00684
  1          MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   =======================================
 13            Thursday, February 17, 2005
 14        Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street
 15             Winnipeg, Manitoba
 16   ========================================
 17   
 18                Volume 4
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00685
  1   APPEARANCES:
  2   Clean Environment Commission:
  3   Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman
      Mr. Barrie Webster - Member
  4   Mr. Wayne Motheral - Member
      Mr. Doug Abra      - Counsel
  5   Mr. Dave Farlinger - Technical consultant
      Ms. Cathy Johnson  - Secretary to Commission
  6   Ms. Joyce Mueller  - Secretary
  7   Manitoba Conservation:
  8   Mr. Trent Hreno    - Chair, Project Admin Team
      Mr. Bruce Webb     - Chair, Tech Advisory
  9                        Committee
      Mr. Stewart Pierce - Counsel
 10   
 11   Manitoba Floodway Authority:
 12   Mr. Rick Handlon   - Counsel
      Mr. Jim Thomson
 13   Mr. Doug McNeil
      Mr. Doug Peterson
 14   Mr. Cam Osler      - Intergroup Consultants
      Mr. John Osler     - Intergroup Consultants
 15   Mr. David Morgan   - TetrES Consulting
      Mr. George Rempel  - TetrES Consulting
 16   Mr. Robert Sinclair -  KGS
      Ms. Marci Friedman - KGS
 17   
 18   Participants:
 19   Mr. Bob Starr      - Ritchot Concerned Citizens
      Mr. Bob Bodnaruk   - RM of Springfield
 20   Mr. Steve Strang   - RM of St. Clements
      Mr. Orvel Currie   - Counsel to Municipalities
 21   Mr. Doug Chorney   - Coalition for Flood
                           Protection North
 22   Mr. Kerry McLuhan  - Coalition for Flood
                           Protection North
 23   Mr. Rob Loudfoot   - 768 Association
      Mr. Y. Shumuk      - 768 Association
 24   Paul Clifton       - Paul Clifton
      Mr. Jeff Frank     - Rivers West
 25   Gaile Whelan Enns  - Manitoba Wildlands
      Earl Stevenson     - Peguis Indian Band
00686
  1   Participants:  (continued)
  2   
  3   Mr. Jake Buhler    - Cooks Creek Conservation
      Mr. Lloyd Crooks   - Cooks Creek Conservation
  4   Mr. Jon Stefanson  - Cooks Creek Conservation
      Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel
  5   
      Presenters:
  6   Robert Millman     -  RM of Ritchot
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00687
  1                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   47:  Presentation by Robert Millman     762
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00688
  1                        INDEX
  2   
      CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MFA PANEL
  3   Cross-examination by Panel                         689            
      Cross-examination by Paul Clifton                  795
  4   Cross-examination by Maxine Clifton                897
      Cross-examination by Cooks Creek Conservation
  5   District                                           888
      Cross-examination by Jeff Frank, Rivers West       936
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00689
  1   Thursday, February 17, 2005
  2   Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'd like to get the
  5   morning proceedings going.  Good morning.  Welcome
  6   to day four.  On the order paper today, we have a
  7   few opening comments by Mr. McNeil from the
  8   Floodway Authority.  That will be followed by some
  9   more cross-examination by members of the CEC
 10   panel.  We have one person making a presentation
 11   which will probably come after the CEC panelists
 12   have completed their cross-examination or after
 13   the morning break, whichever comes first.  And
 14   then following that, we will have the
 15   participating groups engaging in
 16   cross-examination.
 17               Mr. McNeil.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
 19   good morning.  I'd like to first provide you with
 20   the results of my undertaking from Tuesday,
 21   February 15th wherein you had asked about summer
 22   operation.  It wasn't officially recorded as an
 23   undertaking in the transcript but I thought this
 24   would be beneficial nonetheless.
 25               Your question was how many times did
00690
  1   we think that summer operation would occur in the
  2   future on average for the new rule number 4 for
  3   non-spring emergency operation.
  4               Water Stewardship has researched the
  5   records back since 1969.  So that's a period of 36
  6   years.  And based on rule number 4, the province
  7   would have operated the floodway for emergency
  8   purposes in the summer for 22 of those 36 summers.
  9               I'd also like to make some corrections
 10   regarding statements I made yesterday about
 11   raising the primary dykes temporarily for the 1 in
 12   700 year flood after the floodway is expanded.  I
 13   believe I said that, and this is from memory
 14   yesterday, that 25 kilometres required raising of
 15   the total 110 kilometres.  I'd like to be able to
 16   verify that number but we haven't seen the
 17   transcripts since we went late yesterday.
 18               I checked our analysis and the correct
 19   figure is 35 kilometres.  Of this, 10 kilometres
 20   requires raising more than 0.6 metres or 2 feet
 21   and 25 kilometres requires raising less than 0.6
 22   metres.
 23               Also, I indicated that the cost of
 24   placement and removal of the temporary clay dykes
 25   is approximately $5 million.  That is still
00691
  1   correct.  But realistically, you should be
  2   including costs of field engineering site
  3   supervision and dyke patrol.  And that would then
  4   bring the total to $7 million.
  5               One last thing.  I had indicated to
  6   the last gentleman last night that the 700 year
  7   flooded area map for north of Winnipeg was in the
  8   EIS Supplementary Filing.  In fact it's not but it
  9   is in my presentation I made to the Commission and
 10   therefore it is on the record.  Thank you.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I'd like to
 12   now ask a few questions about the inlet control
 13   structure and these questions will relate to dam
 14   safety issues.
 15               I understand that the original design
 16   notes and drawings for the inlet control structure
 17   were lost because of fire damage; is that correct?
 18               MR. CARSON:  I believe that a good
 19   number of the records were lost, not all of them.
 20   But a lot of the detailed calculations were not
 21   retrievable, yes.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So then the full
 23   design strengths of the actual constructed work
 24   can only be calculated using a conservative
 25   approach.
00692
  1               MR. CARSON:  Well, not necessarily.
  2   There are critical reports and documents like that
  3   that stated what the objective of the design was.
  4   And they date back to the early 1960s.  So
  5   certainly the objective of what was required in
  6   the design is known.  Exactly how it achieved it
  7   is not totally clear in some cases.  I'm being
  8   very general.  It depends exactly on the specifics
  9   of what you are referring to.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I have a general
 11   question.  I guess what I'm looking for or one of
 12   the things I'm looking for is the condition of the
 13   foundation under the inlet structure.  And some
 14   related questions.  Was the bedrock foundation
 15   under the inlet structure grouted in the 60's when
 16   it was built?  So start off with those.  What is
 17   the condition of the foundation under the
 18   structure?
 19               MR. SMITH:  That question regarding
 20   the foundation, there are drawings, construction
 21   drawings that indicated that the foundation was to
 22   be cleaned, you know, down to sound rock and then
 23   concrete was placed directly on that.  We have not
 24   been able to ascertain if the bedrock below that
 25   area was grouted.  That's a question I can't
00693
  1   answer at this time.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, have you done any
  3   and what kind of investigation have you done of
  4   the foundation of the structure?
  5               MR. SMITH:  Well, we haven't done
  6   drilling at either abutment immediately adjacent
  7   to the concrete structure through the fill
  8   sections down into the bedrock.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Have you been able to
 10   confirm the integrity of the bedrock supporting
 11   the structure and the adjacent earth fill
 12   embankments?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Well, we did sampling of
 14   the soils through the embankments and some lab
 15   testing on the quality of the materials and
 16   analyzed both stability and the seepage
 17   characteristics of the materials.  And we do
 18   have -- this is a report that was completed prior
 19   to the preliminary design work.  So in that
 20   report, we had concluded that I think there was
 21   phi-value of 35 degrees through the granular zone.
 22               One of the questions that we had
 23   addressed with that work was more a question of
 24   piping or seepage concern.  And the filter
 25   criteria in that instance we felt were satisfied
00694
  1   adequately.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  So you are confident
  3   that the bedrock foundation is solid?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  I'm not concerned
  5   about the stability of the bedrock at that site.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  On an ongoing basis
  7   then, is there an instrumentation program that's
  8   been planned to monitor piezometric levels in the
  9   bedrock and the embankments?
 10               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  There are
 11   piezometers that we installed in the embankments
 12   and there are some existing ones below the
 13   foundation of the structure.
 14               I should clarify, the dam safety
 15   review that was completed was done by SNC Lavalin
 16   for this work.  So I will follow up on their
 17   report if there's anything further we can add to
 18   this.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  A couple of
 20   questions about the control gates.  What is the
 21   tolerance of the operation of the control gates to
 22   a differential settlement of the control structure
 23   
 24               MR. MCMILLAN:  Dave McMillan, KGS.
 25   The structure is essentially a massive structure
00695
  1   founded on rock and there is certainly no
  2   anticipated differential settlements.  But
  3   certainly there are gaps with seals between the
  4   gates and the structure.  So one would think
  5   somewhere in the order of an 8th to a 16th
  6   somewhere, a 16th to an 18th of an inch would be
  7   tolerable in terms of those gates to differential
  8   settlement.  And there's certainly no sign that
  9   those types of settlements have occurred.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  An 8th or a 16th of an
 11   inch doesn't sound like very much.
 12               MR. MCMILLAN:  But given that you
 13   build these structures on rock and really, the
 14   last thing that is installed is the gates that, if
 15   there were any settlements that were going to
 16   occur, they would have occurred essentially before
 17   the gates were installed.  So you'd be looking at
 18   differential settlements that would occur in time
 19   after the installation of the gates.  So for a
 20   structure of that magnitude, those types of
 21   settlements would really not be anticipated.  And
 22   that's probably a conservative estimate of the
 23   tolerable settlements.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, I understand that
 25   the original design criteria for maximum water
00696
  1   level was based on a contingency situation while
  2   the proposed maximum water level for the expanded
  3   floodway is based on a normal operating condition.
  4   So what would be the effect on risk to the
  5   structure if a contingency occurs during the
  6   rising limb of the hydrograph?
  7               MR. MCMILLAN:  The risk to the
  8   structure in terms of stability.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  The water level.
 10               MR. MCMILLAN:  Probably Rick is the
 11   best one to answer that in terms of water levels.
 12   Mr. Carson.
 13               MR. CARSON:  The original design was
 14   based on a maximum water level of 778 feet above
 15   sea level and the operation was to follow -- I'm
 16   not sure that they had broken it down into rule 1,
 17   rule 2, rule 3 specifically at that time.  But
 18   that was really the spirit of the design of the
 19   gate so that the operation would follow first rule
 20   1 and then if the flood is large enough, it would
 21   get up into rule 2 and the water level would rise.
 22   And if there were problems that arose, let's say
 23   in rule 1, there was the ability to go above rule
 24   1 and have a let's say an early application of
 25   rule 2 and going above state of nature.  And that
00697
  1   was considered I guess as a contingency.
  2               That contingency still exists with the
  3   expanded floodway.  The structure is no different,
  4   the operation will follow the same curves.  So in
  5   some respects, I would say the contingency still
  6   exists.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I noted in
  8   reading the materials that there was some
  9   discussion around the issue of gate redundancy.
 10   Can you tell me how that is going to be resolved
 11   or what the position will be in respect of gate
 12   redundancy?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.  The plan which is
 14   included in the pre-design report and which was
 15   assessed under the EIS is to have backup systems
 16   for the existing gates.  So there will be
 17   redundancy in the systems that operate those
 18   existing gates.  Through the dam safety analysis,
 19   that was confirmed.  And also it was confirmed
 20   that through the dam safety analysis, should
 21   fine-tune some other design components outside of
 22   the inlet control structure related to the backup
 23   of the whole system and the reliability and
 24   redundancy of the whole system.  And that means
 25   inlet control structure, the west embankment of
00698
  1   the East Dyke and the West Dyke.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  So what will be done in
  3   that regard or is that yet to come?
  4               MR. MCMILLAN:  Basically in their
  5   assessment, dam safety assessment, they looked at
  6   increasing the level of redundancy of a number of
  7   the systems that operate the gates and looking at
  8   upgrading some of the systems that may make the
  9   gates vulnerable in the future.  So there is
 10   looking at the hydraulic system that operates the
 11   gates, adding more redundant features to those.
 12               One of the concerns with the gates is
 13   that -- the biggest concern, if the gates were
 14   actually, when they were in operation, were to
 15   fail down, and one of the things that SNC had
 16   recommended would be to adding some level of
 17   buoyancy to the gate system so that you could
 18   resist that downward motion with a buoyant chamber
 19   within the gates.  So that's under consideration
 20   for final design.  And just a number of other
 21   redundant systems in the electrical/mechanical
 22   systems that operate the gates.  So those are all
 23   systems that are being pursued at the final design
 24   stage.
 25               MR. CARSON:  Excuse me, Mr. Chair,
00699
  1   could I add to the answer that I gave with respect
  2   to contingency?
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.
