00949
  1          MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   =======================================
 13            Monday, February 21, 2005
 14           Oakbank United Church
 15             Oakbank, Manitoba
 16   ========================================
 17   
 18                Volume  5
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00950
  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 Consulting
      Mr. John Osler     - Intergroup Consulting
 15   Mr. David Morgan   - TetrES Consulting
      Mr. George Rempel  - TetrES Consulting
 16   Mr. Robert Sinclair -  KGS
      Ms. Marci Friedman-Hamm - 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
00951
  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   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00952
  1               INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
  2   Presentation by James Bezan          1068
  3   Cross-examination of Floodway Authority
  4   
  5   Cross-examination by Mr. Currie        967
  6   Cross-examination by Mr. Millman       1099
  7   Cross-examination by Mr. Stinson       1125
  8   Cross-examination by Mr. Arkley        1189
  9   Cross-examination by Ms. Fuga          1200
 10   Questions by Reeve Strang              1218
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00953
  1                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   48     Errata for EIS                       963
  4   
      49     Response by SCN Lavalin on Feb 21,   963
  5          2005
  6   
      50      Department of Agriculture and       967
  7          Conservation, Water Control and
             Conservation Branch, Red River
  8          Floodway, Inlet Controls works,
             Memorandum on Preliminary Design,
  9          July 28, 1962
 10   
      51     Red River Floodway Expansion        1081
 11          Concerns Raised by the People of
             Selkirk-Interlake. Presentation to
 12          the Clean Environment Commission.
             By: James Bezan, Member of
 13          Parliament, Selkirk-Interlake
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00954
  1                INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
  2   UNDERTAKING NO.                               PAGE
  3   No undertakings given
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00955
  1   MONDAY FEBRUARY 21, 2005
  2   UPON COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Good morning, ladies
  5   and gentlemen.  Could we come to order, please.  I
  6   would just like to remind you, before we get
  7   going, I would like to remind people who weren't
  8   in attendance at all last week, that I'm a maniac
  9   about two things; cell phones and conversation in
 10   the audience while hearings are going on.  So
 11   please turn off your cell phones and please don't
 12   engage in any side conversations when others are
 13   trying to make their presentations or answer
 14   questions.
 15               I would like to welcome you all to the
 16   second week of our hearing.  I would like to
 17   welcome a lot of people in the audience who are
 18   here today for the first time, and I would like to
 19   welcome back all of the participants who were here
 20   last week and seem to be very keen to get back at
 21   it.
 22               On the agenda this morning, Mr. McNeil
 23   informs me he has some undertakings to respond to
 24   off the top.  That will be followed by what I
 25   believe is the final cross-examination from a
00956
  1   participant group, and that's Mr. Currie on behalf
  2   of the three municipalities.
  3               Following Mr. Currie's
  4   cross-examination we will allow members of the
  5   general public who might have questions of the
  6   Floodway Authority to do so at that time.  Then we
  7   begin with presentations.  The first presentation
  8   this morning, later this morning will be by the
  9   Cook Creeks Conservation District.  The local
 10   member of parliament, Mr. James Bezan, has also
 11   asked for an opportunity to make a brief
 12   presentation which we will hear sometime this
 13   morning, and then following that, whether it is
 14   morning or afternoon, we will get into the
 15   presentation on behalf of the three
 16   municipalities.
 17               So, first order of business, Mr.
 18   McNeil.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Chairman, I would
 20   like to clarify, with your permission, we have
 21   three housekeeping items we would like to take
 22   care of.  One is an errata on the EIS and some
 23   groundwater statements that Dr. Morgan would like
 24   to speak to.  Then Mr. McNeil has a number of
 25   clarifications from the record of last week, and
00957
  1   then Mr. Smith would like to respond to an
  2   undertaking that he gave with regard to inlet
  3   structure bedrock quality.  So with your
  4   permission, we would like to do those three items
  5   now.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.  I think you had
  7   received an errata sheet and memo.  This is for
  8   page 514 of the EIS.  This section on existing,
  9   the existing groundwater quality in the EIS states
 10   that while data along the Red River at the
 11   floodway inlet and at the Selkirk bridge on the
 12   Red River may show influence of river water in
 13   wells along the river.  This description of
 14   variation water quality is actually meant to refer
 15   to the Red River water quality and not the water
 16   quality data.
 17               There is an errata in appendix M which
 18   makes the correction, and an EIS sheet.
 19               Just to be clear, that this discussion
 20   on the existing situation along the Red River does
 21   not change the effects assessment in any matter.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. McNeil.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Thank you, Mr. Rempel.
 24   Mr. Chairman, I have got, I believe four things to
 25   bring to your attention this morning.  First of
00958
  1   all we were in error when we mentioned last week
  2   about summer operation.  It is not 22 times in 36
  3   years, had we the ability to operate in the summer
  4   in the past.  Manitoba Water Branch had indicated
  5   to me late Friday that that was incorrect.  They
  6   are working on the new numbers and we will get
  7   back to you in the next couple of days on that.
  8               Page 699 of the February 17
  9   transcript, line 8, indicated that the inlet
 10   structure was not designed to 778, in fact, that's
 11   an error, it should have been quoted as the inlet
 12   structure was designed to 778.
 13               Also Manitoba Water Stewardship
 14   advises that in spring operation, contrary to what
 15   I indicated, they do in fact operate the gates,
 16   both on the rising and receding limbs of the
 17   hydrograph, in other words, when the gates are
 18   being raised and when the gates are being lowered
 19   during spring operation they mimic nature in terms
 20   of the rate of rise and fall as much as possible.
 21   I had indicated last week that they couldn't do
 22   that on the rising limb.  In fact they do.
 23               You were asking us about our
 24   environmental management system last week and we
 25   are preparing some information that will report in
00959
  1   the next couple of days on that item.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Just on that item, Mr.
  3   McNeil, subsequent to my asking those questions, I
  4   did learn there is an ISO 1400 or 1401 that sets
  5   out environmental management systems criteria.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  That's true, and we will
  7   make a presentation generally that follows that
  8   process.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  And the last thing, and I
 11   will ask Mr. Rick Carson to report on the
 12   undertaking to discuss the application of the
 13   Canadian Dam Association Guidelines with respect
 14   to the floodway.  Mr. Carson.
 15               MR. CARSON:  Yes.  As you recall, the
 16   question regarding the dam safety issue was what
 17   portions of the Canadian Dam Association
 18   Guidelines were used and what portions were not
 19   used.  And as we said on Thursday, the company
 20   that did the dam safety review was SNC Lavalin, and
 21   we thought that we would be able to bring them in
 22   to speak to that question, so that it would be the
 23   original authors of the appendix that would be
 24   giving you the answer.  But unfortunately, on
 25   short notice they were not able to have a
00960
  1   representative here.  But we came to a compromise,
  2   that they wrote a document here that I have in
  3   front of me, and they asked that I read it out to
  4   you.  I have hard copies if you would like to see
  5   them while I read it?
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Please.
  7               MR. CARSON:  The response that SNC
  8   Lavalin provided is as follows:  The dam safety
  9   review carried out for the floodway expansion
 10   project was generally based on the Canadian Dam
 11   Association Dam Safety Guidelines, herein called
 12   the CDA guidelines, as indicated in annex C,
 13   section 3.1.1.1 of the preliminary engineering
 14   report.  As indicated in paragraph 4, section 1.1,
 15   scope and applicability of the CDA guidelines, it
 16   states that the CDA guidelines are intended to
 17   cover the majority of normal requirements for dam
 18   safety.  However, it is recognized that other
 19   requirements could exist for a particular dam
 20   site, and the responsible engineer must identify
 21   considerations not included herein, and determine
 22   the appropriate dam safety requirements.
 23               That's a direct quotation from the CDA
 24   guidelines.
 25               Now this principle was applied to the
00961
  1   dam safety investigations for the floodway
  2   expansion as there are characteristics of the
  3   project that require appropriate interpretation of
  4   the CDA guidelines to meet the intent of the CDA
  5   guidelines.  Examples with respect to the floodway
  6   expansion project include;
  7               Number 1:  A dam safety review
  8   typically covers investigation of existing
  9   facilities.  The dam safety review for the
 10   floodway expansion project covered both, (a), a
 11   review of the existing facilities and procedures
 12   in the context of the proposed operation after
 13   completion of the project, as well as (b), a
 14   review of preliminary designs for components of
 15   the project, such as the west dyke, which are
 16   planning to undergo substantial upgrades.
 17               Number 2:  The water retaining
 18   structures for most dams are subjected to
 19   continuous submergence of the upstream slopes and
 20   hydrostatic loading from the impounded reservoir.
 21   The water retaining structures for the floodway
 22   are only subjected to intermittent and relatively
 23   short term loading during major floods.  This
 24   reduces the significance of factors such as 10.4,
 25   sedimentation and silting.
00962
  1               Number 3:  Section 6, called Floods
  2   from the CDA guidelines, indicates that the
  3   magnitude of the inflow design flood to be used
  4   for evaluation of the design or safety evaluation
  5   of the dam should increase with increasing
  6   consequences of failure.  This aspect of the CDA
  7   guidelines is based on the fact that the
  8   consequences of failure of water retaining
  9   structures, in most dams, typically increase with
 10   increasing flood magnitude, and increasing
 11   upstream water levels.
 12               In the case of the floodway, the
 13   maximum difference in water level across the
 14   structures and the highest consequences of failure
 15   would occur for floods of relatively modest
 16   magnitude.  Both the difference in water level
 17   across the structures and the consequence of
 18   failure would decrease very substantially with
 19   floods approaching the probable maximum flood, due
 20   to prior inundation of areas downstream of the
 21   structures.
 22               In order to meaningfully apply the
 23   intent of the principles of dam safety for the
 24   floodway project, it was necessary to adapt the
 25   templates provided in the guidelines for flood
00963
  1   passage requirements during extreme events.
  2               SNC Lavalin's interpretation of the
  3   application of the CDA guidelines to appropriately
  4   reflect the specific characteristics of the
  5   Floodway Expansion Project was guided by the
  6   chairperson for the working group responsible for
  7   preparation of section 6 of the guidelines called
  8   Floods.  He was also a member of the working group
  9   for preparation of section 7 of the CDA guidelines
 10   called Discharge Facilities.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 12               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, since
 13   there is a small break I would like to enter the
 14   errata as exhibit 48, and the response from SNC
 15   Lavalin as exhibit 49.
 16   
 17               (EXHIBIT 48:  Errata for EIS)
 18   
 19               (EXHIBIT 49:  Response from SNC Lavalin
 20               Feb 21, 2005)
 21   
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Rempel.
 23               MR. REMPEL:  We would like now to
 24   proceed with Mr. Bert Smith commenting on the
 25   bedrock issue.
00964
  1               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, this is in
  2   response to your question regarding the bedrock
  3   conditions at the inlet structure.  And we had
  4   discussed both the inlet and outlet structure and
  5   the question was really related to is there a
  6   difference there.  We reviewed some of the
  7   original reports and information that is
  8   available, and I have here a report on the
  9   memorandum on preliminary design dated July 28,
 10   1962, by H.G. Acres, on the inlet control works.
 11   And this was an investigations and preliminary
 12   design for the structure.  And I will read a few
 13   of the pages here just for the record.
 14               In fact, just to address the question
 15   on the upstream water level of increased elevation
 16   of 778.3 for -- so this was in the design work,
 17   and it is on page 2 of this report, item 3 at the
 18   bottom of the page.  So that's just to clarify
 19   that that was in the design planning from the
 20   early stages.
 21               On page 9 of the report, there is a
 22   statement that the bedrock surface ranges from
 23   elevation 683 to 690.  This is at the proposed
 24   site for the inlet structure.  It is flatlined,
 25   fine grained massive dolomite which exhibits
00965
  1   little effect of solution or leaching in the cores
  2   recovered from the most recent exploration
  3   drilling.  They drilled holes 20 feet in depth.
  4               Further along in the same report on
  5   page 24, they indicate that in the event that any
  6   clay seams or solution channels are uncovered in
  7   the excavation, that if such a condition should
  8   exist, a moderate decrease in foundation level or
  9   provision of a shear check may be required.
 10   Solution cavities, if found, would be excavated
 11   and filled.  In fact, during the design the inlet
 12   structure was countersunk six feet below the
 13   bedrock surface as a requirement for the type of
 14   gate that was used.  So it was well -- it was well
 15   set into the bedrock, and there were minimal
 16   seepage conditions observed during construction.
 17               I spoke to the design engineer in
 18   charge of that structure at the time, and he
 19   indicated there was no grouting beneath the
 20   bedrock structure and it was not required.  And he
 21   did add that there was a 20-foot thick clay
 22   blanket built on the upstream side of the
 23   structure covering the bedrock in the river bottom
 24   as a further protection against any seepage under
 25   the structure.
00966
  1               So, I guess in summary, we certainly
  2   don't see any concerns with the bedrock integrity
  3   at the inlet structure site, and I would not
  4   anticipate that a problem could have developed
  5   in -- the groundwater conditions at that site are
  6   primarily of a saline nature coming from the
  7   southwest of Manitoba, very high dissolved solids,
  8   so very limited potential for a solutioning, and
  9   as well a very flat gradient across the structure.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Smith.
 11   Could you make copies of the relevant parts of
 12   that report available to us, please, later on
 13   today or --
 14               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 16               MR. MORGAN:  We do have copies of
 17   those pages and the whole report that we can
 18   submit to you.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Does that
 20   conclude your introductory comments?
 21               MR. REMPEL:  Yes, it does.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Before I turn it over
 23   to Mr. Currie, we were much more popular this
 24   morning than we anticipated.  We have people
 25   crowding in the back door and setting up chairs
00967
  1   around the doorway.  Maybe we could get everybody
  2   to move up in this corner along the side and make
  3   a bit more room available, please.  There is
  4   plenty of chairs over there, if we could just
  5   move.
  6               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we
  7   could add the report of memorandum on preliminary
  8   design as exhibit number 50.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 10   
 11               (EXHIBIT 50:  Department of
 12               Agriculture and Conservation, Water
 13               Control and Conservation Branch, Red
 14               River Floodway, Inlet Controls works,
 15               Memorandum on Preliminary Design, July
 16               28, 1962)
 17   
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, thank you for
 19   that.  We will come back to order now.  We are
 20   proceeding to cross-examination by Mr. Currie on
 21   behalf of his clients, the municipalities of East
 22   St. Paul, St. Clements and Springfield.  Mr.
 23   Currie.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 25   I guess as to the panel, the first few questions
00968
  1   that I would like to ask are sort of general in
  2   scope.  And the first question that I would ask
  3   is, probably whoever wants to jump in and discuss
  4   it, is in your proposal, can you tell us exactly
  5   what are you expecting to have licensed here?  Are
  6   you in fact going to have the whole project
  7   licensed, that is stem to stern, for lack of a
  8   better word, or are you proposing to have only the
  9   new infrastructure licensed?
 10               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Currie, the
 11   application under the Manitoba Environment Act was
 12   filled out for the expansion of the project and it
 13   includes the inlet structure, the outlet
 14   structure, the bridges, the entire project is
 15   being proposed for licensing under the Manitoba
 16   Environment Act.  And in doing this there will be
 17   approvals required from Canada.  So, when the
 18   Government completes their screen report, we would
 19   expect that the approvals associated with
 20   fisheries, habitat alteration, Navigable Waters
 21   Protection Act approvals -- and what else is
 22   there -- any other approvals associated with the
 23   Federal legislation would also flow.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  I understand that you
 25   have other approvals that you have to seek and you
00969
  1   have just listed those approvals for me which
  2   relate to the Federal level.  But what I'm asking
  3   you specifically today is, is it your anticipation
  4   that your project will license this floodway from
  5   the beginning of the inlet to the outlet, and not
  6   just the changes?
  7               MR. REMPEL:  There would be a licence
  8   for this expanded project and its operation.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  And was your
 10   application designed or did it exclude out the old
 11   floodway?
 12               MR. REMPEL:  The application did not
 13   exclude the existing floodway.  It made an
 14   application for the expansion project.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Now, the next question
 16   that I want to move forward to is the authority
 17   itself.  At this point in time, when do you
 18   anticipate the authority to come to an end, or is
 19   this something that's going to exist so far as we
 20   know forever?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking.
 22   The Floodway Authority was proclaimed as a Crown
 23   corporation on November 1, 2004, and it is not
 24   expected to come to an end, because as part of the
 25   Floodway Authority Act, the Floodway Authority is
00970
  1   responsible not only for expansion of the floodway
  2   but for long term maintenance as well.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  And I take it that you
  4   have distinguished that, from what I can read in
  5   the transcripts, I wasn't here for the hearings,
  6   but what I understood was you distinguished
  7   maintenance and construction from operation, am I
  8   correct?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 10   Government decided to let operation remain with
 11   Manitoba Water Stewardship because they have the
 12   resources, the knowledge, the expertise in
 13   operating the floodway in addition and in
 14   conjunction with the Shellmouth dam and reservoir
 15   and the Portage diversion.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  With regards to the
 17   assessment of mitigation factors, whose
 18   responsibility will that be?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  The Manitoba Floodway
 20   Authority, as part of this expansion project and
 21   the environmental assessment, is also responsible
 22   for mitigation of any impacts.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Is that answer to mean
 24   that both parties?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  I repeat, the Manitoba
00971
  1   Floodway Authority has the responsibility for
  2   expanding the floodway, and is also responsible
  3   for mitigating any impacts.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  As I understand it, you
  5   have $11 million for these mitigation strategies?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  The $11 million
  7   environmental mitigation fund is for unpredicted
  8   events that may occur during construction.
  9   Through this project, and the EIS clearly states,
 10   that after mitigation this project will have no
 11   significant adverse effects.  But the fund -- and
 12   so we are doing things under the program through
 13   the expansion.  For example, not deepening but
 14   widening.  So that's already included in the base
 15   budget for the project.  But if there should be
 16   any unpredicted effects during construction or
 17   afterwards, that's what that fund is for.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  You've mentioned
 19   deepening versus widening.  Let's get into that
 20   issue since you bring it up.  With regard to
 21   deepening, I understood that the original proposal
 22   was 1.5 metres, to .5 metres, is that correct,
 23   deepening?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  The original proposal was
 25   in the range of 0.6 metres to 2 metres of
00972
  1   deepening.  That was in the concept stage of
  2   design, and that was included in the original
  3   project description.  That is no longer true,
  4   though.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  When did that change?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  It has evolved through
  7   the predesign process and also as we get final
  8   design underway.  As we announced a week ago
  9   today, we are no longer undertaking deepening.  We
 10   are going to achieve the capacity increase of the
 11   floodway by widening only.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  I understand your point,
 13   you make it several times, you feel that you are
 14   not deepening, you are widening.  I guess I'm back
 15   to my earlier question.  At what point in time did
 16   you make the conclusion that you would not go in
 17   any deepening whatsoever?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  We made the final
 19   conclusion just prior to last Monday.  So
 20   February 11 to 13th time frame.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you very much.  Now
 22   prior to that date you had at least two feet of --
 23   sorry, about .5 metres, or roughly two to three
 24   feet of deepening, in your mind, as a possibility.
 25   Is that correct?
00973
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  And maybe even earlier to
  3   that you had a possibility of going even deeper
  4   than that, correct?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  In the original concept
  6   design it was indicated that we could go 0.6 to 2
  7   metres of deepening.  And I would add that since
  8   that time, when we announced that it would be no
  9   more than 0.6 metres, that was at select
 10   locations, not throughout the whole length of the
 11   floodway.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Now, I would like to ask,
 13   I guess, the environmental side of your team, when
 14   did they do their assessment?  When did they do
 15   their portion of the EIS?
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Are you referring in
 17   particular to groundwater?
 18               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, thank you.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  Dr. Morgan will respond.
 20               MR. MORGAN:  The preliminary
 21   engineering design, as shown in all of those
 22   documents behind them, was done in July of 2004,
 23   and our assessment in the EIS was done in August
 24   of 2004.  And as Mr. McNeil has said, and we've
 25   discussed this with the community in May and June
00974
  1   when we went out to public events, is that the
  2   goal of the Floodway Authority was to have no
  3   deepening, except in selected areas there may be
  4   .5 metres of deepening.  And in those selected
  5   areas, Mr. Smith can get into more details, maybe
  6   around some of the bridges, there was some in the
  7   upstream end around St. Mary's, it was not
  8   expected that there would be effects outside of
  9   the right-of-way.  The effect in the channel
 10   actually decreases as you move away from where
 11   that initial effect was.  And it decreases towards
 12   no effect as you get to the right-of-way.  There
 13   is sketches of that in the EIS, and you have a
 14   groundwater specialist that you can refer to.
 15               So at the time that we made it, the
 16   assessment, we had also thought there would be no
 17   significant effects.  However, there is still a
 18   lot of concern in the community, and so we've
 19   always said that the best thing to make it simple
 20   for people to understand is to not deepen along
 21   the channel.  And Mr. Smith can even fill you in a
 22   bit on the process that went on from August
 23   through until a few weeks ago of how they arrived
 24   at modifying the design in order to be no
 25   deepening.
00975
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, my question
  2   was when did they decide that deepening would take
  3   place.  It wasn't necessarily a full defence of
  4   why they have now retreated from their position.
  5   We will get into that question perhaps later on.
  6               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chair, maybe I can add
  7   to that discussion.  The preliminary design, you
  8   have to understand, was an optimization process, a
  9   sensitivity study looking at various depths versus
 10   widening combinations to come up with the best
 11   final design.  And that involved the bridge
 12   heights -- and it was a very complicated process,
 13   it is not just a simple answer.  But the thing to
 14   appreciate is that when the preliminary
 15   engineering reports went out, the decision had
 16   been made not to deepen the main channel.
 17   However, we did reserve some flexibility to
 18   locally deepen as much as .6 of a metre, and the
 19   focus on that was really in the low flow channel,
 20   the narrow ditch in the middle of the floodway.
 21   However, the wide base of the channel at that
 22   point, the decision had been to widen the sides,
 23   not deepen the bottom of the main channel.  I
 24   think it is important to understand that.
 25               And there were a few points along the
00976
  1   low flow channel where we did want to verify
  2   elevations before we came to that final position
  3   to say no deepening.
  4               There is a diagram up on the board
  5   now.  You can see where the low flow channel is in
  6   the middle, the little ditch, that's designed to
  7   handle surface runoff from the various perimeter
  8   drains.  And the blue areas on the sides are where
  9   the widening is proposed.  The widening, as I say,
 10   when the preliminary engineering report came out
 11   there was no intent to deepen the base of the main
 12   channel at that point.
 13               Maybe that helps you, Mr. Currie, in
 14   understanding the timing.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, if every
 16   time I ask a question, asking for a specific date
 17   or a range of dates, I go on for 20 minutes in an
 18   answer, I will say to you the cross-examination
 19   will go considerably longer than I anticipate.
 20   Answering fully and fairly is one thing, but
 21   answering on a full-based defence -- we have heard
 22   this evidence already.  All I wanted was a
 23   specific answer to when they decided.  What they
 24   did in their defence of that position, I might ask
 25   or I may not ask.  So I'm going to submit that I'm
00977
  1   going to ask the chair to --
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could you ask your
  3   question again in very simple terms, and hopefully
  4   you can get your straight answer.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  I did, in fact, within
  6   two sentences.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  You don't need a
  8   preamble, just say it again.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, I got it, but it
 10   took us quite a while.
 11               So in any event, let's go on to the
 12   next question now.  You've indicated, as I
 13   understand it, that you did the assessment in July
 14   of '04 and then further work in August of '04;
 15   correct?
 16               MR. MORGAN:  No, that is not correct.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  Then I didn't get
 18   my answer.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  David Morgan.  The
 20   assessment started in December 2003.  It was, we
 21   started reviewing the engineering and talking with
 22   the engineers at that time.  There was an
 23   iterative process in the project design.  This was
 24   laid out to the public in January, and then there
 25   is an iterative process in the design.
00978
  1               We had input from the public
  2   consultations very early on that groundwater was a
  3   major concern.  And from that, we brought that
  4   information to the engineers who worked on the
  5   preliminary results.
  6               Preliminary results were made in
  7   April, May, and presented to the public in May,
  8   June.  At that time, you know, over that time the
  9   assessment was made.  And as I just discussed
 10   earlier, the engineering report was finalized in
 11   August -- the engineering reports finalized in
 12   July, the EIS was finalized in August.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.  With regards
 14   to that then, my analysis of you going through
 15   your assessment is that regardless of the
 16   deepening or not, you came to the conclusion in
 17   your assessment that there would be no significant
 18   impact on the groundwater by deepening or not
 19   deepening, it really didn't matter?
 20               MR. MORGAN:  That's incorrect.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  A deepening of two metres
 23   would have had an effect.  We brought that, we
 24   brought that to the engineers and they understood
 25   that.  What we said is that deepening in selective
00979
  1   insensitive areas throughout the channel of
  2   .5 metres or less would have no significant --
  3   would likely have no significant adverse effect.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  So if I can --
  5               MR. MORGAN:  Selected areas, you have
  6   to understand that.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  I'm going to now repeat
  8   it back to you to see if I have got it and
  9   understood it.  You are saying that if the
 10   engineers had come to you and said, we are going
 11   to deepen it generally, that was a problem for
 12   you; but if they came to you and said, we have
 13   selected areas that you have determined are not
 14   sensitive, you would not have a problem with them
 15   deepening in those areas?
 16               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  So I understand it now.
 18               MR. MORGAN:  It is the magnitude
 19   that's important, though.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Sorry?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  The magnitude is also
 22   important, not just the location, the location and
 23   magnitude is important.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Correct.  Okay.  Now, can
 25   you point to, I guess, specific documents or pages
00980
  1   in your EIS where you discuss, if you will, the
  2   deepening issue and the fact that you can't deepen
  3   generally, but only -- you feel you might be able
  4   to deepen only in select areas.
  5               MR. MORGAN:  Page 5-37 in the EIS
  6   under erosion control, figure 5.5-5.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
  8               MR. MORGAN:  This figure shows a
  9   profile from the inlet to the outlet.  It states
 10   that the only area at that time that requires low
 11   flow deepening was an area upstream around St.
 12   Mary's Road.  This area is underlined with clay, I
 13   can't remember the exact detail, but it is not a
 14   sensitive area.
 15               If you look at that diagram also you
 16   will see what that they are looking at doing is
 17   filling the channel, the low flow channel in the
 18   sensitive areas, so improving the current
 19   baseline.  So by filling and improving the current
 20   baseline, we do not see an adverse effect in those
 21   areas.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Now, with that
 23   assessment, are you able to tell us today roughly
 24   how many springs might be throughout the floodway?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  I think that's in the
00981
  1   documentation.  We can find that and put it up.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  And how did you do that
  3   assessment?  Did you use Provincial Government
  4   data or did you use anecdotal data?
  5               MR. MORGAN:  What do you mean by the
  6   assessment?
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Well, essentially, how
  8   did you get the data, how did you get the data of
  9   the number of the springs from one end of the
 10   floodway to the other, where did you get it from?
 11               MR. MORGAN:  Mr. Smith can get into
 12   the details, but it is shown in appendix M, there
 13   is a graph there, those were located, I think by
 14   KGS staff, they can confirm that, but we also had
 15   people out there doing aquatic studies which noted
 16   those springs also.
 17               The data is presented, or the diagram
 18   is presented in appendix M, annex H, is it?
 19               MR. CURRIE:  Do you have an electronic
 20   version available?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we are looking for
 22   that.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Let's take our time and
 24   get it up there.  Is Mr. Smith able to tell us
 25   where the data comes from?  I mean, I understand
00982
  1   that you are going to present for us a document or
  2   a diagram that's going to show what you believe to
  3   be springs occurring, but I guess the question is,
  4   where did you get the data from, or where is that
  5   data generated from?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  We will get into the
  7   details -- it is a very detailed question, and you
  8   are looking towards -- there is also base flow
  9   studies done last year about this time.
 10               MR. CURRIE:  Sorry?
 11               MR. MORGAN:  There was base flow
 12   studies which determined the base flow in the
 13   floodway.  These are done in the winter time so as
 14   not to be interfered with by runoff, et cetera,
 15   and that gives indication of the groundwater flow
 16   getting into the floodway.  So that's how the
 17   quantification was done.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  I don't mean to quibble
 19   with you too much, Mr. Morgan, clearly that would
 20   tell us how much water is flowing through the
 21   floodway, but it may not necessarily pinpoint
 22   where springs might be or otherwise?
 23               MR. MORGAN:  No, the springs are --
 24               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, maybe I can
 25   expand on that a little bit.  We have just lost
00983
  1   that section.
  2               In the report we have a drawing in
  3   appendix M, drawing H5C, I'm sure you have seen
  4   it, it is a profile along the floodway from the
  5   inlet to the outlet, and the location of the major
  6   springs are shown on that profile.  Now, that's
  7   based on the historical data at the time of
  8   construction, also on published literature.  And
  9   in addition, we, during the course of our work we
 10   were out in the field walking the floodway to
 11   examine spring locations.
 12               I might add, on that figure we did
 13   miss one spring location at the TransCanada
 14   Highway, and we are aware of other springs right
 15   near the outlet.
 16               I guess the scale of that -- it
 17   doesn't really highlight it, but just for the
 18   record, we show springs in the vicinity of Highway
 19   15, CNR Redditt, CPR Keewatin, through the Birds
 20   Hill area, and north of Dunning Road.  And as I
 21   mentioned earlier, at Highway 1 we are also aware
 22   of springs there.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Maybe in the analysis
 24   here, I guess, is that looking at this document,
 25   can you tell me -- when I look at it, maybe it is
00984
  1   just me -- can you tell me where those springs are
  2   occurring from that document, just looking at it
  3   yourself?
  4               MR. SMITH:  They are occurring in the
  5   bottom of the channel, and there is in our report,
  6   again, appendix M, section 8, there is a
  7   discussion on the groundwater discharge areas that
  8   describes them in more detail.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  But looking at
 10   that diagram, can you pinpoint those springs for
 11   me off that diagram now?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Well, you can't on the
 13   drawing that's in the report.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  We will get a paper copy
 15   to show the Commission.  It just doesn't show up
 16   very clearly because it is a light blue arrow.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Light blue arrow -- I
 18   don't see one there.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  It doesn't show clearly
 20   on the screen.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  I see one there now, yes.
 22   Okay.
 23               Is that an indicator then to us that
 24   that's where you've identified a spring coming
 25   out?
00985
  1               MR. SMITH:  The arrows on that drawing
  2   indicate springs of 100 gallons per minute or
  3   greater, as noted on the drawing.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  And 100 gallons per
  5   minute or less, you didn't note them?
  6               MR. SMITH:  In general where we show
  7   these arrows there is a zone of springs occurring,
  8   so there will be also smaller ones adjacent to it,
  9   we didn't show every arrow.
 10               MR. CURRIE:  I understand that there
 11   may be other springs, but I guess generally
 12   speaking, your analysis or your data doesn't
 13   show -- or at least on this, it may not mean that
 14   you didn't go get the data, I'm not suggesting
 15   that you didn't, what I want to know is that you
 16   didn't put on this particular diagram anything
 17   less than 100 gallons per minute; correct?
 18               MR. SMITH:  Well, the arrows show
 19   approximate areas where there is groundwater
 20   discharge of 100 gallons per minute or greater.
 21   That doesn't mean that it has to be all one
 22   spring, there could be a collection of springs of
 23   lesser flow that total 100.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Let's get back to --
 25   okay, so you are saying what you have anticipated
00986
  1   the blue arrow now to mean is that it could be a
  2   collection of small springs equalling 100 gallons
  3   per minute?
  4               MR. SMITH:  I'm clarifying that for
  5   you, yes.
  6               MR. CURRIE:  Okay, I understand that.
  7               Now, just so I understand this, and I
  8   mean, again, you are going to correct me I'm sure
  9   if I don't, but basically when we see these
 10   springs they are conduits to the groundwater,
 11   correct, possible conduits to the groundwater?
 12               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.  There has
 13   to be an interconnection to the aquifer.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, and as I understand
 15   it, we have got these conduits, possible conduits
 16   to the groundwater, and from what we see here,
 17   this is the upper aquifer; correct?  We are not
 18   talking the lower carbonate aquifer at this point,
 19   or are we?
 20               MR. SMITH:  No, we are dealing with
 21   the upper carbonate aquifer.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  And I note there
 23   that aside from the springs that we have, that you
 24   show a sand and gravel, I guess geography for lack
 25   of a better word, I don't know the actual
00987
  1   engineering term; is that correct, we have sand
  2   and gravel here?  And that appears to be coming
  3   right out to the top of the -- to the top of the
  4   floodway itself where you are actually at ground
  5   level?
  6               MR. SMITH:  That sand and gravel
  7   deposit is projected on to the profile.  It
  8   actually represents the Birds Hill sand and gravel
  9   Kame Esker deposit which occurs east of the
 10   floodway.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  I see.  So that's the
 12   actual Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer?
 13               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Okay, good.
 15               Now, along this diagram, aside from
 16   the Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer that we see
 17   in here, on the length of the floodway, do you
 18   have any data regarding any other smaller,
 19   insignificant sand and gravel deposits in there
 20   which would be a conduit to the groundwater
 21   itself?
 22               MR. SMITH:  The spring areas that
 23   occurred initially were developed at the time of
 24   construction in the 1960s, when the bedrock
 25   aquifer was still under its higher head.  So you
00988
  1   had that 20-foot or 6-metre head, as you know,
  2   that has dissipated or dropped at current levels.
  3   At the time of construction that still existed, so
  4   you had a significant differential pressure, if
  5   you will, from the bedrock aquifer up through the
  6   till and the overlying clay.  So in areas,
  7   particularly where there was a thin clay or a till
  8   exposure, that's where the springs would develop.
  9               So it is not a sand conduit up from
 10   the till necessarily.  It actually was a high
 11   differential pressure that forced openings through
 12   the clay.  And I might add that a lot of those
 13   openings since construction, since the pressure
 14   has dissipated, have partially or totally rehilled
 15   or infilled.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  Now just so I
 17   understand this, I mean, if we are talking about
 18   groundwater protection in the state of nature,
 19   clearly certain types of clay are the best, almost
 20   the best natural protection we can find; am I
 21   incorrect on that, I mean, short of a bedrock
 22   aquifer, or a bedrock that has absolutely no
 23   cracks in it?
 24               MR. SMITH:  What you are looking for
 25   is a low permeability layer that the water can't
00989
  1   pass through readily.  So certainly the lacustrine
  2   clays are very low permeability.  The till here is
  3   in fact a clay till for the most part and is also
  4   relatively low permeability.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  And then we just go up
  6   from there to higher permeability?
  7               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, into silts
  8   or sands.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  Now, with the
 10   baseline of your assessment, I have read through
 11   the transcripts and as I understand it, and again
 12   I need to be educated, your baseline is the
 13   existing floodway as it exists with all of the
 14   springs in it, with all of the conduits to the
 15   groundwater that may exist.  Am I to understand
 16   that's where you are starting with your project,
 17   and then we will move forward from there?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  Baseline is similar but
 19   it is a little bit more than that.  It is the
 20   condition that would occur currently and in the
 21   future with the project.  So it includes the --
 22   sorry, without the project.  It is the -- I will
 23   say that again.  The baseline is the environment
 24   now and into the future without the project.  So
 25   it includes existing conditions now, plus
00990
  1   potentially further erosion.  That's one of the
  2   reasons why when we looked at the assessment we
  3   also looked at the erosion control measures and
  4   infilling of the existing floodway when making the
  5   assessment that there should be no likely adverse
  6   effects.  There should be potentially beneficial
  7   effects in some areas.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  With regards to that
  9   then, I guess what I'm understanding you saying is
 10   that the baseline is the existing conditions, plus
 11   what you anticipate might be further conditions
 12   created by this specific project itself?
 13               MR. MORGAN:  No, I don't think it
 14   is -- you can clarify me if it is on -- the future
 15   conditions is future expected, not any
 16   anticipated, but expected.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  I see, so it is just more
 18   of actual expected changes, not --
 19               MR. MORGAN:  We can't anticipate any
 20   future event.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Right, what you expect
 22   will happen based on the historical process that
 23   has occurred already?
 24               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, continued erosion.
 25               MR. CURRIE:  And in particular erosion
00991
  1   being a good example of that?
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, and other activities
  3   in the area too.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  And other activities in
  5   the area meaning other development that has
  6   occurred on the fringes of this particular
  7   floodway that might have an impact on it, or are
  8   we talking about other developments just specific
  9   to the floodway?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  No, other activities and
 11   developments in the area which could have an
 12   overlap in effects.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  That's why we went
 15   towards the no effect condition of no deepening,
 16   infilling, control erosion, widening instead of --
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  I guess we are
 18   going to quibble, you and I, about whether there
 19   is a no effect result, but I understand your
 20   position, you take it that there is a no effect
 21   result.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  No likely significant
 23   adverse effects is the position that we state.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, and I understand
 25   that.
00992
  1               With regard to actual numbers, aside
  2   from the blue arrows that we are having a hard
  3   time distinguishing, were you able to put in the
  4   report somewhere a quantitative number where I
  5   could point to the Commission and say, there are
  6   34 springs, there are 31, there are none, there
  7   are 14?
  8               MR. SMITH:  As indicated earlier in
  9   appendix M, section 8, we do discuss some of the
 10   major springs, and I think it is important to
 11   appreciate that, as we brought out in the earlier
 12   discussions in this hearing, we have an ongoing
 13   program to monitor the springs along the channel.
 14               And when you have flow in the channel
 15   from surface runoff, you can't identify those
 16   springs in terms of actual total flow of the
 17   springs.  So we have been in fact monitoring again
 18   this winter to pick up flows along the channel at
 19   various locations, and that will give us a better
 20   quantitative number on the contributions at
 21   various stations along the channel.  However, the
 22   initial work that we did was consistent with that
 23   completed back in the early '70s when the channel
 24   was constructed.
 25               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Smith, so the answer
00993
  1   is no, you do not have a document that points to
  2   the number of springs that are found in that
  3   aquifer, that I can point the Commission to and
  4   say there is 34 springs there, there is 10, there
  5   is none, there is 22?
  6               MR. SMITH:  The number of springs will
  7   vary from season to season, depending on the
  8   amount of pressure and the conditions.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  So the answer is no, you
 10   do not have a written document in your EIS that
 11   says there are 34 or less, and give or take,
 12   because there are changes in the environment?
 13               MR. SMITH:  We do identify the major
 14   areas where springs occur, we did not quantify the
 15   exact number of springs, and that's not realistic
 16   to do that.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Did you quantify the
 18   number of springs that had a significance?
 19               MR. MORGAN:  You seem to be missing
 20   the point on significance here.  Significance is
 21   what we do when we assess the project, not when we
 22   assess the baseline.  So we can look at this and
 23   say, by not deepening, by having erosion control
 24   we do not expect this condition of springs from
 25   the aquifer to the floodway to increase
00994
  1   significantly.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  Let's get into
  3   that then.
  4               MR. SMITH:  Excuse me, Mr. Currie,
  5   maybe I need to clarify.  The springs are
  6   primarily occurring in the bottom of the low flow
  7   channel.  The low flow channel has water in it, so
  8   you can't walk along the flow channel and say, I
  9   see all of the springs, clearly they are masked by
 10   the flow.  So the intent is you measure the flow
 11   at different locations along the channel, and then
 12   you get a quantification of the contribution of
 13   springs in various sections.  And that's what we
 14   have done and we have identified the major zones
 15   of contribution.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  And it is not possible, I
 17   take it, Mr. Smith, to do the reverse of that,
 18   which is to stop the flow at a certain point, to
 19   hold it back in a particular low flow period,
 20   watch what occurs past that point to determine
 21   where your springs are at, and then do the
 22   calculation?
 23               MR. SMITH:  In the period that we did
 24   our investigations, it was probably the wettest
 25   summer on record and that was not done.
00995
  1               MR. CURRIE:  So the answer is, it was
  2   just not convenient at the time that you did your
  3   assessment to do that?
  4               MR. SMITH:  I wouldn't say convenient,
  5   I would say not practical.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I guess the answer is
  7   also that it is not necessary, in order to make
  8   the assessment of the project, that by infilling
  9   and erosion control we do not expect this to have
 10   a likely adverse effect, infilling and erosion
 11   control.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  My understanding is that
 13   the number of springs and the conduits between the
 14   floodway -- or sorry, the floodway channel and the
 15   lower carbonate aquifer, your model takes into
 16   account these springs.  Your modeling, when you
 17   went to use it, was taking into account the number
 18   of conduits to come to the conclusion there was
 19   going to be no significant adverse effects?
 20               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.  The
 21   regional model identified the locations of the
 22   springs by the interconnection that we applied to
 23   the model at the appropriate locations.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Well, you may not agree
 25   with me, but if your data is wrong, that you don't
00996
  1   have the number of springs correct, that you have
  2   more conduits between the aquifer and the
  3   floodway, that throws your model a little bit off?
  4               MR. SMITH:  What we have is very
  5   detailed measurements of the piezometric pressure
  6   or pressure level all along the floodway, and
  7   that's matched in our model in the contours which
  8   allows us then to have the proper -- if we have
  9   the proper interconnections then we can mirror the
 10   levels in the model.  And that was done both for
 11   construction for year 2000, and for the '97 flood.
 12   So we did represent that to a reasonable level.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Your model, though,
 14   however, would have to make sure that all other
 15   geophysical conditions were exactly as your model
 16   in order to make it a reality?  That is, in order
 17   to simulate reality, your model had to have a
 18   pretty good geophysical description of what you
 19   were dealing with; correct?
 20               MR. SMITH:  I suspect you mean
 21   geotechnical.  Geotechnical mean soils.  And
 22   that's correct, we did have that, we did a lot of
 23   drilling along the channel, well over 300 holes
 24   with both lab testing and field permeability
 25   testing.  So we have a reasonable representation
00997
  1   of the geotechnical or hydrogeological conditions
  2   along the floodway.
  3               MR. MORGAN:  Another point you have to
  4   understand is that the model is calibrated, and
  5   there is also sensitivity analysis done on
  6   modeling.  Exactness, precision is not what a
  7   groundwater model does.  I mean, your expert
  8   should be able to counsel you on this.  But,
  9   again, you also have to see mechanisms for
 10   significance.  By infilling and erosion control,
 11   I'm not sure where you see the mechanism for
 12   adding adverse effects?
 13               MR. CURRIE:  I will get to that, Mr.
 14   Morgan, and that's something for me to argue with
 15   the Commission.  In the meantime, I'm entitled to
 16   explore the evidence and make my own conclusions
 17   and arguments to the Commission.
 18               The next issue I would like to address
 19   is how many of those 300 test holes were done at
 20   springs?  How many of your test holes --
 21               MR. SMITH:  Well, I'm glad you asked
 22   that because in fact the detailed sections that we
 23   present in this report were selected specifically
 24   at areas of major springs, such as CPR Keewatin,
 25   Springhill, and in the Dunning Road area.  And in
00998
  1   those locations we did detailed drilling, both in
  2   the bedrock, the till and the clay, usually on
  3   either side of the floodway, and testing at those
  4   locations in order to use that information in our
  5   model to have a confidence level of the response.
  6   Again, those are selected as representative
  7   sections.  Clearly, you can't do a section on
  8   every mile along the floodway.  But, in addition,
  9   those were selected in areas where the province
 10   had installed monitoring wells and they had
 11   continuous water level readings in the bedrock,
 12   water pressure levels from pre-construction up to
 13   current date.  In other words, on a daily basis
 14   they recorded what the levels were, they respond
 15   to the water, the changes in the seasons, to the
 16   floods that pass.  So we had an excellent data
 17   base in order to calibrate our models and have a
 18   confidence level in the response.
 19               MR. CURRIE:  I don't care who answers
 20   the question, but what is the definition that your
 21   assessment, your environmental assessment uses for
 22   sensitive areas?  What is the definition?
 23               MR. MORGAN:  I don't understand.  Can
 24   you repeat the question?
 25               MR. CURRIE:  Well, earlier you
00999
  1   indicated to us that you were going to look at,
  2   your concerns were that you would not deepen in
  3   sensitive areas, and that you had somehow decided
  4   that there was some form of sensitive areas within
  5   the floodway.  And I'm just asking now, what is
  6   your definition of sensitive areas?
  7               MR. MORGAN:  I guess a sensitive area
  8   would be an area, as Mr. Smith discussed, the
  9   areas where there is potential for higher
 10   permeability material.  Like an area with eight
 11   metres of clay is less sensitive than an area with
 12   two metres of silt, and an area with potentially
 13   sandy silt is more sensitive.  So those are the
 14   areas which more, as he said, more testing was
 15   done, and we actually looked at specific modeling
 16   in three of the areas, more detailed modeling.
 17               MR. SMITH:  Maybe I can add to that,
 18   Mr. Morgan.  There was drilling done along the
 19   entire length of the channel.  We initially
 20   interpreted the stratigraphy, the soils
 21   conditions, identified areas where there is more
 22   likely to be groundwater infiltration, such as
 23   areas with a thin clay or no clay cover, and then
 24   focused on more drilling and testing and
 25   ultimately modeling those areas.
01000
  1               In addition to that, when we did the
  2   models, not only did we first run what was a
  3   representative value for the till permeability,
  4   which in this case is a clay till, right from the
  5   Highway 59 north to Lockport, but we also did
  6   sensitivity analysis where we reduced -- or sorry,
  7   increased the permeability to the equivalent of a
  8   sand.  So we said what if there was a sand pocket
  9   here, not a till, but pure sand connection to the
 10   bedrock, and then analyzed that case to see how
 11   quickly might surface water infiltrate under an
 12   extreme condition of the 1997 flood, which is the
 13   most extreme on record.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  I read that in
 15   your earlier evidence, Mr. Smith, that you had
 16   done your sensitivity to basically what you felt
 17   was the most sensitive you could put in there,
 18   still running a realistic model.
 19               MR. SMITH:  And I will add to that
 20   when you put those values in, the model didn't fit
 21   the observed pressure levels in the nearby
 22   piezometres.  So clearly it was two orders, you
 23   know, 100 times more permeable.  Certainly you can
 24   hypothesize even higher permeability connections,
 25   you can carry on forever.  It achieved our
01001
  1   purpose.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  The next question that I
  3   have is, there is really to my understanding two
  4   types of erosion occurring in this particular
  5   aquifer.  Am I wrong in that?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I don't understand the
  7   question.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Good, let's go on.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Could you clarify it?
 10               MR. CURRIE:  There is the first type
 11   of erosion which we call channelization, correct?
 12   As the water flows down you are deepening the
 13   channel simply by erosion of the water, and that's
 14   the one form of erosion that we talked about this
 15   morning; am I correct in that?
 16               MR. SMITH:  Are you referring to the
 17   erosion at the base of the low flow channel?
 18               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
 19               MR. SMITH:  That has occurred, yes,
 20   that's in the report, we show a profile of that.
 21   In fact, that erosion typically occurred in the
 22   clay zones, not in the till zones.  It is the clay
 23   that's more susceptible to erosion.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  That's the one form
 25   of erosion that we have identified this morning;
01002
  1   correct?
  2               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, and we
  3   have proposed to rectify that.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  But there is a second
  5   form of erosion, as I understand it, and that is,
  6   as you pointed out, you have hydraulic pressure
  7   coming up from the bottom, from the aquifer
  8   itself; correct?
  9               MR. SMITH:  I wouldn't expect there
 10   would be a lot of erosion there.  In fact, as I
 11   indicated, in a lot of cases those are anticipated
 12   to have been infilling since the original
 13   development, with silt deposition.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  There could be the
 15   opposite of erosion, there can be sedimentation
 16   also in natural mechanisms.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  I would agree with you,
 18   in a drought year we could have sedimentation, or
 19   the aquifer is drained out to a level that it
 20   doesn't have the pressure any further, sure, you
 21   can have that reverse.  And I'm going to make that
 22   argument that in fact you now have a conduit going
 23   the other way, that you can have in fact water
 24   flowing down that same channel, in effect?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  That's an argument or a
01003
  1   question?
  2               MR. CURRIE:  Is that correct?
  3               MR. SMITH:  During a flood scenario
  4   with the high level in the floodway, in fact, in
  5   the fairly high silt sand base load in the water,
  6   when you have water going down there, as I said,
  7   you would start to infill that opening.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  And so your suggestion is
  9   that this would help stop contaminating the
 10   aquifer by the fact that you have silt and sand in
 11   your Red River water, and as it flows backwards in
 12   the system that it would in fact now, so to speak,
 13   design its own plug?
 14               MR. SMITH:  To some extent, yes.  If
 15   you hypothesize that it has opened up, I'm
 16   indicating that in fact during a flood that would
 17   tend to replug.  So the sands and the silt, the
 18   silts in particular would be a lower permeability
 19   and reduce significantly any inflow.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  What about places where
 21   there is bedrock exposure and very little till?
 22               MR. SMITH:  In the channel there is
 23   very -- in fact, the areas where we had bedrock
 24   exposure were during construction at the inlet
 25   structure and the outlet structure, and possibly
01004
  1   in the immediate area upstream of the outlet
  2   structure.  And I note that I have seen a
  3   reference to bedrock outcropping one and a half
  4   kilometres upstream of Springhill.  And I have
  5   spoken to the design engineers at the time the
  6   floodway was constructed, a contractor engineer
  7   who worked in that area, and a construction
  8   supervisor in that area, and none of them recall
  9   bedrock in that area.  So I appreciate -- to the
 10   best of our understanding, there is not bedrock
 11   exposures along the floodway channel.
 12               MR. MORGAN:  There is though bedrock
 13   exposure along Lister Rapids in the Red River.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  My understanding
 15   is, even reading your own documents, that for sure
 16   in the '97 flood, and almost invariably when you
 17   run the floodway there is going to be a
 18   contaminant event in the groundwater.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  I don't think -- I don't
 20   think that was in the document, a contaminant --
 21   there is intrusion, and we can clarify that, we
 22   have some slides that -- are you talking about the
 23   river?
 24               MR. CURRIE:  No, I'm talking about the
 25   floodway itself.  When you operate the floodway,
01005
  1   you are going to have surface water come into
  2   contact with groundwater.  That is almost with
  3   certainty.  Is that correct?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
  5               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, but that does not
  6   mean it is at a well or anything like that, so I
  7   don't want to alarm people.  That surface water
  8   and groundwater along the river are always in
  9   contact, along every river stream, that's an
 10   interface.  So, you know, you have to be clear
 11   when you make statements like that.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  My next question is that
 13   each time then we see the contact between
 14   groundwater and surface water, and if you want to
 15   argue with me about whether the Red River comes in
 16   contact with groundwater or it doesn't, the fact
 17   of the matter is right now you have got a man-made
 18   event occurring where you have more surface water
 19   coming into contact with groundwater.  Would you
 20   agree with me or disagree with that?  Not more in
 21   the sense of traditional volumes, but certainly
 22   more opportunity.  You have created another
 23   structure which relates to a possibility of
 24   groundwater and surface water interaction?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  Possibility, yes.
01006
  1               MR. SMITH:  And maybe to clarify, Mr.
  2   Currie, that's correct, and for the most part that
  3   groundwater is flowing upward discharging into the
  4   channel, so there is that contact.  But for the
  5   most part, the pressure coming up from the ground
  6   exceeds the water level in the channel.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  What you are suggesting
  8   to me is that you are of the position that even
  9   though you have created this additional source of
 10   contact, not you personally but necessarily the
 11   construction itself has created this second form
 12   of possible contact, you have now said to us, but,
 13   because you have springs in there, you have
 14   hydrological pressure which really prevents that
 15   contact.  Is that essentially --
 16               MR. SMITH:  That's not correct.  The
 17   contact is there.  What I'm saying is it is an
 18   upward gradient, flowing upward, so it would be
 19   localized to the base of the channel.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  I see.  So you are saying
 21   it is not flowing down into the bedrock aquifer?
 22               MR. SMITH:  When there is an upward
 23   gradient from the groundwater, that's correct.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  What happens when there
 25   is no upward gradient, when you have a drought
01007
  1   that may have occurred?
  2               MR. SMITH:  Then there is no flood and
  3   there is no water in the channel.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  Where does the flood
  5   waters come from, do they come only from Manitoba?
  6               MR. SMITH:  The floods on record of
  7   concern, when the water level in the channel
  8   exceeds the pressure in the wells -- and again I
  9   remind you that we have records from day one of
 10   the flood operation -- the pressures, the water
 11   levels in those wells are for the most part,
 12   adjacent to the floodway, are higher than the
 13   water level in the floods.  So that's real data.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  I guess the question that
 15   I asked is, do the flood waters only come from
 16   Manitoba?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  No.
 18               MR. SMITH:  The flood basin, as you
 19   know, extends into the States.
 20               MR. MORGAN:  But floods usually come
 21   when there is a regional wet period.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  A significant flood such
 23   as the 1997 flood was impacted because we had
 24   significant water or precipitation within the
 25   region; correct?
01008
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Correct.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  But it doesn't mean that
  3   you aren't seeing, in effect, the use of the
  4   floodway without that additional precipitation?
  5   In other words, the basin, as you have pointed
  6   out, extends into the U.S. and it may well be
  7   their amount of precipitation which determines the
  8   amount that the floodway is used, or at least has
  9   a significant impact on it?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  I'm not sure -- that the
 11   floods can come from the U.S., yes.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  And in those
 13   circumstances, when we have that event coming from
 14   the U.S. and we use the floodway, and I wouldn't
 15   say even on a drought, but even on a normal year,
 16   it is possible for those conduits between the
 17   channel and the upper aquifer to reverse the flow.
 18   Correct?
 19               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we have a whole
 20   section on surface water intrusion in the EIS
 21   where we have assessed this existing condition
 22   with the expanded condition, so I'm --
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I guess I'm confused
 24   because Mr. Smith just seemed to eliminate where I
 25   was going with this by simply saying that the
01009
  1   hydrological pressure is such as you would never
  2   reverse the flow into the aquifer, it is likely to
  3   remain up and the contact will be within the
  4   channel?
  5               MR. MORGAN:  He was talking in the
  6   inactive condition when the floodway is not in
  7   operation, which is most of the year, even during
  8   a flood.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  On an active condition of
 10   usage of the floodway, does that flow reverse
 11   itself?
 12               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we modeled that.  It
 13   was very much of a concern of ours.  We took it
 14   very seriously.  We did an extensive amount of
 15   work, calibrated models, did sensitivity analysis
 16   and made our assessment.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  As a matter of fact, you
 18   came to the conclusion that there was potential
 19   surface water groundwater interaction out to the
 20   boundaries, I guess, of your floodway, or
 21   essentially to that depth, that you would see the
 22   effects of surface water through the groundwater,
 23   to the boundaries of your floodway; that was your
 24   conclusion?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  We can go through this
01010
  1   again and I can explain it to you.  Well,
  2   actually, we can explain it to you in a sensitive
  3   area if you like?
  4               MR. CURRIE:  No, I would just like you
  5   to tell me, did you come to the conclusion that
  6   you had surface water come -- or appear at the
  7   boundaries of your floodway in the groundwater
  8   aquifer?
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Okay.  I hope you
 10   understand that all groundwater comes from surface
 11   water.  So in any time, that's where it comes
 12   from.  So what we did is we looked at a modeling
 13   to determine the rate of flow of surface water
 14   from the floodway into the -- not into the till,
 15   and expected that in most cases along the floodway
 16   it would turn back after the flood.  We then
 17   looked at an unrepresentative highly sensitive
 18   case and said, yes, there is potential for it to
 19   get into the aquifer.  We then looked at rates of
 20   travel and --
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Are you suggesting --
 22               MR. HANDLON:  Let him finish.
 23               Mr. Chairman, I'm going to interject,
 24   because Mr. Morgan was going through his answer
 25   and it is a responsive answer, and he should be
01011
  1   allowed to complete it before he is interrupted or
  2   another question posed.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would agree.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  Maybe it would be easier
  5   if we showed some diagrams of the surface water
  6   intrusion modelling.  I mean, in a sensitive area
  7   we did look at this, we did have concerns.  Let's
  8   go through a presentation of surface water
  9   intrusion, because that seems to be the concern.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would like to note,
 11   Mr. Currie, that a lot of this was canvassed on
 12   Thursday, and this explanation was covered on
 13   Thursday as well.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  What we have shown,
 15   though, is an area which may be of a concern to
 16   the people in the East St. Paul area where their
 17   wells are.  We didn't show that example, it is the
 18   EIS, and we can talk about that one also.
 19               This is the regional groundwater flow,
 20   and this is Birds Hill area here, and we have
 21   shown this one.  We did show this, we just want to
 22   show it again to put people's mind frame back to
 23   where we are.  So what we did, next slide, is --
 24   sorry, I can't put the laser through people --
 25   what we did is, there was groundwater modeling to
01012
  1   expressly look at the potential for surface water
  2   intrusion at three locations along the floodway.
  3   These are locations that were selected because
  4   they were potentially sensitive; the Keewatin
  5   bridge around Highway 59, which is the Springhill
  6   area and Dunning Road.  I showed the Dunning Road
  7   one earlier, and I will show this Springhill area
  8   also.
  9               Next slide.  This is the sand and
 10   gravel aquifer.  As we have said, this recharge
 11   comes from the Birds Hill area.  This higher
 12   piezometric head here is from a well which would
 13   be located in the carbonate aquifer, and the lower
 14   one is the water table in the sand and gravel
 15   aquifer.  The flow goes through into the carbonate
 16   aquifer, and there is upwelling here.  During
 17   inactive conditions, the flow is into the
 18   floodway.
 19               What we wanted to look at was a flood
 20   condition, so what was modeled was the flood of
 21   1997.
 22               Next slide.  Now, upon reviewing the
 23   documents provided by Conestoga-Rovers, they make
 24   comment about GUDI studies.  And I want to just
 25   explain this a little bit more.  There is concern
01013
  1   that the existing floodway or expansion project
  2   may affect wells.  The Ministry of the Environment
  3   in Ontario, the MOE, has developed a terms of
  4   reference for a hydrogeologic study to examine
  5   groundwater sources under the direct influence of
  6   surface water -- those are often called GUDI
  7   studies -- for a public water supply.  And the
  8   appendix C of the Conestoga report has the full
  9   protocols.  This is done to ensure that
 10   appropriate treatment is provided to the public
 11   water supply.  If there is evidence of direct
 12   influence of surface water on groundwater, then a
 13   full treatment should be done of the water supply.
 14               Next slide.  Now, looking at that
 15   terms of reference, a critical part of a study
 16   like this is to assess the hydrogeology in the
 17   region of the municipal wells to assess water
 18   capture zones, i.e. this is to determine where the
 19   water is coming from.  They give examples.  They
 20   say a preferred method is to use a numerical model
 21   called "mod flow."  This is the model that was
 22   used in this case, in the EIS.
 23               The assumptions, they you say should
 24   submit reports which show your assumptions and
 25   your sensitivity analysis.  This is in the EIS and
01014
  1   is documented in appendix P, engineering reports,
  2   the model and the sensitivity.
  3               Now there is a potential -- the
  4   potential for the floodway to be within the
  5   capture zone for the 1997 flood condition was
  6   looked at.  We did not -- I don't want to make a
  7   mistake, but this is not a GUDI study, the
  8   hydrogeology was based on the same principles and
  9   the rigour of doing a GUDI study, but it is not.
 10               Other features outside of the
 11   floodway, to east of the wells -- and we will show
 12   an air photo of this area so you can get a good
 13   feel for what is there.  But this is not a GUDI
 14   study.  A GUDI study is the responsibility of the
 15   water supplier to understand whether they need to
 16   have further treatment.  But it is just saying
 17   that the model used, the rigour in terms of
 18   calibration and sensitivity analysis was done in
 19   terms of the floodway intrusion assessment.
 20               If you can put up an air photo of the
 21   region which will show more specifically where the
 22   modeling was done.
 23               This is the region, this is the
 24   floodway here, Highway 59, the Oasis Road is along
 25   here, and the RM has wells in this region here
01015
  1   right along the Oasis Road.  Modeling study -- we
  2   are just saying what we did do was only look at
  3   the floodway impacts.  A GUDI study would be done
  4   to look at the region, so it would be more in all
  5   directions looking at the potential water capture
  6   from gravel pits, residences in this area here.
  7   We looked at -- the model of the study that we did
  8   was to look at effects at baseline conditions and
  9   effects of the floodway expansion, and that was
 10   done in this region here.
 11               Go back to the presentation here.
 12               This is in the EIS figure 5.4-4.  It
 13   is also in appendix P, which has the details of
 14   the modeling studies.  This is a 1997 flood
 15   condition.  This is looking east over here, west
 16   over here, through the floodway.  East St. Paul's
 17   municipal wells are located over here.  This is
 18   following the flood to the furthest extent of the
 19   intrusion for the calibrated model.
 20               Remember, this model was calibrated so
 21   that the wells located around the floodway match
 22   the conditions in '97.  So the wells are over
 23   here, this is the furthest extent during the
 24   flood.
 25               Now after the flood, next slide --
01016
  1   just a second, one point.  Even at the flood here,
  2   the water levels in the sand and gravel aquifer
  3   over here, this is the carbonate aquifer, the sand
  4   and gravel and the pressure from the carbonate
  5   aquifer in the East St. Paul wells and this region
  6   here is higher in the floodway.  There is an area
  7   here where the flood is higher, but as you go
  8   towards the wells the groundwater levels rise and
  9   they are actually higher.  But there is a point
 10   for some intrusion to go from the floodway, some
 11   water to go from the floodway into the till, or
 12   the silty sand and into the floodway.
 13               The yellow part is -- next slide
 14   please, I will show you one thing.  This water
 15   here in this location where it is sloping down is
 16   flowing this way, even though this water is
 17   flowing that way.
 18               Next slide.  When the flood is
 19   finished, flood waters go down, next, and at that
 20   point this yellow water here is recaptured back in
 21   the floodway.  The pressure from here flows back
 22   up, the water is recaptured back in the floodway.
 23   So the water does not continue moving on to an
 24   area where it can effect the wells.
 25               Next slide.  This pink area, as it
01017
  1   said down here, the water is not captured within
  2   the floodway within one year.  Some of it does go
  3   back, but not all of it.  And we will talk a bit
  4   more about the analysis done to some of this water
  5   even in an unrepresentative case.
  6               Next slide.  This is what the
  7   sensitivity analysis -- as we talked about
  8   earlier, the calibrated model, this is what you
  9   expect to happen.  You do sensitivity analysis to
 10   understand what areas should we continue on with
 11   further monitoring in case there is something
 12   unrepresentative?  Sort of, it is a sort of the
 13   belt and suspenders, we don't know what we are
 14   doing in terms of calibration, but we are going to
 15   make sure by monitoring if we find it is
 16   potentially a sensitive area.
 17               So in this case, the unrepresentative
 18   case, the silty till in this area is replaced by,
 19   soon to be replaced by sand.  So in this case the
 20   extent of the intrusion would be further.  The
 21   flow though of this condition is still going this
 22   way.  That's why even though you do a very highly
 23   unrepresentative low permeability sanding here,
 24   water does not flow up hill, it still only goes so
 25   far and then it will return.
01018
  1               Next slide.  So after the flood, this
  2   water here will return to the floodway.  Some of
  3   this will go back in, but it could take longer
  4   than a year.  Some of this could move to the west.
  5   This is where -- this is what we agree upon.
  6               Next slide.  But this is a potential,
  7   remember, this is an unrepresentative condition.
  8   On the east side, just to clarify, these wells are
  9   up gradient, the floodway is not influencing these
 10   wells even during a major flood such as 1997.  On
 11   the west side, even for unrepresentative cases,
 12   the travel times are expected to be long.
 13               Now the project in this area is
 14   widening, but as we have presented in evidence
 15   last week, and I haven't got it here, there is
 16   going to be a clay cutoff wall put in on that east
 17   side.  That is done to keep the water levels up
 18   higher on the -- the groundwater levels higher on
 19   the east side, and that will maintain the same
 20   sort of resistance between the floodway and the
 21   wells.
 22               Another thing, when you widen the
 23   floodway for the same flood of 1997, the water
 24   levels in the floodway would be about one metre
 25   lower, so there would be less pressure pushing it
01019
  1   towards the east.  So the project is not expected
  2   to significantly affect well quality, the project,
  3   the expansion project.
  4               Next slide.  This was done at the
  5   sensitive areas, CPR Keewatin Bridge, as I said,
  6   the Springhill area and Dunning Road which we
  7   talked about earlier.  And the key there, as we
  8   showed earlier, the flow generally is from east to
  9   west, so the area of concern where we are looking
 10   at more monitoring wells, but we did look at this
 11   local area model.
 12               Next slide.  This is the Dunning Road
 13   one we showed earlier.  In the Dunning Road the
 14   expected case is you will widen a bit, they don't
 15   show it here but it will be a little lower.  You
 16   will get no more vertical intrusion.  You will get
 17   a little bit of expanded contact here I guess you
 18   could say with the groundwater, although after the
 19   flood it goes back.  So that was just a reminder
 20   of what we went through last time.
 21               Next slide.  The travel times to the
 22   west of the right-of-way were estimated.  This
 23   information is selected from appendix P, the table
 24   is annex C.  At Springhill Oasis Road -- for the
 25   expected case in all of these ones, the
01020
  1   groundwater -- Springhill is different than the
  2   other two.  The other two it is all expected to
  3   return to the channel within a year.  At
  4   Springhill it may take more than a year to return,
  5   after a 1997 flood, which is a one in 100 year
  6   flood.
  7               So we also looked at the unrepresented
  8   sensitivity case.  In that case, going west of the
  9   right-of-way at Springhill, it would take greater
 10   than ten years to get to the right-of-way.  You
 11   will recall those GUDI studies that we talked
 12   about earlier.  When they look at that they are
 13   looking at wells in Ontario and they say you
 14   should have at least 50 days travel time to your
 15   municipal well.  So in these cases it is much
 16   higher.  450 days -- and this is the
 17   unrepresented, I keep reminding myself and
 18   everybody, this is potential but not expected --
 19   450 days at Dunning Road and 145 days at CPR.
 20               And the comments, these are areas that
 21   we said continue monitoring in all of these
 22   sensitive areas.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Dr. Morgan.
 24   That's an appropriate place to take a break.  We
 25   will break for 15 minutes, and come back at 10 to
01021
  1   sharp.
  2               (Proceedings recessed at 10:30 a.m.
  3               and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
  4   
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Order, please.  People,
  6   please take your seats quickly, please.
  7   Mr. Currie.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, before I
  9   start again, I noted that you had made a comment
 10   midway through that this stuff had been covered on
 11   Thursday.  There is two things that I'd like to
 12   ask the Commission to consider.  The first is
 13   that, one, we're in this community and this
 14   information, while it's readily available on the
 15   transcripts for us professionals and we realize
 16   it, this community wants to hear and see what
 17   actually is going on in that channelized floodway.
 18   So that's the first thing, that it's a little
 19   broader and perhaps a little overlapped may not
 20   hurt.
 21               Secondly, I'm going to submit that
 22   it's not necessarily me who is going into the
 23   Thursday presentation.  I may be asking questions,
 24   but the Floodway Authority is taking every
 25   opportunity they can to restate their case in a
01022
  1   much more broader context than the question I
  2   asked.  And I'm going to submit that those are two
  3   things that I don't want saddled, if you will, on
  4   my questioning doorstep.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  I won't comment on your
  6   second point, Mr. Currie.  On your first point, I
  7   agree that there is a great amount of value in
  8   recanvassing some of this area for the benefit of
  9   the local citizens.  So I will allow you some
 10   latitude.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.
 12               We have heard a lot about your change
 13   in design from considering any deepening to more
 14   of a process of widening.  And you pretty much
 15   stated, I guess, that there will be no deepening.
 16   I'm just wondering, with what certainty can you
 17   provide the residents of this community and
 18   perhaps the participant municipalities that there
 19   will be no deepening?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, as I mentioned
 21   earlier, the design to increase the capacity of
 22   the channel was an evolutionary process.  We
 23   started out at 2 metres, up to 2 metres deepening
 24   when we submitted the concept design with the
 25   original environmental licence.  As Mr. Morgan had
01023
  1   indicated, through public consultation and because
  2   of the overriding concern of groundwater, we
  3   jumped to the step of no more than 2 feet or 0.5
  4   or 0.6 metres at select locations.  And we had
  5   publicly announced last week at the beginning of
  6   the hearings that we will not be deepening to
  7   increase the capacity of the channel and we stand
  8   firm on that.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  I have read in your EIS
 10   that if design and construction require it, you
 11   would in fact consider deepening at that point?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  The EIS was drafted in
 13   July and submitted on August 3, 2004, and so
 14   that's old news.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  I understand it's old
 16   news, but the principle still stands today, if
 17   design and construction require it, you will
 18   deepen?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  We are confident, and
 20   that's why we made the announcement, that we will
 21   not be deepening.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Now, by widening the
 23   channel, I suppose it might be somewhat semantics
 24   to say that you're not also deepening some of the
 25   channel in the sense that you are taking the
01024
  1   channel walls and removing that dirt or
  2   construction to the floor of the existing
  3   floodway.  Is that correct?
  4               MR. MORGAN:  You can point me to the
  5   diagram of the widening that you make your point
  6   on.  Could you clarify where you think deepening
  7   is occurring?
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Sure.  I take it this is
  9   the widened channel; correct?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  And I take it that the
 12   area that we see, I guess where the arrow
 13   starts -- yes, right there.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  For the purpose of the
 15   record, maybe the witness or counsel can just
 16   direct everyone to the slide that's on the screen
 17   so that we have a record of what's being referred
 18   to.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 20               MR. REMPEL:  This slide was taken from
 21   Mr. McNeil's presentation I believe on Tuesday of
 22   last week.  I don't have a slide number, but it's
 23   in Mr. McNeil's presentation.  And this particular
 24   slide shows the manner in which is proposed to
 25   enlarge the channel.
01025
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Which I'm given to
  2   understand is actually this part right in here; am
  3   I correct?
  4               MR. REMPEL:  Yes.  The purple areas in
  5   the cross section of the channel are conceptually,
  6   the concepts are shown of widening the channel to
  7   achieve the additional capacity instead of
  8   enlarging it by going down.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yeah.  In effect, you're
 10   taking the channel itself and lowering it to this
 11   bottom portion.  That is a corner of the channel,
 12   correct?
 13               MR. REMPEL:  There will be excavation
 14   at the edges of the existing channel to make it
 15   larger, wider, yes.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  And it may be semantics
 17   but, in essence, as it relates to this portion
 18   right here, you are deepening the channel?
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you are
 20   correct, Mr. Currie, that it is semantics.  I
 21   think the point of concern here is whether or not
 22   they are deepening the floor of the channel.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Well, that may be one
 24   aspect of it, Mr. Chairman, but there may be other
 25   aspects that I'd like to explore such as, for
01026
  1   example, have you now created a greater surface
  2   exposure at the bottom?
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that that's a
  4   valid point.  But to sort of couch it in the
  5   language of deepening, I don't see where that
  6   leads us.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Okay, fair game.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, just for
  9   clarification, the line shown here is prairie, so
 10   prairie is to go all the way across here.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  By prairie you mean
 12   ground level, normal ground level?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Normal ground level, and
 14   this is the existing spoil pile from the original
 15   excavation, and from the widening excavation, we
 16   will take that spoil material and place it behind
 17   and/or on top of the existing spoil piles.  And
 18   now Mr. Smith would like to explain the
 19   differences between widening and deepening with
 20   excavation, in trying to help answer Mr. Currie's
 21   question.
 22               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, I may just add
 23   to that that the bottom of the main channel slopes
 24   at a 1 to 20 horizontal.  In other words, it's
 25   sloping upward as we move outward from the
01027
  1   centre -- sorry, correction, 1 to 50.  So for
  2   every foot you go up vertically, you move over
  3   50 feet horizontally.  So there is an up slope
  4   throughout that.  So as we widen that channel and
  5   remove the side slopes of existing channel, we are
  6   actually going up slope as well, so increasing the
  7   thickness of cover over the aquifer.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Are you suggesting that
  9   at this portion of the floodway that you are, in
 10   fact, increasing the thickness between the aquifer
 11   and the existing floodway?  Is that what your
 12   position is or did I misunderstand?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Relative to the existing
 14   floodway base, as you widen and move outward,
 15   there will be an increasing thickness.  So we're
 16   not making it any worse in that respect.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Can you assure us that,
 18   given that you have seemed to take in your
 19   baseline of the bedrock as being pretty level
 20   there, that it is in fact, it is going to be
 21   consistent from one side to the other?
 22               MR. SMITH:  No, our baseline is based
 23   on actual drilling, so we defined the bedrock as
 24   it was in the --
 25               MR. CURRIE:  As it existed?
01028
  1               MR. SMITH:  -- existed at the sites
  2   analyzed.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  I was wondering what part
  4   of the report, as it relates to microbiology, what
  5   part of the report explains at this point the type
  6   and extent of microbes and other organisms that
  7   might be found within the floodway waters that are
  8   travelling down the floodway?
  9               MR. REMPEL:  You're asking about the
 10   water quality characteristics of the water in the
 11   floodway when it's operational?
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Correct.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  We'll take a minute and
 14   find the appropriate spot in the EIS.
 15               MR. SMITH:  That would be in appendix
 16   M.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
 18               MR. SMITH:  We have data on the
 19   coliform monitoring in the river water.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Is that the extent of it
 21   was the coliform content?
 22               MS. FRIEDMAN-HAMM:  In the report on
 23   figure E.4.3 is the graph of the coliform content
 24   of the Red River at the south gate of the floodway
 25   from 1978 to 1985.  This is data from the
01029
  1   provincial database from Water Stewardship.
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Just to clarify, coliform
  3   bacteria is an indicator of other bacteria.  We
  4   are in no way saying that's the only one there.
  5   We are using it as an indicator that there is
  6   bacteria of a variety of forms in the flood
  7   waters.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  And am I given to
  9   understand that the information you relied on,
 10   given Ms. Friedman's comments, that that was from
 11   '78 to '85; is that correct, or did I
 12   misunderstand you?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Just to clarify, what did
 14   you mean by information we relied on?
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Well, I had understood
 16   her to say that there was coliform monitoring in
 17   the floodway, and that there was data that you had
 18   under E.4.3 that stated you had, that there had
 19   been collection of provincial data from '78 to
 20   '85.
 21               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, but what
 22   is your reference --
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  That was his question.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, that was just
 25   essentially my question.
01030
  1               MR. SMITH:  I just wanted to clarify,
  2   data we relied on for what?
  3               MR. CURRIE:  For determining the
  4   content of microbes in that floodway?
  5               MR. MORGAN:  I guess that was part of
  6   it, but also we do acknowledge in the EIS, page
  7   519, that there is wastewater and land drainage
  8   discharged to the floodway, although it's expected
  9   that any wastewater discharges would be required
 10   to comply to the applicable regulations.  But we
 11   do again acknowledge bacteria in surface water,
 12   hence the assessments we did.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  From 1985 to the year
 14   2005, are there other microbes evolving as we
 15   speak today, i.e. from '85 to 2005 there are other
 16   microbes that actually have come into existence?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  Not that I know of.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  No?  You would
 19   disagree --
 20               MR. MORGAN:  But everything is
 21   evolving all the time, I'm not sure what you're --
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Well, I'm just talking
 23   about generally.  We've got 1985 data, and you're
 24   talking about coliform content, and the extent of
 25   that is that you are able to tell us that there is
01031
  1   microbes in the water.  That's what you're telling
  2   us?
  3               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, there is microbes in
  4   the water.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  You cannot tell me what
  6   microbes beyond the coliform content?
  7               MR. MORGAN:  The coliform is an
  8   indicator commonly used in water treatment and
  9   water assessments to indicate that there is
 10   bacteria.  It is not common practice to do a
 11   complete inventory of all potential bacteria in
 12   waters, even when you're doing a water supply or
 13   water treatment work.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps I might
 15   interject here.  We're just looking at this graph
 16   at the table.  Is there similar data available
 17   post 1985?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  There is data in the Red
 19   River continuously taken at the inlet at Selkirk.
 20   There is data taken throughout the City of
 21   Winnipeg, mostly it's on coliforms, e.coli, total
 22   coliforms, fecal coliforms.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, you have these
 24   half a dozen years covered on this graph in the
 25   '70s and early '80s.  Did you not feel it was
01032
  1   necessary or advisable to --
  2               MR. MORGAN:  We don't see that the
  3   floodway is adding any more coliforms in the
  4   pathway.  In the water quality, we focused on
  5   things which have potential to be added to the
  6   floodway by the project.  We do acknowledge that
  7   there is coliforms in the water.  It should be
  8   treated as there is coliforms bacteria, therefore,
  9   we did the analysis that I showed earlier, as you
 10   would do for potential GUDI or whatever, that type
 11   of thing.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  I'd just like to add,
 14   there is a database, as Dr. Morgan indicated,
 15   upstream of the channel inlet which covers the
 16   period post '85, and it would give water quality
 17   the characteristics such as suspended solids,
 18   nutrients, and on the bacterial side it would have
 19   fecal coliform which is an indicator of
 20   contamination.  And we certainly would expect
 21   during a flood that the surface water would have
 22   high levels of fecal coliform indicating some
 23   contamination from feed lots, lagoons, whatever.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  I guess the
 25   chairman got exactly where I was going, which was
01033
  1   the prudence of relying on '85 data to the year
  2   2005.  And now, while he's prepared to accept the
  3   answer that you've given him, I am just not in
  4   this sense, that you've got evolving conditions
  5   from '85 to 2005, you've got more hog farms
  6   downstream from you, you've got more development
  7   downstream from you.  Would you disagree with me
  8   on either one of those premises, that from '85 to
  9   2005, that we've seen more development?
 10               MR. REMPEL:  Certainly there's been
 11   more development.  Did you say hog farms
 12   downstream of the project?
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Well, yes -- well,
 14   downstream of your project, or upstream rather --
 15   sorry, my apologies, you're right, upstream.
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Certainly there's been
 17   developments both upstream and downstream and in
 18   the floodway area itself.  But if you are looking
 19   for that database, we can provide that surface
 20   water quality database updated to current
 21   conditions in terms of -- it's an easy thing to
 22   access database and provide you with that
 23   information, if that's useful.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  I was wondering why we
 25   don't have it.  That's what I'm wondering.  I
01034
  1   mean, it's readily accessible.  It tells us
  2   information, puts a community at rest.
  3               MR. REMPEL:  Well, we would not expect
  4   that the expansion project would change the
  5   characteristics of the flood waters going down the
  6   Red River or the floodway itself.  We just didn't
  7   see it as a pathway, a vector of the expansion of
  8   the project, of the floodway.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  And that, sir, may be
 10   where there's a big problem, and maybe it's a
 11   misunderstanding and maybe it's just our
 12   perception.  But it appears that you have
 13   essentially taken that portion and deemed it a
 14   non-issue by virtue of having said, we didn't
 15   think the expansion of the floodway will have any
 16   effect on the contents of the Red River.  I agree
 17   with you, it will not have any effect on the
 18   contents of the river.  However, reverse it a bit.
 19   You have now more water going through that
 20   floodway, and the contents are different.  You are
 21   raising the level.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Currie, you're
 23   getting into a debate here, and you'll have plenty
 24   of time to make debate and argument later on in
 25   these hearings.  Please restrict yourself to
01035
  1   questioning at this point.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  3   My question is, are you going to put more content
  4   of water through that floodway?
  5               MR. REMPEL:  During severe flood
  6   events, there will be more water flowing down the
  7   floodway.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  And as part of
  9   that, when we put more water down the floodway, is
 10   that not part of an analysis of accumulative
 11   effects?  That is, that you have more water going
 12   down the floodway and, therefore, something you
 13   should analyze what is going on there?
 14               MR. REMPEL:  And we have done that.
 15               MR. MORGAN:  We have done that.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  But you didn't feel the
 17   database had any value to you, that is the '85 to
 18   2005.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  It wasn't required in
 20   order to do the effects assessment.  As we showed
 21   earlier, we did assume that there would be
 22   bacteria in the water and we did thorough
 23   hydrogeological assessments.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  What I'm given to
 25   understand is that as this project evolves there
01036
  1   are still design and construction changes that may
  2   occur; am I correct on that?
  3               MR. REMPEL:  The design is evolving.
  4   It is common practice in designing engineering
  5   projects to do a conceptual design, proceeding to
  6   a more detailed design.  And details do evolve,
  7   even during the tendering process when the final
  8   documents are issued for contractors to bid on.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  And at that point in
 10   time, my understanding is that when we get to the
 11   detailed design phase, the MFA has some
 12   anticipation to have public input.  Am I correct
 13   on that or have I missed the point?
 14               MR. REMPEL:  The Authority has
 15   indicated it will have ongoing public involvement.
 16   I'm not sure if the design details will change
 17   sufficient that the design will be a major element
 18   of that involvement, but certainly the Authority
 19   will be open to discussing details of bridge
 20   closures, details of piling, when it will occur,
 21   that kind of thing.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  I follow that, but my
 23   question is this:  Does the MFA have a plan that
 24   they can present to the Commission to have them
 25   assess whether the public input is going to be
01037
  1   meaningful in the sense of how you are going to do
  2   it?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  First of all, over the
  4   last 14 months, we've had significant public
  5   consultation on the predesign and hence the
  6   widening rather than deepening.  And we've also
  7   committed to future consultation as we go through
  8   this project, specifically during construction.
  9   With respect to road access, we have committed to
 10   continuous access across each of the crossings
 11   except maybe at Highway 44, but all the other
 12   roads will be accessible across the floodway
 13   during construction.
 14               If there is any change from that, then
 15   yes, we would expect to have public consultation,
 16   any changes from the design that is now on the
 17   table.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  I guess my question is,
 19   do you have any plans that you put forward in your
 20   proposal as to how you are going to hold your
 21   public consultations, how are the public going to
 22   respond, and are you obliged to hold them?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  I think as managers of
 24   this project, it's just good, a good approach to
 25   keep the public involved.  And although we don't
01038
  1   have it written down anywhere specifically how
  2   we're going to go forward from here, we have
  3   indicated it will be more of the same which has
  4   occurred in the past, and that's a commitment that
  5   we are making.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I can give an example of
  7   I guess a commitment made in the EIS by MFEA under
  8   groundwater mitigation specifically.  There is
  9   discussion about dewatering at the bridges and
 10   that there's potential for short-term effects from
 11   the dewatering.  And there's a commitment made to
 12   mitigate this.  However, on page 5-19, they have
 13   outlined the groundwater mitigation policy.  And
 14   in it they say that the examples of mitigation
 15   include lowering of pumps and individual wells,
 16   deepening existing wells, installing new wells.
 17   This is if they are unable to stop the effect by a
 18   number of other mitigation activities described
 19   later.  But the affected property owners are to be
 20   involved in determining the mitigation and MFEA is
 21   open to suggestions on mitigation alternatives.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  While I'm thinking of it,
 23   on your drawing regarding the influence of water,
 24   surface water on your model, remember the model
 25   you put on the screen?  Yes?
01039
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Well, that's a
  2   representation of the model.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  At Oasis Road.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  While I'm there, you put
  6   on a circle indicating the East St. Paul wells,
  7   correct?
  8               MR. MORGAN:  Yeah, there was East St.
  9   Paul wells that were marked to the east of the
 10   floodway.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  Yeah.  In your model
 12   diagram, can you show me where the draw down cone
 13   from the wells appears?
 14               MR. SMITH:  Maybe I can comment on
 15   that, Mr. Currie.  The water level at J006, which
 16   is the provincial well adjacent to the municipal
 17   wells, represented shall we say the net effects of
 18   pumping at those wells.  Actually at the time of
 19   this, there was only two wells operating of the
 20   municipal wells.  So we recognize there will be
 21   local draw down cones.  You're dealing with a very
 22   pervious sand and gravel aquifer drawing with flow
 23   coming from up gradient.  We don't show a local
 24   depression there but clearly there will be.
 25               Now, those wells are operated on and
01040
  1   off.  There is a very limited zone from the, I
  2   guess the static level to where the pumps are set,
  3   so they are cycled quite frequently back and forth
  4   between them.
  5               And then as I said, the J6 represents
  6   the average impact of those over ongoing, as they
  7   flip back and forth, I don't know if it's on an
  8   hourly basis or something in that order.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  I guess my question still
 10   remains; your model, at least on this diagram,
 11   doesn't show a draw down cone?
 12               MR. SMITH:  There is no monitoring of
 13   that draw down cone by the RM.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  I understand.
 15               MR. SMITH:  So we monitor the closest
 16   well and that's what we show there.  So it doesn't
 17   show, you know, that's what we get.  We've got a
 18   continuous monitoring right through that period
 19   and that's the level that we had.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  And do you --
 21               MR. SMITH:  So the draw down cone
 22   would be very localized around the immediate dam
 23   or to the well.  These municipal wells are, I
 24   don't know, 400 or 500 metres probably from the
 25   floodway at the point of entry and, you know,
01041
  1   local draw down cone when they are operating
  2   cycling on and off would be significantly less
  3   than that as a radius.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, but let's take that
  5   position further.  That does change your modeling
  6   somewhat, at least as to the local conditions for
  7   that well?  That is that that draw down cone does
  8   change the gradient at the local site of the well;
  9   correct?
 10               MR. SMITH:  Very locally, yes, for a
 11   short time.  As soon as the pumps turn off, it
 12   fills back, recovers.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  And Mr. Smith, you are
 14   quite certain that those pumps turn off and on?
 15               MR. SMITH:  Well, they have a high
 16   level, low level float control, so that's why they
 17   have got four in a row because one individual well
 18   cannot supply the required water, so therefore
 19   that's the mode of operation as they do cycle back
 20   and forth.  At least that's as we understood based
 21   on discussions with the RM of East St. Paul, but
 22   we actually have data on the operation of those
 23   wells.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  In your EIS, can you
 25   point me to the section which shows us the amount
01042
  1   of anticipated or future development in any of the
  2   three municipalities?
  3               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. Currie, perhaps I
  4   can help you.  It's discussed in the future trends
  5   and planning for residential land use, the section
  6   of the EIS is found on page 8-22.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
  8               MR. J. OSLER:  It has a brief
  9   discussion on anticipated future trends and
 10   planning based on discussions that the EA study
 11   team had with municipalities in the region.  It
 12   does not provide detailed analysis of what those
 13   forecasted anticipated future development trends
 14   are.  It does point out things such as within the
 15   RM of St. Andrews that there is noted plans for
 16   housing projects in the southern part of the RM;
 17   or in the RM of East St. Paul it's indicated that
 18   residential development was very important to the
 19   municipality, and that growth of about a hundred
 20   homes per year is a general target for the
 21   municipality, if that's of any help to you.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Is that the extent of the
 23   information that exists regarding the amount of
 24   development amongst the three municipalities,
 25   within the EIS itself?
01043
  1               MR. J. OSLER:  I think when you go to
  2   look at the environmental assessment process,
  3   Dr. Morgan has talked about it in regards to
  4   groundwater, the thing that we're looking for is
  5   an indication of where things are going.  Part of
  6   our environmental assessment, particularly as it
  7   relates to future resource and land use
  8   requirements, has to obviously look at where
  9   future land use requirements are headed.  And
 10   that's part of our assessment of the process.
 11               But when we look at socio-economic
 12   environmental effects, they do have to follow from
 13   a physical pathway.  Something that Dr. Morgan
 14   identifies, or Mr. Smith as regards to what --
 15   where are the pathways and changes in the
 16   biophysical condition?  That's a definition that
 17   we have to work with under CEAA, our Environmental
 18   Assessment Act.
 19               So once we have determined that there
 20   is growth taking place, that's one thing.  The
 21   effect that this project has on that is the thing
 22   that we are considering.  And I think in looking
 23   at that reference on page 822 in chapter 8, we are
 24   looking for an indication of where growth is, what
 25   are the land use requirements, what are the
01044
  1   current planning studies that are being
  2   undertaken?  But really when we're looking at
  3   effects and a determination of the significance of
  4   those effects, it has to follow from what does
  5   this project, the Floodway Expansion Project, what
  6   does it result in, where is the pathway, where is
  7   the linkage and changes in biophysical
  8   environment, and then associated changes in the
  9   socio-economic environment?
 10               MR. CURRIE:  I appreciate that I've
 11   heard that argument, read it many times in your
 12   transcripts.  I understand your point, which is
 13   that you've got an existing baseline and how does
 14   this new project affect the existing baseline.
 15   That's essentially it.  Am I correct on that?
 16   That's the only analysis that you really want to
 17   get through is what does this project specifically
 18   affect your baseline, or have I misunderstood
 19   that?
 20               MR. MORGAN:  It's not done in
 21   isolation of current or future or past effects
 22   outside the project.  For example, we have talked
 23   about that, if you read our transcripts from last
 24   week, that we took the groundwater concerns that
 25   are in this region very seriously, and for that
01045
  1   reason we went to a number of steps in order to
  2   have no effect.  We have talked about the no
  3   deepening earlier.  We talked about last week in
  4   this region that we had up earlier a mitigation
  5   was to put a clay cutoff wall between the
  6   expansion and the wells in order to have no effect
  7   on water levels.  We do not do assessments on
  8   future projects, though, in isolation.  You know,
  9   it's not an assessment of a future project that
 10   East St. Paul may have to withdraw water later in
 11   the future.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  I guess I'm not asking
 13   you in the sense of are you going to do an
 14   assessment on some future project?  I am just
 15   going to ask you, do you know all the projects on
 16   the horizon?  Not the assessments of those
 17   projects, but do you know what they are?
 18               MR. REMPEL:  No, we do not know all
 19   the projects that might be coming forward, but we
 20   have an obligation to see what is reasonably
 21   foreseeable in terms of development activities,
 22   and to test whether this expansion project will
 23   interact with those activities.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  And what can you
 25   tell me about the RM of Springfield and
01046
  1   development within the RM of Springfield
  2   particularly, let's just start with residential?
  3               MR. REMPEL:  In terms of development
  4   in Springfield, we would ask how could this
  5   Floodway Expansion Project interact with
  6   residential development?  And we did not see that
  7   it had a pathway to affect that.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  So that's a fair
  9   answer, is that you simply didn't see it as a
 10   significant component that is impacted by your
 11   expansion project?
 12               MR. REMPEL:  We did not see a linkage
 13   between the expansion project and residential
 14   development.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  And any other development
 16   in the municipality, or for sure residential?
 17               MR. REMPEL:  Well, other developments,
 18   we understand that service drainage was an issue
 19   and that some stakeholders were interested in
 20   assuring greater capacity in the future for
 21   accelerated surface drainage.  And the authority
 22   has responded by increasing the capacity, or
 23   intends to increase the capacity of some of the
 24   structures allowing entry of surface water into
 25   the floodway.
01047
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Dr. Webster carried this
  2   line of questioning with you, basically, and I
  3   think he had kept it significantly to those wells
  4   adjacent to the floodway.  And in particular, he
  5   was asking you, if I recall correctly, what was
  6   your baseline analysis at the floodway?  Do you
  7   recall those questions?  I can pull them out of
  8   the transcript and we can go through them again.
  9   But, effectively, he has already asked you many of
 10   those questions.  Do you recall those questions at
 11   all regarding the baseline and your establishing
 12   it?
 13               MR. REMPEL:  This is with respect to
 14   groundwater?
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, with respect to
 16   groundwater.
 17               MR. REMPEL:  I remember a line of
 18   questioning, but I can't recall the specific
 19   questions at this point.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  It's on record.  The
 22   questions and answers from Dr. Webster.  I mean,
 23   do we need to revisit it again?
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Well, Mr. Chairman, as
 25   long as they don't tell me they don't understand
01048
  1   what I'm talking about, then I wouldn't have a
  2   problem to revisit it.  But, essentially, it's
  3   incumbent upon me to make sure that I'm clear that
  4   I'm not misleading on the record, that I have
  5   accurate -- that I have put accurate information
  6   to them.  So I don't necessarily need to go
  7   through it in detail but, certainly -- I'll start
  8   off and head off my questioning.  And if we get
  9   objected to, then we can decide what we have to do
 10   at that point.  How is that?
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  As I understood his line
 13   of questioning, it was essentially saying it would
 14   be prudent to have a fairly well-established
 15   baseline of infiltration because once that event
 16   occurs and people start coming forward, how are we
 17   to know whether it was the operation of the
 18   floodway, the expansion of the floodway or just
 19   normal conditions?  Do you recall those kinds of
 20   questions?  Yes?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  And I guess that that's
 23   essentially where I am going with my whole line of
 24   questioning.  We have folks who have to come
 25   forward and at some point in time, I suppose,
01049
  1   prove that this expansion project had some effect
  2   on them.  They just can't come forward and say, oh
  3   no, my well is now contaminated.  I doubt that
  4   that's a position that you would readily accept.
  5   You'd have to have some proof, correct?  You'd
  6   want to know that it came from the floodway?  Yes?
  7   No?
  8               MR. MORGAN:  I'm not answering for the
  9   floodway, but I guess you'd want to know if there
 10   is any kind of proof, or what's the reason they
 11   think so?
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Right.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  There is a process to
 14   that.  When a person has a problem or suspects
 15   that there's an issue with a well, I believe it's
 16   the Manitoba Stewardship branch, the water, Office
 17   of Drinking Water will investigate and advise the
 18   owner.  And typically if there is an issue, the
 19   source of that contamination is pursued.  And
 20   certainly if the floodway was involved in that
 21   contamination, I think Mr. McNeil has indicated
 22   they would mitigate it.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I understand that.  But
 24   if you don't take a very solid baseline, that is
 25   make sure we know where we're starting from, would
01050
  1   you not agree with me that you have put those
  2   folks in a horrible position of having to prove
  3   something, having to prove that now the floodway
  4   has done this?
  5               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, we have
  6   established baseline, as we discussed, on 25 of
  7   the public wells along the floodway at select
  8   locations, and we are intending to continue
  9   monitoring those wells, and as we indicated
 10   earlier, establish additional points to build on
 11   that baseline.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  In our submission, we
 13   supplied to the MFA and your various experts a
 14   copy of the groundwater study done by the Selkirk
 15   planning district.
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Was that the study done
 17   by Wardrop?
 18               MR. CURRIE:  Correct.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  Yes, that was received.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  And in there, their
 21   analysis is that there is enough water in this
 22   aquifer for development for, they see until 2030 I
 23   believe?
 24               MR. SMITH:  That's what their
 25   assessment was I believe, yes.
01051
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  And currently, as I
  2   understand it, we have 1,700 imperial gallons per
  3   minute of aquifer water pouring into the floodway.
  4   And I appreciate you don't want to take
  5   responsibility for that, it's not your
  6   construction design, all the rest of it, I've
  7   heard your position.  But as you are widening the
  8   channel, is it your position that that
  9   1,700 gallons per minute can continue to flow,
 10   because all you've done is widened, you don't have
 11   to mitigate that problem, it can just flow; is
 12   that what I'm understanding?
 13               MR. MORGAN:  Are you saying we -- are
 14   you talking about the baseline, 1,700?
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
 16               MR. MORGAN:  We're saying to have no
 17   significant adverse effect if it remains the same
 18   and that's no significant adverse effect.  That's
 19   what we said, yes.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  And you have no
 21   obligation to mitigate?
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Remediate?
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Well, mitigate, put up a
 24   wall, just as you did, similar, a clay barrier or
 25   somehow stop that flow from going into the
01052
  1   floodway.
  2               MR. MORGAN:  In order to assess the
  3   EIS adverse significant effects, we had no
  4   obligation to remediate.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  And that's exactly what I
  6   asked you.
  7               MR. SMITH:  However, in fact, we are
  8   proposing to do some works to reduce or protect
  9   against that.
 10               MR. MORGAN:  We are looking at things
 11   like the erosion control and the infilling on the
 12   low free channel which has potential.  But we're
 13   not trying to say it's going to significantly
 14   change that baseline.
 15               MR. SMITH:  Maybe for further
 16   clarification, Mr. Currie, the inflow relates to
 17   the head to the east or upgrading to the floodway.
 18   As development continues in that area, that
 19   piezometric surface will be drawn down and there
 20   will be less of a gradient and, you know, there's
 21   opportunity for people to develop that water east
 22   of the floodway and capture it.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I understand your point,
 24   Mr. Smith.  Can you tell us today how many wells
 25   are along the floodway that are going to be
01053
  1   actually impacted on a flooding event?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Could you clarify your
  3   question?
  4               MR. CURRIE:  Potentially impacted I
  5   suppose?
  6               MR. REMPEL:  Are you referring to
  7   water quality now?
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Potentially impact?
 10               MR. CURRIE:  Well, let's put that even
 11   in deeper terms, realistically impact.  I don't
 12   want you to go off on, you know, something that's
 13   not realistic.  Are you suggesting I guess that
 14   there are no wells that are going to be impacted
 15   by a flooding event?  Are you suggesting 10 will
 16   be?  Are you suggesting 100?
 17               MR. SMITH:  Can you clarify impact?
 18   Are you talking water levels, piezometric level or
 19   quality?
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Quality, let's start with
 21   quality.
 22               MR. SMITH:  Currently, there is no
 23   recorded impacts by public, you know, well, or
 24   rather domestic wells to our knowledge that has
 25   been submitted to the province.  The intent is to
01054
  1   have the monitoring program and mitigation plans
  2   if in fact there are local wells impacted.  At
  3   this stage, we can't say that there's going to be
  4   10 or 20 or 30.  Based on existing modelling of
  5   the representative data, we would anticipate there
  6   would be very few, which is consistent with what
  7   we've seen already from the operation of the
  8   floodway since 1970.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  I guess that's the
 10   question.  What is very few?
 11               MR. SMITH:  Well, there's been none.
 12   I mean, you can't rule out, as you said yourself
 13   you don't want to say absolutely and positively
 14   there shall be no wells ever effected to the
 15   fullness of time.  That's not a realistic comment
 16   to make.  That's why, as I say, there's a need for
 17   monitoring and a mitigation plan.  But, again,
 18   based on our representative modeling, we don't see
 19   migration of any extent beyond the floodway
 20   right-of-way.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  With regard to the
 22   conclusions that you draw about significant
 23   effects, I take it that the EIS makes judgments,
 24   or professional judgments based on your
 25   experience, as to what the likelihood of adverse
01055
  1   effects might be.  Am I correct on that?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Yes.  We actually spent
  3   quite a bit of time in our presentation on the
  4   first day commenting on how we treated likelihood,
  5   how we assessed an effect as to whether it's
  6   adverse or not, and the judgments as to
  7   significance.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  And in effect, it's the
  9   professional team's personal judgment that it's
 10   significant or insignificant; correct?
 11               MR. REMPEL:  There is judgment
 12   involved, but we do get guidance from the
 13   guidelines in terms of how to draw that judgment.
 14   And there are practitioner guides put out by the
 15   Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that give
 16   general guidance in that sense.  And we spent a
 17   number of pages certainly dealing with how we
 18   treated or judged significance in terms of
 19   duration, magnitude, frequency, et cetera.  And we
 20   discussed that in section 2, I believe it is, of
 21   the EIS for both biophysical and socio-economic
 22   effects.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  And when you're
 24   exercising the personal judgment on these effects,
 25   you are looking at, as I understand it, the nature
01056
  1   of the effect?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Certainly.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  The duration of the
  4   effect?
  5               MR. REMPEL:  Um-hum.
  6               MR. CURRIE:  And the magnitude o