An appendix 2 form for evaluation of potential death of fish or harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) to fish habitat for a proposed water crossing must be completed for each proposed water crossing where the requirements of an approved water crossing standard cannot be implemented and thus requires Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) review and approval. The proponent is responsible for completing the construction details section of appendix 2. MNRF is responsible for completing the remainder of the form (i.e., parts B through D).

In some cases, the appendix 2 form can be completed for certain proposed water crossings during the Forest Management Plan (FMP) stage in order to potentially facilitate the final determination of crossing types, locations, and/or conditions of approval for more complex crossings that are typically associated with primary and branch roads.

When completing the appendix 2 form, MNRF will conduct a comprehensive review of all the existing data, perform field investigations to supplement existing data as necessary, and assess the project to determine:

  • the presence and sensitivity of fish and fish habitat
  • the likelihood and severity/consequences of potential impacts associated with the project
  • the need for project design modifications, additional mitigation measures, and/or conditions on construction, and
  • if there is a residual effect on fish and fish habitat after mitigation and, if so, whether the residual effect(s) may result in death of fish or HADD

A detailed list of MNRF project evaluation criteria is included in appendix 3 considerations.

Part A requirements

An appendix 2 form should be submitted to MNRF with part A completed by the proponent. This is information that has already been included in appendix 1.

Part B requirements

If any Schedule 1 endangered or threatened aquatic species at risk, as per Species at Risk Act (SARA), are likely to be impacted by the project, the project should be referred to Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for their review by completing a formal request for review via the DFO website. More information can be found on the SARA Registry.

When determining proximity to a proposed project location, an informed decision should be made regarding the likelihood that any potential effects caused by the project will not result in contraventions of SARA. If uncertainty exists regarding the potential for the species at risk to be impacted by the project, the proponent should contact DFO and/or MNRF staff for advice.

Part C requirements

Part C involves a list of questions that can be answered with the information provided in the annual work schedules (AWS) and a completed appendix 1 form (for submission of information on a proposed water crossing), without conducting a site visit or requiring in-depth knowledge of the fishery and fish habitat. Other online data sources that may provide additional information to help answer the questions in part C include aerial imagery, topographic maps, etc. The intent is to screen-out less complex crossings that pose a smaller potential risk of causing the death of fish or HADD to fish habitat; impede fish passage; or the deposition of deleterious substances.

Part C may be completed for some water crossings at the FMP stage.

This combination of questions should:

  • allow a reviewer to complete a quick evaluation of the water crossing in relation to the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act (e.g., death of fish, HADD to fish habitat, passage, deleterious substance)
  • identify whether there is sufficient information on the proposed water crossing for the risk evaluation; and
  • identify whether there is sufficient information on the watercourse for the risk evaluation, or whether a site visit is required

The questions may provide the following rationale:

  1. A low stream gradient indicates that there is likely a location in the 200 metres crossing location where neither coarse substrate nor riffle habitat is present. This condition allows installation of a crossing without changing a riffle (habitat), and permits proper installation (passage). Reviewers should utilize resources such as aerial imagery and photographs to identify discernable riffles, as well as tools such as digital elevation models and OFAT III to determine estimates of stream gradient.
  2. Low gradient streams (i.e. <2%) are preferred crossing locations for closed-bottom culvert installations. Closed-bottom culverts installed on stream reaches with slopes >2 % are likely to result in stream flow velocities that increase the likelihood of impeding fish passage and/or producing outlet scour and long term erosion issues. Stream gradients can be estimated using such resources and tools as topographic maps, digital elevation maps or the Ontario Flow Assessment Tool.
  3. In cases where estimates indicate the potential for stream gradients to be >2%, or where local knowledge or management concerns exist, a site evaluation may be warranted. In these cases, a formal evaluation of stream gradient at the site of the potential crossing should be undertaken (e.g., using a clinometer) to measure the stream gradient within the actual footprint of the potential crossing location.
  4. Slope is a surrogate for a stream valley cross-section. A proposed crossing at a location with a shallow valley cross-section (i.e. approach/shoreline slopes < 30%/17°) and with corresponding AOC dimensions of ≤50 metres is less likely to have chronic erosion problems (sediment) and long structures, with associated higher fill heights, which would be required where there are steeper approaches (habitat, passage). In cases where crossings are being proposed at sites with approach slopes >30%/17°, mitigation measures requiring additional/enhanced slope armoring should be strongly considered.
  5. A water crossing with a minimum Q25 design flow has a lower-risk of crossing failure (death of fish, HADD to fish habitat, sediment), and is less likely to result in channel infill (structure width ~ channel width) or accelerated water flow (passage). In some cases, water crossings with less than a Q25 design flow may be proposed. These crossings should be reviewed with consideration given to the length of time that it would be on the landscape relative to the likelihood of the crossing failing and/or resulting in the death of fish or HADD to fish habitat, in addition to the increased monitoring efforts that would be required to ensure that under-sized water crossings are maintained and removed in an appropriate time. Typically, approved crossings with less than a Q25 design flow would not be permitted to remain on the landscape past one spring freshet.
  6. A water crossing installed within the work-in-water timing window will protect fish during sensitive life stage periods if there will be in-stream activities associated with construction of the crossing. If there are no in-stream activities, there should be reduced risk to fisheries and their habitat.
  7. Any fish habitat values (including rare or sensitive habitats) must be described, and the suitability of the water crossing location must be rationalized in part D.
  8. If the water crossing construction and removal water crossing standards and guidelines from the forest management guide(s) that address the conservation of biodiversity at the landscape scale and the stand and site scales are met, the probability of fish passage problems or long term erosion problems (HADD, sediment) is low.