  4               MR. CARSON:  I just thought of it as
  5   Dave was speaking there.  There is another aspect
  6   with respect to the West Dyke.  The original
  7   design envisioned the water level possibly rising
  8   as high as 778 feet and the inlet structure wasn't
  9   fully designed for that, but the West Dyke had
 10   only nominal free board at that condition.  In
 11   other words, just a nominal amount of difference
 12   in elevation between the crest of the West Dyke
 13   and this maximum water level of 778 feet.
 14               Now as part of the project, we are
 15   proposing to raise the crest of the West Dyke and
 16   increase that free board to provide additional
 17   contingency against wind and wave effects.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I
 19   understand that the original design assumed a one
 20   gate stuck up for one in a thousand year flood.
 21   But the present design does not have a similar
 22   what-if approach; is that correct?
 23               MR. CARSON:  The original design,
 24   could you repeat that, the original design assumed
 25   what?
00700
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Assumed a one gate
  2   stuck up for a one in a thousand year flood
  3   contingency.
  4               MR. CARSON:  I'm not familiar with
  5   that criterion.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Well, we can
  7   come back to that if we need to.  We can perhaps
  8   get some more information and ask it again.
  9               I think a final question on this area.
 10   Will there be an emergency preparedness plan
 11   completed including a worst case dam breach study?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, we'll be working in
 13   the near future with Manitoba EMO first to look at
 14   the evacuation of the city.  One of the concerns
 15   that came out of the dam safety workshop or review
 16   was that the city is really at risk between a 75
 17   year and the 700 year flood with the expanded
 18   floodway.  And so we need to finalize emergency
 19   evacuation plans and that builds into the
 20   emergency preparedness plan.  And it's all part of
 21   looking at the security of the system.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  The Canadian Dam
 23   Association guidelines suggested that be in place
 24   two years after the completion of construction.
 25   Do you anticipate this?
00701
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  I expect that we'll be
  2   completing that before we finish construction.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Just a
  4   moment.  Mr. Webster is going to lead some
  5   questions on groundwater issues.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  7   I wanted to ask some specific questions further
  8   about the inlet structure.  The first question is
  9   looking at the condition of the material under the
 10   inlet structure and comparing it with the
 11   condition of the material under the outlet
 12   structure, what's the difference in the anthology
 13   of that ordovician material between the inlet and
 14   outlet structure?  Are we looking at the same kind
 15   of material as the foundation?
 16               MR. SMITH:  I understand you're
 17   wondering about the difference in the quality of
 18   the bedrock underneath the two concrete
 19   structures?
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  That's right.
 21               MR. SMITH:  I know at the outlet
 22   structure, the drilling and coring that was done
 23   there, the bedrock quality is very good, very low
 24   number of fractures, so limited seepage potential.
 25               I'm just trying to -- I'm not sure
00702
  1   that I can make a direct reference to the inlet
  2   quality.  I might have to get back to you on that
  3   question.  I'd like to just follow up on that.
  4   But I'm not aware of any significant difference in
  5   the rock quality at the inlet structure.
  6               Again, as indicated, the construction
  7   drawings for the inlet were to prepare the surface
  8   down to sound rock which would mean any weathered
  9   rock would be removed, any poor quality zones
 10   would be cleaned out and normally they would put
 11   in a slush concrete infill.
 12               At the inlet structure at the time of
 13   construction, they had to build a coffer-dam in
 14   the river and the river bottom had a lot of
 15   granular zones, alluvial materials in the river
 16   bottom.  So they had seepage problems there
 17   resulted in grouting of that area as well as
 18   pumping to control the groundwater.  So there was
 19   a lot of grouting done at that time to control
 20   that seepage.
 21               At the outlet structure, there was a
 22   limited amount of seepage, very little inflow
 23   during construction.  And of course, it was built
 24   on the bank of the river.  It wasn't in the river
 25   bottom so there was a bit of a difference there in
00703
  1   the construction.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  The reason I'm asking
  3   this question is I understand that some of the
  4   drill holes at the outlet structure, and those
  5   were holes A03 - 9501, 9503 and 9504 showed vuggy
  6   dolomitic limestone, broken core zones and loss of
  7   drilling fluids.
  8               MR. SMITH:  At the outlet structure?
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  At the outlet structure.
 10   Now my understanding then is, the question I guess
 11   is, is the limestone foundation at the inlet
 12   structure, I mean it's some distance away, but is
 13   that limestone structure there similar?  I mean
 14   you've given some indication that you would have
 15   expected that they would have taken out any
 16   unsound material.  But we've been led to believe
 17   also that there may be clay lenses in that
 18   limestone under the inlet structure.  And I
 19   wondered if you could answer the question or the
 20   general nature of the question that I'm presenting
 21   to you as to the soundness of that material under
 22   the inlet structure?
 23               MR. SMITH:  Mr. McMillan just
 24   indicated that again, just to draw your attention
 25   to the dam safety review report, Appendix "C",
00704
  1   that they hadn't identified any concerns regarding
  2   the foundation of the bedrock as such.  I'm not
  3   aware of any major clay seams in that area that
  4   would be problematic for the stability of the
  5   structure.  But I'd like to, again I'll review
  6   that and I'd like to get back to you on that
  7   point.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  I'd like to ask
  9   you further, there is a statement in the IR number
 10   11(c) for the Commission.  Defining the hydraulic
 11   gradient through that bedrock as being 0.03 metres
 12   per metre.  Is that correct?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  It's the right units?
 15   Now, the question I have is which monitoring and
 16   observation wells and intervals were used to
 17   define that hydraulic gradient?  And this is
 18   through the bedrock.
 19               MR. SMITH:  Just to clarify, that was
 20   IR --
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  11(c) from the
 22   Commission.
 23               MR. SMITH:  I believe that gradient
 24   was calculated based on the head differential for
 25   a flood event.  Like under normal conditions,
00705
  1   there will be no gradient in the river bottom
  2   across the structure.  There would be equal heads
  3   or equal surface water levels on upstream and
  4   downstream.
  5               So what I had looked at there was for
  6   a flood event, taking the upstream water surface,
  7   comparing that and the difference to the
  8   downstream tail water level across the length of
  9   the structure and calculating a gradient on that
 10   basis.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  One of the concerns I
 12   guess with respect to a limestone foundation is
 13   that it brings to mind what happens to limestone
 14   under the right kind of chemistry and water
 15   movement and that you can get voids such as we see
 16   in the Interlake in that limestone structure.  And
 17   I guess the questions that I am asking have to do
 18   with the possibility of essentially erosion or
 19   dissolution of that rock structure creating voids
 20   that would destroy the integrity of the rock
 21   foundation under the inlet structure.  I wondered
 22   if you had looked at that at all, if you have some
 23   evaluation of that possibility?
 24               MR. SMITH:  That was considered
 25   although usually those -- the formation of the
00706
  1   solution channels in limestone is a very very
  2   long-term event.  And certainly under the life of
  3   the structure, I wouldn't anticipate any large
  4   amount of solutioning to have occurred,
  5   particularly under these low gradients and
  6   short-term events.  So it wasn't a concern.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  I agree.  And I guess in
  8   terms of probabilities, this is a reasonable
  9   assumption.  On the other hand, is it not
 10   relatively straightforward to run some drill holes
 11   and essentially evaluate whether that's true?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Yes, that could be done.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  And that's not been done
 14   to date?
 15               MR. SMITH:  To verify the current
 16   integrity of the limestone under the structure?
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Exactly.
 18               MR. SMITH:  No, we haven't drilled any
 19   holes through the structure.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  And those drill holes
 21   could come either from above or at an angle from
 22   the banks and so forth.  So it's a relatively
 23   straightforward thing to do?
 24               MR. SMITH:  Yes, it could be done.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd like to turn now to
00707
  1   the groundwater question and move somewhere some
  2   distance along the project to the area where
  3   groundwater is of particular concern.  I guess
  4   I'll start off by asking could you provide more
  5   details regarding the proposed monitoring network;
  6   that is the monitoring wells that you're using,
  7   the distance from the floodways and the aquifers
  8   that are actually either being monitored or
  9   planned to be monitored?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  I'll ask Mr. Smith.
 11   Maybe he can give more detail on that.  We're
 12   looking for Appendix "M" which is a large binder
 13   on all the existing baseline monitoring.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  I have Appendix "M" here
 15   and you're going to put the drawing on the --
 16               MR. MORGAN:  He's looking.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay, good.  Can you
 18   refer me to the section while you're preparing to
 19   display it?
 20               MR. REMPEL:  We're looking for drawing
 21   251H002G.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  And that's in which
 23   annex, please?
 24               MR. REMPEL:  "M" as in Mary.
 25               MR. MORGAN:  In the drawings tab.
00708
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  That's binder "M".
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Binder "M" and in the
  3   drawings tab.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  There are annex sections
  5   here in binder "M".
  6               MR. REMPEL:  There's a section that
  7   says "Drawings" and that's the section you'll find
  8   this particular --
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  I have it open.  I'm
 10   sorry, you are correct.  I had it open at that
 11   section.  Go ahead.
 12               MR. REMPEL:  Right after the text,
 13   there should be a "Drawings" section.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  Indeed there is.  Thank
 15   you.
 16               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, this is from
 17   our preliminary engineering report, Appendix "M",
 18   drawing 251H002.  This shows the northern half of
 19   the project.  So the floodway -- just coming up
 20   through here, this is the outlet structure and
 21   this is the area I understand of prime interest.
 22   And this shows the provincial well monitoring
 23   network immediately along the floodway.  A lot of
 24   the wells are directly in the right of way.  There
 25   are additional wells further out.  And in fact,
00709
  1   within the study area, there is a significant
  2   number of monitoring points.
  3               Just to be clear, between the Highway
  4   59 north and the outlet structure, so within this
  5   region here, we have a total of 38 monitoring
  6   wells on the west side of the floodway.  And that
  7   would include 18 in bedrock and 20 in the
  8   overburden.
  9               And so from the pre-construction date,
 10   a lot of these wells had been monitored on a
 11   continuous basis.  So there is a continuous water
 12   level record.  And there's also been water quality
 13   monitoring at some of these wells over that period
 14   of record.  And in particular during flood events,
 15   there has been, with this continuous record, some
 16   excellent databases that had been obtained.
 17               Now in addition to that provincial
 18   system, we have gone in and installed additional
 19   monitoring wells at areas of interest.  For
 20   example, we picked four representative sections
 21   along the floodway, one at the CPR Keewatin
 22   Bridge, which is right near the base here, a
 23   second set at the Oasis Springhill area, Highway
 24   59, another set at Dunning Road and another set up
 25   near the outlet structure.  And the drilling here
00710
  1   was to put both wells down into the bedrock, into
  2   the till and into the clay and do a very rigorous
  3   monitoring program.
  4               Those sections were used as a basis
  5   for a lot of our studies where we did ultimately
  6   do detailed groundwater modelling to predict the
  7   influence of flood events and in fact had some
  8   good data to base that on because those also
  9   included provincial wells with the long-term
 10   monitoring.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Are those wells capable
 12   of sampling with integrity at several levels
 13   within one well?
 14               MR. SMITH:  Well, there were separate
 15   installations.  To ensure the integrity, we'd have
 16   a separate well in the till and a different well
 17   down into the bedrock.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  That's what I was
 19   thinking.  So 38 wells overall?
 20               MR. SMITH:  Well, that's 38 wells just
 21   on the west side of the floodway.  Now some of
 22   those are the historical wells and some are the
 23   more recent ones that we've installed.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  Are you sampling then
 25   the upper and lower aquifers?  I gather that's an
00711
  1   accurate description of the situation there?
  2   Correct me if I'm wrong.
  3               MR. SMITH:  Well, we're sampling the
  4   till and the bedrock.  Is that what you meant by
  5   upper and lower --
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Well, I understand at
  7   least in some of that area that there is an
  8   aquifer above the bedrock that is being used for
  9   some of the wells and some wells go deeper into
 10   the bedrock.
 11               MR. SMITH:  Well, the Birds Hill area
 12   has that upper sand and gravel aquifer.  That's a
 13   separate system.  And we do have some wells that
 14   are sampling the upper water quality there, yes.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  I guess you were
 16   telling us that there were 35 wells.  So is there
 17   a higher number of wells that you're sampling
 18   from?
 19               MR. SMITH:  We sampled a total of 20
 20   wells, not all of the wells there.  I was going to
 21   say we selected wells to try to be representative
 22   along the length of the floodway.
 23               Now those are all -- the provincial
 24   wells are the ones that we installed as part of
 25   the program.  Separate to that, there's domestic
00712
  1   wells and we sampled a total of 25 domestic wells.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, domestic wells
  3   though are another kettle of fish, aren't they?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Sampling wells are
  6   designed with some integrity so that you can be
  7   confident that the water you are sampling is
  8   coming from the level that you've got the well to?
  9               MR. SMITH:  That is correct.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  Have you examined the
 11   domestic well you used from which you have taken
 12   samples to see whether in fact they are
 13   constructed properly to avoid surface
 14   contamination?
