)
Sheen-Esher-Aberdeen-et-Malakoff (CU)
Thorne (CT)
Waltham-et-Bryson (CU)
Municipalities in 2012
Bristol (M)
Bryson (M)
Campbell’s Bay (M)
Clarendon (M)
3
L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet (M)
Litchfield (M)
Portage-du-Fort (VL)
Shawville (M)
Alleyn-et-Cawood (M)
Chichester (CT)
Fort-Coulonge (VL)
Lac-Nilgaut (TNO)
4
L’Isle-aux-Allumettes (M)
Mansfield-et-Pontefract (M)
5
Otter Lake (M)
Rapides-des-Joachims (M)
6
Sheenboro (M)
Thorne (M)
7
Waltham (M)
2
Reserved Area













The full terms for the abbreviations in parentheses are non-designated municipality (SD), township municipality (CT), united township municipality
(CU), village municipality (VL) and unorganized territory (TNO).
The full terms for the abbreviations in parentheses are municipality (M), village municipality (VL), township municipality (CT) and unorganized
territory (TNO). A number of municipalities changed their designation after the adoption of the government decrees establishing agricultural
zones.
The name for the municipality of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet was made official by the Commission de toponymie du Québec in 2008.
The municipality of Chapeau Village and the township municipalities of L'Isle-aux-Allumettes and L'Isle-aux-Allumettes-Part-East were regrouped
into the new Municipality of L'Isle-aux-Allumettes in 1998.
The name for the municipality of Otter Lake was made official by the Commission de toponymie du Québec in 2004.
The name for the municipality of Sheenboro was made official by the Commission de toponymie du Québec in 2003.
The name for the municipality of Waltham was made official by the Commission de toponymie du Québec in 1997.
Source: CPTAQ, 2012
Modifications to the Agricultural Zone and the Act to preserve agricultural land
In 1987, CPTAQ began the process of revising the agricultural zone limits alongside the regional county
municipalities and with the UPA as consultants. This revision was aimed at harmonizing agricultural zones
with the first generation of development plans implemented under the LAU in 1979. This negotiation,
completed in 1992, lead to the conclusion of 96 of the possible 97 agreements across Quebec.
In the Pontiac RCM, a number of hectares were removed from the agricultural zone after the revisions were
made (decree number 720-91 adopted 29 May 1991) because of poor soil capability for agriculture and
because of anticipated development needs of the local municipality, particularly for growth and adjustment
70
of urban areas and for establishing industrial areas. During and after the revision period, the Quebec
government’s agricultural land protection measures continued to be applied.
In June of 1997, the Act to preserve agricultural land was modified by Bill 23 or the “Right to Farm Act” in
order to promote greater involvement of the municipal authorities and greater complementarity between
land management and protection of agricultural land and activities. As a result, the Act became the Act
Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities.
Agricultural Zones
In Quebec today, the area of the agricultural zone is 6 306 874 hectares or 63 068.74 km2, and within the area
there are 953 municipalities in the 17 administrative regions of the province. In the Outaouais region, the
agricultural zone has an area of 316 136 hectares or 3 161.36 km2, and within the area there are 55
municipalities in the administrative region. In the Pontiac RCM, the area of the agricultural zone is 94 418
hectares or 944.18 km2, and within the area there are 13 municipalities. The agricultural zone occupies 24%
of the municipal land in the Pontiac RCM (CPTAQ, 2010-2011 annual report).
TABLE 27
Data on agricultural zone land of the Pontiac RCM on 31 March 2011
Pontiac RCM
Number of municipalities with decreed agricultural zones
Total area of the agricultural zone (ha)
Total area of farms registered with MAPAQ (ha)
Number of farms registered with MAPAQ (ha)
Percentage of agricultural zone occupied by farms (5)
Area of municipal land in the RCM (ha)
1
Total area of the RCM (ha)
Percentage of municipal land occupied by agricultural zone (%)
Percentage of entire RCM territory occupied by agricultural zone (%)
2
Included since the revision (ha)
2
Excluded since the revision (ha)
1
2
13
94 418
40 358
260
43
385 441
1 290 550
24
7
393
293
The total area of the RCM, including local municipalities and unorganized territory.
Areas included or excluded by decree number 720-21, 29 May 1991, and having been subject of a notice to the registry office. The revisions of the
agricultural zone took place between 1987 and 1992.
Source: CPTAQ, Annual Report 2010-2011
The following table compares the area of the agricultural zone in the Pontiac RCM with the agricultural zones
of other RCM s and equivalent territories in the Outaouais region.
71
TABLE 28
Area Comparison of the Pontiac RCM’s Agricultural Zone to other RCM’s and equivalent
territories in the Outaouais region
RCM and Equivalent Territories
Pontiac RCM
MCR La Vallée-de-la-Gatineau
MRC Les Collines-de-l’Outaouais
MRC Papineau
Gatineau
Municipalities outside of RCMs
Outaouais Region
Total Area of the MRC
(ha)
Area of the Agricultural
Zone (ha)
1 290 550
1 225 715
202 629
290 561
34 213
2 319
3 060 571
94 418
71 345
72 013
65 049
13 311
—
316 136
Percentage of the agricultural
Zone Used for Agricultural
Operations (%)
43
40
37
37
36
—
39
Source: CPTAQ, Annual Report 2010-2011.
The table that follows outlines the agricultural zone area by Pontiac RCM municipality. The municipalities of
Bristol and Clarendon have the largest area of the agricultural zone, accounting for more than 70% of the
municipalities’ total area. The municipalities of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet and L’Isle-aux-Allumettes also have
large agricultural zones, accounting for more than 50% of the municipalities’ total area. The municipalities of
Mansfield-et-Pontefract, Sheenboro, Thorne and Waltham have smaller areas of the agricultural zone. The
municipalities of d’Alleyn-et-Cawood, Bryson, Fort-Coulonge, Portage-du-Fort and Rapides-des-Joachims as
well as the unorganized territory of Lac-Nilgaut have no agricultural zone.
72
TABLE 29
Agricultural Zone Area by Pontiac RCM Municipality
Municipality
Alleyn-et-Cawood
Bristol
Bryson
Campbell’s Bay
Chichester
Clarendon
Fort-Coulonge
Lac-Nilgaut
Litchfield
Otter Lake
Portage-du-Fort
Shawville
Sheenboro
Thorne
Waltham
Pontiac
1
2
3
1
Total Area
(ha)
32 530
23 500
370
350
23 540
34 840
320
14 740
23 420
985 150
21 410
52 510
49 460
420
25 710
540
63 400
18 180
40 180
1 410 570
Area of the Agricultural
2
Zone
(ha)
—
17 128
—
129
7 191
25 946
—
8 240
14 059
—
8 082
5 798
1 791
—
—
234
3 626
1 004
1 954
95 182
Percentage
(%)
3
—
72.9
—
36.9
30.5
74.5
—
55.9
60.0
—
37.7
11.0
3.6
—
—
43.3
5.7
5.5
4.9
6.7
Source: MAMROT, Répertoire des municipalités, 2012
Source: MRC de Pontiac, 2012
The percentage was calculated according to the following formula: area of the agricultural zone ÷ total area
Map 27 : Agricultural Zone
Mission and Mandate of the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec
The CPTAQ was created in 1978 in order to ensure the protection of agricultural territory. Its mission is to
guarantee, for future generations, that there is land conducive to agricultural activity and development. To
this end, CPTAQ ensures the protection of the agricultural territory and promotes discussion of their goals
within the industry. To fulfill its mission, the CPTAQ focusses on the interest to protect the territory and the
agricultural activities while taking into account the regional particularities.
To fulfill its mission, the CPTAQ adheres to two acts:


Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities;
Act respecting the acquisition of farm land by non-residents
The CPTAQ’s role is:
73

To decide on applications for authorization submitted to it pursuant to the Act in respect to:
 The inclusion or exclusion of a lot in or from an agricultural zone;
 The implementation or expansion of land use other than for agricultural purposes;
 Subdivisions and lot or partial lot alienation;
 Applications of collective scope for residential purposes pursuant to Article 59.

To issue the operating permits required for the removal of topsoil and lawn turf.

To supervise the administration of the act through appropriate verifications and investigations and,
when necessary, ensure penalties for offences.

To advise the government on all subjects related to the preservation of agricultural land.

