Section 6 - planning framework
Planning
Forest Management Plan (FMP) stage
The FMP planning process provides proponents and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) staff an opportunity to strategically plan and conduct preliminary risk assessments for water crossings associated with proposed primary and branch road corridors and operational road boundaries. Risk assessments conducted at the FMP stage will help to identify potentially complex or higher-risk water crossings early in the planning process, as well as possible water crossing standards that could be considered at proposed crossing locations. It is MNRF's responsibility, in collaboration with the proponent, to identify the significance and sensitivity of fisheries and fish habitat so suitable protection can be applied during the construction and removal of forest water crossings.
Performing planning and assessment during the FMP planning stage is intended to streamline the submission and approval (i.e. higher risk crossings) process during the annual work schedules (AWS) stage. Water crossing planning during the FMP planning process can help minimize the potential need for future plan amendments or operational delays where crossing complexities arise that require changes to the approved primary and branch road corridors operational road boundaries, or Fisheries Act authorizations and/or Species at Risk Act (SARA) permits.
During the development of an FMP, planning teams may identify operational management zones for fisheries, as per the Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM). Where an operational management zone related to fisheries has been identified in an FMP, the FMP may also identify that water crossings within the operational management zone require review and approval, and a water crossing standard cannot be applied. The establishment of operational management zones for fisheries in the FMP will be in accordance with any operational guidance available from the MNRF and/or Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).
Planning teams can also identify instances where water crossings approved in the FMP can utilize less intrusive water crossing structures without the need for further review/approval by MNRF. For example, where a round closed bottom culvert has been approved for construction, but site conditions ultimately are not favorable for its construction, no further review and approval is required if a clear span bridge is constructed in its place. The FMP must clearly specify the conditions that would allow for a crossing structure substitute.
The FMP planning process is the appropriate time to develop operational prescriptions and conditions for areas of concern. Similarly, strategies and restrictions to manage any potential access or location issues/concerns created by water crossing projects (e.g., the creation of loop roads, thresholds for water crossing construction within specific watersheds, road and water crossing construction within wetlands) must be developed and included in an approved FMP. These types of planning issues are addressed in the process described in the FMPM and not through implementation of this Protocol.
Any water crossing standards from this Protocol that are intended to be used during forest operations must be included in the FMP in order to enable their implementation. Planning teams will document water crossing standards to be used in the FMP in accordance with the requirements of the FMPM.
AWS stage
Lower risk water crossings proposed for construction and/or removal will be submitted with the AWS under the corresponding operational standard identified in the approved FMP. Higher risk water crossings proposed for construction and/or removal will be reviewed and submitted as part of the applicable AWS, in the form of a project plan, and subsequently approved by MNRF according to FMPM part D 3.2.3.1 and/or 3.2.3.3, respectively.
Proponents will plan and submit proposed higher risk water crossings to the MNRF that are expected to be constructed, and/or removed during the year as part of the submission of the AWS. Water crossings applications will include information described in the Forest Information Manual (FIM) and Appendix 1 form for submission of information on a proposed water crossing from this Protocol.
Proponents must submit all water crossings scheduled to be constructed in the current year. Proponents may submit higher-risk and complex water crossings planned for the following year to allow for additional time for MNRF to review and conduct site visits during appropriate times of year.
In cases where water crossing approvals are required (i.e. higher risk crossings) during the implementation of an AWS, the proponent will submit Protocol appendix 1 forms to MNRF with as much lead-time as possible in order to minimize any potential operational delays associated with the revision to the AWS.
Higher risk water crossing approvals do not carry-over from year to year; consequently, any construction and/or removal projects that do not occur during the implementation of the AWS must be re-submitted in future years following the decision framework process outlined above.
Submissions: water crossing standards and site-specific review and approval
Proponent is implementing a water crossing standard
If the proponent determines that their project can implement all of the requirements of a water crossing standard included in the Protocol, they will complete and submit the appropriate sections of the appendix 1 water crossing information form. MNRF must receive the appendix 1 form for each water crossing being constructed or removed using a water crossing standard. Water crossings in which a water crossing standard is being proposed for construction or removal will be included as part of an information submission with the AWS. Water crossing information will be submitted in accordance with the FIM.
The proponent is responsible for ensuring that the proposed water crossing location and the implementation of any water crossing standards is consistent with the approved FMP.
During the construction of a road, an unidentified stream may be encountered, or the actual location of a stream may be different than the portrayed location in the FMP and AWS. In cases where an applicable water crossing standard from the FMP will be implemented in its entirety, the appendix 1 form will be completed and submitted to MNRF. Upon receipt of the applicable forms, the AWS will be deemed revised to include the water crossing. The appendix 1 form must be submitted to the MNRF prior to operations commencing for the water crossing project.
Proponent requires review and approval
In cases where the proponent is unable to utilize a water crossing standard for the construction or removal of a water crossing (i.e. higher risk crossings), the proposed crossing will require site-specific review and approval by MNRF.
In these cases, the proponent will complete and submit the appropriate sections of an appendix 1 form to MNRF for each proposed crossing requiring review and approval. MNRF will review each proposed crossing activity requiring approval by completing an appendix 2 form. MNRF reviews will consider the general and crossing-specific water crossing standards and mitigation measures that have been developed and included in this Protocol, as well as the potential impacts to fish and fish habitat when evaluating whether a project is likely or not likely to result in the death of fish or harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) to fish habitat. MNRF approval of water crossing construction and removal activities may incorporate some or all of the requirements from one or more of any water crossing standards and/or best management practices and mitigation measures as conditions of an approval.
If MNRF considers that the volume of crossings being submitted for review may be operationally unrealistic for a given year, MNRF may ask the proponent to prioritize the crossings requiring immediate review, identifying “preferred” and “alternative” options that are being proposed to access the same general area(s) approved for operations, and/or reduce the amount of crossings requiring review. MNRF will prioritize their review and approval efforts to focus on high-priority and “preferred” crossings in order to strategically manage staff capacity and workloads.
Reporting
For all water crossing installations, the actual UTM crossing location, digital point feature, and crossing type/water crossing standard that was constructed must be submitted to MNRF as described in the FIM.
Proponents will continue to follow the requirements of the MNRF forest compliance handbook regarding the start-up and completion notifications of water crossing activities.
Proponents and their contractors will also abide by the Fisheries Act Sections 38(4), 38(4.1) and 38(5) Duty to Notify provisions. These provisions obligate persons whose actions have led to occurrences that result in the death of fish, HADD to fish habitat or deposit of deleterious substances. There is a duty to notify when the death of fish or HADD to fish habitat has not been authorized under the Act or where there is a serious and imminent danger of such an occurrence by notifying DFO (notify through email: FisheriesProtection@dfo-mpo.gc.ca or by phone:
Proponents must also immediately report the spill of any material harmful to the environment (e.g. fuel, fluids, silt, etc.) in waters to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) spills action centre at