 15               MR. SMITH:  No.  The domestic wells
 16   are typically sealed at surface and you don't have
 17   ready access to them.  It will be a fairly major
 18   effort to expose those wells.  And typically, the
 19   home-owners, it's not something that is easily
 20   done.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  I don't follow what
 22   you're saying.
 23               MR. SMITH:  Well, our monitoring wells
 24   at surface, we have a steel casing with a lockable
 25   cap.  And just by removing that cap, you have
00713
  1   direct access to the well.
  2               For domestic wells, for part of it is
  3   for their integrity of their domestic supply and
  4   to avoid contamination, they are sealed.  So the
  5   pump in the system is totally sealed.  There is no
  6   ready access to be able to get down into the well
  7   if you will.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  So assuming the well is
  9   constructed properly and is delivering water to
 10   the domestic residents, the user, surely that's
 11   where you're taking the water from?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  The water is usually
 13   taken what we refer to as raw water before any
 14   treatment at the residence and the tap will be run
 15   to flush the system out prior to taking the
 16   samples.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  So the fact that the
 18   well itself is sealed is no particular problem
 19   because there's still an access.
 20               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.  However,
 21   as you indicated, the integrity of the
 22   installation of the well is something that isn't
 23   readily apparent at the time of drilling whether
 24   or not the well was grouted if there's any surface
 25   interconnection, you know, below the ground.
00714
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  I guess where I'm
  2   going with this particular line of questioning is
  3   I'm wondering with the number of wells you're
  4   talking about, whether you have sufficient
  5   monitoring wells to be able to deal with the
  6   issues at hand to do with possible -- first of
  7   all, let's take this carefully.  Have you
  8   sufficient wells to deal with the water levels
  9   issues that had been brought up in the course of
 10   talking about the effects of the floodway, of the
 11   expanded floodway?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  I believe the water
 13   level coverage is good.  There are some select
 14   areas, local special concern areas that we do
 15   intend to install additional monitoring wells.
 16   For example, during the construction dewatering
 17   around some of the bridges or the aquaduct, it's
 18   very likely we want to put in some additional
 19   wells.  If there's a need for any construction
 20   pumping dewatering, that we want to be able to
 21   monitor closely the influence from that activity.
 22   So we do have funds available for that.  And
 23   that's part of a program that's been identified to
 24   be completed prior to construction with the
 25   ultimate review and permiting from Water Rights
00715
  1   Department.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  Let me just take it a
  3   little further before I go on to the other topics
  4   to do with water quality.  One of the challenges
  5   that I guess is coming, because of the fact that
  6   the expansion of the floodway may lead to enhanced
  7   loss of groundwater through seepage and because of
  8   the fact that people near the floodway want to
  9   extract more water for domestic use, how does your
 10   network of wells allow you to distinguish between
 11   the groundwater loss from seepage to the floodway,
 12   which is floodway responsibility, and groundwater
 13   usage which draws it down, the same water, for
 14   domestic purposes?
 15               MR. SMITH:  That's not an easy thing
 16   to do.  I'll just indicate on the east side of the
 17   floodway, the recharge that is occurring is
 18   available to developers in well systems prior to
 19   reaching the floodway.  So that water can be
 20   captured.
 21               Now west of the floodway, certainly
 22   there is -- some of the water that's discharged to
 23   the floodway is no longer available to those
 24   owners, in terms of separating out the two, I
 25   guess we have an existing piezometric level based
00716
  1   on the current floodway system and the regional
  2   use.  And in reality, you have an ongoing
  3   development issue here where they are probably
  4   reaching, in some areas they have reached, limits
  5   of the capacity of the aquifer.
  6               And the province has recently come out
  7   and indicated they are going to do a detailed
  8   regional water management study and that would be
  9   really part of that program, to evaluate not only
 10   the influence of the floodway but of all the other
 11   groundwater users in the area.  And that's, you
 12   know, an important study to be taken.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  So you would -- sorry.
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Could I just,
 15   Dr. Webster, just add that what Mr. Smith is
 16   talking about is Minister Ashton, minister
 17   responsible for Water Stewardship, had indicated
 18   in a letter to the municipalities east and north
 19   of the floodway that Manitoba Water Stewardship
 20   will undertake this regional groundwater study
 21   over the next couple of years.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Could I just clarify too.
 23   We're talking about a lot of the baseline
 24   conditions and I wasn't sure one of your questions
 25   there is we don't expect more leakage.  As we
00717
  1   showed yesterday the areas where we expected there
  2   will be seals, we don't expect more leakage from
  3   this project.  However there will be monitoring, I
  4   guess as you are discussing, to confirm this.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  I guess the questions
  6   I'm raising have to do with the perception that
  7   the floodway itself may be responsible for water
  8   loss.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Currently.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  But in the future after
 11   you have expanded the floodway and the water level
 12   goes down in the associated aquifers --
 13               MR. MORGAN:  We don't expect -- we
 14   don't expect any deepening.  We don't expect the
 15   water level to go down.
 16               MR. WEBSTER:  But how are you going to
 17   show that in fact the floodway is not responsible
 18   for lowering of the water in the aquifers when in
 19   fact you're telling us that you don't expect it to
 20   go down?  Supposing it goes down?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Okay.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  How do you say to the
 23   folks around about we didn't do it.  It was you
 24   folks using more water than you should have done.
 25   How are you going to show that?
00718
  1               MR. MORGAN:  I guess that's what the
  2   regional modelling study should assist with and
  3   also there should be monitoring and, you know, how
  4   people are using water.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Isn't it in your
  6   interest to make sure that that's done properly
  7   and not waiting for some other study to happen
  8   that may or may not happen?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  We will be working in
 10   conjunction with Water Stewardship and we've built
 11   on the existing data that they've had, the
 12   monitoring data all these years since the original
 13   floodway was constructed.  And we're going to do
 14   more monitoring for the reasons that Mr. Smith
 15   indicated and we'll be working closely with water
 16   stewardship.  But they are taking the lead role in
 17   that regional study as they should.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  I guess I'm not
 19   questioning who should do what, I'm questioning
 20   whether in fact the thing is going to be done
 21   quickly enough to protect the Floodway Authority
 22   from difficulties that may arise from people
 23   saying, you know, it's your fault that the water
 24   level went down.
 25               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, we are
00719
  1   measuring the base flow along the channel to
  2   establish what the current discharge rates are.
  3   And you have to appreciate that it does vary from
  4   year to year in a dry year versus a wet year.  And
  5   it is a difficult thing to achieve.  You have to
  6   measure that base flow when there's absolutely no
  7   other surface water coming into the system.  So in
  8   fact, we are out there right now doing the
  9   measurements.  We have installed weirs at several
 10   locations along the channel and we'll be obtaining
 11   data.  And we did that last year as well to obtain
 12   some base flow measurements.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  So I guess going back to
 14   my earlier question, do you have sufficient wells
 15   to be able to do that job properly?
 16               MR. SMITH:  Wells to measure the water
 17   level?  Again, we will be installing some.  I
 18   stopped a little short there.  I had indicated we
 19   were installing some wells for construction
 20   dewatering.  There will be some additional wells
 21   also for the water level monitoring.  You never
 22   have enough wells.  There's always going to be a
 23   local condition that you have to address.  So
 24   there is a contingency fund that if issues come
 25   up, to address those, you know, on an as-required
00720
  1   basis.
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  Dr. Webster, I'd just
  3   like to add that the Manitoba Floodway Authority
  4   is certainly an interested stakeholder in this
  5   whole groundwater business.  And we don't want to
  6   add to the leakage that's there now with the
  7   expansion of this project.  And we're very much
  8   pleased with Water Stewardship's initiative in
  9   this groundwater study.  As I said, we'll be
 10   cooperating with them and sharing our data with
 11   them and working with them.  And they have
 12   indicated that they will be doing this over the
 13   next couple of years.  So that's good news.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  I agree that it's good
 15   news.  I would suggest that I'd want a few
 16   guarantees from them that the work is going to be
 17   done in a timely fashion so the responsibility
 18   that you folks bear is definable.
 19               Let me go further then to the
 20   monitoring of the system that's required for water
 21   quality, what information will be used to assess
 22   potential claims regarding bacteriological and/or
 23   chemical impact on residential water wells.  Let's
 24   separate those, let's talk about bacteriological
 25   questions, because that has been one of the issues
00721
  1   that the municipalities in the area have brought
  2   up.  So what information will be used to assess
  3   potential claims regarding bacteriological
  4   contamination of the water resource that those
  5   folks are using for domestic water by tapping into
  6   the aquifer or aquifers that are adjacent to the
  7   floodway.
  8               MR. MORGAN:  I'll just start and then
  9   pass it over to Mr. Smith for the details.  But I
 10   just want to make it clear that in the EIS we do
 11   talk about surface water conditions as described
 12   in engineering reports, and about the regional and
 13   local models they've done at certain points.
 14   Mr. Smith talked about four points north of, in
 15   the north part of the floodway.  And those models
 16   were calibrated to the local data and groundwater
 17   in the area, and that model actually does help you
 18   understand things like which way is the
 19   groundwater flowing.  Like it's flowing from Birds
 20   Hill, as we showed yesterday, west.  So the
 21   direction of flow tells you where the potential
 22   contamination would come from.
 23               The direction of flow, as based by a
 24   different monitor -- I don't know if there is any
 25   more details you want to add?
00722
  1               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, we'd like to
  2   have two additional witnesses added to our team
  3   who can address some of those points.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  We have a couple of
  5   hydrogeologists from KGS who worked very closely
  6   on the details on a lot of the development of the
  7   wells and the monitoring that we could swear in to
  8   answer some of these detailed questions.
  9               MR. SMITH:  And they are Dr. Rob
 10   Sinclair and Marcie Friedman.
 11               ROBERT SINCLAIR:  SWORN
 12               MARCIA FRIEDMAN:  SWORN
 13               MR. SINCLAIR:  Maybe just give me
 14   another shot at the question, just repeat it so I
 15   can answer it?
 16               MR. WEBSTER:  This is the general
 17   question and I want to go into more specifics in a
 18   minute.  What information will be used to assess
 19   potential claims regarding bacteriological
 20   contamination of the water source which people are
 21   tapping into with their wells?
 22               MR. SINCLAIR:  This is a complex
 23   question.  In Manitoba at any given time there is
 24   a lot of wells that are let's say 25, 30 per cent
 25   are contaminated at any given time, there is a lot
00723
  1   of interference from the septic fields, et cetera,
  2   that can complicate the issue.  But I think what
  3   we're looking at for this is certainly there will
  4   be a more complete background check of all wells
  5   in the area.  There may be some additional
  6   surveillance wells put in so that we can test not
  7   only quality and -- well, quality in terms of
  8   chemical and microbiological characteristics
  9   closer to the floodway, but we definitely are
 10   going to look at additional testing away from the
 11   floodway and into the domestic well areas.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  So do you have any
 13   background data at the moment?
 14               MR. SINCLAIR:  We don't.
 15   Historically, though, there has not been any
 16   complaints, over the 35 years of operation we have
 17   no complaints of water quality concerns regarding
 18   the floodway operation.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Not too far to the east
 20   of the floodway is an area that was under a boil
 21   water advisory for years.  That probably is not
 22   affected by the floodway, but, I mean, this kind
 23   of thing is --
 24               MR. SINCLAIR:  We will have to deal
 25   with some of those issues and just look into them.
00724
  1   As I say, there will be more testing done to
  2   evaluate that sort of concern.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Let's get specific
  4   because, yes, that's obviously what you have to
  5   do.  But the kinds of difficulties that the
  6   floodway is likely to create are associated with
  7   an event that is a flood event, which is a
  8   short-term sort of a thing.  Other than the kinds
  9   of things that were implied in comments that were
 10   made before the hearing itself actually started
 11   back on Monday, when people intimated that there
 12   was raw sewage going into the floodway at a couple
 13   of points on a more or less constant basis.  I'm
 14   not sure if you want to address, first of all,
 15   whether in fact there is sewage going into the
 16   floodway in its resting state?  Maybe we should
 17   establish that first.
 18               MR. MORGAN:  I'll just start with this
 19   and some of the details can be discussed by the
 20   KGS team.
 21               This concern of, what's called a
 22   surface water intrusion concern.  I was one of the
 23   people taken on the tour by Mr. Jonasson in which
 24   he did talk about the different concerns in the
 25   area with septic fields, as well as the floodway
00725
  1   and the discharge of the lagoon into the floodway.
  2   And we do note in our EIS that the floodway does
  3   accept wastewater, although it's to be treated,
  4   it's not the floodway's responsibility to ensure
  5   that, it's Manitoba Conservation's, and they have
  6   licences, as well as land drainage, which should
  7   be containing land drainage, not sewage.  So all
  8   that's acknowledged.  And we took that very
  9   seriously, and the KGS team also did.  They went
 10   and did additional modelling, as he talked about
 11   earlier, at key locations along the floodway,
 12   north by the floodway.  One is at the Keewatin
 13   bridge, two are on the Springhill area, and one at
 14   the Dunning Road, near where that lagoon discharge
 15   goes.