Part D requirements

Part C may not adequately identify all concerns. Part D enables the evaluator to identify additional concerns, based on his/her professional knowledge, experience, and the use of appendix 3.

Additional habitat features such as rare habitat types, aquatic vegetation, groundwater concerns, etc. should also be documented in part D.

Part E requirements

If concerns are identified in parts C and D, they are to be documented in part E, including the provision of rationale for additional conditions on construction (if necessary), or site visits to be conducted.

  • Conditions of construction

    For crossings requiring review and approval, any conditions on water crossings that have been identified by the proponent and/or by MNRF as a result of a review of the proposed crossing will be identified.

Form for evaluation of potential death of fish or HADD to fish habitat for a proposed water crossing

Part A: construction details

Sustainable Forest Licensee:

Sustainable Forest Licensee – contact name & telephone number:

FMU:

Plan term:

AWS year:

Water crossing ID:

Watercourse name:

Water crossing location (include municipality, township lot and concession and the UTM Coordinates for the 200 metres crossing location). Attach map.

Applicable in-water-work timing window (insert date range):

Has the crossing (i.e., type and/or location) been submitted and/or approved for construction or removal in a previous AWS?

If yes, identify the previous AWS year and water crossing ID in which the crossing was submitted/approved.

Previous AWS year:

Water crossing ID:

Type of activity:

Road type:

Year of structure removal, if not permanent (refer to road use management strategy in FMP)

Part B - MNRF to complete

Have any Schedule 1 aquatic species at risk have been identified in proximity to the proposed water crossing – Refer to the Species at Risk Map or the SARA Registry for a list of species at risk

  • Yes
  • No

If Yes, refer the project to DFO for review.

Part C - MNRF to complete

Is the portion of stream within the 200 metres crossing location likely to contain a riffle?

  • Yes
  • No

Is the channel gradient/slope at the crossing location estimated to be >2%?

  • Yes
  • No

Is the AOC width > 50 metres (i.e., approach slopes > 30%/17° on either side of the watercourse)?

  • Yes
  • No

Is the proposed structure opening size less than Q25?

  • Yes
  • No

Will construction occur outside of the work-in-water timing window?

  • Yes
  • No

Are there any fish habitat values potentially impacted by the crossing?

  • Yes
  • No

Will the construction and mitigation approaches deviate from the water crossing standards and guidelines in the forest management guide(s) that address the conservation of biodiversity at the landscape scale and the stand and site scales?

  • Yes
  • No

Part D - MNRF to complete

Are there concerns regarding the submitted details in part C? If “Yes”, discuss in part E.

  • Yes
  • No

Are there any other concerns pertaining to information described in appendix 3? If “Yes”, discuss in part E.

  • Yes
  • No

If answers to all questions in parts B and C are “no”, risk evaluation is “low”.

Part E - MNRF to complete

Describe any concerns, and rationalize additional conditions on construction (if necessary) for questions answered “yes” in parts B and C.

Risk evaluation

  • Low
  • Medium/High

Site Inspection Required

  • Yes
  • No

If Yes, Date Completed:

DFO Referral

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, date completed:

MNRF review conducted

Name:
Date: