01227 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 14 Oakbank United Church 15 Oakbank, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 6 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01228 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. Peter Hayes - Consultant for Municipalities 21 Mr. Gary Palmateer - Consultant for Municipalities Mr. Orvel Currie - Counsel to Municipalities 22 Mr. Doug Chorney - Coalition for Flood Protection North 23 Mr. Kerry McLuhan - Coalition for Flood Protection North 24 Mr. Rob Loudfoot - 768 Association Mr. Y. Shumuk - 768 Association 25 Paul Clifton - Paul Clifton Mr. Jeff Frank - Rivers West 01229 1 Participants: (continued) 2 Gaile Whelan Enns - Manitoba Wildlands Earl Stevenson - Peguis Indian Band 3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation 4 Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation 5 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation 6 Mr. George Sokol -Cooks Creek Conservation 7 Mr. Ron Dubinsky - Cooks Creek Conservation 8 Mr. Verner Johnson - Cooks Creek Conservation 9 Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel Mr. Alf Poetker - Consultant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01230 1 2 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 3 4 Cross-examination of Manitoba Floodway Authority 5 Cross-examination by Ms. Carey 1245 6 Cross-examination by Ms. Kennedy-Courcelles 1268 7 8 9 Presentation by Cooks Creek Conservation 10 1289 11 Presentation by Rural Municipalities 12 1349 13 Cross-examination of Rural Municipalities 14 Cross-examination by Mr. Handlon 1426 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01231 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 52 Environmental Management System 1244 3 4 53 Presentation: Surface Water 1347 5 Management Issues Related to the 6 Red River Floodway Expansion. A 7 Presentation to the Manitoba Clean 8 Environment Commission, February 9 21, 2005. Presented by : Cooks 10 Creek Conservation District 11 54 CVs for experts for Cooks Creek 1347 12 Conservation District 13 55 Submission: Surface Water 1348 14 Management Issues in Cooks Creek 15 Conservation District Related to 16 the Red River Floodway Expansion 17 Project. A submission to the 18 Manitoba Clean Environment 19 Commission February 2005 20 21 56 Floodway East Side Drainage Plan, A 1348 22 Plan to Upgrade the Agricultural 23 Drainage Network that finds Outlet 24 into the East Side of the Red River Floodway. A Preliminary report. 25 Submitted to: Cooks Creek 01232 1 Conservation District, R.M. of 2 Springfield. June 2004 3 4 57 Proposal Regarding Red River 1348 5 Floodway Expansion Impacts on East 6 Side Agricultural Drainage 7 Services. Presented to the Manitoba 8 Floodway Expansion Authority, 9 Hydraulic Engineering Department by 10 the Cooks Creek Conservation 11 District, November 15, 2004 12 13 58: Presentation: RM of Springfield, 1499 14 RM of St. Clements, RM of East St. 15 Paul, and Coalition for Flood 16 Protection North of the Floodway, 17 Presented by: Peter Hayes and Garry 18 Palmateer 19 59 Submission: Submissions before the 1499 20 Clean Environment Commission on the Red River Floodway Expansion 21 Project, the Rural Municipality of Springfield, the Rural Municipality 22 of St. Clements and the Rural Municipality of East St.Paul 23 24 25 01233 1 2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 5 1 Provide update of water quality 1256 6 data 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01234 1 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 2 UPON COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, could we 5 call the meeting to order, please. Good morning, 6 and welcome back. First off, I'm told that I 7 inadvertently referred to the Floodway Authority 8 as Manitoba Hydro. If such is the case, I 9 apologize profusely. Some of the faces are the 10 same faces as we saw last year during Manitoba 11 Hydro hearings, so thus my confusion. 12 I think we have another busy day ahead 13 of us. Off the top, we have two people who wish 14 to ask a few questions of the floodway panel. I'm 15 assured that neither will be terribly lengthy. 16 Following that, Cooks Creek Conservation District 17 will make their presentation. Cross-examination 18 of Cooks Creek will be delayed until later today 19 or tomorrow morning, and that's to allow for 20 accommodation for the three municipalities to make 21 their presentation. One of their consultants has 22 to leave to catch a plane late this afternoon 23 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I was 24 wondering if we could follow up with an 25 undertaking with respect to our environmental 01235 1 management system? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. 3 MR. MCNEIL: We have a few slides and 4 Doug Peterson is going to present them. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Order in the room, 6 please. 7 MR. PETERSON: Good morning, Mr. 8 Chairman and Commission and everybody else in the 9 room. A question came up about environmental 10 management systems last week, at which time we 11 started giving answer about our construction phase 12 and environmental protection plans. And there was 13 some confusion, I guess, on how all of this fit 14 together. So I thought what I would do is give 15 you my understanding of environmental management 16 systems, what they are, and how the Manitoba 17 Floodway Authority uses that system in its 18 environmental management work. 19 So, environmental management systems 20 are a means of -- a means for an organization to 21 get a better handle on how it deals with its 22 environmental issues. What I have done is I have 23 gone back to the basic international standard. 24 The International Organization of Standardization 25 in 1996 adopted what they call their standard, 01236 1 14001. And the Canadian Standards Association, 2 the same year, adopted that standard. What that 3 standard does is it defines what an environmental 4 management system is as part of the overall system 5 that includes organizational structure, planning 6 activities, responsibilities, practices, 7 procedures, processes, and resources for the 8 developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and 9 maintaining the environmental policy of an 10 organization. So, I will go on to say what all of 11 that means and how we apply that. 12 Also part of the ISO standard is an 13 appendix which talks about how to use the standard 14 and how to apply it. And one part of that says 15 that an organization, and this is paraphrased from 16 what the standard says, so those that have it, 17 purchased it, this isn't word for word for what is 18 exactly in the standard. An organization has the 19 freedom and flexibility to define its boundaries 20 and may choose to implement this standard to the 21 entire organization or to specific operating units 22 or activities of that organization. 23 So what we have done so far is we've 24 used this standard in development of our 25 construction phase, environmental protection 01237 1 plans. We haven't gone beyond that to the entire 2 operation or what is going to happen in five years 3 from now. 4 Basically what the standard does is 5 establish five elements of planning. A policy 6 element, the thinking, planning part, the doing, 7 implementation part, the checking and making sure 8 that you are on your right path, and a management 9 review part. 10 This cycle probably looks familiar to 11 various people for different reasons. It is used 12 in continuous improvement, for example, and that's 13 sort of the purpose behind the cycle. You think 14 of what you want to do, you think of how you are 15 going to do, you check to see if you are still on 16 the road map. You adjust to make sure you are 17 still on the right highway, and then you want to 18 make sure that the highway is taking you to the 19 right place. If it is not, or if there is a 20 better way, you adjust. And that's the concept 21 behind this. It also answers a question that came 22 up yesterday in what is adaptive management. This 23 in essence is adaptive management. Adaptive 24 management is applied to complex systems, whether 25 they are ecological systems or human systems, 01238 1 management systems. So, adaptive management 2 basically says you decide where you want to go, 3 how you are going to get there, you check if you 4 are getting there. If you are not, you adapt your 5 management structure to get where you want to go. 6 What I'm going to do now, and this is 7 basically up to the Commission, is I am going to 8 go through some of the key points and this is just 9 a gloss, this isn't word for word of what the 10 standard says. I'm going to go over some of the 11 key points of the standard and how we have used it 12 in our construction phase, environmental 13 protection plan. The framework of which was 14 submitted to the Commission and to the 15 participants as section 12 of the supplementary 16 filing. It was done I think November 1, or 17 thereabouts. Would that be of use or -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Quickly go over it, Mr. 19 Peterson. 20 MR. PETERSON: And I will go over that 21 quickly then, as you say. What the standard says 22 is that environmental management services or 23 systems should be incorporated into the overall 24 approach. What we have said in the framework that 25 we have submitted is that we recognize that the 01239 1 construction phase, environmental protection plan, 2 and I will probably just call that the plan from 3 now on instead of saying all five or six words. 4 The plan should be integrated into the overall 5 protection measures of the project. What I have 6 in brackets and throughout here when I talk about 7 the framework is the sections of the supplementary 8 filing that covers this. 9 So, the five steps; policy, the 10 standard says that top management shall define 11 what the environmental policy is. What we have 12 said in the plan is that MFEA, or the Manitoba 13 Floodway Authority, will establish a policy, and 14 we were asking that that policy be committed, or 15 that the consultants and contractors that work on 16 this project during the construction phase commit 17 to that policy. 18 Planning is the step where you 19 identify what regulations you have to meet, what 20 licence you have to meet, what the environmental 21 aspects are that the organization can control and 22 must control during the process in order to meet 23 this policy of hopefully a good, environmentally 24 sound project. We have addressed that in 25 different places in the framework. There is an 01240 1 appendix that lists different regulations and acts 2 and protocols. As well, there is a section that 3 describes -- that the purpose is to provide and 4 maintain environmental protection during the 5 construction phase. What we have done is we have 6 listed about a dozen different aspects of the 7 environment that we expect that plan to address. 8 They include the water regime, groundwater, dust 9 control, noise control and various other aspects 10 that are listed in the supplementary filing. 11 The next phase is implementation and 12 operation. The standard says that you should have 13 a structure and assigned responsibilities, 14 training and awareness and competence within the 15 organization, a communication both internally and 16 externally. A big part of this -- and don't 17 forget the standard is for procedures. It tells 18 you how to organize it. It doesn't tell you what 19 to do, but the types of things you should do. It 20 says there should be a procedure for 21 documentation. There should be a procedure for 22 operation control. And it specifies that there 23 should be a procedure to address emergencies. 24 On the right hand side, you see all of 25 the different places that -- and I've only listed 01241 1 one bullet for each thing -- places where each of 2 those aspects of the standard are addressed. And 3 I draw your attention to there is a specific 4 section on emergency response requirements. 5 As well, part of the implementation is 6 pollution prevention, and part of the standard is 7 pollution prevention. So a lot of the things that 8 will be in the eventual plan will be designating 9 how things will happen, how the contractors should 10 set up their sites, where they should refuel their 11 equipment and things of that nature. 12 Checking and correcting: It is nice 13 to have a plan and it is nice to think you are 14 going on the right road, but it is also, as Dr. 15 Webster pointed out, it is also very important to 16 monitor and make sure that you are on the right 17 track. If you find places where you are 18 wandering, to bring your system or your actions 19 back on to track. Keep good records of everything 20 that you are doing, and that there be an audit of 21 what you are doing. 22 All of these aspects are included in 23 the framework. There is sections on monitoring 24 and reporting, there is sections on how to deal 25 with non-conformances. There is sections that 01242 1 address the records. And there is a section that 2 says that the process will be audited. 3 The last step, and this is the 4 management review. Again, the standard is based 5 on the fact that the entire corporation buys into 6 this, and that the people that hold the purse 7 strings and the people that hold the power are 8 involved and committed to this. So there is an 9 environmental review, or a top management review 10 process, and the adaptive part, the program 11 adjustments. These are dealt with in the 12 framework outline as submitted. 13 So, in response to the question about 14 environmental management systems, we talked about 15 the environmental protection plan or construction 16 phase environmental protection plan. And this is 17 why we did that, because it has been incorporated 18 in how we are doing business. And the Manitoba 19 Floodway Authority is committed to ensuring high 20 standards for environmental management are met 21 through all of its actions and the actions of its 22 agents. 23 It has been said a number of times 24 here that not that the floodway isn't needed, but 25 they want to make sure that the floodway is being 01243 1 done right. And the Manitoba Floodway Authority 2 isn't a for profit organization. We are not here 3 to get anything out of this. We are here to 4 deliver a public infrastructure. We want to do it 5 right as well. 6 So, what we used was the construction 7 phase environmental protection plan framework that 8 was submitted as our example of how we are using 9 the environmental management system standards, the 10 international standard, in our activities. 11 And hopefully that answers the 12 question that the Chair had about environmental 13 management systems, and what ISO 14000 is and how 14 it fits into it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Peterson. Just one question arising out of 17 this. How will you ensure that the many different 18 contractors abide by the environmental protection 19 plans, the construction phase on environmental 20 protection plans that you implement? 21 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking. We 22 have done two things. Well, first of all, a lot 23 of it is going to be written into the tender 24 documents. So they are going to submit, say this 25 is what we are going to do through the tendering 01244 1 process. The consultants will be one of our eyes 2 in the field to do that. As well, we just 3 recently, I think it was two weeks ago, hired a 4 very senior person to manage that for us, and we 5 also have a junior person. I think Mr. McNeil 6 alluded to that. There is three of us plus Mr. 7 McNeil that are looking at solely the 8 environmental management within the Corporation, 9 or I guess we are not a corporation, Crown entity 10 now. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 12 undertakings, Mr. McNeil? 13 MR. MCNEIL: Not this morning. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 15 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, before we 16 go on, could we enter the Environmental Management 17 System as exhibit 52. 18 19 (EXHIBIT 52: Environmental Management 20 System) 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We will turn now to the 23 two people that have questions. And I would 24 remind both to be brief, be relevant and as much 25 as possible not repetitive of what others have 01245 1 asked. 2 Could you please introduce yourself 3 for the record and then proceed to direct your 4 questions to the panel. 5 MS. CAREY: My name is Karen Carey. 6 I'm a resident of Springfield. I'm a little 7 overwhelmed, because some of the questioning that 8 I heard yesterday was very elaborate. I have not 9 attended any of the hearings, except for the ones 10 that are out here, and I just want to thank you, 11 first of all, for being out here. It enables a 12 lot of us to come and participate that would 13 normally not be able to. And I want to applaud 14 our council for making that happen. 15 I was listening to the questioning 16 yesterday and the questioning brought up a lot of 17 questions in my mind. I'm hoping as a 18 layperson -- they may be simple questions to you, 19 but just be patient with me, I don't understand 20 everything, of course, to the level that you do, 21 so clarification for me probably means 22 clarification for a lot of people that are 23 listening here today. 24 Some of the questions -- one of the 25 questions that came up yesterday was about 01246 1 mitigation, the mitigation fund, am I calling that 2 the right thing? The money that's set aside to 3 deal with problems that occur? 4 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. It is 5 for unpredicted problems that occur with the 6 environment. 7 MS. CAREY: I understand there were 8 some questions yesterday so I will try not to 9 repeat, but build on that. One of the questions 10 that came out is the fund isn't actually put there 11 all at once, it is put there in pieces every year? 12 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. We 13 prepare a budget for each upcoming year, and what 14 we have done with that $11 million for cash flow 15 purposes is allocated about a quarter of it for 16 each of the next four years. 17 MS. CAREY: So, if at the end of the 18 first year you haven't spent your allocation, what 19 happens to it? 20 MR. MCNEIL: It stays there, and it 21 will still be allocated to that purpose. 22 MS. CAREY: So the fund builds on 23 itself? 24 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 25 MS. CAREY: I want to take a step back 01247 1 for a minute and talk about when the original 2 floodway was built. And I heard some comments I 3 think yesterday about when the original floodway 4 was built, and mitigation of the negative impacts 5 of that. And I thought I heard that there weren't 6 any negative impacts from the construction of the 7 original floodway. Did I hear that or was I wrong 8 in what I heard there? 9 MR. MCNEIL: No, I don't think that 10 any of us up here said that there weren't from the 11 original floodway. 12 MS. CAREY: So when the original 13 floodway was built we did have some negative 14 impact on the local wells and so on in the area? 15 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. One of 16 the biggest impacts was the lowering of the water 17 table in the vicinity of the floodway. 18 MS. CAREY: Do we know how much it 19 cost us the first time around to help people with 20 deepening their wells or digging new wells? 21 MR. MCNEIL: I don't have that 22 information, offhand, no. 23 MS. CAREY: So, we know that there was 24 negative impacts the first time around, right, and 25 we have a fund established to take care of 01248 1 potential negative impacts the second time around. 2 What are we doing to be proactive and make the 3 process afterwards as easy as possible for people? 4 MR. MCNEIL: We have got a rough 5 outline at this point in time in that, first of 6 all, the Province does have a procedure, a 7 process, if anybody was to have a problem with 8 their own personal domestic water supply. And we 9 will build on that, we will be working with Water 10 Stewardship, but we take the prime responsibility 11 in this area if it is directly related to our 12 project. Even if it isn't, if somebody is in the 13 vicinity of the floodway and suspects that they 14 have a problem with their well, I'm sure we will 15 be involved. And we would expect the call will 16 likely come to us first, in any event. 17 MS. CAREY: I'm talking about 18 proactive, things that happen before the project 19 starts, that would help with mitigation 20 afterwards. For example, going and testing all of 21 the wells in the vicinity to a certain extent, 22 based on where the mitigation problems occurred 23 last time. If we went out -- the thing is, you 24 know, with people with wells, right, we don't all 25 test our wells all of the time, we don't always 01249 1 test for water quality, we don't test for how deep 2 down the water is in the well, so we come to you 3 after the floodway is expanded and we say, I'm 4 having a problem with my well. First of all we 5 have to somehow prove that it was the floodway 6 that had caused that problem. So if there was a 7 test taken beforehand that measured maybe the 8 water depth and the quality of the water, then 9 when I came to you afterwards with a dry well you 10 could, with some confidence, accept my claim and 11 say, yes, that's caused by the floodway. 12 MR. MCNEIL: Those are very good 13 comments and, in fact, we have undertaken a 14 program of monitoring. We are going to continue 15 with that program, in your words, to be proactive. 16 And there are other areas too. For example, when 17 we are dewatering at the bridge site or aqueducts, 18 we are going to form a committee, and that will 19 involve either municipal officials and/or the 20 property owners in the vicinity of that bridge to 21 work with us to be proactive. And if it is 22 necessary to develop mitigation, to work with the 23 property owner on that mitigation plan. So, yes, 24 we are being proactive. 25 MS. CAREY: Was my understanding 01250 1 yesterday from the questioning that the testing 2 and things that you have done is just on municipal 3 wells, you haven't done anything on private 4 properties? 5 MR. MCNEIL: I will turn this over to 6 Bert Smith at this time. 7 MR. SMITH: Bert Smith speaking. Our 8 existing program for the baseline data, there is 9 several different sources, but we did 25 private 10 wells where we did sampling and testing for the 11 water quality, potable and heavy metals. And we 12 also did about another 200 where we did field 13 conductivity testing, and we interviewed I guess 14 those 200 people. And we also did interviews of 15 those people to get a better understanding of what 16 depth their wells were at, what the installations 17 consisted of, just to try and improve the data 18 basis. In addition, we worked with the Provincial 19 data base. There is about 8,000 private wells 20 registered on that, it is called GW Drill, and 21 that gives us basic information on the wells in 22 the area. That was done on the private wells 23 separate from the wells, the new wells we 24 installed, plus other wells that we used that 25 existed along the floodway. 01251 1 MS. CAREY: That's 225 in total along 2 the whole stretch of the floodway on both sides? 3 MR. SMITH: The focus was primarily 4 from highway 59 north to Lockport where the 5 majority of the wells were. 6 MS. CAREY: Okay. Thanks, that 7 answers a lot of my questions on that. Some of 8 the mitigating impacts that you talked about or 9 some of the ways of mitigating impacts that you 10 talked about included trucking in water, buyout, 11 relocation, and those kind of things. I don't 12 know how feasible it is to do things like trucking 13 in water for livestock operations and so on. I 14 don't know how that would be even a possible 15 solution for somebody that has, you know, 16 agricultural property, which is what we have a lot 17 of in Springfield. 18 MR. SMITH: The construction 19 dewatering around the bridges is where there is 20 some localized lowering of the levels. For the 21 most part the project otherwise will not change 22 the existing water levels. So, the whole purpose 23 of having a mitigation strategy is you have 24 several options to deal with. And the first line 25 is to avoid having that impact, and that's what 01252 1 our approach will be. And, you know, so there are 2 various things that we will look at to not impact 3 on the private wells in the area, and that will 4 include both monitoring, but also you can do 5 things like -- I won't get into details -- but 6 pump the water that you pump out, you recircle it 7 back into the ground beyond the area that you are 8 working in so that people in a greater radius 9 aren't affected. So something like trucking in 10 water would be an extreme backup. The intent was 11 to give people a comfort level that at worst their 12 water supply would be maintained, or there would 13 be steps taken to ensure they didn't have a 14 problem. 15 MS. CAREY: When you talk about that 16 artificial drying out, what do you call that 17 again? The artificial -- 18 MR. SMITH: You mean the dewatering, 19 construction dewatering? What that means is that 20 if you put a well in right at the location where 21 you are going to install the bridge piers, you 22 want to lower the water level pressure from the 23 aquifer adequately so that the construction 24 activity can be completed. And so it is like a 25 bowl, if you will, or a cone, immediately around 01253 1 the area of work. And then that spreads out from 2 the centre of the work, and with distance -- you 3 know, it is usually localized to the work area. 4 MS. CAREY: I think about businesses 5 that we have along the floodway that would be 6 majorally impacted by that kind of an operation. 7 We have Oasis beach, for example, which is a 8 really popular destination for city folks from 9 Winnipeg and for people from Springfield. That's 10 a manmade attraction that pumps water up through a 11 well. And what are we going to do to compensate 12 people whose livelihood -- and they employ dozens 13 of people from the community too in summer months, 14 and this is going to be happening over the summer. 15 What are we going to do to compensate people like 16 that for their loss of business? 17 MR. SMITH: Again, the construction 18 dewatering would be very localized around the 19 bridges. I can assure you that the Oasis well 20 will not be affected, the Oasis resort area that 21 you referred to. 22 MS. CAREY: Do you know where they 23 are? 24 MR. SMITH: Yes. 25 MS. CAREY: Okay. 01254 1 MR. SMITH: And I also know that the 2 municipal wells on Oasis Road are a lot closer to 3 the Highway 59 bridge, and so we have to ensure 4 that we are not going to affect those wells. And 5 in fact by doing that, points further out would 6 not be affected. 7 MS. CAREY: All right. My second set 8 of questions, I guess I wanted to ask you a bit 9 more about the assessments that are done with 10 regard to the water quality. You talked yesterday 11 about how you do assessments on water quality at 12 the south inlet, or that the data that you 13 received was from assessments taken at the south 14 inlet. Is that correct? 15 MR. SMITH: That was one of the 16 points, yes. 17 MS. CAREY: Is that -- 18 MR. SMITH: It is the Red River water 19 that we are talking about there. 20 MS. CAREY: Yes. And I understand 21 from the questioning yesterday that that data is 22 20 years old that we were using -- 1985 and back, 23 right? 24 MR. MORGAN: There is data sets from 25 the '70s to current. The stuff that was published 01255 1 in the EIS was from 1985. But the data, what it 2 shows -- and I think this is what we were 3 discussing, there was a discussion about bacteria. 4 And we said that that 1985 data shows there is 5 bacteria in the river water. We accept that. If 6 you look at the data sets to 2000, it still shows 7 there is bacteria. And because, since we accept 8 that, we did the detailed studies that we talked 9 about yesterday and are documented in the reports. 10 MS. CAREY: I understand that. But I 11 guess what I'm getting at is that the published 12 information that's in that report is 20 years old. 13 And what I heard yesterday when that line of 14 questioning came up was, well, we can get the 15 current data and provide that, but I didn't hear 16 "we will." So I'm wondering if you are going to? 17 MR. MORGAN: We can get it. It is all 18 public data, and we can -- 19 MS. CAREY: I understand that, but 20 most of us wouldn't even know where to start to go 21 and find it. 22 MR. REMPEL: I think we offered 23 yesterday that if it is useful we can readily 24 provide the update of data to the current year. 25 MS. CAREY: I think it would be 01256 1 useful, particularly since from 1985 on. I mean, 2 we have had the flood of 1997, and bacteria levels 3 during a flood I would think would be of 4 considerable importance to a project like this 5 because we are talking about flood waters. It is 6 just something that I thought would be more 7 relevant than having old published data, would be 8 to have the current data. 9 10 (UNDERTAKING # 1: Provide update of water quality 11 data) 12 13 MS. CAREY: I also have a question as 14 to whether there is data taken throughout the city 15 and at the edge of the city in the river, or is it 16 just at the south inlet? 17 MR. REMPEL: No, there is data points 18 that are measured by the province in various 19 locations upstream and downstream of the City of 20 Winnipeg. And the City of Winnipeg I believe has 21 12 different stations, typically at bridges, where 22 water quality data is taken regularly. I think it 23 is every two weeks. And that's also available in 24 the public data base. 25 MS. CAREY: What about in the floodway 01257 1 itself? 2 MR. REMPEL: I don't think there is 3 any regular monitoring stations on the floodway. 4 MR. MORGAN: Yes, there wasn't regular 5 monitoring stations on the floodway, although 6 maybe Doug Peterson can speak to this, but there 7 is a plan for regular monitoring done before, 8 during, and after construction along the floodway. 9 MS. CAREY: That's great, I'm really 10 glad to hear that. I'm wondering also as well 11 about after the construction is complete and on an 12 ongoing basis, is there going to be some 13 monitoring of the water in the floodway? 14 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking. 15 That's one of the things that we separated out. 16 We were looking at the project in three phases; 17 one is before construction, gathering that 18 background data so we have an idea of what has 19 happened before us; during construction, because 20 things will be changing and we want to make sure, 21 as I said earlier, that what we are doing isn't 22 creating problems and we can correct them 23 beforehand. So that there is two aspects to that 24 protection plan, and that's both monitoring our 25 activities and monitoring the effect of our 01258 1 activities. 2 As well in section 12 of that same 3 document there is a different subsection on 4 monitoring and follow-up. And that's what we are 5 doing right now, is developing those monitoring 6 plans, how many stations we are going to have, 7 where they are going to be, what parameters we are 8 going to look at, how frequently we are going to 9 look at them, is it going to change in 10 pre-construction, construction, and post 11 construction? Those plans will be developed. 12 We originally thought we would submit 13 those later in the project, but at that time we 14 were thinking more of the post construction plans, 15 but since we are going to have to do something now 16 and during construction, those plans are being 17 developed and they will be submitted to the 18 regulators as soon as we have them available. 19 MS. CAREY: Okay. It just seems to me 20 that something like the floodway is just a really 21 convenient place for somebody to do some illegal 22 dumping. And because there isn't any regular 23 monitoring being done right now, how do we know 24 what is happening, how do we know what it is doing 25 to the water that is flowing through there, and as 01259 1 a result, what is it doing to the river when it 2 gets back to the river. So I would think some 3 ongoing monitoring would really be a good thing 4 for the floodway. 5 MR. MORGAN: Just to clarify on the 6 water quality monitoring data in the EIS; we did 7 have water quality monitoring data at the inlet 8 and outlet from 1978 to 2003, and it is in the 9 surface water quality, section 6.3. However, and 10 this is what the discussion was yesterday, the 11 data did not include fecal or total coliforms, and 12 the reason for that is this project does not 13 create fecal and total coliforms, so they weren't 14 focused on as much. But we can still get that 15 information, the same information for fecal 16 coliforms and other parameters which are not 17 changed by the floodway. That database is a 18 public database available from Manitoba 19 Conservation, and we can print it out and supply 20 it to the Commission, if they need that. 21 MS. CAREY: I guess from the 22 perspective of the people in the community, the 23 water that's running through the floodway is what 24 the concern is, and whether the project creates 25 that problem or has to handle the water with that 01260 1 problem in it, really to us it doesn't make a big 2 difference, it is still water with a problem and 3 it is still needs to be addressed. So... 4 MR. REMPEL: Just to expand a bit on 5 that database that Dr. Morgan was talking about. 6 It is fairly extensive and it does take the data 7 of 2003. This is an example of the parameters 8 that were measured, and that table compares them, 9 or the discussion compares them to surface water 10 quality guidelines as well. So there is 11 pesticides, there is fertilizers, hardness, 12 phosphorous, nutrients and so on, are all listed 13 there. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Where is it from, Mr. 15 Rempel? 16 MR. REMPEL: It is page 69 of the EIS. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Where is this 18 monitoring? 19 MR. REMPEL: This is at St. Norbert, 20 and it is data up to 2003. 21 MS. CAREY: We spent a lot of time 22 yesterday talking about that Oasis Road area, 23 those wells, that whole area around there. And 24 you showed a picture yesterday, I don't know if 25 you can pull it back up again, of the Birds Hill 01261 1 area and the sand and gravel, and then the clay 2 and the floodway and then the area beside it. Do 3 you know which one I'm talking about? 4 MR. MORGAN: Is that the cross 5 section? 6 MS. CAREY: There was a cross section 7 one, yes. Not the one with the little springs and 8 stuff in it -- that's the one, perfect. Boy, you 9 are good. 10 I guess what I see here isn't what I 11 see when I drive down Highway 59, and when I drive 12 over the bridge across the floodway. Like, as I 13 approach the bridge crossing the floodway, even 14 before I get to it, there is gravel. I'm 15 surrounded by gravel pits. There is Fox Estates, 16 I think it is called, on one side. There is an 17 abandoned gravel pit on the other side that the 18 trucks play around in. Then there is the 19 floodway. And when I come across the floodway it 20 is all gravel again. There is Spring Hill, there 21 is Oasis, so I'm surrounded by gravel. Yet when I 22 look at that picture, it shows the gravel ending 23 and clay beginning before the floodway, but that's 24 not what I see. 25 MR. MORGAN: And that's just 01262 1 representative of one area. Mr. Smith can discuss 2 the local area there. That was just kind of a 3 representative area of the whole kind of north 4 region. 5 MS. CAREY: Okay. Fair enough. 6 MR. SMITH: The thing to appreciate, 7 this is the surface plan showing the groundwater 8 contour levels. This would be pressure of the 9 water, or in this case water table in the Birds 10 Hill area, and here pressure in the bedrock. But 11 here is the point where you are driving across 59 12 north bridge, and as you correctly point out there 13 is a local gravel pit, or at least a former gravel 14 extension. Now, you see the way the contours pull 15 over here? That represents those extensions of 16 the gravel pit that you had mentioned that are 17 just local, and they do end right at the bridge 18 area, just a little bit to the west and north of 19 the bridge. So the cross section that we showed 20 is a little bit north of that point, where the 21 limit of the sand here isn't quite up to the 22 floodway. And there was a local extension of this 23 extensive gravel pit area, or gravel deposit 24 rather, sand and gravels, just eastward across 25 where the floodway extends. So that's where we 01263 1 got into some discussion yesterday on these cutoff 2 walls right at that location, just locally to 3 prevent -- see here on this section, a little bit 4 to the north, there is a natural clay till area 5 that prevents this water from readily draining to 6 the floodway, whereas right at the Oasis Road 7 area, where you indicated, there was a local tail 8 of the sand and gravel that extended eastward. 9 And that was removed as part of the construction 10 of the floodway, and it was already being 11 naturally removed in the development of those 12 pits. 13 MS. CAREY: So you are telling me then 14 that all of that gravel that extends from the east 15 to the west, you took it all out when you built 16 the floodway and you filled that all in with clay? 17 MR. SMITH: That gravel area, zones or 18 lens, whatever, was removed. I don't know the 19 history, whether it was removed in part prior to 20 construction of the floodway and maybe the 21 remnants were finished off at that time. But 22 nevertheless, there was a clay cutoff wall 23 constructed on the east side, the Birds Hill side 24 at that time. 25 And maybe I should make this clear. 01264 1 At the time that that floodway was constructed, 2 the Oasis Road wells did not exist. The 3 municipality was not pumping there. We are 4 talking back in to the 1960s. So the natural flow 5 of part of that sand and gravel deposit was 6 eastward across that -- or sorry, to the west, 7 from east to west, across where the floodway was 8 constructed. So when they constructed the 9 floodway and they put in that clay cutoff wall or 10 plug, the intent was for the most part to prevent 11 that water from just draining out, or draining 12 down to a new lower level. However, if you 13 totally cut it off, it would mean all of the water 14 flowing from further east in the uplands of the 15 Birds Hill Park would want to pass through there, 16 as it normally did, and it couldn't, then it would 17 have caused a backup. 18 So as part of that construction there 19 was a low level, or a lower zone of pervious 20 granular placed in there to allow some flow to 21 continue, and represent what had been occurring 22 naturally. And that's what is there today. So 23 there is about an estimated 250 gallons per minute 24 that does flow under that cutoff wall into the 25 floodway, and that was as designed. That's not a 01265 1 leak that couldn't be stopped, it was an 2 intentional thing. Because if you hadn't done 3 that, you would have created problems to the 4 people living in the upper area. 5 MS. CAREY: By doing that, by having 6 that gravel underneath the floodway, there is a 7 potential for groundwater contamination; correct? 8 MR. SMITH: The water level to the 9 east of that cutoff wall is much higher, a much 10 higher level, much higher elevation, so the water 11 wants to flow in a down gradient direction. So it 12 works against contamination moving to the east. 13 MS. CAREY: I know, but I'm not going 14 to be, you know, I'm not being selfish and saying 15 just because I live to the east, I don't have to 16 worry. What about all the people that live to the 17 west? Just because the water flows east to west, 18 it doesn't mean for us that there isn't a concern. 19 I understood from where we get water, we don't get 20 groundwater, we get what is under the groundwater; 21 right? 22 MR. SMITH: Where do you live? 23 MS. CAREY: Well, I am talking about 24 the wells and things that are in that area. Like, 25 people don't just dig down ten feet and have a 01266 1 well, right? They don't pump up groundwater, they 2 go down deeper to what is called the aquifer, 3 right? 4 MR. SMITH: You are talking about the 5 bedrock carbonate aquifer. That is still 6 groundwater -- groundwater as opposed to surface 7 water. 8 MS. CAREY: I understand, but that is 9 water that has gone through a filtration process 10 and ended up pretty clean once it gets down there, 11 right? 12 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, I wonder, 13 just for the sake of the reporter, if maybe the 14 question could restart after the answer has been 15 given, because both people are talking over one 16 another. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Point taken. Just give 18 one another the chance to answer. Ms. Carey, do 19 you have a question? There is a stand off here. 20 MS. CAREY: Sorry, I thought it wasn't 21 my turn. 22 I guess what I'm worried about is that 23 that sand and gravel is a perfect conduit for 24 water and the contaminants that are in it to leach 25 down to people's water supply. And if it is there 01267 1 and it is there under the clay, the potential is 2 there. Because we have so many wells and, you 3 know, bridge supports and everything else that go 4 down deep into the clay and possibly through the 5 clay and down deeper, that we have conduits that 6 can lead pollutants and contaminants down into the 7 water supply. And that area particularly I guess 8 concerned me because I could see and feel, and 9 everything, all of the gravel all around me, and 10 realized that the water is traveling right through 11 a gravel deposit. So to me that's a really 12 sensitive area. 13 MR. SMITH: It is a valid concern. 14 And again our studies addressed that potential, 15 and in our cross section or modeling, where we 16 picked sensitive areas intentionally, represented 17 what we knew to be the actual conditions of the 18 soil based on a lot of testing locally. And then 19 from that we said let's make it worse, let's make 20 it 100 times worse and see what happens. And 21 that's what we did in our models. And we were 22 still able to demonstrate that there was some 23 potential for movement, but not -- I guess we said 24 it was not a significant volume of water, and it 25 wouldn't be moving that far that fast. However, 01268 1 because there is that potential, it is important 2 to monitor and have some mitigation strategies in 3 place. And that's certainly a fundamental to this 4 whole program, is to give you that level of 5 comfort. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Carey, I would 7 point out that we heard a lot about this yesterday 8 and we will hear more about this later on today 9 when the municipalities make their presentation. 10 MS. CAREY: Thank you very much. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 12 Could I ask the other person to come forward, 13 please? 14 MS. COURCELLES: Cheryl Kennedy 15 Courcelles. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and please 17 direct your questions to the panel. 18 MS. COURCELLES: First of all, on 19 behalf of the Manitoba people, I would like to 20 take this opportunity to thank everybody that has 21 been working very hard on this issue of unwanted 22 water and what do we do with it, so I really do 23 appreciate the efforts. But on the same token, I 24 think I would also like to extend to all of the 25 Manitoba people that -- according to yesterday's 01269 1 front page of the Free Press, the definition of 2 health being stated as mind, body and spirit, and 3 I guess perhaps I'm wondering if the $11 million 4 mitigation fund is going to be enough to be able 5 to mitigate all of Manitoba people's health 6 regarding -- under that definition of mind, body 7 and spirit. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have heard a 9 lot about the mitigation fund and it has been well 10 described and what its intent will be. And it was 11 indicated to us yesterday that the $11 million is 12 a sum that will be set aside out of the current 13 budgeting. But in answer to a question from me, I 14 believe, they said that if that ran out, there 15 would be other money available. So I think that 16 your question has been well answered already. 17 MS. COURCELLES: Excellent. And I 18 guess it would be the prospect for all of us 19 fellow Manitobans that are perhaps on the outside 20 of the floodway, not just south, I do reside in 21 St. Adolphe on ten acres on the Red River, but to 22 my fellow counterparts here, again I'm just 23 wondering if the adverse cumulative effect of the 24 health of Manitoba people -- I'm wondering if the 25 dollar amount has been correctly put forward under 01270 1 figuring out the cost benefit ratio of this 2 particular plan? But based on that, did the MFA 3 study the drainage ditches and perhaps a waffling 4 system of letting the drainage waters in the RM of 5 Ritchot -- did you study that -- before it reaches 6 the Red River? Because ultimately, as we all 7 know, we have got more water coming to us, and how 8 come, and that is causing artificial flooding and 9 causing the fact that you need to operate the 10 gates. 11 MR. MCNEIL: The waffling concept was 12 considered when the IJC undertook their studies in 13 1999 to 2001, thereabouts, and it was dismissed as 14 not being effective for a very large flood, 15 something over 1997. However, having said that 16 though, they did conclude that for smaller streams 17 towards, you know, the start of those streams, 18 that that kind of a storage system would be 19 effective. In fact, the University of North 20 Dakota has an ongoing study with respect to that 21 waffling concept. But it is not effective for 22 flood protection, the amount of flood protection 23 that we are looking at for Winnipeg. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McNeil, would it be 25 possible for the benefit of others in the audience 01271 1 to briefly describe what waffling means? 2 MR. MCNEIL: Sure. The concept is to 3 try and store as much water in the uplands of the 4 watershed. So for all of the tributaries that 5 contribute water to the Red River, which is called 6 the main stem of the system, is to store water in 7 the uplands high up in the system on each of those 8 tributary streams to dampen the effect of the 9 total flow that reaches the main stem. The 10 reality is that for really large floods you 11 couldn't store all of that water with natural 12 means. 13 And the waffle term comes from, now 14 that we have modified the landscape from what it 15 was naturally, to basically mile roads, and in a 16 sense those mile roads create a waffle type 17 system, and if you could apply gate structures and 18 whatnot to the drainage systems, particularly the 19 culverts that cross under those road systems, you 20 might be able to store enough water in each of 21 those square miles. And that was the concept that 22 was proposed. As I said, it was determined to be 23 ineffective for very large floods. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 25 MS. COURCELLES: So perhaps I would 01272 1 agree with you on a very large flood, but living 2 in the RM of Ritchot under non-spring event, you 3 are going to put the water on us. So to me that 4 is not a flood event, that is just the operations 5 of the expansion of the floodway. And therefore 6 would a waffling system or some sort of system 7 like that help prevent putting that extra rain 8 water into Winnipeg? 9 MR. MCNEIL: I suppose it may help for 10 those smaller events in the summertime. However, 11 70 percent of the water typically comes from the 12 U.S., and we don't have any control over the 13 amount of water that comes north to us. So even 14 if there was the incorporation of that concept in 15 Manitoba, it wouldn't be totally effective because 16 of the amount of water coming from the States. 17 MS. COURCELLES: Thank you. 18 MR. MCNEIL: There are, in fact, in 19 one of the watersheds, I'm struggling to remember 20 which one it is, down southwest of Morris, they 21 have in fact incorporated a similar concept, more 22 for the spring situation to hold water on the 23 land, not so much for flood protection but also 24 for increasing the groundwater for productive use. 25 MS. COURCELLES: But it isn't really a 01273 1 system that the MFA looked at for I guess the long 2 term -- 3 MR. MCNEIL: No, because it was 4 dismissed very early on in the IJC studies. 5 MS. COURCELLES: And it was thought to 6 be a better proposal to just go ahead and flood 7 the RM every summer now? 8 MR. MCNEIL: The current project, 9 because we are not changing the operation and we 10 are not changing what could occur without the 11 floodway expansion in terms of flooding, was 12 determined to be the most cost effective project 13 to protect Winnipeg, yes. 14 MS. COURCELLES: So I guess I'm 15 looking for a dollar value then that you have 16 placed on my life and the lives of the people that 17 are affected in the RM, our animals, our way of 18 life. We are -- for four generations the 19 Courcelles family has lived on the banks of the 20 Red River and we were certainly planning on 21 continuing that tradition on. So I would like to 22 know what dollar value -- if I'm not cost 23 effective in our way of life, then -- 24 MR. MCNEIL: That's not what I said. 25 If you were at my presentation last Tuesday, what 01274 1 I indicated is that different areas require 2 different forms of flood protection. And St. 3 Adolphe is protected with a community ring dyke. 4 In Winnipeg it doesn't make sense to protect it 5 with a ring dyke, it makes more sense to use other 6 methods, storage such as Shellmouth reservoir, 7 diversion channels like Portage and the floodway. 8 The other thing is that this project 9 is not making your situation any worse over and 10 above the existing floodway. And in fact, it is 11 going to make it slightly better. For a repeat of 12 a 1997 flood, with the expanded floodway, water 13 levels will be lower, slightly lower than they 14 were in 1997 up to and including Ste. Agathe. So 15 you fall within that area. So if you are 16 protected to '97 plus two now, you are better 17 protected for the '97 flood after the floodway is 18 expanded. And for the 700 year flood that we are 19 designing to, you are not going to see any 20 difference. And as I said -- 21 MS. COURCELLES: I beg to differ with 22 you. Last summer alone I saw a difference, and 23 that was no flood event. 24 MR. MCNEIL: We are not expanding this 25 floodway for summer operation. That is a separate 01275 1 project. It is a future planned project. And the 2 floodway expansion has no impact on summer 3 operation, and summer operation has no impact on 4 floodway expansion. That's why it is separate 5 project. 6 MS. COURCELLES: Does the floodway 7 expansion use any parts of the existing operation 8 system or gates? Are you using any of the same 9 material? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Where are you going 11 with this, Ms. Kennedy Courcelles? These are 12 obvious questions that have been answered many 13 times. 14 MS. COURCELLES: He is saying it isn't 15 part of it, and I am saying that would be like -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No, he said that the 17 expansion project, which is the issue before us, 18 has no impact on summer operations. Summer 19 operations may or may not continue with the 20 existing facility, and it would be no different 21 after the expansion. 22 MS. COURCELLES: And I guess the fact 23 that you are widening it, et cetera, to me it does 24 affect. 25 MR. MCNEIL: Actually, we don't talk 01276 1 about it, but after expansion there will be a very 2 small benefit of a few inches of a lower water 3 level right at the inlet control structure, if 4 summer operation were to occur after expansion. 5 But it is so small that it is not really 6 considered a benefit or an advantage. But the 7 bottom line is we are not doing anything in this 8 project to enhance or detract from summer 9 operation, and summer operation can be done into 10 the future without this project. 11 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. I'm wondering 12 if you have a system in place that, whether it is 13 a flood event or whether it is just under 14 operation rules, that you would be protecting or 15 telling the wildlife that backwater is coming? 16 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, I don't understand 17 your question? 18 MS. COURCELLES: Well, for generations 19 now we have been -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: This was a question 21 that you asked last week and was dealt with last 22 week. 23 MS. COURCELLES: There was no answer. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, he did talk 25 about -- or I shouldn't say he, but somebody from 01277 1 the panel talked about the communications process 2 that is planned to be put in place to let citizens 3 know. 4 MS. COURCELLES: That would be the 5 citizens. I guess I'm worried about the foxes, 6 the rabbit, the deer, the eagles. The Red River 7 in the RM of Ritchot is a bird watching area, the 8 Red River all the way up to the lakes is a 9 migratory river that feeds -- 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I mean, I think 11 this is a very legitimate concern, but it is 12 beyond the scope of our review here. And if you 13 do have concerns with that, you will have to take 14 them to other branches of Government. 15 MS. COURCELLES: I guess it would go 16 back to the cost effective analysis. I'm just 17 trying to figure out how you figure that the 18 current expansion was a better alternative to the 19 alternative diversion, which would alleviate water 20 quality and the killing of the way of life of the 21 people, of the country people? I'm just trying to 22 figure out, $3,000 per capita versus $1,000, and 23 where did all of our health issues and concerns, 24 what dollar value did you put on them, other than 25 the price of, you know, the obvious of -- how did 01278 1 you come up with 3,000 versus 1,000? 2 MR. MCNEIL: I can answer that, Mr. 3 Chairman. The $3,000 is an approximate cost if 4 you take the 110 million and divide it by the 5 30,000 approximately residents in the valley that 6 benefited from that project. And the $1,000 per 7 capita is the price of this project, 665 million 8 divided by approximately 660,000 residents in 9 Winnipeg and downstream that benefit from the 10 project. 11 In terms of the health issues, what we 12 mention in the EIS supplementary is that that has 13 been a concern since the 1997 flood. You are 14 right, it is hard to put a dollar value on those 15 kinds of issues. But Manitoba Government has 16 taken the health issues very seriously, and they 17 have made improvements in consultation with the 18 Emergency Measures Organization to better train 19 people to deal with health effects of emergencies 20 like flooding, fires and whatnot. They have 21 trained all kinds of people and they are more 22 ready for the next emergency situation to deal 23 with health effects. 24 MS. COURCELLES: I guess I would be 25 looking for the MFA to have in their systems 01279 1 perhaps a psychologist or a spiritual advisor that 2 is going to sit in our schools and in our elderly 3 homes on a weekly basis now. By the mere basis of 4 the project, you have now turned our lifestyle 5 into a water tub, or a bathtub, that we don't know 6 when it is coming, we don't even get to control 7 the tap. 8 MR. MCNEIL: I disagree. This project 9 is going to be a slight benefit to those people 10 upstream, and in the bigger floods it is not going 11 to be any worse than the existing situation. 12 That's what we are assessing, we are assessing the 13 effects of this project. 14 MS. COURCELLES: Well, I'm glad that 15 you are checking that out. 16 Going back to the cumulative mental 17 effects for the people, and again that would be, I 18 consider the people everybody that is outside of 19 the floodway, and that when we look at it from 20 apples to apples or apples to oranges, that 21 665 million versus 1 billion to build an 22 alternative diversion that would not affect 23 anybody's water quality, the missing dollar amount 24 is one 747, it is one plane. So as a leading 25 nation, as Canada being a leading nation, to deny 01280 1 its people the right of history and the right of 2 heritage based on the price of one plane to build 3 the thing correctly, again, I guess I'm looking 4 for -- how did you come up with the money? Sorry. 5 MR. REMPEL: Maybe you could help us 6 out by clarifying what alternative you are talking 7 about for the 1 billion? I don't recall that. 8 MS. COURCELLES: To the alternative 9 diversion, so that would be the plans of -- well, 10 it would be like the Portage diversion, exactly 11 that, building one of them as opposed to -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Isn't that essentially 13 what they are doing? 14 MS. COURCELLES: Essentially they are 15 going to flood the south and destroy the water 16 quality up here. So a diversion would be a system 17 built like Portage la Prairie, that would come 18 from the -- well, supposedly at either Ste. Agathe 19 or Richardson Coulee and then go around. 20 MR. MCNEIL: Are you talking about a 21 longer channel than what exists now, so starting 22 further south and then going further north? 23 MS. COURCELLES: Quite honestly, all 24 the details, I do not know, but I know that the 25 country people have suggested this from day one. 01281 1 And actually if you ask the city people they will 2 say the same thing, why have we not -- in order to 3 maintain the quality of life in the province and 4 to not put city against rural, in order to 5 maintain our human rights, that the correct thing 6 for the environment, the fish, the birds, the Red 7 River, would be to build a system like Portage la 8 Prairie diversion. 9 MR. MCNEIL: Again, that was looked at 10 under the IJC studies. It was called the east 11 side diversion, and there could be modifications 12 to that. But, again, it was dismissed early on as 13 a viable economic and environmentally acceptable 14 project as an option to the project that's before 15 us. 16 MS. COURCELLES: Correct. That it was 17 an option. I guess -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Question, please. 19 MS. COURCELLES: Sorry -- it would be 20 that I would be interested in finding out the 21 numbers, as I'm sure the people would be, that if 22 you do actually start taking a look at the long 23 term health issues that you are going to have to 24 now deal with that the province has never had to 25 deal with, that perhaps the cost benefit analysis 01282 1 wouldn't be quite as different as you thought it 2 was. 3 MR. MCNEIL: Just to help you out, 4 there is no doubt that a flood bigger than 1997 5 will be a major event for the valley and for the 6 city and for those downstream. But consider the 7 frequency of that event versus building a new 8 channel and taking out thousands of acres of 9 already productive, and the environmental impacts 10 of such a new channel that you are suggesting, it 11 would be phenomenal. It would be much more 12 disruptive each and every year in between the 13 large floods than the effect of flooding for a 14 larger flood. 