 16               Those modelling studies are described
 17   for the existing condition in the EIS under the
 18   surface water intrusion subtitle there, and then
 19   what would be the effect of the expansion, would
 20   it change anything in terms of the surface water
 21   intrusion?  And there's quite a lot of detail in
 22   appendix P -- well, it's a small report which is
 23   based on all the data in appendix M to calibrate
 24   it, and it's quite an easy read with some pictures
 25   explaining how the modelling is done.  As I said,
00726
  1   the models were calibrated, they did a lot of --
  2   and this is easily reviewable in the reports.  I'm
  3   not part of the team that did this analysis.  I
  4   reviewed the reports for the EIS.
  5               The calibration was done by looking at
  6   what is actually the materials in the area with
  7   core samples.  It's also done by -- as Mr. Smith
  8   said earlier, there's a very good record of flow
  9   water levels for the wells that are adjacent to
 10   the floodway, and from that, during the flood they
 11   could calibrate saying their model could tell
 12   what -- could simulate what's happening during the
 13   flood in terms of water levels and flow.  So that
 14   model was then used to determine what would happen
 15   during a flood as surface water does intrude,
 16   we're not saying it doesn't, but the rate of
 17   intrusion is -- well, it's detailed in that
 18   report.  I don't know if we have -- we have some
 19   pictures and examples that they could get into
 20   details and talk about it, and I could too.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  Basically, before we got
 22   into that, I wanted to establish how you could
 23   tell that the floodway itself was uncontaminated
 24   before any kind of flood event came along?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  We do not assume that it
00727
  1   is uncontaminated.  That is the essence of doing
  2   that modelling.  Any surface water runoff drainage
  3   could have some bacteria in it, it's not going to
  4   have zero fecal coliforms.  The idea is, the thing
  5   that was checked is, is the intrusion rates as it
  6   goes through, it is kind of filtered through the
  7   silty tills, is it at a slow enough rate that it
  8   is not expected to cause any problems?  And is the
  9   expansion not expected to cause any significant
 10   effect in water quality?  And that is the
 11   assessment, this is the information we use to make
 12   the assessment.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Let's take this step
 14   wise.  Is there in fact infiltration, in the
 15   resting state of the floodway, is there
 16   infiltration from the channel into the
 17   groundwater, or is it the other way?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  It is the other way.
 19   That is the concern, obviously, is they are losing
 20   water from the, or not -- the existing aquifers,
 21   as we showed yesterday in the figures, up well
 22   into, they seep up into the floodway at a certain
 23   location so that the low flow channel is being fed
 24   by the floodway, not the other way around -- or
 25   from the springs, not the other way around.
00728
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  So while there's no
  2   desire for the floodway to carry contaminated
  3   water in its resting state, if it is there, the
  4   likelihood of it contaminating the aquifer is low;
  5   is that correct?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, if we get into the
  8   flood situation, which is an unusual but
  9   nevertheless an important situation, then the head
 10   that's there controlling whether things infiltrate
 11   or not changes substantially.  And I think, as you
 12   say, there are some diagrams that show that, or I
 13   suppose they are models that show what could
 14   happen at various stages, various conditions of
 15   material under the channel.  Can you produce those
 16   for us?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  I can produce a couple of
 18   examples, and maybe then you can pull up the
 19   reports.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  As I recall, there's an
 21   indication of the likely extent of infiltration,
 22   the likely time it will take for that to restore
 23   itself because of the groundwater movement; am I
 24   correct?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.  Appendix P, and
00729
  1   it's summarized in the EIS, talks about the
  2   surface water intrusion modelling done at these
  3   four locations.  And I'll talk about that a little
  4   bit more in detail, because there is two things
  5   that were looked at.  One is the likely case, the
  6   calibrated case in which all the data fits.
  7               And then beyond that what modelers
  8   like to do is a sensitivity analysis.  In the
  9   sensitivity analysis you assume things are much
 10   different than reality, but much worse -- you
 11   could assume better or worse, usually it is much
 12   worse, so you can understand where should you be
 13   doing your monitoring to take care of these
 14   unanticipated events.  So you do the sensitivity
 15   analysis.
 16               What you do is assume that instead of
 17   say a silty till that there is sand, and if there
 18   is sand there instead of the silty till, how fast
 19   would it go down in towards the aquifer?
 20               All that analysis was done, which gave
 21   us a lot of comfort that they didn't, you know,
 22   they didn't try and just look at the expected case
 23   but wanted to look at what would be the
 24   unanticipated events so that they could better
 25   plan the monitoring network for the future.
00730
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  While we're waiting for
  2   that to come up on the screen, I wonder if you
  3   could address the issue, maybe we can address it
  4   as we go.  If you're ready, go ahead, we'll come
  5   back to that in a minute.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  Just to start where we
  7   were yesterday, because then it is easier to look
  8   at the map, this is the general, general flows
  9   coming from -- this is the map of the area and
 10   that's the floodway here, and this is Birds Hill,
 11   and the flow is going generally from east to west.
 12               Next -- then I just zoom in to show
 13   you where they did the -- I just zoomed in.  So
 14   this is the Birds Hill area.  They did additional
 15   localized, what is called contaminant transfer
 16   model, to see how things flow from the, or
 17   potentially could flow during a flood from four
 18   locations.  I have the general locations here.
 19   One is CPR -- there is two right around this area,
 20   we talked yesterday about Springhill, one at Oasis
 21   Road and one at Springhill.  And then at Dunning
 22   Road, this is the location where that lagoon
 23   discharge goes in around there.  So these four
 24   locations were studied in more detail.  And I just
 25   have a couple of examples that we had out of the
00731
  1   EIS.
  2               Next, this is in general, as I said in
  3   general the flow is from the Birds Hill aquifer
  4   down into the carbonate aquifer, and there's up,
  5   typically there's upwelling when there's not a
  6   flood.  When there's a flood, it can get to a
  7   level which is higher than the groundwater in some
  8   areas, but not higher than the East St. Paul
  9   wells.  Those are up quite high and they are well
 10   above even the flood level, so there's no
 11   potential to travel that way during the flood.
 12               Next slide.  Okay.  Yeah, those are
 13   out of the EIS figures from yesterday, I'm trying
 14   to remember what they are.  Yeah, figure 5.43,
 15   figure 5.41 for the map, general map, and then I
 16   focused in on the areas where the modelling was.
 17               Okay.  This is a cross section at
 18   Dunning Road from the KGS report, appendix P.
 19   It's also in the EIS figure 5.4-8.  What this
 20   shows is the expected situation and the effect of
 21   the project.  I'll go through these two.  This is
 22   the flood level for '97, so this is at the peak of
 23   the flood.  What they did was model the flood as
 24   it goes through the floodway, and they calibrated
 25   this.  There is wells located here.  I won't get
00732
  1   into the details of where all of the wells are,
  2   KGS can do that, but there is wells located and I
  3   think I had one sample out of there that shows
  4   what a calibration is.
  5               So what they do is they take samples
  6   of materials in this area, core samples, this is a
  7   silty till, the carbonate aquifer is down below
  8   here.  There is some other clay on these other
  9   sides.  And this area after the flood, this sort
 10   of yellowish area had intruded into the till as
 11   far as that, which is about a metre, a bit more
 12   than a metre.  This is what the expected case is.
 13               This water then, after the flood, the
 14   normal upwelling seepage from the carbonate
 15   aquifer upward into the floodway occurs, and
 16   within a year this is all recaptured.
 17               By widening the floodway, that's the
 18   dashed lines in the red here, you don't cause any
 19   greater vertical intrusion.  This is one of the
 20   other benefits of not deepening.  If deepening, of
 21   course, we would be moving, taking some over and
 22   moving a little closer towards the carbonate
 23   aquifer. By widening we don't cause any more
 24   vertical intrusion, just a bit more on the sides
 25   here.
00733
  1               I just wanted to talk a little bit
  2   more about the calibration.  Next slide is that.
  3   This is a little blurred, but this is out of the
  4   appendix P -- appendix P, annex B I think, figure
  5   B-3, annex B of the appendix 3 report.  What this
  6   basically shows is what calibration is, in one
  7   sense, and then the groundwater flows.  And this
  8   shows that what they do is, during the period of
  9   the flood, so you have records of water levels at
 10   these wells near this location and they -- okay, I
 11   just read this, this morning, but this is -- what
 12   they have shown is well data, and then they show
 13   the model superimposed on top of that.  And it's
 14   very, very close in each location here.  There is
 15   a little bit of a separation between what is
 16   predicted from the model and what was monitored
 17   during the time.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  So behind the big red
 19   hump line there, which is made up of a series of
 20   points, is that right?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  There is a blue model
 23   line that sort of peeks over the top there?
 24               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  It's a little difficult
00734
  1   to see that.
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, it is a little bit
  3   difficult to see it there.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  In fact, it coincides so
  5   closely.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  This one is a little bit,
  7   this one they separate slightly here, there's
  8   little round circles and there is bigger sort of
  9   diamonds, and that is the separation of -- you
 10   know, that's a very accurate, very close
 11   calibration, very tight calibration.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  So, in fact, your model
 13   in this case produces some results that we can
 14   have some confidence in?
 15               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, the KGS model.  I
 16   said I have reviewed it, they did the modelling
 17   and I reviewed it.  And this information is all
 18   available in the reports.  It gives us confidence
 19   that modelling done well, there's enough
 20   information, and we have confidence that this
 21   model can then be used to predict situations in
 22   the future.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  I don't want to belabour
 24   the thing, but since we stumbled over this at the
 25   beginning of our deliberations this week, it seems
00735
  1   important to follow this through to some kind of
  2   conclusion.  And that leads us then back to the
  3   question of monitoring.
  4               Have you a way of monitoring to make
  5   sure that after a flood event you can tell
  6   whether, in fact, there's been intrusion into
  7   important water bearing strata, under the
  8   floodway, there's been intrusion of floodway water
  9   into that area?  I'm thinking bacteriological
 10   contamination when I say this.  But when you
 11   sample water, you sample water for whatever you're
 12   going to use it for.
 13               MR. PETERSON:  Peterson speaking.  In
 14   section 12 of the supplementary filing we outlined
 15   a couple of things.  One would be the
 16   environmental protection plans that would be in
 17   place during construction, and the other was
 18   monitoring and follow-up plans will be developed.
 19   In that is a section on groundwater.  It's only a
 20   paragraph because that's -- what we're outlining
 21   is what we will do.
 22               There will be a monitoring follow-up
 23   plan developed that will designate the monitoring
 24   well network, where they will be, what they will
 25   be sampled for, the frequency of sampling, and
00736
  1   basically outline a monitoring plan.  That plan
  2   has not yet been developed.  And what we have
  3   committed to do would be to have that plan in
  4   place and approved by the regulatory agencies.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  I think one of the
  6   things that we are sensitive to is that things in
  7   the future need to be, we need to have some
  8   confidence that they are actually going to happen.
  9   Not that I don't trust you, I'm simply indicating
 10   that we need to recommend something that is
 11   specific, rather than a general idea -- rather
 12   than a general idea that it's going to happen
 13   sometime.
 14               MR. PETERSON:  The Commission is
 15   hearing the evidence on this project, and the
 16   purpose of this hearing is for the Commission to
 17   make recommendations to the decision makers.  So
 18   if that is an item that the Commission feels
 19   strongly about, they could make such a
 20   recommendation that would say that we not only
 21   propose to do this, but we actually do it.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Actually, in the EIS,
 23   page 5-28, our recommendation as accepted by the
 24   Floodway Authority says,
 25               "Monitoring of groundwater quality in
00737
  1               the western side of the floodway
  2               should be done following a large flood
  3               to verify movement in effect of
  4               surface water intrusion."
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  So that's a commitment
  7   there.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  I guess I am
  9   wanting to make sure that we decide how many
 10   monitoring wells and where they should be placed
 11   and that sort of thing, so that what's put in
 12   place in fact does the job you need to do.
 13               MR. MORGAN:  I will explain a little
 14   bit more about how the -- can you flip forward two
 15   slides?  This is the -- I want to make this very
 16   clear what sensitivity analysis is, because it's
 17   in the EIS, it is in the drawings, so people
 18   flipping them open don't get overly concerned.
 19               What is done is a sensitivity
 20   analysis.  And in this case, what is assumed is
 21   this area is not silty till, as it is, it's a
 22   hundred orders of magnitude more permeable -- not
 23   hundred orders of magnitude, hundred times more
 24   permeable, two orders of magnitude.  So it's
 25   basically saying simply, well, if we replace this
00738
  1   with sand, what would happen?