To provide advice on any questions submitted in relation to the Act.
The CPTAQ also acts as an adviser on all questions from the government or the responsible ministry. It is
made up of 16 members, including one president and five vice-presidents, all of whom are appointed by the
government and come from an agriculture organization, the legal field, or from the area. To support its
members, CPTAQ relies on personnel with a variety of qualifications (agronomists, geographers, land use
planners, cartographers, investigators, and lawyers).
Decisions rendered by the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec
The following tables outline the decisions rendered by the CPTAQ on the nature of the applications since
2004-2005, starting on April 1, 2004. These tables do not include the decisions rendered after March 31,
2011. Those decisions will be published in CPTAQ’s next annual report.
TABLE 30
Number of Decisions Rendered by the CPTAQ According to the Nature of the Application
since 2004-2005
Nature of the application
Modification to the agricultural zone limits
Implementation of new non-agricultural land use
Expansion of existing non-agricultural land use
Farm lot division
1
Other
TOTAL
1
2005
2
8
1
1
12
24
2006
0
15
2
5
10
32
2007
2
7
1
1
4
15
2008
0
8
4
3
7
22
2009
1
11
0
0
5
17
2010
1
15
2
2
11
31
2011
1
15
3
1
8
28
Included in this category are non-agricultural land alienation, authorization renewals, addition and conversion of use in an acquired rights area,
recognition of acquired rights, land acquisition by non-residents, topsoil and lawn turf removal permits, and permits for maple tree cutting in a
sugar bush.
Source: CPTAQ, Annual Reports 2004-2005 to 2010-2011 inclusively.
74
The CPTAQ has made on average 24 decisions per year since 2004-2005. In 2005-2006, the number of
decisions increased by a third in regard to the previous year before diminishing significantly in 2006-2007. In
2007-2008 and 2008-2009, the number of decisions stayed below the average of the previous seven years.
Since 2009-2010, the number of decisions made has been well above the average of the previous seven
years. The variations are due to the increase in the number of certain types of decisions made, such as
implementation of non-agricultural land use and land alienation.
TABLE 31
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
CPTAQ Decision Making on the Modification of Agricultural Zone Limits in the Pontiac RCM
since 2004-2005
Number of
Decisions
Made
Number of
Authorizations
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
Number of
Decisions
Made
Number of
Authorizations
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
INCLUSIONS
Percentage of
Authorizations
(%)
0
0
100
0
0
100
100
100
EXCLUSIONS
Percentage of
Authorizations
(%)
50
0
0
0
100
0
0
50
Targeted Area
(ha)
Authorized
Area
(ha)
Percentage of
Authorized Area
(%)
0
0
66.8
0
0
40.5
4.3
111.6
0
0
66.8
0
0
40.5
4.3
111.6
0
0
100
0
0
100
100
100
Targeted Area
(ha)
Authorized
Area
(ha)
Percentage of
Authorized Area
(%)
26.2
0
10.7
0
233.0
0
0
269.9
11.2
0
0
0
233.0
0
0
244.2
43
0
0
0
100
0
0
90
Source: CPTAQ, Annual Reports 2004-2005 to 2010-2011 inclusively
Over the course of the past seven years, the CPTAQ has made seven decisions regarding the modification of
agricultural zone limits in the Pontiac RCM. In the same time frame, the agricultural zone area was reduced by
132.6 hectares, a very small decrease given that it was a 0.2% area reduction compared to the area on March
31, 2004.
Agricultural Zone Inclusion Requests
All inclusion requests were authorized over the seven year period. These requests have also contributed to
the development and dynamism of the agricultural zone. Over the same period, 111.6 hectares were added
75
to the agricultural zone. The most significant addition was a part of the municipality of Clarendon
in 2006-2007. The 66.8 hectares targeted by the request were included in the agricultural zone. This inclusion
opened the requester to benefits from the agricultural programs and helped them promote the development
of their agriculture business and agricultural operations in the area.
Agricultural Zone Exclusion Requests
The areas targeted for exclusion are variable. They depend on the submitted projects and the expressed
needs. The authorized areas also vary depending on the applicable evaluation criteria, including the presence
of appropriate and available spaces outside of the agricultural zone or other natural sites in order to limit the
impact on territory protection and agricultural activities. Over the past seven years, 269.9 hectares were
requested for exclusion. CPTAQ maintained 10% (25.7 hectares) of the requested area as agricultural area.
In 2006-2007, an exclusion request for 10.7 hectares was refused by CPTAQ. The land was going to be used to
build potable water infrastructure in the Litchfield municipality that would serve the town of Bryson as well as
a few residents of Litchfield. In 2008-2009, 233 hectares were excluded from the agricultural zone for the
construction of a major recreational tourism project in the Mansfield-et-Pontefract municipality.
In general, the pressures on the agricultural zone are particularly strong in vacation areas and areas with
strong growth potential in recreational tourism.
TABLE 32
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
CPTAQ Decision Making on Implementation of Non-Agricultural Land Use in the Pontiac
RCM since 2004-2005
Number of
Decisions
Made
8
15
7
8
11
15
15
79
IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
Number of
Percentage of
Targeted Area
Authorizations
Authorizations
(ha)
(%)
5
10
6
7
3
8
10
49
63
67
86
88
27
53
67
62
107.1
21.6
17.3
17.5
21.3
28.3
20.1
233.2
Authorized
Area
(ha)
15.2
5.8
13.1
14.6
10.4
13.4
17.2
89.7
Percentage of
Authorized
Area
(%)
14
27
76
83
49
47
86
38
Authorization Requests for Implementation of Non-Agricultural Land Use
The number of decisions made for implementation of non-agricultural land use increased significantly in
2008-2009 in regard to the previous seven years, with the exception of 2005-2006 wherein an unusually large
number of decisions was made by CPTAQ. Non-agricultural use can be classified into three categories: 1)
residential, 2) industrial and commercial, and 3) institutional, utilities, energy, transport, and communication.
76
TABLE 33
TOTAL
CPTAQ Decisions Rendered on Expansion of Existing Non-Agricultural Land Use in the
Pontiac RCM since 2004-2005
Year
Number of
Decisions
Made
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
1
2
1
4
0
2
3
13
EXPANSION OF EXISTING NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
Number of
Percentage of
Targeted
Authorized
Authorizations
Authorizations
Area
Area
(%)
(ha)
(ha)
0
2
1
4
0
2
3
12
0
100
100
100
0
100
100
92
0.3
1.3
0.3
2.4
0
0.4
0.8
5.5
0
1.3
0.3
2.4
0
0.4
0.8
5.2
Percentage of
Authorized Area
(%)
0
100
100
100
0
100
100
95
Authorization Requests for Expansion of Existing Non-Agricultural Land Use
Over the past seven years, the number of decisions made regarding the expansion of existing non-agricultural
land use has stayed about the same, with the exception of 2007-2008 where the number of decisions
rendered quadrupled in relation to the previous year. Most of the decisions made were in favour of the
request (with the exception of one case in 2004-2005) because the requested areas for the expansion of
existing non-agricultural land use, quite limited, did not threaten the growth possibilities for the surrounding
agricultural activities.
77
TABLE 34
CPTAQ Decision Making on Farm Lot Division in the Pontiac RCM since 2004-2005
Year
Number of
Decisions
Made
Number of
Authorizations
FARM LOT DIVISION
Percentage of
Authorizations
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
1
5
1
3
0
2
1
13
1
4
1
2
0
2
1
11
(%)
100
80
100
67
0
100
100
85
TOTAL
Targeted
Area
(ha)
Authorized
Area (ha)
Percentage of
Authorized Area
(%)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Authorization Requests for Farm Lot Division
When making a decision regarding farm lot division, CPTAQ takes both individual circumstances and the
particularities of the agricultural area into question. As outlined in the following table, the number of
decisions made regarding farm lot division and the percentage of authorizations varied somewhat over the
past seven years. During this time frame, the percentage of authorizations was high (85%). CPTAQ made
38.5% of the decisions on farm lot division in 2005-2006.
TABLE 35
CPTAQ Decision Making on Other Requests in the Agricultural Zone of the Pontiac RCM
since 2004-2005
1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
1
Number of
Decisions
Number of
Authorizations
12
10
4
7
5
11
8
57
12
10
4
5
5
10
8
54
OTHER
Percentage of
Authorizations
(%)
100
100
100
71
100
91
100
95
Targeted Area
(ha)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Authorized
Area
(ha)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Percentage of
Authorized Area
(%)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Included in this category are non-agricultural land alienation, authorization renewals, addition and conversion of use in an acquired rights area,
recognition of acquired rights, land acquisition by non-residents, topsoil and lawn turf removal permits, and permits for maple tree cutting in a
sugar bush.
78
Other Authorization Requests
This category includes non-agricultural land alienation, authorization renewals, addition and conversion of
use in an acquired rights area, recognition of acquired rights, land acquisition by non-residents, topsoil and
lawn turf removal permits, and permits for maple tree cutting in a sugar bush.
Decisions Made on Applications of Collective Scope
Under the provisions of Article 59 of the ARPALAA, introduced in 1997 and modified in 2001, a RCM may
submit applications of collective scope to identify, within their agricultural zone, the sectors that would be
able to accommodate new residential areas that would not threaten the agricultural zone. Such an
application is only possible if the land use and development plans have been reviewed. An application can
also be submitted to delimit the destructured tracts of land within which the new residential areas could be
built. In this case, the application can be submitted without having reviewed the land use plans. To make a
decision under Article 59 of the ARPALAA, CPTAQ must have received approval from the RCM, the UPA, and
the municipalities concerned.
This type of application is an excellent opportunity to take into account regional characteristics and enables a
certain type of stimulation of the agricultural zone by authorizing the construction of homes in certain areas
of this zone. Representatives of the agricultural industry, municipal sector and CPTAQ must have agreed upon
a set of guidelines to ensure that this kind of territory use follows the priority rule for agricultural activities in
agricultural zones. The decision made by the CPTAQ means fewer regulations for residents since they no
longer have to apply for individual authorization to build a home in the selected areas in the agricultural zone.
TABLE 36
CPTAQ Decision Making Results under Article 59 of the ARPALAA for all of Quebec
Number of Decisions Made in
2010-2011
8
Total Number of Decisions
38
COLLECTIVE SCOPE APPLICATIONS
Number of Requests in
Process on 31 March 2011
17
Requested Area
(ha)
901 181
Number of Authorized
Residences
19 570
Taking into account the requested area and the dynamic farmland designated by the land use and
development plan, where residential use is limited to the rights laid out in the ARPALAA, 43% of the total area
of the agricultural zone is locally administered for new residential use.
CPTAQ is currently working towards more awareness among agricultural and municipal authorities in order to
specify the goals of the process, which has positive results for the protection of territory and agricultural
activities. CPTAQ will also provide technical support to any RCMs wishing to make use of the provisions in the
act. Once decisions have been made, CPTAQ will give, when needed, training sessions to the municipal
officers and will do follow-up meetings to achieve the desired results.
In the Outaouais region, only the RCM of Papineau has taken advantage of the provisions under Article 59 of
the ARPALAA. This article focusses on applications of collective scope, which can determine in which cases
79
and under what conditions new residential areas can be built in the agricultural zone. CPTAQ’s decision
347364 can be consulted online (French only):
http://www.cptaq.gouv.qc.ca/decisions_recherche/app/.
In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the RCMs Vallée-de-l’Or and de Témiscamingue, which border the Pontiac RCM,
have also taken advantage of the provisions under Article 59 of the ARPALAA. Decisions 359600 and 367374
can also be consulted on the website above.
FIGURE 4
RCM with Pending or Completed Application for Collective Scope under the Provisions of
Article 59 of the ARPALAA on 1 March 2012
Source: CPTAQ, 2012
Map 28: CPTAQ Decisions
80
4.1.2
Land Reserves
A land reserve is a portion of land put aside for a particular project that has protection or research purposes
or is of interest to the public. Within the zone studied, the land reserves include the agricultural zone as
outlined under ARPALAA (94 918 ha), the wildlife preserve project in Grand-Marais de Bristol protected under
the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife, two special cases of forest ecosystems
protected under the Forest Act (Rocher-à-l’Oiseau (15 ha) and Mont-de-Davidson (7 ha) forest ecosystems),
the Chênaie-des-Îles-Finlay nature reserve (94 ha) protected under the Natural Heritage Conservation Act,
and any land that may be of interest to the network of protected areas outlined under the Natural Heritage
Conversation Act, such as the projected biodiversity reserve in Mont O’Brien (241 ha) and the Coulonge and
Noire river corridors (perception field of 500m) (MRNF, MDDEP, 2012).
Only the wildlife preserve project in Grand-Marais de Bristol borders part of the agricultural zone. This
wildlife preserve project is a part of the Sault-des-Chats regional park project, which the local authorities
want to build in the Bristol and Pontiac municipalities.
It goes without saying that land reserves can have an impact on agricultural activity because of the types of
activities that take place on the land.
Map 29: Land Reserves
4.1.3
Specific Land Rights
Specific land rights are exploration and operation mineral rights issued by the MRNF. By definition, land rights
are a privilege or a right issued by the State for a certain operation (mineral). In Quebec, claims are the only
valid operational mining rights. The claim holder has exclusive rights to explore for mineral substances of the
domain of the State, with the exception of sand, gravel, clay and other loose deposits in the territory for
which the license is issued. Claims can be obtained by map designation, the main method of acquisition, or by
ground staking the land designated for this purpose. Claims are valid for two years. The claim holder can
renew the claim indefinitely, so long as the holder meets the requirements of the Mining Act, including
performing exploration work of the nature and amounts determined by regulation (MRNF, 2012).
Exploration licences for surface mineral substances (sand, gravel, etc.) are one of the two types of operational
mining rights issued in Quebec, the other being the mining lease. Within the studied region, there are no
active mining leases. However, there are active licences to mine mineral substances, but they cannot be
included on the map in the Appendix because they are not accessible. Only the active exploration land rights
(claims) from the study period, May 2012, are represented.
Exploration licenses for surface mineral substances cannot exceed 10 years, except in the case of an exclusive
lease for peat, which expires after 15 years. The lease is renewable during the operation period.
Carte 30: Specific Land Rights
Map 30: Individual Property Rights
81
4.1.4
Government Directions
Government directions play an important role in the implementation of the Land Use Planning and
Development Act (for land development in Quebec). They define the issues that must be addressed by local
municipalities, regional county municipalities, and metropolitan communities and, as such, are a vehicle for
government concerns as well as a tool for exchange between the government and the local municipalities,
regional county municipalities, and metropolitan communities in matters of land development.
The primary government direction document dealing with land development, called “Les orientations du
gouvernement en matière d’aménagement—Pour un aménagement concerté du territoire” was published in
1994. It has been expanded and clarified over the years by the adoption of other policy documents dealing
primarily with the topics of territory protection, agricultural activity protection, and the sustainable
development of wind energy.
Government directions also establish parameters for the determination of separation distances for odour
management in an agricultural zone.
The following direction, general objective, specific objectives, and expectations were outlined in 2001, 2005,
and 2007 and are still valid today:
• Direction (2001)
To organize the planning and development of agricultural land, assigning priority to agricultural
activities and operations in an agricultural zone according to the specifics of the location, while
promoting sustainable development and economic development in the regions.
In order to implement the territory and agricultural activity protection plan, the government of Quebec will
adhere to the following general objective.
• General Objective (2001)
To encourage a consensual approach with concerned stakeholders in agricultural land
development in order to find solutions that are locally acceptable and suited to the specific
features of the location.
• 1st Objective (2001)
To ensure the longevity of a territorial base for agricultural use.
82
Expectations

To recognize the agricultural zone as the territorial base for the practice and development of
agricultural activities and to ensure that the land is primarily used for agricultural purposes;

To curb the encroachment and expansion of urbanization into agricultural areas;

To plan the development of the agricultural area and control non-agricultural use to create a
favourable environment for the maintenance and development of agricultural activities and
operations, especially by the preliminary designation of dynamic agricultural sectors, viable
agricultural sectors in need of stimulation, and tracts of land destructured by the gradual
accumulation of non-agricultural use.
• 2nd Objective (2001)
To encourage the protection and development of agricultural activities and operations in
agricultural zones while respecting sustainable development.
Expectations

To promote a sustainable development model that contributes to resource conservation,
especially the protection of river banks, the shores of lakes and waterways, the soil, sources of
potable water, and wooded areas, and the development and maintenance of waterways within
agricultural areas;

To encourage harmonious cohabitation of agricultural and non-agricultural use of agricultural
zones and of the area between the agricultural zone and developed areas by determining
separation distances and enforcing production zoning.
• 3rd Objective (2001)
To plan development actions and agricultural activities and operations in the agricultural zone
through dialogue with the community.
Expectations

To produce an agricultural zone development plan (AZDP);

To develop livestock breeding and its contribution to the vitality of the agricultural sector.
• Addenda (2005)
Within the framework of its action plan for the sustainable development of hog production, the
Government of Quebec deems it necessary to clarify government directions for the protection of
83
the territory and agricultural activities in order to foster an understanding of these directives that
more accurately reflects their purpose.
Consequently, two expectations have been added after the general objective formulated in 2001
and have been deemed the responsibility of the RCM.
1st Expectation

To acquire a factual knowledge of the land, its features, and its issues.
2nd Expectation

To merge, in the name of sustainable development, the responsibilities of the RCM related
to the development of agricultural activities and businesses in the agricultural zone with
those related to the harmonious cohabitation of agricultural and non-agricultural use, and
to summarily evaluate whether proposed solutions will encourage reaching this objective.
Clarifications have also been added to ensure a more adequate protection of the natural
environment, especially water areas, wetlands, and forested areas. Additionally, to facilitate the
merge, in the name of sustainable development, of the responsibilities of the RCM related to the
development of agricultural activities and businesses in the agricultural zone and related to the
harmonious cohabitation of agricultural and non-agricultural activities, the parameters for
determining separation distances have been relaxed. These parameters are aimed at high-odour
livestock farms, including hog, milk-fed veal, mink, and fox farms. Finally, a section dealing with the
establishment of quotas for hog farms in the agricultural zone has been added.
In addition, to ensure the sustainable development of wind energy, the government of Quebec will require
the updating of directions for energy as outlined in the 1994 document entitled “Les orientations du
gouvernement en matière d’aménagement—Pour un aménagement concerté du territoire.”
• Direction (2001)
To encourage the emphasis and use of all energy resources and to maximize economic benefits.
The expectations following this general direction are centered on the goal of improving energy
efficiency by reducing energy consumption for heating and air-conditioning, primarily in dwellings,
and by reducing fuel consumption during transportation.
84
Specific Expectations







Knowledge of wind energy potential;
Knowledge of the features of the land and the concerns of the population;
Landscape concerns;
Health risks;
Public safety;
Wildlife;
The determination of the fragility of the various components of the land as well as
development decisions.
It goes without saying that the territory and agricultural activities can be affected by the wind
energy sector if developing this sector is deemed economically viable and socially acceptable by the
Pontiac RCM. To do this, the RCM must adhere to principles that guide the development process.
These development principles are listed below.
Principles of Development

The recognition of the possibility of harvesting wind energy where it is economically viable,
while respecting the environment and the various uses of the land and after taking the
concerns of the local population into consideration.

The determination of favourable locations and conditions for harvesting wind energy while
taking into consideration the features of the location and the wishes of the population and
complying with government directions.

A transparent planning process that encourages the social acceptability of this energy sector;

A thorough planning process that take the entire territory of the RCM into account and a
development framework applicable to all municipalities, facilitating a harmonious and coherent
implementation of projects in the entire territory.

A land development framework in which the locations for wind projects, with or without
conditions, and those where implementation is prohibited are chosen through reasoned
decision-making and objective considerations;

The seeking of coherence between municipal regulations and RCM-level regulations.
Several Quebec RCMs have adopted interim control regulations in order to define a development framework
for the installation of wind turbines on their territory in order to ensure the protection of the landscape and
the harmonious cohabitation of all current use of the land. In 2007, the Pontiac RCM development service
proposed such a development framework for its territory; however, the town council decided not to adopt it
to avoid curbing wind energy development on RCM land.
85
Finally, Hydro-Québec recommends careful consideration of the circumstances for the installation of wind
turbines in its “Terms of reference for the siting of wind farms on farmland and in woodlands.” The Terms of
reference can be consulted on the Crown Corporation’s website at the following address:
http://www.hydroquebec.com/affaires-municipales-regionales/pdf/amr-cadre-reference-parcs-eoliensen.pdf
4.1.5
Overall Development Directions
Overall development directions are guidelines for land development in an RCM. They stem from the strategic
vision and the land use and development plan and reflect their contents. The determination of overall
directions is a political affair. They allow a political consensus to be reached, which will serve as the basis for
other components of the land use and development plan at the supra-municipal level. In the same was as the
strategic vision of cultural, economic, environmental, and social development, the overall directions ensure
the integration and coherence of other components of the planning documents.
Unlike the strategic vision, which summarizes what a community hopes to achieve within a given planning
timeline, directions for land use planning guide interventions in different areas related to land planning.
Overall land development directions define the main development issues and map out the decisions within
the means of the RCM, the metropolitan community, or the municipality in order to outline, in its city plan,
development plan, or urban plan, any public or private interventions on the territory. They also serve as a
reference for interpreting planning documents: they have a precise meaning and contribute to defining the
features of each community, RCM, or municipality.
The overall directions constitute a reference element for the conformity of the land use and development
plan to the government directions, municipal development plans, and municipal regulations.
With regard to the protection of the territory and agricultural activities, the land use and development plan
must determine the overall development directions deemed appropriate to ensure, in the agricultural zone
within its territory, the compatibility of development and urbanization standards with the goal of encouraging
priority use of the land for agricultural activities and, within this framework, the harmonious coexistence of
agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
The following text lists the overall development directions for the Pontiac RCM territory, as well as the
resulting objectives, for each issue according to the themes presented in the land use and development plan.
The overall development directions as well as the objectives that affect the territory and its agricultural
activities more or less directly are listed in green according to the government directives previously
presented.
86
Forest Sector
Direction
To encourage the sustainable development of the forest and the emphasis of all resources in the forest.
Objectives




To promote the preservation and integrated management of all resources and potential developments
in the forest;
To apply logging methods adapted to forest stands while minimizing timber losses;
To protect present regrowth and ensure adequate regrowth after logging;
To improve logging opportunities by reinforcing the socioeconomic benefits of wood resources.
Agricultural Sector
1st Directive
To strengthen the agricultural areas on the parts of the territory where the dominant function is
agriculture.
Objectives




To ensure the longevity of agricultural activities within the economic structure of the RCM by maintaining a land
reserve;
To minimise conflicts between neighbouring users;
To develop sustainable agriculture;
To diversify agricultural activities.
2nd Directive
To diversify activities in marginal agricultural sectors.
Objectives


To rejuvenate the agricultural area by authorizing non-agricultural use;
To develop parts of the territory with low agricultural potential.
87
Urbanization Management
1st Directive
To consolidate the urban areas of Campbell’s Bay, Shawville, Fort-Coulonge, Mansfield-et-Pontefract, and
Chapeau (L’Isle-aux-Allumettes).
2nd Directive
To confirm the role of the towns of Bryson, Davidson (Mansfield-et-Pontefract), Otter Lake (Leslie-Claphamet-Huddersfield), Grand-Calumet, and Portage-du-Fort as intermediate urban centres.
3rd Directive
To maintain the role of the local centres of Bristol and Norway Bay (Bristol), Vinton (Litchfield), Ladysmith
(Thorne), Danford Lake (Alleyn-et-Cawood), Waltham, Chichester, Saint-Joseph and Desjardinsville (L’Isle-auxAllumettes), Sheenboro (Sheen-Esher-Aberdeen-et-Malakoff), and Rapides-des-Joachims.
Objectives





To reinforce the function of the central urban cores as regional hubs;
To concentrate land occupation in the parts of the territory where equipment and infrastructure such as
aqueducts and/or sewers exist;
To structure the distribution of urban functions within each of the towns;
To improve the quality of the area and reinforce the feeling of community;
To optimize municipal finances through the organization and efficient distribution of city services.
Industry
Directive
To structure industrial activity within the entire RCM territory.
Objectives




To create an industrial framework and industrial centres by combining industrial activities of the same
scale or the same type;
To minimize the impact of industrial activity on the neighbourhood and nearby equipment and on
recreational and tourism-related infrastructure;
To develop dismantled, vacant, and under-used industrial spaces;
To respect the area’s ability to support the implementation of industrial activities.
88
Waterside Areas
Directive
To plan the occupation and use of riverbanks and lakeshores within the territory.
Objectives




To respect the ecosystems and sensitive environments of lakes and waterways as well as their
theoretical support capability;
To distribute waterside land for occupation while altering the environment as little as possible;
To limit future public investments brought on by the dissipation and spreading of these types of
activities;
To avoid urbanization of riverbanks and lakeshores
Tourism
Directive
To strengthen the territory’s recreational and tourism-related infrastructure.
Objectives


To confirm recreational and touristic use of the Outaouais, Dumoine, and Noire river corridors.
To ensure the longevity of the equipment, the market potential and the tourist attractions in the RCM
territory.
Water
Directive
To preserve the quality of water resources within the territory.
Objectives


To limit damage to water quality in lakes and waterways;
To ensure adequate management of sources of potable water.
Waste Management
The land use and development plan does not establish any overall development directive or objective related
to this issue. The Council of Mayors of the Pontiac RCM, however, had already mandated its development
service to work toward locating parts of the territory capable of supporting waste elimination operations such
as landfills.
89
Hunting and Fishing on Public Land
Directive
To prohibit all new outfitting operations with exclusive rights to controlled harvesting zones, as well as their
expanding into all RCM territory.
Objective
None.
Sites and Territories of Regional Significance
Directive
To protect sites and territories of regional significance.
Objectives


To ensure the longevity of collective regional heritage;
To emphasize sites and territories of regional interest by including them in the recreational tourism
development of the territory.
Sites and Zones that Restrict Land Occupation
The land use and development plan identifies naturally restricted zones, such as areas prone to flooding or
landslides. It also identifies areas restricted due to human presence, such as dangerous waste disposal sites or
garbage storage and disposal sites. Some of these sites and zones that restrict land occupation may
significantly affect agriculture.
Transportation
The land use and development plan describes and plans the organization of land transportation. It presents
first the main transportation equipment and infrastructure within the RCM territory and second the concerns
of the town council related to transportation organization. None of these concerns are directly related to
agriculture, with the possible exception of the Cycloparc PPJ, which is considered major transportation
equipment and guides the development of recreation and tourism in the Pontiac RMC. This recreation trail,
now connected to the Route verte, crosses the agricultural zone over several kilometers.
In contrast, the Council of Mayors is concerned about the abandonment of the only railway line in the Pontiac
RCM territory. Given that that construction of the Pontiac regional industrial park is underway near Portagedu-Fort, this railway line could be used for transporting merchandise, especially agricultural products, to
North American markets. Several kilometers of the railway cross the agricultural zone.
90
Regional Infrastructure and Equipment
The land use and development plan describes the main regional infrastructure and equipment in the Pontiac
RCM territory, such as infrastructure for the production and distribution of electricity, as well as healthcare,
educational, recreational, touristic, administrative, and leisure equipment. Aside from infrastructure for the
production and distribution of electricity, and recently the installation of telecommunication towers, it is
implicit that equipment and infrastructure must be installed outside of the agricultural zone, and more
specifically, inside the large sections of allocated land where these uses are permitted.
4.1.6
Major Land Use Allocations
In terms of land use planning and development, a land use allocation is a territory or part thereof with a
specifically determined use, function, or designation.
The establishment of major land use allocations in the land use and development plan formally indicates how
the Pontiac RMC allows sections of its territory to be used. In this way, it meets the needs of the community
for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural, logging, and conservation areas. The
establishment of major allocations allows the management of land use.
Major land use allocations are linked to overall land use directives and the strategic vision statement for
cultural, economic, environmental, and social development. They form the basis on which the other elements
of the land use and development plan are built. These elements are consistent with the major land use
allocations. They allow for informed decision-making related to the location of future equipment or
infrastructure. They can also reserve certain parts of the RCM territory for particular uses (agricultural,
industrial, conservation, logging, etc.).
In the last version of the Pontiac RCM revised land use and development plan, implemented on February 23,
2001, the entire territory is divided into eight major land use allocation areas. The land use and development
plan has since been modified five times to review activities and functions compatible with urban, local centre,
and recreational areas. More specifically, regulation number 137-2008, implemented on April 6, 2009,
modified the recreational allocation by including the Coulonge waterfall sector and by permitting agricultural
activity there.
91
Generally, agricultural activities, logging, and silviculture are permitted in the agricultural, agro-forestal,
forestry, and recreational allocations as defined in the land use and development plan.
The following text lists possible activities and functions for each of the major land use allocations in the
Pontiac RCM territory. Within this list, agricultural activities and activities related to agriculture are listed in
green when they are permitted within the major land use allocation. The development policies and
implementation methods are listed in the land use and development plan.
Agriculture
The agricultural allocation refers to a homogenous agricultural area as defined in the land use and
development plan.
Compatible Activities and Functions







Agricultural activities;
Single-family dwellings associated with an agricultural operation;
Agritourism (guest ranches, farm tours, the sale of farm products, country dining, interpretation
centers associated with an agricultural operation);
Artisan activities associated with an agricultural operation;
The auctioning of livestock and muster areas for the transportation of livestock;
Tourism equipment not requiring much infrastructure and emphasizing agricultural activities and the
landscape associated with them, such as a panoramic view-point or a rest area, except where the area
is protected under the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities;
Forest exploitation and development activities and silviculture.
Agro-forestry
The agro-forestal allocation is an agricultural area predominantly dedicated to logging as defined in the land
use and development plan, and includes activities allowed in the agricultural allocation in addition to the
following activities.
 Single-family dwellings (permanent and seasonal), as long as they respect the standard separation
distance from agricultural operations in compliance with the Act Respecting the Preservation of
Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities;
 Extensive recreational activities.
92
Forestry







Logging and silviculture;
Single-family homes (permanent and seasonal);
Extensive recreational and tourism activities, such as a hunting lodge, interpretation centre, tourist
information centre, or a trail;
Educational and conservation activities;
Extraction activities (quarries, gravel pits, sand pits, mines);
Landfill sites, only at 29 to 37 concession roads 3 and 4 of the land registry of the township of Alleyn in
the municipality of Alleyn-et-Cawood.
Urban





Dwellings;
Commercial and service activities;
Institutional activities;
Industrial activities, except for heavy industrial activities;
Recreational and tourism activities.
Intermediate Urban Centre






Dwellings;
Commercial and service activities;
Artisanal and light industrial activities;
Medium industrial activities, only in Davidson;
Recreational and tourism activities.
Local Centre





Single-family dwellings;
Commercial activities, rural road services;
Artisan and light industrial activities;
Recreational and tourism activities
93
Heavy Industry





Heavy industrial activities;
Medium industrial activities;
Extraction activities (quarries, gravel pits, sand pits, mines);
Waste disposal and treatment;
Waste collection, sorting, and transfer centres.
Recreation
The recreation allocation corresponds to both the Cycloparc PPJ, a bicycle trail used by snowmobilers during
the winter, which is managed and maintained by the Corporation de développement économique du Pontiac,
and the Coulonge waterfall region as described in regulation number 137-2008, which modifies the Pontiac
RCM land use and development plan.





Single-family dwellings (permanent or seasonal);
Recreational and tourism activities;
Nature education, interpretation, observation, and conservation;
Logging and silviculture.
Within the Cycloparc PPJ, only activities, equipment, and structures necessary to the use of the recreational
trail are permitted.
Map 31: Major Land Use Allocations
4.1.7
Interim Control
Interim control allows an RCM to restrict or govern the development of new land parcelling or construction
projects or new land uses during the development, modification, or revision of the land use and development
plan. It ensures that the agreed-upon planning efforts are not undermined by projects that compromise the
influence of new plans or development and urbanisation regulations that are in the process of being defined.
The Council of Mayors has the authority to maintain a freeze on planning and development in all or part of its
territory for such time as it deems necessary to define the overall direction of the territory’s main land use
functions, its organisation, and its structure, and to establish the steps to take in order to solidify the choices
made.
94
As soon as they take effect, the measures enacted in an interim control by-law become opposable by citizens
provided that they are stated precisely enough in the rules that one may determine the true sense of the
regulation or the prohibition that results from it.
Since the last land use and development plan revised by the Pontiac RCM came into effect on February 23,
2001, the Council of Mayors has established four interim control by-laws concerning the territory and
agricultural activities. These interim control by-laws may be found below.
Strong Odour Livestock Farming Facilities
By-law No. 108-2005 was adopted August 22, 2005, and came into effect on September 29, 2006. It aims to
regulate strong odour livestock farming facilities, particularly pork, milk-fed veal, mink, and fox facilities in the
Pontiac RCM. This interim control by-law limits these agricultural activities by establishing production zoning,
where strong odour livestock farming facilities are prohibited within a 1000-metre radius of urbanization
perimeters and local centres as defined in the land use and development plan. It contains rules for the
installation of structures, reconstruction, modification, or expansion of strong odour farming facilities in
agricultural zones.
This interim control by-law establishes mitigation measures with the goal of favouring a harmonious
integration of strong odour livestock farming into its environment in accordance with the nature and scope of
the project, its location, the characteristics of its immediate environment, and the concerns expressed by the
population during the public consultation. These mitigation measures aim primarily to reduce the odours that
result from such a project through the obligation to always cover all stored liquid manure, to incorporate
liquid manure into the soil, to respect new separation distances between the project and non-agricultural
uses, to install an odour barrier, and to provide facilities or buildings with equipment designed to reduce
water consumption.
Floodplains Bordering the Ottawa River
By-law No. 117-2006 was adopted January 23, 2006, and came into effect March 14, 2006. At the request of
the Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks and in accordance with LUPDA, it aims to
establish benchmark flood levels that recur every 20 years and 100 years in the floodplain bordering the
Ottawa River. It also aims to add new standards to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral
Zones, and Floodplains, established May 18, 2005, by the government of Quebec.
This interim control by-law establishes protection measures for the floodplains bordering the Ottawa River.
For example, prior authorization is required for interventions in the floodplains, there are rules for
construction and development in areas with strong or weak currents and the by-law establishes benchmarks
for the borders of the floodplain. These protective measures do not, however, affect the drainage of the
agricultural lands that are permitted in the floodplains; such drainage aims to remove surface water for
better use of these agricultural lands.
95
Chats Falls Regional Park
By-law No. 164-2010 was adopted August 24, 2010, and came into effect November 9, 2010. It aims to
protect the area of the future Chats Falls Regional Park, located in the Municipality of Bristol. This by-law
establishes prohibitive measures in the area that is subject to interim control, which includes a part of the
agricultural zone established under the ARPALAA. Such prohibitive measures pertain to new functions or uses
of the land, new buildings (primary or otherwise), cadastral operations, the parcelling out of lots by
alienation, the felling of trees, digging operations of the soil or of all granular material, and excavation or
filling operations. These measures do not, however, affect new uses of the land, construction, applications for
cadastral operations, or the parcelling out of lots by alienation for agricultural purposes on land under
cultivation.
Pontiac Regional Industrial Park
By-law No. 184-2012 was adopted April 17, 2012, and came into effect June 14, 2012. It aims to review the
compatible activities or functions in the area of the Pontiac Regional Industrial Park, located in the
Municipality of Litchfield. This interim control by-law will henceforth authorize waste treatment and disposal
facilities, including septic tank sludge, waste material sorting and recycling facilities, and transfer centres, in
addition to industrial activities permitted in the assigned heavy industry allocation envisaged in the land use
and development plans of the Pontiac RCM.
The area that is subject to interim control also includes a part of the agricultural zone established under the
ARPALAA. The land along Route 301 belongs to the owner of the industrial site. This land remains under
special agricultural assignment and the types of activities permitted under the law do not change with the
interim control by-law.
Map 32: Interim Control
4.2
4.2.1
LAND OWNERSHIP
Types and Trends of Land Ownership
In the Pontiac RCM, 14% of the territory is privately owned. These private lands are concentrated in the
southern part of the RCM in municipalized territories, where they represent 46% of the total area. The entire
population of the Pontiac RCM is concentrated in these areas. The other land is public land owned by the
State, and is primarily situated in the northern area, in an unorganized territory.
Intra-municipal public land (TPI) is public land whose management has been delegated to regional county
municipalities by the government of Quebec under a territorial management agreement. These areas
represent approximately 2.3% of municipalized territories, covering nearly 100 km2 in the Pontiac RCM. These
lands are mainly situated in the north-western section of the municipalized territory, specifically in the
municipalities of Mansfield-et-Pontefract, Otter Lake, and Alleyn-et-Cawood.
96
In the land use and development plans of the Pontiac RCM, intra-municipal public lands situated in
agricultural zones are under forestry allocation, in which agricultural activities are permitted. These lands are
held in trust by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in accordance with the Act respecting
agricultural lands in the domain of the State.
Map 33: Geographic Breakdown and Land Ownership
4.2.2
Land Values
The land values vary from one property to another and depend on their area, the use they have been put to,
their location, and demand. Land values in areas assigned to vacationing generally fall between $20 001 and
$50 000, particularly in the municipalities of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, Otter Lake, and Sheenboro, where the
Ottawa River and numerous lakes attract this type of development. In agricultural zones, land values vary
greatly from one area to another for the previously stated reasons. They are, however, higher in the
municipalities of Bristol and Clarendon, and lower in the municipalities of L’Île-du-Grand-Calumet, L’Isle-auxAllumettes, and Litchfield. The land values in agricultural zones reflect, in a way, the apparent dynamism of
the agricultural activities in these areas.
Two properties have land values higher than $500 000: the Pontiac Regional Industrial Park in the
Municipality of Litchfield and an agricultural property in the Municipality of Sheenboro.
Map 34: Land Values
4.2.3
Agricultural Properties and Leased Land
In general, the majority of farmers own their land, with or without animals. Many farmers lease agricultural
lands in places other than the municipality where their business is, or in another municipality in the Pontiac
RCM. For several years, non-residents of Quebec have purchased agricultural lands under the Act Respecting
the Acquisition of Farm Land by Non-Residents of Quebec.
Map 35: Owner and Lessee Farmers
97
Chapter 5
5.1
LAND USE
OVERVIEW OF THE TERRITORY AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
The following text is from the most recent agricultural and agri-food industry report on the Pontiac RCM and
was developed by the ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ) in
2008 but should be updated in 2013. This report is available (in French only) on the MAPAQ website at
www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca
5.1.1
Agricultural and Agroforestry Sectors
The agricultural production industry in the Pontiac RCM employs more than 500 people and generates
approximately $28 million in revenues. In January 2008, 278 farm businesses were listed in the MAPAQ
farming registration file. A little over 27% of farms in the Outaouais region are in the RCM and the revenues
from these farms represent approximately 31% of agricultural revenues in the region.
The farms registered with MAPAQ in 2007 covered approximately 44 200 hectares of land. A little over 28 800
hectares of this land was used for crops and pasture. The land used for crops in the RCM, represents close to
34% of the land used for crops in the Outaouais region.
FIGURE 5
Pontiac RCM Agricultural and Agri-food Industry Highlights
The Pontiac RCM includes:
•
•
•
•
•
Approximately 50% of the region’s beef production;
37% of the region’s dairy production (rising in the last few years);
15% of certified organic farms in the Outaouais region;
Untapped maple syrup potential;
12% of the farms have French as their language of correspondence; 88% of the farms have English as their
language of correspondence.
98
TABLE 37
Use of Soil for Agricultural Purposes
FARMS
RCM area
Municipal area
Area occupied by farms
Cereals and protein products
Forage
Other crops
Pasture
Horticulture
Greenhouse crops
Cultivated area
Area with maple trees
Non-cultivated area
278
138
252
4
243
15
6
278
13
278
HECTARES
1 282 408
385 271
44 182
3 732
14 789
51
10 241
46
0.4
28 859
99
15 224
% CULTIVATED
12.9
51.2
0.2
35.5
0.2
0.001
Source: MAPAQ registration file on agricultural producers, January 2008, and 2006–2007 CPTAQ annual report.
Crop Production
Horticultural Production
Horticulture crops take up over 46 hectares—0.2% of the cultivated area. In 2007, about ten farms declared
being in horticultural production, a little over 3% of the total number of farms that declared revenues. The
area used for horticulture in the RCM represents 1% of the area used for horticulture in the Outaouais region.
In 2007, horticulture farms declared revenues of over $700 000—close to 3% of total agricultural revenues in
the RCM. In 2000, these revenues corresponded to 0.5% of agricultural revenues in the RCM.
Forage Crops
The production of forage crops takes up a total area of approximately 25 000 hectares—87% of the cultivated
area in the RCM. The area for forage production in the RCM represents 34% of the area for forage production
in the region.
In 2007, almost 13% of farms declared revenues from forage sales totalling $500 000—approximately 2% of
agricultural revenues in the RCM. In 2000, 11% of farms declared forage sales, which represented close to 2%
of agricultural revenues in the RCM.
99
Grain and Protein Crops
Grain and protein crops, mainly harvested for animal feed, cover approximately 3 700 hectares of the
cultivated area—about 13% of the cultivated area in the RCM. The area used for grain and protein crops
represents 37% of the area for grain in the region.
In 2007, almost 11% of farms declared revenues from grain and protein crops totalling approximately
$1 million—nearly 4% of agricultural revenues in the territory. In 2000, 9% of farms declared grain and
protein crop sales and represented about 3% of agricultural revenues in the RCM territory.
FIGURE 6
Maple Syrup Production and Farm Woodlots
Maple Syrup Production
In 2007, 6% of the area used for maple syrup production in the Outaouais region was in the RCM—
the same as in the year 2000. For each of those years, the declared agricultural revenues were less
than 0.5% of total agricultural revenues.
Farm Woodlots
In 2007, 13% of farms declared revenues from harvesting trees on farm woodlots, which
corresponded to 4% of agricultural revenues. In 2000, 18% of farms declared revenues—3% of
agricultural revenues in the RCM.
Livestock Production
Beef Production
In 2007, beef production included approximately 13 500 beef cattle spread out over 79% of MAPAQ
registered farms. These cattle represented 43% of the regional beef population.
As for the beef cattle feeding operations sector, there were 3 800 head in 2007—approximately 49% of
stocker cattle and finishing cattle in the Outaouais region.
In the RCM, beef production leads the agricultural industry with revenues of over $15.8 million—57% of
agricultural revenues in the RCM in 2007. In 2000, beef production revenues represented 63% of agricultural
revenues.
100
Dairy Production
In 2007, dairy production in the RCM accounted for 11% of agricultural businesses. The dairy farmers in the
RCM produce over 121 000 hectolitres per year — 37% of regional milk production. The revenues from this
sector in 2007 were 30% of agricultural revenues.
In 2000, dairy farms represented 12% of farms in the RCM and dairy production revenues were 27% of
agricultural revenues. There has been an increase in dairy production in the RCM in the last few years.
Other Livestock Production
In 2007, the sheep industry represented 3% of MAPAQ registered farms with a sheep population of 770. That
same year, their revenues were more than $100 000—0.5% of agricultural revenues in the RCM. In 2000, the
revenues were the same. Sheep production in the RCM represented 14% of the total regional production.
Farms that raise cervids, large game, goats, hogs and other animals are present in the RCM; however, there
are not very many of them. In 2007, they represented 3% of farms and the farmers’ declared revenues were
$100 000. In 2000, they represented 2% of farms and their revenues represented approximately 1.5% of
agricultural revenues.
In regard to equine production, 3% of farms in the RCM declared having horses in 2007. The number of riding
horses in the RCM represented 19% of riding horses in the region, whereas the number of draft horses
represented 29% of the region’s total.
101
TABLE 38
Pontiac RCM Agriculture in Numbers
PRODUCTION TYPE
NUMBER OF BUSINESSES
REPORTING
REPORTING
See note 1
See note 2
($ million)
SPECIALIZED
INVENTORY OF REPORTING FARMS
See note 3
See notes 2 and 3
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
Beef production
Dairy production
Sheep production
Equine and other animal production
Total livestock production
HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Greenhouse crops
207
220
15.7
30
30
8.4
6
5
9
13
0.1
0.2
248
13 599 beef cows, 2 210 stocker cows, and
1 599 finishing cows
1 799 cows, annual production of 121 826
hectolitres of milk
771 sheep
83 riding mares, 78 draft mares,
44 male riding horses and 19 male draft
horses;
109 meat goats;
118 horses;
14 bison;
110 beehives;
1 002 dozens of eggs;
190 broilers.
24.4
3
5
0.4
Vegetables
4
7
0.3
Fruits and berries
4
7
0.0
Total horticultural production
OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONS
Grain and protein crops
11
7
31
1.0
Forage
11
41
0.5
Maple syrup production and farm
woodlots
1
40
1.1
Total or other agricultural productions
TOTAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONS
19
278
1 571 m2 in greenhouse vegetables and
2 044 m2 in ornamental production
35 ha of field-grown vegetables, among which
4 ha are sweet corn
11.5 ha, among which 4.9 ha are strawberries
and 5 are dwarf apple trees
0.7
3 732 ha, among which 1 391 ha are grain
corn, 214 ha soya and 1 243 ha oats
14 789 ha among which 12 888 ha are
grassland
99 ha in maple syrup production (3 155
tapped maples)
15 114 ha of farm woodlots
2.6
27.8
Notes
1.
2.
3.
A specialized farm’s main revenues come from production.
A reporting farm gets its main revenues or supplementary revenues from production.
Revenues from the 2005 tax return and inventory from 2007.
Source: MAPAQ registration file on agricultural producers, January 2008.
Certified Organic Food Production
Certified organic food production represents 1% of farms. The activities on these farms mainly relate to
growing vegetable crops, raising animals, growing berries and producing maple syrup. In total, 15% of the
certified organic agricultural businesses in the region are in the RCM.
102
Marketing of Local Products
Some agricultural and agri-food businesses in the RCM market their own products. This is the case for three
livestock farms; mainly beef farms that have a permit from MAPAQ (formely the Centre québécois
d’inspection des aliments et de santé animale 10) and sell their products directly from their farms. Other
businesses, in vegetable and fruit production, also market directly to consumers.
Food and Beverage Processing and Wholesale
Food processing is present in the RCM. It concerns mainly the meat, maple syrup, and bottled water
industries. In 2007, more than a dozen food processing plants were subject to the authority of MAPAQ. An
estimated 20 jobs were associated with food processing. Wholesale concerns about five establishments that
mainly concern the dairy industry. Most of these establishments have low turnover and the number of
workers per enterprise is limited. The total number of jobs linked to this sector is about a few dozen.
Retail and Restaurant Industry
The retail and restaurant industry is a large part of the gross domestic product related to the bio-food
industry in the RCM. The restaurant industry includes almost 100 businesses whereas retail services include
more than 50 businesses. There are approximately 500 jobs in the retail and food industry—4% of jobs for
these sectors in the region.
TABLE 39
Number of Agricultural Businesses According to Primary Revenues
Production Type
Beef production
Dairy production
Field crops
Other animal production
Horticultural production
Maple syrup production and farm woodlots
TOTAL
Number of Businesses
207
30
18
11
11
1
278
10
Merge with MAPAQ in 2010 (annual report, pp. 4 and 22,
http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Publications/rapport_annuel_2010-11.pdf)
103
FIGURE 7
Number of Agricultural Businesses According to Primary Revenues
Beef production
Dairy production
Field crops
TABLE 40
Revenues Generated per Production Type
Production Type
Beef production
Dairy production
Field crops
TOTAL
FIGURE 8
$ Million
15.7
8.4
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.3
277
Revenues Generated from Production Type ($ million)
Beef production
Dairy production
Field crops
Horticulture production
Maps 37 to 44 in the cartographic appendix show the distribution and size of each animal production present
in the Pontiac RCM in terms of animal units. These animal units are considered when calculating separation
distances from farm infrastructure. These separation distances are part of the management framework for
104
odours in agricultural zones, implemented following government directions concerning the protection of the
territory and agricultural activities, and revised in 2001. For example, one animal unit is equivalent to one
bovine animal, one cow or five hogs. The other parameters for determining separation distances are the basic
distances according to the total number of animal units, odour per animal, type of manure, type of project,
mitigating factor, and usage factors.
Map 36: Cultivated Land
Map 37: Livestock Animal Units: Beef Cows
Map 38: Livestock Animal Units: Dairy Cows
Map 39: Livestock Animal Units: Horses
Map 40: Livestock Animal Units: Sheep
Map 41: Livestock Animal Units: Pigs
Map 42: Livestock Animal Units: Chicken
Map 43: Livestock Animal Units: Other Poultry
Map 44: Livestock Animal Units: Other Animal Production
Map 45: Fallow, Plantations and Loss of Forestry Area
5.1.2
Tourism, Cottages and Agritourism
There are a number of attractions in the Pontiac RCM showcasing its rich history, culture, and landscape.
There are also several artists, recreational tourist facilities, an agri-food marketing circuit for local products,
and many different outdoor activities. The following table gives a general idea of tourist attractions in the
Pontiac RCM.
105
TABLE 41
Tourist Attractions in the Pontiac RCM
Lakes and Waterways
1. A number of lakes and waterways (the
Ottawa, Coulonge, Dumoine and Black
rivers)
Outdoors
1. Pontiac RCM Trail Network
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Chutes Coulonge Aerial Park
Mont Chilly
Ranch R.S.
Golf courses
Escapade Eskimo, Timberland Tours
Esprit Rafting Adventures, Horizon X
Rafting and Kayak
Attractions
1. Coulonge Falls
2. Félix-Gabriel-Marchand Bridge
3. George-Bryson Heritage House
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Oiseau Rock
Allée des Manoirs in Fort-Coulonge
Stone buildings in Portage-du-Fort
Red brick houses in Shawville
Fort William
Mont O’Brien
Norway Bay
Waltham Hydroelectric Station
Cadieux Monument
Culture and Heritage
1. Artist studios
2.
3.
Archeological sites
Heritage (natural, cultural and religious)
Activities
Cottages
Sailing, canoeing, kayaking, white-water rafting
Swimming
Hunting and fishing
Cycling
Activities
Cycloparc PPJ (cycling)
Beaver Switchback (hiking and mounting biking)
Oiseau Rock Trail (hiking)
Kichi Sibi Canoe Trail (canoeing and kayaking)
Island Trails (hiking and cycling)
Ziplining
Downhill skiing
Horseback riding
Golfing
Dog sledding
White-water rafting
Activities
Hiking trails, lookouts and an interpretation centre
Covered bridge, one of the longest in Quebec
Georgian-style house, now a tea room, museum and genealogy
research centre
Hiking trails, a lookout and a beach
th
Beautiful late 19 century houses and a Presbyterian church
Stone houses and church
Late 19th century Victorian houses
Former Hudson Bay Company trading post
Hiking trails and an observation site
th
Late 19 century vacation homes
First private commercial station in Canada
Cadieux legend commemorative site; Cadieux and his Algonquian
companions fought against the Iroquois
Activities
Studio tour of Pontiac artists
Stone School Gallery
George-Bryson Heritage House
Félix-Gabriel-Marchand Bridge
A number of churches from various denominations
Oiseau Rock
Squared-timber, stone and brick houses
106
Agritourism
1. Agricultural fairs
2. Public markets
3. Agri-food marketing circuit
4. Specialized production
5. Coronation Hall Cider Mills
6. Café 349
7. Local products
8. Greenhouses
Festivals and Events
1. Shawville Agricultural Fair
2. Ladysmith Oktoberfest
3. Bikes in theBay
4. Festival of Lights
5. Chapeau Heritage Day
Activities
Shawville and Chapeau
Fruit and vegetables, meat, flowers and local products
Tasting, interpretation, special events
Alpacas, bison and game
Orchards, apple and berry picking
Foods made with products from the region
Honey, maple products, ginseng, flowers, fruits, and vegetables
Fruit and vegetables, annual and perennial plants
Lodging and Restaurants
Main Components
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Small- and medium- sized hotels
Campgrounds
Bed and breakfasts and farm hospitality
Apartment hotels
Restaurants and country-style dining establishments
Sources: Outaouais Tourism, www.tourismeoutaouais.com, website consulted October 30, 2012; Tourism Pontiac, www.tourisme-pontiac.com,
website consulted October 30, 2012; MRC de Pontiac, règlement numéro 65-99 édictant le schéma d’aménagement révisé, in effect since February 23,
2001, 155 pages.
It is not possible at this time to obtain more recent data on the economic impact of the tourism, cottages, and
agritourism sectors in the Pontiac RCM because they are almost nonexistent.
The Pontiac LDC via Tourism Pontiac is the main promoter of attractions, activities, and services offered in the
RCM. Information on the region’s tourist attractions is also available to visitors on the Outaouais Tourism
website, at the tourist information office of the SADC Pontiac Community Futures Development Corporation,
and, during the tourist season, at tourist information kiosks in Bristol, Portage-du-Fort, and L’Isle-auxAllumettes.
The Buy Local Food Map of the Pontiac region showcases local products by suggesting 19 stops at local
producer’s farms. The Pontiac LDC promotes the map and encourages the population to buy locally. Most
local producers sell their products from home. These producers are mainly located outside Shawville and near
Fort-Coulonge.
Map 46: Agrotourism, Agri-food Tour, and Tourist Routes
107
5.2
GENERAL LAND USE
5.2.1
Land Use Types
To determine the general land use for the zone covered in the study, we examined the real use of each of the
evaluation units present in the territory; identifying the units falls under the responsibilities of the municipal
evaluator. In order to ensure that the different uses in the Quebec territory identified uniformly, a property
use classification system was developed. The Manuel d’évaluation foncière du Québec documents the use
and descriptions.
Consisting of a four-digit code (for example, 1000 for RESIDENTIAL), this property use categorization system is
essential for municipal property evaluation to apply different recognized evaluation methods and produce
statistical data on the rolls, which act as the physical and economic inventory of the territory.
More specifically, land use is described in the evaluation roll through property use codes — codes d’utilisation
des biens-fonds (CUBF) 11. These codes include almost 1,700 usage types that are grouped into eight categories
in the following table.
TABLE 42
1
2-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Property Use Codes – General Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
MANUFACTURING
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND UTILITIES
COMMERCIAL
SERVICE
CULTURAL, RECREATIONAL, AND LEISURE
PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
UNUSED REAL ESTATE AND BODIES OF WATER
Map 47: General Land Use
5.2.2
Destructured Tracts of Land and Sectors in Agricultural Zones
According to government directions for territory protection and agricultural activities, a destructured tract of
land is a fixed area or a small sector that is, well defined in space and mostly used for non-agricultural
activities. For identification purposes, we have located all of the fixed areas in the agricultural zone that have
five residential evaluation units within 150 metres. These residential evaluation units correspond to the
property use codes in the following table.
11
Source: MAMROT, Codes d’utilisation des
quebec/codes-dutilisation-des-biens-fonds/
biens-fonds,
http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/evaluation-fonciere/manuel-devaluation-fonciere-du-
108
TABLEAU 43
1
10
100
1000
110
1100
12
121
1211
1212
Property Use Codes—Residential Use
RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING
Housing
Housing
VACATION HOUSE OR COTTAGE
Vacation House or Cottage
MOBILE HOME, TRAILOR
Mobile Home, Trailor
Mobile Home
Residential Trailor
Identifying these destructured tracts of land could give the RCM opportunity to file a collective application
under provisions of section 59 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural
activities (ARPALAA). Under these provisions, an RCM can present a collective application to identify sectors
inside the agricultural zone that can be used for new homes without destructuring the agricultural zone. Such
an application can only be made if the land use plan has been revised. An application can also be filed to limit
the destructured tracts of land inside which new homes may be added. In such a case, the application can be
presented without the land use plan having been reviewed the land use plan. To make a decision under
section 59 of the ARPALAA, CPTAQ must have obtained consent from the RCM, the Union des producteurs
agricoles and the municipalities involved.
This type of application is an excellent opportunity to take into account regional characteristics and enables a
certain type of dynamism of the agricultural zone by authorising the construction of homes in certain areas of
this zone. Representatives of the agricultural industry, municipal sector, and CPTAQ must have agreed upon a
set of guidelines to ensure that this kind of territory gives priority to agricultural activities in agricultural
zones. The decision made by the CPTAQ means fewer regulations for residents to deal with since they no
longer have to apply for individual authorization to build a home in the selected areas in the agricultural zone.
Other sectors can be identified if the area of the unit of evaluation is large enough and corresponds to one of
the property use codes in the following table.
109
TABLE 44
8
85
854
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8549
Property Use Codes—Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
MINING AND RELATED SERVICES
Mining and Quarrying for Non-Metallic Minerals (excluding oil)
Freestone
Mining and Quarrying Rock for Crushing and Rip-Rap
Sand and Gravel Quarrying
Clay, Slate, and Refractary Mineral Mining and Quarrying
Mineral and Fertilizer Mining and Quarrying
Asbestos Mining
Limestone and Marble Mining and Quarrying
Other Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
Map 48: Destructured Tracts of Land and Sectors
5.2.3
Protected Real Estate in Agricultural zones
The idea of protected real estate was introduced in land use planning through government directions
concerning territory protection and agricultural activities 12. This category of real estate includes a number of
uses in which significance is placed more on aesthetics than utilitarianism. In other words, the feeling of
beauty linked to landscape is more important than a geographic space serving a specific purpose. In the
directions document, the list of usages identified as protected real estate includes the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
12
A recreational, sports, or cultural centre;
A municipal park;
A public beach or marina;
The grounds of an educational establishment or an establishment as defined in of the Act respecting
health services and social services (R.S.Q., c. S-4.2) ;
A camping establishment;
Outdoor adventure site buildings or nature interpretation centres;
A ski lodge or golf clubhouse;
A religious institution;
A summer theatre;
An accommodation establishment as defined in the Regulation respecting tourist accommodation
establishments, except bed and breakfast establishments, tourist homes, and rugged furnished
lodgings;
Gouvernement du Québec (2001), Les orientations du gouvernement en matière d'aménagement La protection du territoire et des activités agricole;
Revised supporting document, p. 39.
110
k)
A building used for wine tasting at a vineyard, or an dining establishment that seats 20 or more and
holds a year-round operating license, or a country-style dining establishment or any other similar
establishment when it does not belong to the owner or farmer of the concerned farming facilities.
More specifically, the Pontiac RCM identified a number of uses related to protected real estate according to
the property use codes. The list of these uses can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. Through geographical
association, it was possible to figure out the distribution of protected real estate in the RCM in relation to the
agricultural zone and according to the type of perception, in other words, according to the grouping of
perceptions tied to a geographical area (aesthetic, utilitarian). Only 21 of the land units recognized as
protected real estate are in the agricultural zone. Of the 21 protected real estate units, none are in the
“aesthetic” category. The results can be found in Table 45.
From this analysis, we noted that the majority of the protected real estate is situated outside agricultural
zones and in sectors that are aesthetic or very aesthetic. Furthermore, a thorough examination shows that,
among the 21 protected real estate units in the agricultural zone, 20 are churches or other religious
institutions (PUC 6911), and one is a restaurant with a terrace (PUC 5812). On the one hand, it is very likely
that the churches were already there long before the agricultural zone was decreed by the Act. On the other
hand, and in this context, the restaurant appears to be an isolated case.
TABLE 45
Protected Real Estate Distribution
Type of Perception
1
Outside an
Agricultural Zone
Very utilitarian
2
Utilitarian
3
Identity marker/utilitarian
4
Identity marker
5
Identity marker/aesthetic
6
Aesthetic
7
Very esthetic
Outside the field of study
Total
3
2
4
22
70
2
103
In an Agricultural
zone
Total
1
1
7
1
3
5
4
7
4
5
9
26
70
2
124
21
Map 49: Protected Real Estate
111
5.3
DENSITY OF LAND USE
5.3.1
Main Types of Use
Agricultural Use of Land
The geographic dynamism of agriculture can be evaluated through the location of commercial farms and the
description of activities practiced on the properties. The fact that agriculture is practiced commercially usually
guarantees a higher density. Land use, which is also noted on the property evaluation roll, can be used to
describe, in a supplementary way, the density of agricultural land use. The sources of data and their
explanations follow.
Commercial Farms
Commercial farms correspond to those registered with MAPAQ. Registration guarantees that the farm will
produce on average a minimal revenue per unit of area, subject to the Regulation respecting the registration
of agricultural operations and the reimbursement of real estate taxes and compensations 13. This information
can be geographically located through the municipal property evaluation roll. The property evaluation roll
includes two comments that refer to specific measures of the laws applicable to the tax breakdown section.
The measures that are of interest to us are the following:
•
M-14: This code identifies the Act respecting the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de
l’Alimentation du Québec (R.S.Q., c. M-14), which states the tax exemption allocation procedures for
land unit owners;
•
EAEB: This code indicates the lots that belong to registered farms but are situated outside the
agricultural zone.
For the purpose of the Agricultural Territory Analysis Model that will be discussed in Chapter 6 of this report,
all land units included in any of these categories are commercial farms. When it comes to their location, in the
absence of a digitalized grid system, it was suitable to reference every land unit to the geographical area by its
centroid. The centroid is the centre point of the land unit according to its latitude and longitude coordinates.
This choice allows for great precision in locating properties that correspond to specific criteria. The geographic
influence of these land units corresponds to a buffer zone around the centroid where the total area in the
RCM is equivalent to the total area of farms in the territory. The approximate location of the farms is modeled
in this way in Map 35 (Agricultural Use of the Land).
13
Revised Quebec Act, chapiter M-14, Regulation 1, under the Act respecting the Mministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation (c. M-14,
sections 36.12 and 36.15)
112
Agricultural Use of the Land
The PUCs that apply to agricultural uses are in the following table.
TABLE 46
8
81
812
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
813
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8139
819
8191
8192
8199
Property Use Codes (PUC)— Agricultural Activities
PRODUCTION ET EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE
Animal Production
Beef farms
Dairy farms
Pig farms
Sheep farms
Chicken farms and egg production
Equine farms
Goat farms
Beekeeping
Other types of animal production
Crop Production
Maple syrup production
Grain, oilseed, and legume production
Vegetable production
Fruit or nut production
Ornamental horticulture
Christmas tree production
Other types of crops
Other Agricultural Activities
Pasture and grazing land
Experimental farms
Other agricultural activities
Additionally, some activities are complementary to agriculture. They appear in the following table. It should
be noted that they do not necessarily consist of agricultural activities as such.
113
TABLE 47
Property Use Codes—Activities Related to Agriculture
8
82
821
8211
8212
8219
822
8221
8229
829
8291
8292
8293
8299
PRODUCTION ET EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO AGRICULTURE
Processing related to crop production
Threshing, baling, husking, combining, and ploughing
Sorting, grading, and packaging (fruits et vegetables)
Other agricultural product processing services
Services related to raising farm animals
Veterinary services and large animal veterinary hospitals
Other services related to raising farm animals
Other services related to agriculture
Horticultural services
Agronomy services
Support services for farms
Other activities related to agriculture
A basic model of the agricultural territory density can be built from the following two criteria: presence of
farms and land use. Analysis of the model shows that all registered land units belong to one of the categories
in the previously listed 8100 series. However, the opposite is not true: there are land units in the 8100 series
that are not registered farms. These are therefore artisanal farms, as opposed to the previously mentioned
commercial farms. There are three types of property located in the territory:

Registered farms (663 land units);
The number of land units does not correspond to the number of registered farms. An EAE registered
farm can contain more than one land unit.
663 LU / 278 EAE = 2.43 LU / EAE (on average)

Properties described as farms but not registered (704 land units);

Properties other than farms.
Map 50 in the cartographic appendix shows the agricultural use of the territory according to the 8100 and
8200 PUCs listed in the two preceding tables. Maps 66 and 67, concerning the density of agriculture use, show
the registered and non-registered agricultural land units in the territory. The registered land units are
represented by red-brown dots and the non-registered land units by dark orange dots.
Map 50: Agricultural Use
114
Forestry Use
The PUCs that apply to forestry uses are in the following table.
TABLE 48
8
83
831
8311
8312
8319
832
8321
8322
Property Use Codes—Forestry Activities
FORESTRY OPERATIONS AND RELATED SERVICES
Forestry and forestry operations
Forestry operations
Forest nurseries
Other production or harvesting of forest products
Peat moss and sod production
Peat moss production
Sod strip production
Additionally, some activities are complementary to forestry. They appear in the following table. It should be
noted that they do not necessarily consist of forestry activities as such.
TABLE 49
8
83
839
8391
8392
8399
Property Use Codes—Services Related to Forestry Activities
FORESTRY OPERATIONS AND RELATED SERVICES
Services related to forestry
Forestry research centres
Forest fire-fighting services
Other services related to forestry
Map 51: Forestry Use
Recreational Use
The PUCs that apply to recreational uses are in the following table.
115
TABLE 50
7
74
741
7411
7412
7416
743
7431
744
7441
7442
749
7491
7492
7493
7499
75
751
7511
7513
7514
7516
7519
Property Use Codes—Recreational Activities
CULTURE, RECREATION, AND LEISURE
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Sporting activities
Golf courses (without a clubhouse or other sport facilities)
Golf courses (with a clubhouse and other sport facilities)
Horseback riding facilities
Swimming
Beaches
Water activities
Marinas, yacht harbours, and cruise ship loading docks
Access ramps and parking
Other recreational activities
Campgrounds (excluding trailers and RVs)
Wilderness campgrounds and picnic spots
Trailer and RV parks
Other recreational activities
TOURIST CENTRES AND CAMPS
Tourist centres
Tourist centres in general
Ski lodges (downhill and/or cross-country)
Hunting and fishing clubs
Nature interpretation centres
Other centres for tourist activities
Additionally, some activities are complementary to recreation. They appear in the following table but are not
represented in Map 52 (Recreational Use). It should be noted that they do not necessarily consist of
recreational activities as such but support them in terms of development.
116
TABLE 51
5
55
553
5533
58
581
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5819
583
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5839
Property Use Codes—Activities Complementary to Recreation
COMMERCIAL
RETAIL SELLING OF AUTOMOBILES, BOATS, PLANES AND THEIR ACCESSORIES
Gas stations
Self-serve or full service stations with a convenience store but without an auto repair shop
ACCOMMODATIONS AND RESTAURANTS
Full- or limited-service restaurants
Full-service restaurants and establishments (without a terrace)
Full-service restaurants and establishments (with a terrace)
Limited-service restaurants and establishments
Self-serve restaurants and establishments (cafeteria, canteen)
Restaurants with a reception room or banquet hall
Other full- or limited-service establishments
Accommodation establishments
Hotel (including hotel-motels)
Motel
Inns or bed and breakfasts
Tourist homes, apartments, or cabins (furnished and with cooking facilities)
Farm bed and breakfasts
Time-share apartments
Other accommodation activities
Map 52: Recreational Use
5.3.2
Agricultural Land Use
Agricultural land use corresponds to the property use codes in the previously listed 8100 and 8200 series,
whether these agricultural land units are registered with MAPAQ or not. Map 53 (Agricultural Land Use)
shows the distribution of agricultural land use according to all of the types.
Map 53: Agricultural Land Use
117
Chapter 6
The Pontiac RCM agricultural territory analysis is presented in this chapter. Note that the analysis is based on
an agricultural territory analysis model developed from the general model, the Territory Formation Process
(introduced in this report in Subsection 1.1.3 on methodology). Essentially, the implementation of the
agricultural territory analysis model consisted of making the link between people’s perception of the
territory and its actual worth. Therefore, how is the analysis model formed and how can it help us
understand the territory dynamics in the Pontiac RCM? The current chapter provides further details on this
model and the results of the analysis.
6.1
AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM)
Note that we suggested analyzing the perception of the territory by studying potentialities and constraints for
agriculture. The true reality of the territory was described by studying the agricultural dynamism of the
territory. These two factors are, in our opinion, the two fundamental types that allow us to obtain the most
just understanding of the reality of the agricultural territory. Section 6.2 (The Parts of the Model) presents the
two factors and their indicators. At the same time, we present a few technical details on the organisation of
the geographically referenced databases that we used to attribute characteristics to specific places. But first
and foremost, we examine a number of technical details of the model, including analysis grids and the
method for representing the factors using the geographic information system (GIS).
6.1.1
Analysis Grids
Interpreting the data in question gives a “political dimension” to the geographical facts by associating a
potential end use to the geographical characteristics. This dimension is key for the ATAM. When we decided
to study something, we do it with a purpose in mind. Furthermore, each of the two previously mentioned
types of factors has its own grid to explain the meaning.
In regard to evaluating places in relation to an activity such as agriculture, one can ask whether a place with
these characteristics is favourable or unfavourable to agriculture. We propose that this evaluation be made
on a scale with seven options, as indicated in the following table.
118
TABLE 52
Option
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Evaluation Grid for Factors of Agricultural Potentialities and Constraints
Description
Very favourable
Favourable
Somewhat favourable
Neither favourable nor unfavourable
Somewhat unfavourable
Unfavourable
Very unfavourable
The agricultural dynamism of the territory is evaluated in a similar way. In this instance, the observable
presence and/or intensity of human activities is represented by a relevant process of evaluation and can be
directly or indirectly related to agriculture. The following table shows this type of evaluation.
TABLE 53
Option
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Evaluation Grid for Factors of Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory
Description
Very dynamic
Dynamic
Rather dynamic
Average dynamism
Reduced dynamism
Not very dynamic
Barely dynamic
Subsequently, the cross between the two evaluation grids helps identify the four types of territory in terms of
perception and dynamism.
TABLE 54
Types of Territory
Dynamism
Potentialities
High
Weak
Strong
1. Favourable and dynamic
3. Unfavourable but dynamic
Weak
2. Favourable but not very dynamic
4. Unfavourable and not very dynamic
Therefore, in order to promote full territorial development, different territorial management measures could
be implemented for each category:
1.
Fully preserving current agricultural activities (for example, prohibiting the introduction of land use
other than for agriculture);
2.
Promoting agriculture by highlighting the characteristics of the territory;
119
3.
Supporting agricultural dynamism (for example, giving resources for activities complementary to
agriculture);
4.
Promoting the diversity of original agricultural and forestry activities to take advantage of
unfavourable land.
6.1.2
Making Connections Using GIS
Territorial management consists of understanding the territory’s dynamic and making decisions consistent
with its reality. In this respect, the geographic information system (GIS) is a territorial management tool that
has come into general use over time. Equipped with a great ability to gather geographically referenced data
(GRD) and to establish connections between the GRD, the GIS is an ideal tool for objective characterization.
In the same way, the territorial indicators are geographically referenced databases (GRDB) that reveal various
aspects of the geographic area studied. The GIS, in addition to consistently geographically locating data, helps
to visualize the establishment of links between the GRDB. It is as though the represented geographic area had
three dimensions. It does not have the three dimensions of real geographic space (like models do) but rather
two of these (longitude and latitude) and a third dimension that presents the intensity of the item observed.
This function is especially useful for observing a group of related geographic factors.
•
The horizontal dimension of the model: the grid system method
In its horizontal dimension, the model looks exactly like the maps that land use planners are used to. Its
difference lies in the transfer of GRD to a matrix of equidistant points. Note that the purpose of the model is
to make links between geographical items (characterized geographically). Each indicator presents its own
geographic distribution pattern, which makes amalgamating the data or following its development over time
difficult. This problem is particularly significant in following the data on the population, for example, when
the subdivision limits for a census change from one census to another.
Therefore, the solution consists of establishing a matrix of orthogonal (right angle), or triangular or hexagonal
points. Each point shows data on each indicator of a family. This method is called a grid system 14. It has been
used by workers at LabMIT since the beginning of their studies on territorial dynamics 15. The most
elementary example of grid system is checkers. The board is orthogonal and there are only two values: black
and white.
•
The vertical dimension of the model
14
CNRTL (Oct. 2012): A set of lines that divides a space into squares. For more information you can visit the INSEE (Oct. 2012) Pourquoi des carroyages,
however, it is only available in French (http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/detail.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=donnees-carroyees&page=donneesdetaillees/donnees-carroyees/donnees_carroyees_carroyage.htm).
15
GAGNON et al (2007), Dynamique territoriale des espaces ruraux de l’Outaouais et de l’Est ontarien; Étude de cas comparative. CRDT, Gatineau.
120
Being able to transfer data to a matrix of equidistant points helps accumulate data. When indicators concern
related items, it becomes possible to accumulate values relative to each point of the matrix and to obtain a
“three-dimensional” outline of the territory studied. We evidently understand that the third dimension is not
altitude but the cumulative value of “collected” data. This function, which we name “depth” of the indicators
or the model, helps to accumulate the values of several indicators for a given place.
It is possible to combine data that have different geographic representations. This is done by means of a grid
system. For the following model, the structure of squares is orthogonal and the depths of the indicators do
not exceed seven. The depth of the macro-indicators is equal to seven times the number of indicators it is
composed of.
6.2
MODEL COMPONENTS
This section presents the indicators chosen to form the ATAM and the reasoning behind these choices. It
addresses the two components stated from the beginning: perception (vision) and the actual worth of the
territory (development).
6.2.1
Perception: The Study of the Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture
Perception anticipates data. It is a representation of a possible reality, not necessarily present at the time of
reporting, but that has a strong probability of occurring. This probability is backed up by a series of scientific
surveys that show its validity. In the case of agricultural territory, the perception of the geographic area will
be described through the study of the potentialities and constraints for agriculture. In order to document this
study, eight indicators were used. Some of these indicators rely more on agricultural factors or factors of
related activities. This study is divided in two parts: factors related to agriculture and factors not related to
agriculture.
Factors Related to Agriculture
The study the suitability of the territory should include the indicators that directly show the capacity and
aptness of the territory to generate agricultural activity or other activity related to agriculture. Agriculture,
sugar bush operations, and by extension forestry are activities that ARPALAA specifically identifies for
promotion in agricultural areas. With this purpose in mind, we have selected the following indicators: land
capability for agriculture (A11) and land capability for forestry (A12) according to the Canada Land Inventory
(CLI), and the presence of sugar maple stands (A13). These indicators as well as their corresponding data
classes are also represented in tables 13, 14, and 15 in Section 3 of this report. In addition, all maple stands
were considered, even though the ARPALAA refers only to those larger than 4 hectares. With the scale of this
study, it is not possible to perform such a detailed analysis, which is why we make reference to all the stands.
As such, a sum of factors related to agriculture is created (A1). The values of this sum correspond to the sum
of the values of the indicators in this family (A1 = A11 + A12 + A13). After calculation, the synthesis values are
regrouped, according to the so-called natural thresholds method, into 7 sets corresponding to the analysis
grid for the factors of potentialities and constraints for agriculture.
121
Map 54: Land Capability for Agriculture (A11)
Map 55: Land Capability for Forestry (A12)
Map 56: Presence of Sugar Maple Stands (A13)
Map 57: Sum of Factors Related to Agriculture (A1)
Factors Not Related to Agriculture
Certain factors not related to agriculture were identified. We selected the following: land capability for
recreation (A21) and land capability for wildlife (A22), as well as the presence of aquatic environments and
wetlands (A23). Wildlife potential includes land capability for ungulate production (A221), land capability for
waterfowl production, and the presence of wildlife habitats (A223). These geographical conditions limit the
practice of agricultural activities in different ways and to different degrees. When these conditions apply to
areas that are ill suited for agriculture (sets 6 and 7 of the indicator for the sum of factors related to
agriculture presented earlier), there is harmony in the functions of the territory. However, when conditions
not related to agriculture occur in the same geographic areas as the sectors with high agricultural potential,
there will probably need to be arbitration for the uses of these areas. This is the case with the wetlands
bordering on agricultural lands.
As above, a sum of factors not related to agriculture is created (A2). The values of this sum correspond to the
sum of the values of the indicators in this family (A2 = A21 + A22 + A23). In this equation, the indicator A22 is
itself the sum of the values of the sub-indicators A221, A222, and A223. After calculation, the sums are
regrouped, according to the so-called natural thresholds method, into 7 sets corresponding to the analysis
grid for the factors of potentialities and constraints for agriculture.
Map 58: Land Capability for Recreation (A21)
Map 59: Land Capability for Wildlife (A22)
Map 60: Land Capability for Wildlife—Ungulates (A221)
Map 61: Land Capability for Wildlife—Waterfowl (A222)
Map 62: Presence of Wildlife Habitats (A223)
Map 63: Presence of Aqueous Environments and Wetlands (A23)
Map 64: Sum of Factors Not Related to Agriculture (A2)
122
*
*
*
To conclude the study of potentialities and constraints for agriculture, a sum of the results, called the “MacroIndicator of Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture” (MIPCA), was created. The values of this sum
correspond to the sum of the values of the other sum values in this section (MIPCA = A1 + A2). After
calculation, the sum values are regrouped, according to the so-called natural thresholds method, into 7 sets
corresponding to the analysis grid for the factors of potentialities and constraints for agriculture.
Map 65: Macro-Indicator of Potentialities and Constraints for Agriculture (MIPCA)
6.2.2
The Actual Worth of the Territory: The Study of the Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory
In contrast to the previous subsection, the study of the agricultural dynamism of the territory relies on
measurable geographical data that effectively describe how the territory is used for agriculture or other
purposes. Once again, to simplify the model, only the facts pertinent to agricultural activities and factors
related to these activities were considered for the study. Thus, three indicators were chosen: intensity of
agricultural use of the territory (B1), forest cover (B2), and land value (B3).
Intensity of Agricultural Use of the Territory
In the same way that the study of the land capability for agriculture describes the geographic area, this
indicator is integral to describing the occupation of agricultural land. It is made up of two elements that are
part of the municipal assessment roll: the presence of farms registered with MAPAQ and the farms’
designation according to the property use codes (current use, not potential use).
It is possible to locate the properties that generate an activity that could be considered commercial. They are
designated as M-14 16 (in an agricultural zone) or EAEB (in a non-agricultural zone) in the « Source législative
(B62loi) » box. In addition, the category of buildings identified in the 8100 series of property use codes (PUC),
also on the assessment role, gives interesting insight into the presence of agricultural activities in the
territory.
The data on the use of territory comes from the assessment roles from 2007 and 2012. The results are
presented in the following three tables.
16
With reference to the Act Respecting the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation of Québec and to the articles that give the lot’s
property owner(s) the right to be exempt from payment of a portion of the municipal taxes on the property with this code.
123
TABLE 55
Agricultural Use of the Territory in 2007
AGRICULTURAL LAND UNITS (PUC 8100)
Area of the agricultural land units (ALU) is in hectares (ha)
Registered with MAPAQ
Geographic
Code
Agricult
ural
Zone
Municipality
84005
Bristol
84010
Shawville
84015
Clarendon
84020
Nonagricult
ural
Zone
Not registered with MAPAQ
Agricult
ural
Zone
Nonagricultur
al Zone
5 798
5 660
187
Subtotal
5 798
Total Area
Agricult
ural
Zone
Nonagricult
ural
Zone
5 847
11 458
187
11 645
Subtotal
Total
139
32
171
35
34
70
174
66
241
12 524
198
12 722
8 269
1 486
9 755
20 793
1 684
22 477
Portage-du-Fort
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84025
Bryson
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84030
Campbell's Bay
83
0
83
17
34
51
100
34
134
84035
4 289
141
4 430
2 762
616
3 377
7 050
757
7 807
84040
Litchfield
3 743
160
3 902
2 602
766
3 368
6 345
926
7 271
84045
Thorne
108
348
456
91
1 536
1 627
199
1 884
2 083
84050
Alleyn-et-Cawood
228
228
145
145
0
373
373
84055
Otter Lake
829
181
1 011
357
357
829
538
1 367
84060
Fort-Coulonge
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84065
1 963
140
2 104
1 776
222
1 998
3 739
362
4 102
84070
Waltham
284
914
176
1 090
1 197
176
1 374
84082
L'Isle-aux-Allumettes
5 096
109
5 205
3 817
177
3 993
8 913
286
9 199
84090
Chichester
1 293
207
1 500
2 207
158
2 365
3 500
365
3 865
84095
Sheenboro
2 193
173
2 366
525
197
722
2 718
370
3 088
38 342
1 916
40 259
28 674
6 092
34 766
67 016
8 008
75 025
284
Total
Source: MAMROT-SIGAT, 2007 assessment roles from the Pontiac RCM.
124
TABLE 56
Agricultural Use of the Territory in 2012
Area of the agricultural land units (ALU) is in hectares (ha)
Registered with MAPAQ
Geographic
Code
Municipality
Agricult
ural
Zone
Nonagricult
ural
Zone
6 278
0
185
16 643
Not registered with MAPAQ
Agricult
ural
Zone
Nonagricult
ural
Zone
5 118
11 253
143
11 396
50
56
191
57
248
1 231
5 177
20 589
1 548
22 137
Agricult
ural
Zone
Nonagricultur
al Zone
6 278
4 975
143
7
192
6
317
16 960
3 946
Subtotal
Total Area
Subtotal
Total
84005
Bristol
84010
Shawville
84015
Clarendon
84020
Portage-du-Fort
0
0
0
0
0
84025
Bryson
0
0
0
0
0
84030
Campbell's Bay
0
165
0
165
84035
5 396
348
5 744
1 474
471
1 945
6 870
819
7 689
84040
Litchfield
5 224
1 135
6 359
927
61
988
6 151
1 196
7 347
84045
Thorne
174
174
197
197
0
371
371
84050
Alleyn-et-Cawood
186
186
259
259
0
445
445
84055
Otter Lake
17
800
131
177
829
148
977
84060
Fort-Coulonge
0
0
0
0
84065
1 159
4 035
325
4 360
84070
Waltham
0
327
0
327
84082
1 685
70
1 755
423
86
509
2 108
156
2 264
84090
Chichester
1 729
205
1 934
1 673
156
1 829
3 402
361
3 763
84095
Sheenboro
612
268
880
20
20
632
268
900
41 977
2 978
44 955
14 575
17 434
56 552
5 837
62 389
165
783
165
46
0
2 950
251
327
Total
3 201
1 085
74
327
2 859
Source: Pontiac RCM, 2012 assessment roles.
125
TABLE 57
Agricultural Use of the Territory—Percentage of the Agricultural Zone
Percentage of the agricultural zone
2007
Geographic
code
Area of the
agricultural
zone (ha)
Municipality
84005
Bristol
84010
Shawville
84015
Clarendon
84020
Portage-du-Fort
84025
Bryson
84030
Campbell's Bay
84035
Registered
agricultural land
units
2012
Registered
agricultural land
units
Total agricultural
land units
17 083
34%
236
72%
25 832
0
68%
Total agricultural
land units
37%
67%
17
81%
105%
49%
87%
66%
86%
-
-
-
-
102%
0
-
-
-
-
129
64%
104%
128%
128%
8 217
54%
95%
70%
94%
84040
Litchfield
8 066
48%
90%
79%
91%
84045
Thorne
1 003
45%
208%
17%
37%
84050
Alleyn-et-Cawood
0
-
-
-
-
84055
Otter Lake
1 787
57%
77%
45%
55%
84060
Fort-Coulonge
0
-
-
-
-
84065
6 206
34%
66%
52%
70%
84070
Waltham
1 948
15%
71%
17%
17%
84082
14 009
37%
66%
13%
16%
84090
Chichester
7 175
21%
54%
27%
52%
84095
Sheenboro
2 357
100%
131%
37%
38%
94 048
43%
80%
48%
66%
Total
Source: Pontiac RCM, assessment roles from 2007 and 2012.
The main finding that is drawn from these numbers is that there is a substantial difference in the recognition
of the use of agricultural territory, depending on whether we refer to registered agricultural operations or
agricultural land use in general as described by the municipal assessment services. And yet, though
agricultural land use seems to have risen from 2007 to 2012 (registered agricultural land units), we see a
reduction of the total agricultural area. This reduction will especially affect the territories in L’Isle-auxAllumettes, Waltham, and Thorne. In a potential agricultural development plan, measures will have to be
examined to remedy this situation, if it is confirmed after more in-depth assessment.
17
Note that the area used includes all the land units identified as agricultural (PUC 8100), both within and outside of the agricultural zone of each
municipality. This total area can exceed the area of the agricultural zone.
126
In this way, by combining the two indices described above (registered properties and property use codes), we
obtain the intensity of the agricultural land use, which is expressed in three types of occupation of the
territory, indicated in the table below.
TABLE 58
Intensity of the Agricultural Use of the Territory
PUC
Properties
registered
with MAPAQ
M-14 or EAEB
No code
8100 series
1. Registered farms
2. Farms that are not
registered
Other series
<Empty: all registered farms have
an 8100 series code.>
3. Non-agricultural properties 18
To turn this raw data into an indicator, we interpreted it according to the dynamism scale presented in the
Evaluation Grid for Factors of Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory (Table 53). On a scale of 1 to 7, we
propose to attribute the values “Very dynamic,” “Dynamic,” and “Average dynamism” respectively to the
three categories in the above table.
Map 66: Intensity of Agricultural Use (2007) (B1)
Map 67: Intensity of Agricultural Use (2012) (B1)
Forest Cover
Forest cover is, in a way, an indicator of the presence of human activities. It is well known that land was
cleared for agriculture. To this day, this activity remains the most common use of open spaces, at least in
rural areas. Therefore, we propose to consider the proportion of forest cover in a given geographic area as an
indicator of the dynamism of agricultural activities. Of course, this criterion applies to regions where
agriculture consists mainly of field crops and pastures. This indicator will be automatically challenged in
regions where there is a predominance of orchards or Christmas tree crops.
With these reservations, the proportion of forest cover is used as an indicator of the agricultural dynamism of
the territory. Forest cover corresponds to the overarching groups F (hardwood), R (softwood), or M (mixed)
of the ecoforestal inventory of Quebec 19. For practical reasons, we divided this indicator into only four
groups.
18
Note that vacant lots (PUC 9100) can be abandoned farms that are lying fallow. In this respect, a more meticulous examination will need to be carried
out by the land managers.
19
Ministère des Ressources naturelles, Inventaire éco-forestier, 4e décennal.
127
TABLE 59
Indicator of the Percentage of Forest Cover
Group
1
2
3
4
Description
0 to 25% cover
25 to 50% cover
50 to 75% cover
More than 75% cover
Indicator Value
1
3
5
7
Map 68: Forest Cover (B2)
Land Values
Land values are another expression of the dynamism of a territory. Although the data should be considered
with some caution, these values reflect the balance of the offer and the demand for land. This indicator is
therefore retained in the model.
However, due to significant differences in assessment between distinct land markets, it is essential to only
take into account the categories of land holdings or land use that might lend themselves to agriculture, at
least as far as the type of territory is concerned. The choice is justified by the large difference in land values
between the countryside and village cores, amongst other factors. It is essential to analyze the properties in
an equal way. As such, the categories of land use that affect land values for this indicator are the following:
agriculture, agroforestry, forestry, and recreation. These major land use allocations in the territory are shown
on Map 31, which can be found in the cartographic appendix.
Furthermore, even if the choice of these categories lowers the variation in values due to the large difference
in land markets, the land value indicator shows little correlation with the rest of the model. We therefore
propose to weight this indicator at 50% of that of the indicators of the same level. This way, it can be taken
into consideration without distorting the final results.
Map 69: Land Value (B3)
*
*
*
To conclude the study of the agricultural dynamism of the territory, the “Macro-Indicator of Agricultural
Dynamism of the Territory” (MIADT) data sum was created. The values of this indicator correspond to the
sum of the value sums in this section (MIADT = B1 + B2 + B3). After the calculation, the values of the indicator
are reclassified, according to the natural thresholds method, into 7 classes corresponding to the analysis grid
for the factors of the agricultural dynamism of the territory.
Map 70: Macro-Indicator of Agricultural Dynamism of the Territory (MIADT)
128
6.3
ANALYSIS RESULTS: TYPES OF TERRITORY
By cross-tabulating the MIPCA and MIADT macro-indicators, we can ascertain the types of territory stated in
Subsection 6.1.1. Thus, four types of areas in the Pontiac RCM can be distinguished, according to the
combination of the potential for agriculture and the dynamism of agriculture. The figure below demonstrates
the 9 typical types of the combination of potential and dynamism shown on the map on the agricultural
territory analysis model found in the cartographic appendix.
FIGURE 9
Agricultural Territory Analysis Model (ATAM)
Map 71: Agricultural Territory Analysis Model (ATAM)
Two types of conclusions may be drawn from these results: the areas of “expected use” and the quadrants.
Intuition allows us to imagine that the areas presenting high potential for agriculture might be intensely used
for agricultural purposes, and that the areas with low potential might be less intensely used for agricultural
purposes. This is demonstrated in the facts. It is what we call the “diagonal of expected use”. With an area of
134 000 ha, these areas cover the majority of the 233 000 ha, or 58%, of the zone studied.
The purpose of the analysis is not, however, to allow us to locate areas that meet our expectations, but rather
to shows us the unexpected types of the land use. These types correspond to areas with little potential but
which are used nonetheless, and to areas that have potential, but which are less used for agricultural
purposes. This is what allows us to analyze the four quadrants of the diagram above. Two types of occupation
can be distinguished:
•
Expected Types of Territory Occupation: Agricultural Pontiac (“Southwest” Quadrant) and NonAgricultural Pontiac (“Northeast” Quadrant);
129
•
FIGURE 10
6.3.1
Unexpected Types of Territory Occupation: areas of “exceptional use” (“Southeast” Quadrant)
and areas with agricultural business opportunities (“Northwest” Quadrant).
Agricultural Territory Analysis Model: The Quadrants
Expected Use Areas
The expected use areas are the areas which have
naturally developed according to their potential.
The outer areas are explained later in the
commentaries on the quadrants.
The central part of the diagram (in medium green)
represents the areas with medium potential and which
are more or less intensely used for agricultural
activities. These areas must receive very close
attention from the stakeholders who will act on
agricultural development. Geographically, these areas
are dispersed throughout the zone studied, and
partially along the perimeter of the dynamic areas. It
would be advantageous for them to benefit from
measures allowing consolidation of the agricultural
activities present in these areas, but which can show signs of decline.
Map 72: Expected Use Areas
130
6.3.2
The Quadrants
“Southwest” Quadrant: Agricultural Pontiac
Agricultural Pontiac is made up of areas that are
favorable to agriculture where there is a strong
agricultural dynamism. In this type of area, it is
important to grant agriculture absolute priority in order
to ensure the best conditions for its maintenance and
sustainability. All non-agricultural uses must be strictly
limited in these areas in order to best preserve the
homogeneity of the agricultural occupation of the
territory and the favorable conditions for the
maintenance of agricultural businesses.
In the zone studied, Agricultural Pontiac occupies an
area of approximately 57 000 ha.
Map 73: “Southwest” Quadrant: Agricultural Pontiac
“Northeast” Quadrant: Non-Agricultural Pontiac
Conversely, areas which are not suitable for
agriculture and where there is little or no agricultural
activity make up Non-Agricultural Pontiac. Here we
find a large amount of non-agricultural activities, such
as forestry, hunting, fishing, or vacationing. The vast
majority of these areas are found outside the
agricultural zone. For land use planning purposes, it is
evident that the space of Non-Agricultural Pontiac
constitutes a considerable reservoir space for nonagricultural activities, thus diminishing the pressure
on the agricultural territory.
In the zone studied, Non-Agricultural Pontiac occupies
an area of approximately 121 000 ha.
Map 74: “Northeast” Quadrant: Non-Agricultural Pontiac
131
“Southeast” Quadrant: Areas of “Exceptional Use”
Certain areas, though less suitable for agriculture,
benefit nonetheless from a significant level of
agricultural activity. These areas are called exceptional
use areas due to the additional development efforts
necessary to develop them. Due to these particular
conditions, their area is limited. Again, in terms of
promoting agriculture, the owners and/or operators of
these areas would benefit from special attention. It is
important to support dynamism in the sectors of the
territory where the natural conditions are less
favorable for the maintenance of agricultural activities.
In the zone studied, the “expected use” areas occupy
an area of approximately 12 000 ha.
Map 75: “Southeast” Quadrant: “Exceptional Use” Areas
“Northwest” Quadrant: Areas with Agricultural Business Opportunities
Certain other areas are identified as suitable for
agriculture but do not seem to benefit from a
significant level of agricultural activity. In our opinion,
but subject to the particular conditions of each area
that must be documented, these areas represent good
business opportunities if they are available and
affordable. In the case of agricultural promotion in the
territory, they should receive particular attention. The
possibility of encouraging the landowners in these
areas, if they cannot operate them themselves, to
make the lands available to professional agricultural
producers who can put them into production in an
appropriate way should be examined.
In the zone studied, the areas with agricultural
business opportunities occupy an area of
approximately 43 000 ha.
Map 76: “Northwest” Quadrant: Areas with Agricultural Business Opportunities
132
6.4
AN ENVIRONMENTAL TYPOLOGY
In summary, here is a typology of the environments that are found in the territory of the RMC of Pontiac. Each
type of environment identified suggests particular land use measures in order to encourage full development
of the regional territory.
TABLE 60
Environmental Typology
Type of Environment
Dynamic Environment
Appropriate Territorial Policies
Environment that is favorable to agriculture and
intensely used for agricultural purposes
Encourage the maintenance of agriculture;
impose strict limitations on non-agricultural uses
Non-Dynamic Environment
Environment that is unfavorable to agriculture
and not intensely used for agricultural purposes
Possibility of establishing uses that are
complementary to agriculture (on-farm
processing, agritourism) to add to the profitability
of agricultural operations
Intermediate Environment
Environment that is somewhat favorable to
agriculture and somewhat used for agricultural
purposes
Limit the introduction of non-agricultural uses to
avoid destructuring too much land
”Incongruous” Environment
1.
Environment that is unfavorable to
agriculture but intensely used for agricultural
purposes
1. Environment that is favorable to
agriculture but less used for agricultural
purposes
1.
Encourage the maintenance of
agricultural activities and limitation of nonagricultural land uses
1. Gain an understanding of the local
political dynamics in order to encourage
the establishment or resurgence of
agricultural activities
133
CONCLUSION
The report on the characterization of the agricultural territory is the result of a long process of developing an
overview of the territory and the agricultural activities in the RCM of Pontiac. The proposed model is based
on an analysis of the agricultural territory that takes into account the potentialities and constraints for
agriculture and a study of territorial dynamism as it appears in agriculture. It will allow a diagnosis to be made
and an action plan to be established as part of an agricultural zone development plan. The model will also
make it possible to revise the agricultural section of the land use and development plan. It is not only
interesting but also necessary to test the model so that it reflects the realities in the field and lays down the
right groundwork for development and promotion of the territory and agricultural activities. Therefore, it was
essential to characterize the agricultural territory before starting work on a diagnosis and an action plan to
develop and promote the territory and the agricultural activities in the RCM of Pontiac.
We encountered several difficulties over the course of the project. However, it is just as important to mention
the project’s successes.
The Project’s Successes
•
The project increased our knowledge of the potentialities and constraints for agriculture, of
governance, and of the occupation of the territory;
•
The agricultural territory analysis model is a tool for understanding the realities in the field in terms of
potentialities and constraints for agriculture and of territorial dynamism as it appears in agriculture;
•
The project will be useful for an agricultural zone development plan (diagnosis, action plan) and for
the next revision of the land use and development plan (overall directions for land use and
development, overall land use allocations for the territory); it could also be useful in a collective
request to identify the destructured tracts of land in the agricultural zone in order to establish nonagricultural, mainly residential land use in these areas;
•
Elected officials had the opportunity to share their vision for the development of the territory and
agricultural activities during strategic meetings;
•
Many actors supported the project and are committed to continuing support for the agricultural zone
development plan and for the next revision of the land use and development plan;
•
All the groups consulted over the course of the project agreed on the importance of the role of
agriculture in the Pontiac region.
134
The Project’s Difficulties
•
It was difficult to find information on a local level;
•
Much of the data is outdated or has significant limitations;
•
We do not have access to some MAPAQ agricultural data from previous years that we would need to
create a historical overview of agriculture in the territory;
•
We need to question statistics that come from various sources in order to be able to compare them
or explain inconsistencies;
•
Because our data came from so many different sources, it was difficult to analyze the agricultural
territory;
•
The territory is vast and complex; the landscape and land use are both diverse; the territory is
sparsely populated, with the vast majority of the population concentrated in the south of the RCM;
there are seasonal cottages and new residents moving to rural areas in the RCM; all of this affects the
territory and agricultural activities, yet there is little data on these subjects;
•
Deadlines had to be pushed back in order to characterize the agricultural territory, especially for
acquiring and processing data (both qualitative and quantitative). Some meetings had to be
rescheduled or cancelled due to limited resources and conflicting priorities throughout the course of
the project.
Finally, this project is the result of RCM-wide work with many different actors who interact with the territory.
Their commitment to the project allowed us to better understand the territory and agricultural activities,
especially the potentialities and constraints for agriculture and the occupation of the territory. The RCM will
have to take these potentialities and constraints into account in order to meet the challenges it will have to
face in the coming years. The resulting action plan will provide the agricultural world and the municipalities
with tools to help them adapt to this reality and to the current and coming changes. Consequently, they will
be able to help develop dynamic, sustainable agriculture in the RCM of Pontiac.
135
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AGWEATHER QUEBEC, Agroclimate maps and data. AgWeather Quebec website [web], retrieved September
2012.
http://agrometeo.org/
CENTRE NATIONAL DE RESSOURCES TEXTUELLES ET LEXICALES. Definition of “carroyage”. CNTRL website
[web], retrieved October 2012.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/carroyage
COMMISSION DE PROTECTION DU TERRITOIRE AGRICOLE DU QUÉBEC, Annual Management Reports 2004–
2005 to 2010–2011.
DESMARAIS, Gaëtan (1995). La morphogenèse de Paris, des origines à la Révolution. (Géographies en liberté
collection), L’Harmattan/CÉLAT, Paris/Quebec.
GAGNON, Serge (2003). L’Échiquier touristique québécois. (Tourisme collection), Presses de l’Université du
Québec, Quebec.
GAGNON et al (2007). Dynamique territoriale des espaces ruraux de l’Outaouais et de l’Est ontarien; Étude de
cas comparative. RTDC, Gatineau.
GAGNON et al. (2009). Le rôle de la spatialité dans l’organisation des territoires : Guide de géomatique
structurale. LabMIT, Université du Québec en Outaouais and Cégep de l’Outaouais, Gatineau.
FÉDÉRATION DES PRODUCTEURS ACÉRICOLES DU QUÉBEC, Maple Production. Fédération website [web],
retrieved autumn 2012.
http://www.siropderable.ca/Product_en.aspx
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC (2001), Les orientations du gouvernement en matière d'aménagement : La
protection du territoire et des activités agricole; Revised supporting document.
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Act Respecting Land Use Planning and Development (RSQ, c A-19.1).
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Natural Heritage Conservation Act (RSQ, c C-61.01).
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife (RSQ, c C-61.1).
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities
(RSQ, c P-41.1).
136
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Act Respecting the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation
(RSQ, c M-14).
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains (RRQ,
c Q-2, r 35).
GOVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC, Agricultural Operations Regulation (RRQ, c Q-2, r 26).
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE ET DES ÉTUDES ÉCONOMIQUES, “Pourquoi des carroyages”. CNRTL
website [web], retrieved October 2012.
http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/detail.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=donnees-carroyees&page=donneesdetaillees/donnees-carroyees/donnees_carroyees_carroyage.htm.
LAJOIE, Paul G. (1962). Soil Survey of Gatineau and Pontiac Counties. Research Branch, Canada Department of
Agriculture, Quebec Department of Agriculture and MacDonald College, McGill University.
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/pq/pq24/index.html
MINISTÈRE DE L’AGRICULTURE, DES PÊCHERIES ET DE L’ALIMENTATION DU QUÉBEC. January 2008 Summary
Report “The agriculture and agri-food industry in the MRC Pontiac.” (Available in French only).
http://www.mapaq.gouv.q.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Regions/Outaouais/Portraits_Pontiac_francais
MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES, DES RÉGIONS ET DE L’OCCUPATION DU TERRITOIRE, Property Use
Codes. MAMROT website [web], retrieved autumn 2012.
http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/evaluation-fonciere/manuel-devaluation-fonciere-du-quebec/codesdutilisation-des-biens-fonds/
MINISTÈRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DE LA FAUNE/Direction de la cartographie
topographique/Quebec territorial database (BDTQ) 1:20000 (2007), Humid environments, Pontiac MRC.
MINISTÈRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DE LA FAUNE/Direction des inventaires forestiers, Données
d’inventaire éco-forestier 1:20 000 (4th inventory).
MINISTÈRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DE LA FAUNE/Service de Mise en valeur de la ressource et des
territoires fauniques (2011), Couverture cartographique des habitats fauniques du Québec en 2011.
MOINE, A. (2006). Le territoire comme un système complexe : un concept opératoire pour l'aménagement et
la géographie. L'Espace géographique, 2006/2 Volume 35, p. 115–132.
http://www.cairn.info/revue-espace-geographique-2006-2-page-115.htm
MRC DE PONTIAC, Assessment roll, 2007 and 2012.
ROBITAILLE, André and Saucier, Jean-Pierre (1998). Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional, Les
Publications du Québec, 213 pages.
137
NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, Canada Land Inventory (1:250000), Possibilité des terres pour l’agriculture ;
Productivité forestière des terres ; Potentiel des terres à des fins récréatives ; Land Capability for Ungulates;
Land Capability for Waterfowls. Geogratis website [web], retrieved spring 2012.
http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/cli250k.html
NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA/Earth Sciences Sector/Geomatics Canada/Centre for Topographic
Information, National Hydro Network. GeoBase website [web], retrieved spring 2012.
http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nhn/index.html;jsessionid=9BC4D493B02D37492A4D3F8EBE9CE27
3
138
APPENDIX 1
LIST OF PROTECTED REAL ESTATE ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY USE CODES
PUC
5811
5812
5815
5831
5832
6513
6531
6532
6533
6534
6539
6811
6812
6813
6815
6821
6822
6823
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6911
6912
6919
7111
Description
Full-service restaurants and establishments (without a terrace)
Full-service restaurants and establishments (with a terrace)
Establishments with a reception room or banquet hall
Hotels (including hotel-motels)
Motels
Hospital services
Welcome centres or therapeutic establishments
Local centres for community services (CLSCs)
Social services centres (CSSs and CRSSSs)
Support and community resource centres
Other centres for social services or offices for social workers
Pre-schools
Elementary schools
High schools
Elementary and high schools
Universities
Comprehensive schools
General and vocational colleges (CEGEPs)
Trade schools
Business and secretarial schools
Hairdressing, aesthetician and beauty salon schools
Fine arts and music schools
Dance schools
Driving schools
Distance education schools
Computer training schools
Other institutions for specialized training
Other institutions for specialized training
Churches, synagogues, and temples
Other religious activities
Other religious activities
Libraries
139
PUC
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7191
7199
7214
7222
7412
7424
7431
7441
7442
7491
7492
7493
7499
7511
7512
7513
7516
7519
7521
7522
7529
7611
7612
7620
7631
7639
7990
Description
Museums
Art galleries
Exposition halls
Economuseum
Heritage museums
Historic monuments and sites
Other expositions of cultural objects
Theatres
Sports complexes (covered)
Golf courses (with a clubhouse and other sport facilities)
Recreational centres in general
Beaches
Marinas, yacht harbours, and cruise ship loading docks (excluding ferries)
Access ramps and parking
Campgrounds (excluding trailers and RVs)
Wilderness campgrounds and picnic spots
Trailer and RV parks
Other sites for recreational activities
Tourist centres in general
Health centres (including saunas, spas, and therapeutic or Turkish baths)
Ski lodges (downhill and/or cross-country)
Nature interpretation centres
Other centres for tourist activities
Camps and outdoor adventure sites for groups (with dormitories)
Camps and outdoor adventure sites for groups (without dormitories)
Other camps for groups
Parks for recreational activities in general
Lookouts, pull-off and rest areas, or information centres
Nature and recreation parks
Community gardens
Other parks
Other sites for leisure and other cultural activities
140
APPENDIX 2
MAY 3, 2012 FORUM MINUTES
Participants
BENSOUDA, Reda
LabMIT Coordinator
BIRON, François
Land Use Planning, Innovation and Agroenvironmental Advisor
BRODEUR, Nicolas
Union and Communications Agent
CHARLEBOIS, Denis Y.
LabMIT Researcher
DOUCET, Chantale
Regional Development Researcher
DUBEAU, Denis
President
DUCHESNE, Pierre
Chief Land Use Planner
GIGNAC, Yannick
Acting Director
MAHEU, Richard
President
SIMARD, Jean-Jacques
Agronomist
TAYLOR, Amy
Rural Development Officer
TELLIER, Guy
Geomatics Technician
1.
Organization
Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)
Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries
et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ)
Outaouais-Laurentides UPA Regional Federation
Syndicat de base de l’UPA du Pontiac
Pontiac MRC
Ministère des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de
l’Occupation du Territoire (MAMROT)
Outaouais-Laurentides UPA Regional Federation
External Consultant
LDC of Pontiac
Pontiac MRC
Opening of the forum
Pierre Duchesne welcomed the participants. He reviewed some necessary information for the meeting,
namely the collaboration between LabMIT and the Pontiac MRC to acquire aerial ortho-photographs.
141
2.
Introduction of the chairman
Jean-Jacques Simard was the chairman of the meeting. Mr. Simard is well known in the Outaouais region for
his involvement in agriculture. For several years, he worked with MAPAQ; one of his positions was Land-use,
Innovation and Agro-environmental Advisor. His role in this position consisted of working with the Pontiac
MRC to help characterize the agricultural territory and leading the technical committee meetings.
3.
Introduction of the participants
One after the other, the participants introduced themselves and mentioned their interest in the
characterization of the agricultural territory. The diversity among participants was noted, as well as the
importance of them being present at the meeting. Both of these factors are important for the
characterization of the agricultural territory in the Pontiac MRC.
4.
Presentation of the project and its progress
Pierre Duchesne presented the characterization of the agricultural territory project. He described the project
in relation to the issues concerning land use planning in the MRC territory, its objectives, and its purpose.
The goal of the project is to establish an overview of the territory and its agricultural activities in order to do
the following:


Plan the development of the agricultural zone on the basis of governmental policy directions for land
use planning, characteristics specific to the agricultural zone and the surrounding territory,
potentialities and constraints for the development of agricultural activities;

Identify and emphasize agricultural potential with the goal of increasing and/or diversifying
agricultural activities;

Contribute to harmonious cohabitation between agricultural and non-agricultural land use.
The purpose of the project is to serve as a basis for the following:
•
Develop an agricultural zone development plan (AZDP) (autumn 2012);
•
Prepare a collective application under provisions of section 59 of the Act Respecting the Preservation
of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities (RSQ, c P-41.1) (ARPALAA) (winter 2013);
•
Revise the agricultural section of the land use and development plan (LUDP) (spring 2013).
142
5.
Presentation of LabMIT’s approach
Denis Y. Charlebois presented the approach proposed by the Territorial intelligence and modelling laboratory
(LabMIT) for the characterization of the agricultural territory project in the Pontiac MRC. LabMIT is a joint
initiative between UQO and the Cégep de l’Outaouais. Several issues and comments were brought up. A few
these are discussed in the following section.
6.
Presentation of the table of contents and the open table discussions
This section presents the comments and a summary of the discussions concerning the table of contents for
the upcoming report and the content of the characterization of the agricultural territory.
Richard Maheu suggested that the sequence of activities to follow for the characterization of the agricultural
territory be the following: revise the LUDP, file the collective application for residential uses under section 59,
ARPALAA, then develop the AZDP.
Protected real estate 20 requires bigger separation distances from neighboring farming operations, due mainly
to the type of recreational quality practiced there. In the Pontiac MRC, protected real estate was defined and
then given property use codes. According to LabMIT’s preliminary findings, the majority of protected real
estate is located outside of the agricultural zone; this was confirmed by Guy Tellier who made a localization
map of protected real estate. The majority of the ones situated inside the agricultural zone are of religious
temples that were built a long time ago and are of interest, as gathering places, to help accentuate the
characteristics of the Pontiac agricultural environment.
In the case of non-resident land owners, if their properties are not actively engaged in agriculture, incentives
may be put in place to promote this.
François Biron found the characterization exercise extremely complex. He expressed that the stakeholders
made the mistake of considering the agricultural territory as a whole. Mr. Biron insisted that an appropriate
communication plan should be distributed. Pierre Duchesne reminded everyone that the characterization of
the agricultural territory will help with developing an AZDP, with potential collective applications for
residential land uses under section 59, ARPALAA, and with the revision of the LUDP.
In order to work efficiently, it was suggested to have a more limited technical committee, composed mainly
of professionals, to supervise the characterization of the agricultural territory work. Nonetheless, this
committee may include one or two elected individuals from different backgrounds. A representative of the
Office des producteurs de bois du Pontiac may need to be appointed due to the importance of forestry in the
20
Voir à cet effet Lles orientations du gouvernement en matière d'aménagement :, La protection du territoire et des activités agricoles, Document
complémentaire
révisé,
December
2001
http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/pub/amenagement_territoire/orientations_gouvernementales/orientations_amenagement_agricole.pdf
143
Pontiac MRC. Representation from the tourism sector must also be considered. It was also suggested to
define the committees, their roles, and their responsibilities.
Other Comments
It was said that to motivate interested parties to participate, “they must be convinced by the product”. An
opinion will be formed based on the final result, which must represent reality. (Richard Maheu)
A participant was asked to speak about territorial governance. (Yannick Gignac)
The following elements were taken into consideration: the interpretation of the data and validation (by the
stakeholders). (François Biron)
One participant was chosen to act as an observer to understand the issue (of land use planning and of the
development of the agricultural territory) (within her research project). (Chantale Doucet)
With regard to the AZDP, it was suggested that the unions be consistent with their actions in promoting the
emergence of the perceived territory. (François Biron)
Complementary data to acquire:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Right of accretion for livestock farming;
Livestock animal units;
Agricultural revenues;
A grid system to localize registered farming operations;
Photo-interpretation of aerial photographs in order to identify fallow land which can become the
object of agricultural redynamism;
(Evaluate the spaces available for residential construction in urban areas).
With regard to agricultural zones that are not in “commercial” use, it was suggested that measures be applied
to promote registered farms to use them. (by author)
Initially, these measures will be voluntary and then compulsory.
It was suggested that the cartography will need to be assessed. (Guy Tellier)
The agricultural territory development plan should avoid deconstructing the dynamic agricultural zone.
(Richard Maheu)
For the field visit planned for the end of June, the following actions should be completed:
•
•
Define the goals;
Differentiate the agricultural environments (intensive agriculture, agroforestry, forestry) ;
144
•
Destructured tracts of land: even though there are too many destructured tracts of land to be able to
visit all of them, it is possible to see a few to determine their normal conditions.
With regard to the destructured tracts of land, there should be an aim to preserve the right to reconstruct
buildings that have been burned down (Richard Maheu) or accidentally destroyed (fire, tornado, etc.).
(Suggested by author)
Section 59, ARPALAA: it could help promote a relationship between the agricultural and municipal
communities; the collaboration of the Outaouais-Laurentides UPA Regional Federation has this purpose; the
exercise should also include MAMROT and MAPAQ. (Richard Maheu)
Field visit: hopefully the mayors will participate in the meeting and the field visit planned for the end of June.
(Richard Maheu)
Dates proposed for the meeting and the field visit: June 26–27 or July 5–6, 2012. Pierre Duchesne will create
a Doodle poll to determine everyone’s availability.
Written by Denis Y. Charlebois, LabMIT Researcher, UQO
Revised by Pierre Duchesne, Chief Land Use Planner, Pontiac MRC
145
APPENDIX 3
JUNE 26, 2012 PROGRAM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1:00 p.m. Welcome
By Pierre Duchesne
1:05 p.m. Introduction of the chairman and a review of his role in the project
By Pierre Duchesne
1:10 p.m. Introduction of the participants
Chaired by Jean-Jacques Simard
1:25 p.m. Review of the objectives, the approach, and the methodology
By Pierre Duchesne and Denis Y. Charlebois
1:45 p.m. Presentation of the project’s progress since the May 3, 2012 forum
By Pierre Duchesne
1:55 p.m. Presentation of the preliminary results (mainly cartographic)
By Pierre Duchesne and Denis Y. Charlebois
3:05 p.m. Break
3:15 p.m. Preparation for the field visit (proposed objectives and itinerary)
By Pierre Duchesne
4:30 p.m. End of the meeting
By Pierre Duchesne
146
FIELD VISIT JUNE 27, 2012 – PROPOSED ITINERARY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
147

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL TERRITORY

Transcription

Similar documents

Chapter 15 Section 5: The Revolution in Agriculture

chsas ffa - Next Generation STEM Learning for All

- Fermacell.com

LŽŪU Mokslo potencialas

Kimberly M. Dreaden, Aurelien Desaunay, and Jeffrey L. Ullman

Agricultural Appraisal

kaanapali north beach

Company Overview

Russia`s Largest Agricultural Landholders 2016

ag bulletin - Flagstaff County