Appendix 1 form for submission of information on a proposed water crossing must be completed by the proponent to provide the details of proposed water crossing projects.

Appendix 1 form have been developed to aid both the proponent and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) in the submission of critical data to facilitate the planning, review, approval, and monitoring of water crossings. The data fields in appendix 1 are the baseline requirements that must be completed, in its entirety. Submissions with incomplete forms may cause delays in review/approvals. The form can be modified by the planning team for the Forest Management Plan (FMP) to add additional information requirements; however, these baseline requirements must remain as mandatory submission fields in order to help ensure ongoing provincial consistency in water crossing data submission and decision making.

Part A requirements

  • Water crossing identifier

    Each water crossing must have a specific identifier. Proponents will follow the appropriate naming nomenclature as set out in the FIM’s technical specifications.

  • Watercourse crossing location

    A point feature representing a 200 metre crossing location will be submitted for all proposed water crossing locations. The approval for higher risk water crossings will apply to construction activities occurring within the 200 metres spatial boundary. The UTM coordinates for the 200 metre crossing location will also be provided. The proposed crossing location (including UTM coordinates) is required to be portrayed; however, can be submitted as part of the watershed analysis map (see below).

  • Applicable work-in-water timing window

    Work-in-water timing windows are one of the most important measures used to protect fisheries and fish habitat. Timing windows are developed to protect fisheries from the impacts of works or undertakings occurring in and around water by restricting in-water work during spawning, migrations and other critical life history stages. Applicable work-in-water timing windows for Ontario have been developed and must be documented in approved FMPs.

  • Identify whether the proposed higher risk crossings have been previously submitted, reviewed and/or approved

    Numerous proposed water crossings are reviewed and/or approved for construction and/or removal on an annual basis, but for a myriad of reasons, may not be needed or implemented in the AWS in which they are approved for construction. Proposed crossings that have previously been reviewed and/or approved for construction and that are being re-submitted in another AWS must be identified appropriately to facilitate tracking and the management of water crossings.

  • Road type

    Identifying the road type associated with a proposed water crossing allows MNRF reviewers to make informed assessments regarding appropriate levels of risk to fish and fish habitat occurring relative to the expected lifespan of a crossing on the landscape (e.g. primary road crossings are expected to be on the landscape longer than operational road crossings, and thus carry a higher degree of risk)

Part B requirements

  • Design flow/watershed analysis and information

    The crossing location as described by the FMPM and the FIM will be submitted in conjunction with a watershed analysis that depicts the design flow, including calculated culvert sizes for the Q25 return interval. MNRF Districts and Licensees will exchange this information in a manner that best suits their processes and local situation.

    Closed-bottom round culverts designed and installed to meet the Q25 return interval is currently considered the most effective baseline approach to providing for long-term fish passage, as they typically span the normal high water mark and therefore result in minimal impact to the watercourse’s form, function and hydrology (e.g., increases to velocity, high levels of infill or damage to banks to “fit” a culvert).

    Culvert size calculations for additional return intervals, including the normal high water flow rate (Q1.1), and the Q10, Q50, and Q100 flow rates should also be calculated to facilitate the process in cases where alternative design flows are being proposed for review (e.g., short-term crossings).

  • Stream gradient at crossing

    Low-gradient streams (i.e. <2%) are preferred crossing locations for closed-bottom round culvert installations. Closed-bottom round culverts installed on stream reaches with slopes greater than 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 should be estimated using best available resources and tools such as topographic maps, digital elevation maps or the Ontario Flow Assessment Tool.

    In cases where estimates indicate the potential for stream gradients to be >2%, 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.

    When a water crossing standard is being implemented by the proponent, the actual stream gradient at the site of the crossing must be confirmed as <2% in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the water crossing standard.

    This watershed characteristic should not be confused with the slope of the approaches towards the proposed crossings.

  • Length of culvert

    Knowing the expected length of a closed-bottom round culvert that will be installed, together with the other data submission requirements of the Protocol, enables proponents and/or MNRF to make informed assessments of the likelihood that velocities passing though the culvert may impede fish passage by exceeding fish species swimming abilities.

  • Pictures of crossing location

    Pre-construction and post-construction pictures will serve as a best management practice for water crossings. When pictures are available, or will be available for the project, this should be identified in the appendix 1 form. Documenting the crossing site before and after construction can serve as useful tools for both proponents and MNRF in compliance and monitoring efforts, in addition to supporting effectiveness monitoring of the Protocol. It is recommended that photographs depict the following:

    • pre and post-construction pictures depicting the road approaches from both sides of the water body (only one side of the waterbody may be practical pre-construction)
    • pre-and post-construction pictures depicting upstream and downstream conditions of the crossing site

    In some cases, MNRF may request that the submission of pre-construction pictures be appended to the proponent’s appendix 1 Form for crossing that require review and approval.

Part C requirements

The proponent must complete part C of appendix 1 if a water crossing standard will be implemented. Part C requires the proponent to identify the preferred water crossing standard that must be utilized.

The proponent should also identify alternative water crossing standards that may be used if their preferred option cannot be constructed (e.g., due to site conditions or weather/seasonality challenges).

Part D requirements

The proponent must complete part D of appendix 1 if a water crossing standard cannot be implemented. In these cases, the proponent must identify the activity/water crossing structure that is being proposed for the construction of a water crossing.

The proponent must also identify why a proposed water crossing project requires MNRF review and approval. In most cases, it is assumed that review and approval will be required because a water crossing standard does not exist for the proposed crossing or because the approved FMP restricts implementation (i.e., type and/or locations) of specific types of water crossing standards. However, there may be instances where a water crossing standard does exist for the proposed project, but the proponent cannot fulfill all of its mandatory requirements. In these cases, the proponent must identify which of the applicable water crossing standard requirements cannot be fulfilled in order to facilitate MNRF's review of the proposed project.

Form for submission of information on 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:

Type of activity:

Road type:

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

Have the requirements in the Protocol been followed to identify whether any federally and/or provincially listed aquatic species at risk are likely to be impacted by the project?

Part B: Watershed and construction characteristics

Watershed area (km2):

Opening size (mm) (if a bridge, distance between abutments in metres):

Estimated stream gradient at crossing (%) (from map, OFAT, etc.):

Expected length of proposed round closed bottom culvert crossing (if applicable):

Is the Design flow/watershed analysis and map been attached?

Is the proposed structure opening size less than Q25?

Water course type:

Have/will pre-construction pictures be taken?

Part C: application of a water crossing standard

Complete if your project will be following the conditions of an approved water crossing standard

If a water crossing standard will be applied, identify the preferred and any alternative structure type.

Preferred water crossing standard to be implemented:

Alternative water crossing standard to be implemented:

Additional information:

Part D: Request for review and approval

Complete if your project cannot follow the conditions of an approved water crossing standard

If review and approval is required, identify the structure type:

Please indicate why a project review is required. If a water crossing standard exists for the proposed project, specifically identify why it cannot be followed.

Have the appropriate section of an appendix 2 form been completed and attached?