  2               This tells you sort of where things
  3   could go if you were, you know, if there was --
  4   this is sort of a potential thing, it's not
  5   likely.  And a lot of people will talk about,
  6   you'll see in submissions by experts from
  7   participants, they talk about there's a potential
  8   for this, there's a potential for that, did you
  9   look at this?  Yes, it was looked at.  That is
 10   what sensitivity analysis is.
 11               Potential is not expected.  Expected
 12   is what we evaluate when we do the assessment.
 13   Potential is what we use to determine where should
 14   we be doing additional monitoring in order to
 15   ensure that, you know, in order to catch these
 16   unanticipated events in the future, if they are,
 17   you know -- that is what sensitivity analysis is
 18   used for.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  All right.  What I
 20   understood this diagram to show was that even
 21   under these circumstances, to a large extent, the
 22   infiltration is largely self-correcting, although
 23   it's not entirely self-correcting.
 24               MR. MORGAN:  No, some of it still
 25   potentially could move to the west.  Although even
00739
  1   in this unrepresented state, it takes -- at the
  2   locations I think it varied from half a year to
  3   ten years to get to the right-of-way.  And so
  4   that's under this unrepresented condition of ten
  5   to a hundred times faster flow than we really
  6   think could be happening.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  So understanding that
  8   the floodway in its expanded state would cause
  9   infiltration that is self-correcting, almost
 10   certainly, where would you like there to be
 11   monitoring wells to be able to demonstrate that
 12   the groundwater is not affected adjacent to the
 13   floodway?
 14               MR. MORGAN:  In these locations where
 15   there was already -- well, these locations that
 16   when we did the sensitivity analysis showed that
 17   the, you know, it's coming out, potentially coming
 18   towards the west.  These are the areas where
 19   you'll be putting monitoring, like Dunning Road,
 20   at Springhill, Oasis Road to the west, that says
 21   at the CPR.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Because of the
 23   tendency --
 24               MR. MORGAN:  We identified a lot of
 25   those in P, a lot of those areas.  As Mr. Smith
00740
  1   said, as they come along and there's more
  2   investigation and understanding, you'll see where
  3   there's potential for a little bit lower
  4   permeability or higher permeability, and that's
  5   where you'd want to have monitoring wells.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you very much.
  7               MR. REMPEL:  Dr.  Webster, you
  8   mentioned raw sewage entering the floodway.  There
  9   has been discussion over that earlier.  Would you
 10   like us to expand a bit on that event that led to
 11   that publicity about that concern?
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  I think that would be
 13   helpful, yes.
 14               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. McNeil can provide
 15   some explanation there?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  What occurred in November
 17   of 2004 was discharge of raw sewage, combined with
 18   storm water from the Transcona/Kildare land
 19   drainage trunk sewer.  The sewer is a land
 20   drainage or a storm sewer, it is designed to take
 21   the storm water runoff, snow melt runoff from the
 22   entire Transcona area and discharge it into the
 23   floodway, which is normally the case.
 24               However, in November of 2004, the raw
 25   sewage got into the storm system by way of cross
00741
  1   connections between the sanitary or wastewater
  2   sewer system and the storm system.  It is standard
  3   practice in the industry in North America with the
  4   two pipe system to have these cross connection to
  5   prevent basement flooding, as well as risk to
  6   public health if raw sewage should get back into
  7   the basements, when there are incidences.
  8               In this case, the city, when the city
  9   was alerted -- MFA was also alerted about the
 10   incident -- but when the city first heard about
 11   the incident from the Public Health Department,
 12   which was informed of the incident from one of the
 13   participant's engineering consultants that was
 14   doing testing out in the floodway of the surface
 15   water, the city reacted immediately.  They sent
 16   out people and they investigated to find out where
 17   these cross connections, or where these cross
 18   connections were overflowing, and then determined
 19   that there were three locations that had grease
 20   buildup in the sanitary sewer, which then backed
 21   up the sanitary sewer and overflowed into the
 22   storm sewer.
 23               The city has carried on with their
 24   monitoring, and they are still doing monitoring
 25   today because they are still getting at that
00742
  1   outflow fecal coliform levels that shouldn't be
  2   there, substantially reduced from November, but
  3   still having a problem, they are still
  4   investigating.
  5               I guess the only other thing is that
  6   the reason that there was significant land
  7   drainage being discharged into the floodway at
  8   that time was that they were draining a storm
  9   water retention basin that is used for storage and
 10   for attenuating summer discharges and spring
 11   runoff events.  In advance of the consideration
 12   that there may be a significant spring runoff
 13   event in the city this year, they are discharging
 14   from that pond.  That could also be the source of
 15   some of the contaminants.
 16               So that was the situation.  It's
 17   typical in any of these storm and sanitary systems
 18   to have these cross connections to prevent
 19   basement flooding backup and risk to public
 20   health, but not normal.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  What you're implying
 22   then is this was an unusual occurrence?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  It's an infrequent
 24   occurrence, and the project itself has no effect
 25   on whether those occur or not.
00743
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  Similarly, there was a
  2   referral at that same time to possible
  3   infiltration into the floodway from the east, from
  4   the area just south of Birds Hill, I think it was,
  5   into the floodway.  Is that also an unusual
  6   occurrence, or is it treated sewage?  What is it
  7   that --
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, Dr Webster, I
  9   don't know what incident --
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  There was a mention, it
 11   was outside of the hearing, outside of the hearing
 12   context, but there was an indication of concern by
 13   local residents of inflow into the floodway from
 14   that lagoon area just south of Dunning Road.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Oh, you're talking about
 16   the lagoon that services the trailer park adjacent
 17   to Birds Hill Park?
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  That's right.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  I don't think there was
 20   any unusual incident.  It was just that when I was
 21   on the tour with Mr. Jonasson, he just pointed out
 22   that there was a lagoon discharging into the
 23   floodway.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  That is treated, that
 25   is --
00744
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Yeah, a lagoon is
  2   treated.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  -- in the normal way
  4   when these things are discharged, the water goes
  5   into a water course, that is not raw sewage.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  No.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  And they would have a
  8   licence for that facility.
  9               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Smith would like to
 10   make one more comment on monitoring, if you
 11   please.
 12               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I'd just
 13   like to clarify.  Appendix O of the preliminary
 14   engineering report includes a compilation of all
 15   of the investigation works done both from a
 16   geotechnical and the groundwater perspective, and
 17   we would quite often test for parameters to help
 18   both ends.
 19               Now, in addition to that there is
 20   several other appendices.  I can read them out
 21   just quickly here; appendix G, focus on the
 22   channel; appendix J, on the bridge investigations;
 23   K was test excavations along the channel; and M
 24   was groundwater.  In addition, we had a
 25   supplementary report on Oasis Road.
00745
  1               And just to sum up that work, in
  2   total, just in this program in the last couple of
  3   years, we've had about 338 holes, out of those 83
  4   had hydrometer analysis, which tells you the grain
  5   size in the small end fraction, the clay silt
  6   size, as well as clay content on another 143.  And
  7   the reason I mentioned that is, it gave us a very
  8   high confidence level in the till materials, and
  9   particularly from Highway 59 north up to Lockport,
 10   as the representative material there was
 11   consistently 40 to 60 per cent clay silt content,
 12   which in fact would classify as a clay, a low
 13   plasticity clay, rather than we typically have
 14   referred to this as a silt till.  So just so you
 15   can appreciate it is a relatively low permeability
 16   material.
 17               And notwithstanding that, certainly we
 18   recognize there's a potential for local isolated
 19   pockets of more permeable sandy or siltier
 20   materials.  And certainly that's, as Mr. Morgan
 21   has indicated, the non-representative case where
 22   we still have to be prepared for that.  But
 23   that's --
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd like to ask a few
 25   more questions on this area.
00746
  1               In the construction phase, you have an
  2   environmental protection plan that you are putting
  3   in place.  Is sampling for bacteriological and
  4   contaminants of concern being considered for that
  5   period during construction?  Is that being, is
  6   that something that you would extend -- first of
  7   all, are you planning to do it during the
  8   construction phase, which is the time during which
  9   you may have enhanced possibility of
 10   contamination?
 11               MR. PETERSON:  Yes, Dr. Webster, that
 12   is part of the -- we are considering the
 13   parameters right now, which of the bacteriological
 14   parameters we will be looking for, we will be just
 15   looking at total coliform, fecal coliform, e.coli,
 16   which are the chemicals, which are the nutrients,
 17   which are the pesticides.  So we're in that
 18   process right now in our spare time working on
 19   those programs.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  And would that program
 21   be carried on after the construction period?
 22               MR. PETERSON:  They are broken up into
 23   two parts.  One is the construction environmental
 24   protection plan, and then the other part is the
 25   ongoing long-term monitoring and follow up plan.
00747
  1   Right now we're focusing on the construction
  2   phase, but we're also in that thinking what
  3   information will be useful in the long-term and
  4   what information will be carried over.  So they
  5   will be submitted as two separate plans but the
  6   thinking will be linked.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  It's possible you may
  8   install additional monitoring wells during
  9   construction to make sure that things are going
 10   the way you want them to go; is that correct?
 11               MR. PETERSON:  Yes.  We'll be working
 12   with the technical advisors.  And that is one of
 13   the reasons why this process isn't speeding up a
 14   little bit, because we have to work out those
 15   administrative things, like contracts and stuff
 16   like that.  So that's why we're at that phase now.
 17   We had indicated earlier that we will be doing
 18   that work a little later, but we're doing it right
 19   now for administrative reasons.  So, you know,
 20   it's all going to be laid out.
 21               At what we have committed as both
 22   would be -- both plans would be submitted to the
 23   regulators for approval before implementing them.
 24   The construction plans we said would be approved
 25   before we start construction.
00748
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  Backing away to a
  2   slightly more generalized question, but
  3   nevertheless an important one.  Because the
  4   floodway, in fact, extracts water from an aquifer,
  5   because it's currently not licenced, but it's
  6   anticipated it is likely to be licenced in the
  7   course of the process we're going through, has the
  8   groundwater discharge to the floodway been the
  9   subject of licencing?  Generally speaking this is
 10   done in other jurisdictions.  Have you in fact
 11   addressed that issue?
 12               MR. PETERSON:  I think one thing we
 13   would have to say is that the floodway does not
 14   extract water, it accidentally intercepts water.
 15   It's not our purpose to do that.
 16               In the supplementary, in one of the
 17   responses, and I can't remember if it's in the
 18   information requests or in the supplementary
 19   filing, there was a question about that, whether
 20   or not a water rights authorization was required,
 21   and Water Stewardship I believe indicated that
 22   they were not required.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  As I say, it's a
 24   practice in other jurisdictions, I understand, for
 25   that to be a licenced water, not exactly use, but
00749
  1   certainly it represents an exploitation of a water
  2   resource to allow it to drain away under those
  3   circumstances.
  4               MR. PETERSON:  Again, we're not
  5   licensing authority.  Manitoba Water Stewardship,
  6   there is a Water Rights Act that says when you
  7   need licences and when you don't.  For example,
  8   they said we would need licence permits or
  9   authorizations in order to dewater during the
 10   construction of the bridges, so we will be making
 11   those applications.
 12               We just had a response called up and
 13   it indicates that under the Water Rights Act in
 14   Manitoba there isn't a requirement for licensing
 15   of the floodway structure -- oh, sorry, it's in
 16   response to the three rural municipalities and
 17   it's information response number 4A.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Mr. Motheral.
 20               MR. MOTHERAL:  Yes, as you can see --
 21   to the authority -- this is a huge, huge issue for
 22   the municipalities, the issue of groundwater.
 23   It's in pretty well every one of their
 24   presentation, and you will probably hear more
 25   about this yet.
00750
  1               I think, I believe there is a need to
  2   demonstrate that there is a comfort level that the
  3   water will not be affected, and if so, it needs to
  4   be mitigated in some ways.  So it is just that
  5   it's a very, very important issue to the
  6   surrounding municipalities.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  On that moment I think
  8   we'll take a break for 15 minutes, so please come
  9   back at quarter to 11:00.  Immediately after the
 10   break, the first item of business will be a
 11   presentation by Mr. Robert Millman of Grande
 12   Pointe, and that will be 10 or 15 minutes and then
 13   we'll get back into cross-examining the proponent.
 14   
 15               (Proceedings adjourned  at 10:30 a.m.
 16               and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
 17   
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we come back to
 19   order.  Mr. Robert Millman, if you could take the
 20   seat at the front of the table, please?  The
 21   proponent panel can stay in the general area until
 22   Mr. Millman is concluded, right at the first
 23   chairs at the end of the table.
 24               Would you please state your name for
 25   the record?
00751
  1               MR. MILLMAN:  Robert Millman.
  2   
  3               (ROBERT MILLMAN: SWORN)
  4   
  5               MR. MILLMAN:  Good morning, Mr.
  6   Chairman, members of the Clean Environment
  7   Commission, other distinguished representatives
  8   and stakeholders.  My name is Bob Millman.  I live
  9   at 2124 Southside Road in the RM of Ritchot.  My
 10   home is located on the south side of the road
 11   approximately 500 yards east of the newly
 12   constructed Seine River diversion.
 13               And if I could just direct the members
 14   of the Commission, I have included a rough map of
 15   my location, four pages beyond the first page so
 16   you can see where I am.
 17               I'm here today to present my concerns
 18   about the potential for my area and those areas
 19   further east becoming a basin which could
 20   periodically flood with polluted water from the
 21   Red River Floodway, as a direct result of the
 22   construction of the Seine River Diversion and the
 23   proposed gapping of the south wall of the floodway
 24   embankment around its drop structure.
 25               I will start by giving a little
00752
  1   history as to why I'm here today.  I moved into my
  2   home in '92, and in '97 I successfully protected
  3   it from flooding by building a four to four and a
  4   half foot dyke.  The flood waters that engulfed my
  5   area came from the west, crossing over Highway 59
  6   in an easterly direction.
  7               The Grande Pointe Dyke and Seine River
  8   Diversion were subsequently constructed, and I was
  9   lead to believe at the time that they would afford
 10   me a good level of protection from future
 11   flooding.  However, after personally observing the
 12   water levels in the diversion and floodway in the
 13   spring of 2004, I became concerned about the
 14   potential of that diversion to flow backwards and
 15   flood the area east of it.
 16               My concerns were well founded, I
 17   learned, after making inquiries with the Water
 18   Stewardship branch and receiving a copy of the
 19   Acres office memorandum, dated February 15, 2002,
 20   (Addendum One).  I was shocked at what I read and
 21   was in disbelief that this information had been
 22   known by government and had not been widely
 23   shared.  Had I known this information when the
 24   window of opportunity for flood proofing existed,
 25   I would have followed through with my initial
00753
  1   application.
  2               My subsequent pursuit of answers to my
  3   questions and concerns has been very frustrating
  4   since that time.  I have raised my concerns, both
  5   privately and in writing, as a concerned citizen
  6   with the Floodway Expansion Authority and publicly
  7   as a participant in an environmental impact study
  8   session.  So far I believe my concerns have fallen
  9   on deaf ears.
 10               My belief that the Seine River
 11   Diversion has the potential for causing flooding
 12   in the area east of Grande Pointe seems to be well
 13   accepted as factual.  (Addendum 1 - Acres Office
 14   Memorandum and addendum 3 - letter from the
 15   Floodway Expansion Authority.)  Regrettably that
 16   seems to be the only point where I have found
 17   agreement with the Water Stewardship branch or the
 18   Floodway Expansion Authority, that this part of
 19   Grande Pointe and areas further east can be
 20   flooded by polluted Red River water flowing in a
 21   southerly direction out of the floodway, and
 22   spilling over the banks of the diversion or Seine
 23   River, periodically and predictably, is simply
 24   unacceptable to me and others who would be
 25   negatively impacted.
00754
  1               The matter of fact manner of
  2   presentation of this fact by the Floodway
  3   Expansion Authority communicates no concern about
  4   it whatsoever.  In fact, the tone seems somewhat
  5   self-congratulatory and invitational of gratitude
  6   for the improvement to be realized over the 1997
  7   flood levels.
  8               At no time during several meetings
  9   that I have attended, nor in conversations or
 10   communications that I have had with authorities,
 11   has anyone expressed any concern for the
 12   environment in our area as a result of periodic
 13   flooding.  The underlying premise of the Acres
 14   memorandum and letter from the Floodway Expansion
 15   Authority is that the area will be better off than
 16   it was in 1997, as if the 1997 flood peak was
 17   natural.
 18               I believe the flood levels experienced
 19   in 1997 in the Grande Pointe area and points
 20   further east were made artificially high by the
 21   timing and/or rate at which the flood gates were
 22   raised, by the inadequacy of the floodway entrance
 23   to accommodate the abundance of flood water, and
 24   by the earthen plugs placed in the ditch at the
 25   floodway bridge which prevented water from flowing
00755
  1   out of Grande Pointe and into the floodway.
  2               The premise of the Acres memorandum
  3   and of the Floodway Expansion Authority seems to
  4   be that the 1997 peak levels were natural, and we
  5   have the benefit of improvements already made and
  6   will continue to benefit when the expansion is
  7   completed.
  8               The improvements already made, as I
  9   understand it, are largely attributable to the
 10   notching which has taken place on the southern
 11   embankment of the floodway between St. Mary's Road
 12   and Highway 59.  While I don't lack appreciation
 13   for the value of this improvement, for those of us
 14   living east of the Seine River Diversion it is
 15   hard to get excited about it when flood waters
 16   have now been provided a channel to spill out into
 17   our area.  We would have enjoyed the same level of
 18   complete protection as Grande Pointe within the
 19   ring dyke, 1997 level plus two feet, had the Seine
 20   River diversion not been constructed.
 21               The improved situation theme that runs
 22   through the correspondence that I have received
 23   from the Floodway Expansion Authority, I first
 24   found perplexingly persuasive.  However, realizing
 25   that polluted Red River floodwater can flood my
00756
  1   area periodically and predictably quickly
  2   extinguishes any sense of good fortune or
  3   gratitude.  I believe that flooding in the areas
  4   east of the diversion will occur periodically and
  5   will be damaging to our environment and costly to
  6   the homeowners and businesses.  The mere existence
  7   of the diversion and its drop structure guarantees
  8   this.
  9               I have the same protection as those
 10   inside the Grande Pointe ring dyke from
 11   floodwaters coming from the west and the south,
 12   but no protection from waters coming from the
 13   north through the diversion.
 14               I want to draw the attention of the
 15   Commission to several other points before closing.
 16   In the Acres memorandum all of the options for
 17   preventing flooding caused by the diversion appear
 18   to have been completely abandoned.
 19               Secondly, the improved situation theme
 20   can also be noted in the draft minutes of an
 21   environmental impact study meeting on
 22   September 13, 2004, addendum 4.
 23               Lastly, to date, in spite of my
 24   inquiries and requests, no authority has committed
 25   to paying compensation for losses caused by
00757
  1   flooding due to the creation of the Seine River
  2   diversion, with its potential to flood us
  3   unnaturally with Red River waters flowing from the
  4   north.
  5               This potential for flooding has not
  6   been completely publicized to all of those who
  7   would be directly affected, and there have been no
  8   offers to re-open a flood-proofing program.  I
  9   find these omissions especially concerning given
 10   the jeopardy in which the diversion's existence is
 11   putting us.
 12               Lastly, two questions I would like to
 13   leave the Commission with to further focus your
 14   attention.  What are the plans for checking wells
 15   east of the diversion, and how would the water
 16   quality of our wells and aquifer be restored if
 17   they were negatively impacted by periodic
 18   flooding?  But more importantly and generally,
 19   what is the history of flooding in the RM of
 20   Ritchot prior to the construction of the floodway,
 21   and what moral and ethical issues does that
 22   history raise?
 23               On behalf of all of us living east of
 24   the Seine River Diversion, I would like to thank
 25   all members of this Commission for their time and
00758
  1   attention to the matters that I have raised.  I
  2   place my trust in this Commission, this
  3   Commission's intent to squarely address these
  4   critical environmental issues.  Thank you very
  5   much.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Millman.
  7   Questions for clarification at this time?  Mr.
  8   Webster.
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  Mr. Millman, your use of
 10   the name Seine River Diversion raises in my mind
 11   some concerns, since I believe that this is a
 12   second Seine River Diversion, is it not?  Is there
 13   not also another Seine River Diversion?
 14               MR. MILLMAN:  I believe there is.  I'm
 15   talking about the one that parallels Highway 59
 16   just south of the floodway bridge.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  And this flows --
 18               MR. MILLMAN:  Newly constructed.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  This does not flow in a
 20   westerly direction into the Red River, but flows
 21   in a northerly direction into the flood --
 22               MR. MILLMAN:  It flows in a northerly
 23   direction, in a desirable way under normal
 24   circumstances, preventing an excess of water going
 25   into Grande Pointe which is now ring dyked.  In
00759
  1   adverse conditions, it is known to flow backwards.
  2   And part of my concern is that that information
  3   has sat with the Government for a few years.  And
  4   I was not advised of this, nor my -- it was only
  5   through my own investigation this spring and the
  6   concerns that I observed that I pursued it -- that
  7   I received the Acres memo, which is addendum
  8   number 1, which clearly states that back in 2002,
  9   that it can and will flow backwards under certain
 10   circumstances.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Just a couple of further
 12   points of clarification.  Your map is helpful.  I
 13   would like, though, for us to understand where the
 14   Grande Pointe dyke surrounding the community is
 15   situated.  Now, part of it is along Highway 59; is
 16   that right?
 17               MR. MILLMAN:  Yes.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Where does it go from
 19   there?
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  I believe it is Mondor
 21   Road that continues that dyke.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Is it to the west of
 23   Highway 59?
 24               MR. MILLMAN:  It is, it goes to the
 25   west of Highway 59 and around.
00760
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  And the northern
  2   boundary of it, is it along the floodway?
  3               MR. MILLMAN:  Yes.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  Is the Seine River
  5   itself on the outside of that dyke, or does it
  6   flow through the dyke area?
  7               MR. MILLMAN:  The Seine River goes
  8   into Grande Pointe, and the part that goes in is
  9   within the ring dyke.  The diversion, as shown on
 10   the little map that I sketched, is outside of the
 11   ring dyke.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  So that under flood
 13   conditions, is the Seine River in its natural
 14   channel somehow blocked?
 15               MR. MILLMAN:  Can you repeat your
 16   question, please?
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Under flood conditions,
 18   is the Seine River in its natural channel which
 19   flows through Grande Pointe, is that blocked?
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  It goes under Highway 59
 21   in culverts.  I can't tell you whether there are
 22   controls on those culverts or not.  A lot of the
 23   water last spring, I can tell you, was directed
 24   down the Seine River diversion, as you see it on
 25   the sketch of that map.
00761
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  So there is some kind of
  2   a structure that is either --
  3               MR. MILLMAN:  A drop structure.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  That is associated with
  5   its passage under Highway 59 and the flow, the
  6   excess flow goes down the diversion?
  7               MR. MILLMAN:  Yes, and there is a drop
  8   structure at the end of the diversion where it
  9   enters the floodway.  This is detailed very
 10   carefully by Acres in their memorandum which is
 11   addendum one.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  And the last
 13   question then is, the Seine River diversion that
 14   you are talking about was installed in 2003 or
 15   2004?
 16               MR. MILLMAN:  I believe it was 2002 or
 17   2003.  There are many people here that know.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  It has only been present
 19   for a couple of years?
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  Correct.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Millman.
 22               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we
 23   could add Mr. Millman's presentation as exhibit
 24   47.
 25   
00762
  1               (EXHIBIT 47:  Presentation by Robert
  2               Millman)
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we have the
  4   floodway team back up?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, would you like
  6   an explanation of the situation surrounding
  7   Mr. Millman's property?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  How did you guess?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  Just give me a minute to
 10   call up the information.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps not only
 12   Mr. Millman's specific property, but just the
 13   general area and the general issue of this
 14   diversion?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, that was my plan.
 16               Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm going to call up
 17   a diagram so I can explain the situation in the
 18   Grande Pointe and Seine River diversion area.
 19               So let me just explain this diagram.
 20   This is from appendix H of the preliminary
 21   engineering reports, and it is the location plan
 22   figure 2-1.  It is an area map.  It shows the
 23   floodway pretty much in the centre of the screen
 24   starting at the Red River, and then moving in the
 25   northeasterly direction.  This is the Seine River
00763
  1   here.  This white line is Highway 59, Southside
  2   Road is either this one or this one, I think it is
  3   this one, which Mr. Millman lives on.  And in 2001
  4   and 2002, the Grande Pointe dyke was complete.
  5   And that was one of the community ring dykes that
  6   was undertaken under the Canada/Manitoba/Red River
  7   Valley Flood Protection Program.  And it was built
  8   generally to 1997 plus two, although a couple of
  9   the legs were raised because of concerns over
 10   wind.
 11               Here is the south embankment of the
 12   floodway, and the east leg of the Grande Pointe
 13   dyke is Highway 59 down to Mondor Road, which I
 14   think is right here.  And then -- sorry, in the
 15   vicinity of the Seine River is still Highway 59
 16   and then Mondor Road, and then the dyke follows
 17   the CPR Emerson subdivision to the north as the
 18   west leg of the dyke, and at some point crosses
 19   over the rail line, and then runs up north towards
 20   the south embankment of the floodway, somewhere
 21   west of Hallama Drive here.
 22               Now that this is a dyked community,
 23   there could be a situation when the Seine River
 24   peaks in a spring runoff scenario that it could
 25   flood the dyke community from within.  So a gated
00764
  1   control structure was put on the Seine River
  2   underneath Highway 59, and a diversion channel was
  3   constructed all along Highway 59 on its east side
  4   from the Seine River going north, and then with a
  5   drop structure at the floodway in the south
  6   embankment.
  7               Mr. Millman's concern is that when the
  8   floodway is at a certain peak elevation, that
  9   water will back up and reach, back up in the ditch
 10   system that leads -- sorry, let me add that the
 11   ditches that used to flow to the Seine River or to
 12   the Highway 59 ditch were intercepted by the new
 13   diversion channel.  So the ditch along this road
 14   and the Southside Road, and Prairie Grove Road up
 15   here, now discharge into, or were intercepted by
 16   that Seine River Diversion channel leading to the
 17   floodway.
 18               So now what I want to show you is a
 19   table, let me just find it, which summarizes the
 20   situation in this area.  And this is relating to
 21   water levels right at the drop structure of the
 22   Seine River Diversion.  This is table 6-1 in
 23   appendix H.  So these elevations relate to the
 24   water level on the prairie immediately upstream of
 25   the drop structure for the Seine River Diversion.
00765
  1   So this would be on the south side of the floodway
  2   embankment on the prairie.
  3               At the time of the 1997 flood, and I
  4   think I mentioned this in my presentation, the '97
  5   flood did spill over into the highway -- east of
  6   the Highway 59 area, and the peak water level was
  7   771.9.  And that would be very similar to the
  8   water level at the gentleman's residence, and at a
  9   depth on the prairie, or a depth in his yard of
 10   approximately 4.4 feet.  And he actually confirmed
 11   that in public consultation when we dug up his
 12   information about ground elevation and whatnot.
 13               Now, the current situation with the
 14   Grande Pointe dyke in place and the existing
 15   floodway channel, and the two east embankment
 16   gaps, and with the Grande Pointe drop structure,
 17   because of the more efficient entrance of water
 18   into the floodway, if we had a repeat of 1997 with
 19   all of these gaps, even though we have the same
 20   channel, then the water level would be 769.0 at
 21   his residence, or one and a half feet above the
 22   landscape, above the ground.  And after the
 23   floodway is complete, the capacity of the floodway
 24   will improve that situation again and, in fact, it
 25   will be below prairie.  We have indicated here
00766
  1   that prairie at that structure is 767.5 feet above
  2   sea level, and the water level in the floodway
  3   backing up will be 765.5 for a 1997 flood.
  4               Now, the Highway 59 is generally above
  5   the 1997 level, even south of Grande Pointe.
  6   There are, though, culvert openings through it.
  7   So it acts partly as a dyke, there are culvert
  8   openings so that the water would eventually get
  9   through that area and get into the drainage
 10   system.  But the real benefit to his area
 11   immediately east of Highway 59 is the new gaps
 12   such that that water in the flood plain will get
 13   more efficiently into the floodway and provide a
 14   lower water level of almost 3 feet.
 15               In the 700 year flood, and actually
 16   for any flood bigger than 1997, you will start
 17   seeing higher water levels in the floodway, of
 18   course, but also on the landscape.  And so a 700
 19   year flood during the 1997 conditions would have
 20   been 778.3.  And then with the current changes in
 21   the area, because of the gaps, it would drop by .3
 22   of a foot.  So 700 year flood definitely floods
 23   over the top of Highway 59 and floods a wider area
 24   further to the east.  But with the gaps that drops
 25   that elevation by .3 of a foot over the 1997
00767
  1   situation.  And then when the floodway is built,
  2   there is a slight benefit again because of the
  3   capacity of the floodway and because of the new
  4   gap at the drop structure.
  5               So there are instances, though,
  6   between '97 -- well, actually, with a '97 flood up
  7   to the 700 year flood that, yes, the floodway
  8   elevation will be higher than the landscape, but
  9   the flood level on the landscape from the overland
 10   flooding from the Red River will always be higher.
 11               And one of the other concerns that
 12   they have is that, in this area, is that they
 13   believe that they are going to see flooding from
 14   the Seine River because of the diversion channel.
 15   And I can't recall what the diversion channel,
 16   what the event it was designed to.  But we looked
 17   at the records of the coincidence of the Seine
 18   River peaking and the Red River peaking, and
 19   although you can't say that will never happen,
 20   typically what happens is the Seine River does
 21   peak long before the Red River peaks, so it will
 22   always be able to discharge into the floodway
 23   before you saw the influence of the Red River
 24   flooding overland and reaching that area.  And
 25   that's -- I will leave it at that.
00768
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  How about his concern
  2   about the diversion backing up, and that would
  3   have nothing to do with the peak on the Seine,
  4   that would be the peak on the Red, would it not?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Right, but it will always
  6   be left then whatever water -- whatever flood
  7   event creates the elevation in the floodway is
  8   also creating overland flooding into his area, and
  9   so although there will be water backing up into
 10   that drainage system because it is below the
 11   landscape, the water on the landscape will always
 12   be higher, so that water will always be draining
 13   to the floodway, the water that would affect his
 14   property and other properties.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for
 16   that explanation, Mr. McNeil.
 17               I think we will go back to Mr.
 18   Webster, who has a few more questions on
 19   groundwater issues.  Following that I have a
 20   handful of short snappers that hopefully will
 21   conclude.  Mr. Webster.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  This question is one
 23   that relates to municipal water supply wells, and
 24   the question is:  Is the Floodway Authority
 25   planning to establish a well head sanitary
00769
  1   protection zone around all municipal water supply
  2   wells located in the areas adjacent to the
  3   floodway?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Bert Smith, Dr. Webster.
  5   I understand the question is basically well head
  6   protection of municipal wells.  I guess the prime
  7   responsibility for that really lies with the
  8   municipality.  The protection of the well systems
  9   are, obviously they are subject to a lot of
 10   different possible sources of contamination.  And
 11   I guess the closest one to the floodway is the
 12   four Oasis Road wells.  Up gradient of the
 13   floodway you have got an unconfined aquifer
 14   situation with a lot of different potential
 15   sources, whether it be septic fields or open
 16   gravel pit activities by contractors.
 17               So certainly it is important that the
 18   municipality recognizes that, and I'm sure they
 19   do, and they are testing their water regularly and
 20   using appropriate measures to ensure that the
 21   water is potable.
 22               There is also this question of a
 23   potential for infiltration of water from the
 24   floodway to the wells -- and me just be clear --
 25   you are wondering about what well head protection
00770
  1   measures the Floodway Authority are considering
  2   relative to the expansion project?
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  I think, again,
  4   this comes under the category of making sure that
  5   the floodway is effectively protecting itself,
  6   that is the Authority is protecting itself by
  7   making sure that the contamination likelihood from
  8   other sources is minimized.
  9               We have been through questions
 10   relating to the likelihood of infiltration into
 11   the aquifer from the floodway.  This is a question
 12   of protecting the well head from contamination so
 13   that, in fact, difficulties are minimized,
 14   difficulties of all sorts in terms of
 15   contamination.
 16               I guess I'm not necessarily implying
 17   that the Floodway Authority must itself pay for
 18   the well head sanitary protection zone, it may or
 19   may not be the case that there is contribution
 20   required, but the establishment of a protection
 21   zone around the municipal wells is important to
 22   make sure that those wells are not going to cause
 23   you any problems.
 24               MR. SMITH:  Yes, I guess in that
 25   regard certainly the Clean Environment Commission
00771
  1   can recommend to the Municipality of East St. Paul
  2   to undertake the appropriate measures.  Quite
  3   often on any well, certainly municipal wells as
  4   well, the problem will start with the way the well
  5   is finished, the details of grouting and sealing
  6   at the surface, and in the immediate subsurface
  7   around the annulus of the well, and to ensure that
  8   there is no pathways for any surface contaminants
  9   to get down into the well.  And that is certainly
 10   a very important consideration.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  My point is, it is in
 12   the interests of the Floodway Authority to ensure
 13   that those wells are in top condition?
 14               MR. SMITH:  Certainly it is, I agree
 15   with you.  And again, that's not really the
 16   Floodway Authority's place to be instructing the
 17   municipality how to maintain their well, but we
 18   would welcome any recommendations on the part of
 19   the Clean Environment Commission to that end.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  All right.  Would you
 21   provide information summarizing any incidents of
 22   bacteriological and/or chemical impact on
 23   groundwater users since the start of the floodway
 24   operation?
 25               I understand in your response number
00772
  1   18 to CEC request for information that you have
  2   indicated no impacts were recorded.  I wondered if
  3   you would provide information summarizing any
  4   incidents that you are aware of in that period,
  5   for the record?
  6               MR. SMITH:  We are not aware of any
  7   data supporting contamination as a result of
  8   floodway intrusion.  The only incident that I'm
  9   aware of is anecdotal, speaking to a resident when
 10   we had an open house up in the Lockport area, a
 11   well I guess on the west side of the floodway, one
 12   resident indicated that she had noticed some
 13   discolouring of the water for a short period
 14   during the 1997 flood.  And I had asked at the
 15   time if any samples had been analysed, but
 16   unfortunately there weren't.  So I don't have any
 17   specific data that you are referring to on
 18   bacteriological.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Bacteriological and/or
 20   chemical.
 21               MR. SMITH:  And/or chemical with
 22   respect to any influences of floodway?
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  That's right, I'm
 24   wondering if you have any monitoring records that
 25   can be used in that sense?
00773
  1               MR. SMITH:  Well, the Provincial
  2   Government has periodically monitored the wells
  3   along the right-of-way during flood events, and
  4   did some very, on a couple of occasions, fairly
  5   rigorous sampling of the chemistry.  I guess the
  6   bottom line there is, there is some mixed data.
  7   In some cases looking at the data you could say
  8   there appears to be a change during a flood event
  9   and that could be attributed to possible water
 10   effects, however, those similar type of changes
 11   have also been noted in the years where there was
 12   no flood.  So it is not a clear indication there.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Again, this looks as if
 14   it indicates that the monitoring system needs to
 15   be better than it has been along the floodway.  Is
 16   that correct?
 17               MR. SMITH:  Well, the monitoring on
 18   those particular events certainly was good data.
 19   I agree it would be prudent to increase the
 20   frequency of monitoring and certainly add
 21   additional wells along the floodway in sensitive
 22   areas.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  Finally then, is the
 24   Floodway Authority actively looking at ways of
 25   making sure that the monitoring system along the
00774
  1   length of the floodway meets these kinds of needs
  2   and criteria?
  3               MR. SMITH:  Yes, that's part of the --
  4   the program prior to construction will be to
  5   develop that monitoring program in conjunction
  6   with the regulatory authorities, and certainly get
  7   input from the public and the RMs in that regard.
  8   We have had some discussions with individual
  9   homeowners, some who are very close to the edge of
 10   the floodway, and have indicated that we certainly
 11   would want to add their homes to the base program
 12   for ongoing monitoring of domestic wells, to try
 13   and get a representative case.
 14               The closest wells are probably in the
 15   order of 300 metres west of the floodway at some
 16   locations, and then there is other roads that are
 17   stepped back half a kilometre or a kilometre back.
 18   We are talking now in the section from Highway 59
 19   north up to Lockport I think is the most sensitive
 20   area.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, there have been
 22   some concerns that we have been talking about in
 23   the area of over the last hour and a half or so,
 24   concerns of the rural municipalities adjacent to
 25   the floodway.  In the course of our deliberations
00775
  1   it is possible that we might come up with the idea
  2   that an independent review is required of some of
  3   these concerns.  It is a possibility.  As a
  4   possibility, would the Floodway Authority consider
  5   participating in that kind of an exercise should
  6   it be necessary, beyond what we are doing?  Is
  7   it -- would you be willing to take part in that
  8   kind of review to help those folks?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, we would.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.
 11               MR. SMITH:  And maybe add to that,
 12   that regional modeling study by the province, that
 13   would be considered in our part certainly as an
 14   independent study.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Webster.
 17               I have a handful of questions on about
 18   three different areas, and I think they are
 19   relatively quick and short.  I would like to just
 20   go back to the area that I was canvassing earlier
 21   on the inlet structure, and a couple of questions.
 22   I believe, and I think it might have been, I'm not
 23   sure whose response, but somebody referred to, in
 24   respect of the gate redundancy issue there was
 25   reference to further study that was being done.
00776
  1   And I think there might have been reference to an
  2   expert panel that was looking at that.  Has that
  3   report been completed, or when will it be
  4   completed?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, we did have an
  6   independent expert review of the inlet control
  7   structure in the west dyke and the west embankment
  8   of the east dyke that occurred last fall, and we
  9   brought in experts with -- actually I will refer
 10   to our response in the CEC information requests --
 11   a response to CEC information request number 12E.
 12   We had five independent expert consultants come in
 13   with a workshop, they had long-term experience
 14   with prairie farm rehabilitation administration of
 15   the Federal Government, a retired director of dam
 16   safety for B.C. Hydro and others.  And they were
 17   tasked with looking at three things, the possible
 18   need for backup gates versus improved reliability,
 19   the design criteria for wind related to freeboard
 20   on the west dyke, and the flood stages at or near
 21   the design stage at the inlet control structure
 22   and the proposed invoking of emergency overflow
 23   operations.
 24               They have drafted a report, a summary
 25   of the discussions that were held at that
00777
  1   workshop.  Actually, it was drafted by the lead
  2   expert, and currently the other members of that
  3   expert team are reviewing and providing their
  4   comments to that document.  So we are hoping to
  5   get that in the next little while.
  6               Basically they had already given us
  7   some preliminary recommendations.  And one of them
  8   was that it was suggested by them that further
  9   risk analysis, particularly related to the risk of
 10   loss of life for moderate floods, should be done.
 11   And that is what I was referring to earlier by the
 12   risk of failure of the flood protection system for
 13   floods between 75 years and 700 years with the
 14   expanded floodway.  And what has to happen first,
 15   though, is the development of the evacuation, a
 16   firm evacuation plan for Winnipeg should the
 17   system fail, and then following that we can do the
 18   emergency protection plan for the structures and
 19   whatnot.
 20               They have also suggested that we
 21   refine the analysis of wind and wave setup on the
 22   west dyke.  They thought that there were some
 23   refinements that could be made.  We used a 2D
 24   model, in fact the original analysis was done by
 25   the Canadian Hydraulic Centre, and they've
00778
  1   suggested that that model be refined further to
  2   make some improvements on the west dyke design.
  3   And that will be undertaken during the detailed
  4   design process over the next couple of months.
  5   And other things regarding gate reliability and
  6   whatnot will likely come out of the report when it
  7   is finalized.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  In response
  9   to some of the questions I had about the dam
 10   safety issues around the inlet structure, and I
 11   think it was Mr. Smith who mentioned that there
 12   had been a dam safety assessment done by SNC
 13   Lavalin; is that correct?
 14               Now, did that constitute a dam safety
 15   review as set out in the guidelines of the
 16   Canadian Dam Agency or the Canadian Dam
 17   Association?
 18               MR. CARSON:  The objective was that
 19   they would follow the general rules that were laid
 20   down in the guidelines, yes.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm
 23   asking Mr. Carson to add a couple of lines about
 24   that.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  We welcome that.
00779
  1               MR. CARSON:  Yes, generally the theme
  2   was to follow the Canadian Dam Association dam
  3   safety guidelines.  However, the floodway
  4   structures are not in the normal sense of dams and
  5   dykes that have been addressed by these
  6   guidelines.  And so it was somewhat difficult to
  7   apply those guidelines to this floodway situation.
  8   There were certainly some parts of the guidelines
  9   that were directly applicable, such as required
 10   safety factors, stability safety factors for
 11   various conditions of retaining water, and they
 12   were quite easy to apply.  But there are other
 13   parts of the guidelines that are more difficult to
 14   relate directly to the floodway system.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I would also
 16   ask Mr. McMillan to speak for a moment about some
 17   of the results that came directly out of that dam
 18   safety analysis respecting the stability of the
 19   control structure.
 20               MR. MCMILLAN:  Dave McMillan.  The
 21   results of the dam safety review are documented in
 22   appendix C of the preliminary design studies.  SNC
 23   Lavalin found that the structures are extremely
 24   stable and exceeded the minimum guidelines that
 25   are outlined in the Canadian Dam Association dam
00780
  1   safety guidelines.
  2               For instance, for the sliding
  3   stability, which is one of the key indicators,
  4   they found a stability factor of 3 to 5 compared
  5   to a minimum standard of 1.5, which would indicate
  6   that the structures are extremely stable.  And as
  7   well they found the stresses, calculated stresses
  8   in the rock, in the foundation that we were
  9   talking about previously as really very low by a
 10   factor of 3 or 4 lower than what the minimum
 11   required stress would be.  And in their
 12   conclusions they identified no concerns at all
 13   with the stability of the structures nor the
 14   stresses in the foundation.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, you say that some
 16   of the factors in the dam safety association
 17   guidelines, the Canadian Dam Association
 18   Guidelines don't apply to this structure, but I do
 19   understand that they apply to any structure more
 20   than two and a half metres high which contains
 21   more than 30,000 cubic metres of water.  And when
 22   this structure is fully operating, it is certainly
 23   containing a lot more water than that.
 24               MR. CARSON:  Yes, that is certainly
 25   true.  And I guess those portions of the
00781
  1   guidelines are directly applicable.  And I'm going
  2   to try and think of an example of portions of the
  3   guidelines that are not directly applicable.
  4   Could we have a short huddle here?
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, we would like
  7   an undertaking to come back to this with you.
  8   There are some difficult concepts that we would
  9   like to be able to explain properly with the
 10   appropriate visuals, and we want to confer with
 11   the author of appendix C.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Sure, we will welcome
 13   that.
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Can we come back first
 15   thing Monday with that?
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.  Changing
 17   area, I have a few questions that I don't think
 18   are terribly complicated, and it is just about
 19   some of the effects immediately downstream and
 20   also upstream of the inlet structure.  And I would
 21   like you to describe the operation of the floodway
 22   inlet and the corresponding effects on water
 23   levels in the river downstream of the inlet.  And
 24   particularly I would like to know if there is a
 25   restriction applied to the rate of decline of the
00782
  1   Red River level, both up and downstream of the
  2   inlet, as the floodway is put into operation.
  3               So, first, what effect does it have on
  4   water levels downstream?  And then what are the
  5   limits on the --
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Are you talking about
  7   spring operation, Mr. Chair?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think any operation.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  By downstream you mean
 10   downstream of the outlet?
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Of the inlet, just
 12   immediately downstream of the inlet, what are the
 13   effects on the water levels when the floodway is
 14   put into operation?  I'm looking at sort of bank
 15   stability issues.
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess I don't have a
 17   hydrograph to explain this, you know, with the
 18   rising limb of the hydrograph as the flood
 19   develops and the gate operation, and the declining
 20   side of the hydrograph.  I do have something
 21   from -- I guess in general terms on the rising
 22   limb of the hydrograph, because of the gate
 23   operation, the river level does rise upstream of
 24   the inlet control structure a little faster than
 25   it would under natural conditions, obviously
00783
  1   because the operation of the gates.
  2               When the gates are lowered, and this
  3   applies to all operation of the gates, Manitoba
  4   Water Stewardship attempts to mimic nature by
  5   dropping the gates slowly and having the receding
  6   limb of the hydrograph follow as close to what
  7   nature would have provided if the gates didn't
  8   exist.
  9               We mentioned yesterday that in summer
 10   operation it is built into the rule to try to
 11   attempt to not lower the water levels more than
 12   half a foot a day, less if possible.  And that's
 13   to mimic nature so that there is no influence one
 14   way or the other by the gate operation, or impact
 15   on what nature would do to the river bank is in
 16   its natural state.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  I understand that on
 18   June 11 last year there was a drop of six feet in
 19   one day.
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  You would be referring to
 21   the downstream side.  When the gates are operated
 22   for that -- and that's a non-spring event -- there
 23   is an attempt to try to get the water down as
 24   quickly as possible in anticipation of the rain
 25   storm event.  Although not preferable certainly,
00784
  1   because of the potential impact to river banks in
  2   the City of Winnipeg, it was felt that the
  3   forecast rain storm was significant enough that
  4   was it was worth that risk to lower more than --
  5   the water level in the city more than that half a
  6   foot a day.  So that's what happened in that
  7   situation.
  8               So that's why, when the rule was
  9   written, it was written around the basic premise
 10   that you don't want to lower water levels
 11   anywhere, upstream or downstream, more than half a
 12   foot a day.  And then you need this window, ten
 13   day window, in order to do that if rain storms are
 14   forecast for that situation.
 15               In terms of the spring operation with
 16   the raising of the gates, it is purely to follow
 17   the rule 1 curve, whatever should occur in
 18   response to a specific flood event.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you mentioned
 20   probably yesterday that you have plans to conduct
 21   engineering and geotechnical investigations to
 22   look at river bank stabilization.  Was that
 23   correct?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  More specifically it is
 25   to look at the condition of the river banks over
00785
  1   time, as they react to both natural and flood
  2   events -- or sorry, operation events, and
  3   determine whether or not human actions have any
  4   difference on the river banks over and above state
  5   of nature.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  And how much of the
  7   river bank will you be surveying?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  It won't be a continuous
  9   surveillance, it will be a test hole and
 10   monitoring program.  And if I recall correctly, it
 11   is approximately 30, up to 30 kilometres upstream
 12   of the inlet structure and 30 kilometres
 13   downstream.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  30 kilometres
 15   downstream would be pretty well right through the
 16   city, wouldn't it?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  And 30 kilometres
 19   upstream, how far would that go?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  At least to Ste. Agathe.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  And what objectives do
 22   you have in that?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  The objective is to
 24   determine whether or not the operation has any
 25   impact on river bank stability.
00786
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  A couple
  2   of -- this is changing subjects quite a bit,
  3   sorry, just one moment.
  4               It has just been pointed out that in
  5   rule 4 it actually talks about a rule curve of one
  6   foot per day.  It is a minor issue, but just --
  7   except in circumstances of extreme urgency to
  8   lower river levels more than one foot a day -- you
  9   will not operate the floodway under this rule to
 10   lower river levels more than one foot a day?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  That is obviously
 12   correct, and what was going by was no more than
 13   one foot a day, but the objective was half a foot
 14   a day.  And that's where we got the ten days and
 15   the five feet.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thanks.  Mr. Webster
 17   has one more issue, or one more question on
 18   groundwater, and then I have a couple of general
 19   big picture questions that might take us to our
 20   lunch break.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  My question has to do
 22   with the other aspect of construction that might
 23   have an impact on groundwater, and that is bridge
 24   foundations.  As you construct new bridges, I
 25   would imagine that you would have to take the
00787
  1   foundation down to bedrock.  Could you address the
  2   issue generally, and perhaps give us a specific
  3   example or two as to how you tackle that problem
  4   so that groundwater is not adversely affected over
  5   the long term?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I will just start and say
  7   that that was noted in the EIS in the groundwater
  8   section.  There is, on page 520, figure 5.4, there
  9   is discussion of what the effects could be and
 10   what the mitigation would be in there.  But I will
 11   pass it on to Mr. Smith, he has a lot of
 12   experience in the detail of how they go about
 13   doing this.
 14               MR. SMITH:  Bert Smith here.  I would
 15   just like to clarify first that the original
 16   floodway construction was done with, as we have
 17   discussed, a significantly higher pressure.  So
 18   when they work to the foundations, they have water
 19   heads in the order of 20 feet or more differential
 20   to deal with.  And the current situation, as we
 21   have been discussing with the piezometric surface
 22   now having dropped close to the floodway, there is
 23   discharge into the floodway, so there is some up
 24   gradient into the base of the floodway.  But when
 25   we proceed with these bridges, the differential
00788
  1   head will be much less than what we have had to
  2   deal with in the past.  So it will be, the control
  3   will be, I will say easier, but it won't be as
  4   challenging or difficult.
  5               Now, some of the bridges that we are
  6   looking at, for example, the rail bridges in some
  7   cases they are looking at steel H-piles, which the
  8   steel H-piles will be driven down to refusal in
  9   the till, whereas on the highway bridges they will
 10   use concrete pre-cast piles.
 11               Some of the thoughts we have had, for
 12   the driven steel there will be less disturbance
 13   for the foundation, but for the concrete piles a
 14   portion of foundation will be -- we will drill an
 15   initial open hole so you can put your pile caps
 16   down, so that will be below surface.
 17               The actual piles, we have had
 18   discussion about possibly adding in tubes within
 19   the concrete piles as grout ports.  So when the
 20   piles are driven to refusal, we will then be able
 21   to pump grout in to infill any voids created and
 22   protect against the potential for seepage coming
 23   up around those piles.
 24               In addition to that, however, the
 25   groundwater construction dewatering program will
00789
  1   be possibly required at four sites that we have
  2   identified, and as Dr.Morgan has indicated, that's
  3   in the EIS.  And part of the next phase prior to
  4   construction will be to do some initial testing
  5   site specific at each of these sites, determine
  6   how much pumping would be required on a local
  7   basis in the vicinity of the -- right in the
  8   floodway base where the piles will be installed
  9   for the bridge supports.  And that program will
 10   identify then what the influence radius would be
 11   around the bridge, and that will be part of the
 12   program submitted for approvals to the regulatory
 13   authorities to monitor that influence and to have
 14   a mitigation program when that construction is
 15   ongoing.
 16               So I guess there is one other thing
 17   that I could add.  On the bridges that we are
 18   going to decommission, the intent is, when those
 19   piles are removed, is to address if there are
 20   local seepage issues at piles, to address that
 21   issue as well.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  I think that's adequate.
 23               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, if I could
 24   just add a point of clarification.  In the
 25   presentation before the break, Dr. Morgan had,
00790
  1   whe