15 And the focus here, and I keep 16 bringing this back, our focus is what is the 17 effect of our project over and above the existing 18 floodway. 19 MS. COURCELLES: That would be 20 interesting that you would say that -- 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you direct 22 yourself to questions that are relevant to the 23 issue before us. 24 MS. COURCELLES: As stated earlier, it 25 seemed to me that you had said that the Portage 01283 1 diversion had no adverse effects on the 2 environment? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Please, questions that 4 are directly relevant to the issue before us. 5 MS. COURCELLES: I was just furthering 6 his last comment. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: You were debating with 8 him. 9 MS. COURCELLES: I was asking him if 10 they answered already whether or not there was 11 adverse effects with the Portage la Prairie 12 diversion. 13 MR. MCNEIL: The subject of these 14 hearings are floodway expansion. Portage 15 Diversion is not included because there is no 16 changes to that project as a result of this 17 project. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: And last week I ruled 19 your questions about Portage diversion and 20 pollution to Lake Manitoba out of order, and I 21 will do it again today. 22 MS. COURCELLES: Did the MFA study the 23 ancient principles of Feng Shui when looking at 24 wind and water? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: That's out of order. 01284 1 Please move on. 2 MS. COURCELLES: That would be wind 3 and water management. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Please move on. 5 MS. COURCELLES: Did the MFA have a 6 spiritual consultant? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Out of order, please 8 move on. 9 MS. COURCELLES: Under the ISO 10 environmental standards that you had just put up 11 this morning, will you give the RM of Ritchot 12 citizens advance warning on how we counsel our 13 children in watching the wildlife drown? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, that's out 15 of order too. That's not an answer that can be 16 answered in a hearing such as this, and it is not 17 relevant to the matters before us. 18 MS. COURCELLES: It is relevant to the 19 citizens -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I realize it is a very 21 real concern to you and many others in the valley, 22 but it is not an issue that we can deal with in 23 these hearings. It is not relevant to the issue 24 before us. 25 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. Perhaps this 01285 1 one isn't relevant as well. Last year we just 2 built on the river bank of St. Adolphe, and we 3 built at 772 plus two, 774, and the floodway gate 4 was operated at 778. How much water would that 5 put on us? 6 MR. MCNEIL: You are saying if it is 7 operated to 778 -- we haven't had a flood large 8 enough to result in a water level at the inlet 9 structure of 778 yet. With the existing floodway, 10 it would be a flood a little bit smaller than the 11 1826; with the expanded floodway it would be the 12 700 year flood. The profile back to St. Adolphe, 13 I would guess about a foot higher, so that would 14 be about 779. So then you would -- there would be 15 a water level of approximately 5 feet above your 16 protection level with your ring dyke or mound or 17 whatever you have for your protection. 18 MS. COURCELLES: So -- 19 MR. MCNEIL: But that's no different 20 than if we experience a 700 year flood today 21 without the expansion, we are not changing that 22 water level. 23 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. I guess the 24 question would be then, why did we build at 774? 25 MR. MCNEIL: That was explained by Mr. 01286 1 Bowering. The province has taken an approach to 2 increase the regulations for flood protection for 3 the largest recent flood. So after the '79 flood, 4 then the criteria was the 1979 water level plus 5 two feet of free board. And the '96 flood, which 6 was the next largest flood, was approximately 7 equivalent to that, so flood protection more or 8 less was adequate for the '96 flood. But then the 9 '97 flood came along and it was approximately five 10 feet higher at the inlet, and diminishing to zero 11 somewhere south in the valley. And so it was 12 inadequate, and government reviewed the situation 13 and said, okay, we are going to increase the flood 14 proofing criteria to the new highest experienced 15 level of '97 plus two feet. And by the way, to 16 help out the residents in the valley, they got 17 together with the feds and provided $110 million 18 to provide protection to that level. 19 MS. COURCELLES: And that was for a 20 five year time, I believe anybody that's building 21 in the area now doesn't qualify. It cost us 22 $53,000 to build the pad to sit the house on. 23 MR. MCNEIL: And that's no different 24 than any other jurisdiction. Residents in the 25 city that are in the flood plain must adhere to 01287 1 the criteria of flood level at their cost of 2 development. And it is no different in any 3 community in North America. If you build in the 4 flood plain, to protect you government establishes 5 these standards and you must adhere to them. It 6 is no different than having appropriate water and 7 wastewater facilities for the property as well. 8 MS. COURCELLES: I guess in the 9 country we ask the question, if we have to build 10 at the flood plain protection levels, then why are 11 we seeing the Forks being built at a low level? 12 MR. MCNEIL: The Forks walkway was a 13 decision that was made well over ten years ago. 14 And at the time, knowing the frequency of 15 flooding, it was expected that in the summertime 16 it would only be flooded once out of every ten 17 years. And at the time that was deemed to be 18 acceptable by the developers and the designers of 19 the day. 20 Since then, though, since the '97 21 flood, the walkway has been pretty much been 22 flooded at least once throughout the summer period 23 every year since then, related to meteorological 24 conditions over the last ten years. 25 MS. COURCELLES: So, therefore, they 01288 1 continue to be able to just build everything right 2 on the ground as opposed to up on hills? 3 MR. MCNEIL: The walkway, if you are 4 talking about the walkway -- 5 MS. COURCELLES: More than just the 6 walkway. 7 MR. MCNEIL: Let me talk about the 8 walkway. The walkway is still within that flood 9 plain zoned area. There are no habitable 10 structures allowed down there. There is the 11 electricity for the lights but it is dismantled 12 for each spring event. So everything that was 13 developed along the walkway within the flood plain 14 was developed in accordance with the flood 15 proofing legislation. Open air recreation 16 structures are allowed in the flood plain. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Kennedy Courcelles, 18 could you bring your questioning to a close? You 19 indicated to me last night that you had a couple 20 of questions, and this has extended beyond a 21 couple. 22 MS. COURCELLES: Thank you, I thank 23 you for your time. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would 25 propose that we take a morning break a little 01289 1 early, rather than split up the presentation by 2 Cooks Creek. So let's break right now and come 3 back just after 25 after, half past by the clock 4 on the wall at the back of the room. 5 (Proceedings recessed at 10:15 and 6 reconvened at 10:30 a.m.) 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we have order in 8 the room, please? 9 Thank you. We now have presentation 10 on behalf of the Cooks Creek Conservation 11 District. I'm told it will take about an hour and 12 a half which should take us right to lunch time. 13 Could I ask each of you to introduce yourselves 14 for the record? And we will, also since this is 15 evidence that you'll be giving, we will swear you 16 in. I would ask the Commission secretary to deal 17 with that, please? When they state their names 18 for the swearing in, we will get the introduction. 19 MR. SOKOL: George Sokol, chairman of 20 Cooks Creek. 21 MR. DUBINSKY: Ron Dubinsky, 22 vice-chairman of Cooks Creek and farmer. 23 MR. JOHNSON: Verner Johnson, 24 producer. 25 MR. CROOKS: Lloyd Crooks. 01290 1 MR. STEFANSON: Jon Stefanson, 2 consultant. 3 MR. POETKER: Alf Poetker, 4 consultant. 5 MR. BUHLER: Jake Buhler, manager 6 Cooks Creek. 7 MR. CHICOINE: Daryl Chicoine, counsel 8 to Cooks Creek. 9 10 (WITNESSES SWORN) 11 12 MR. SOKOL: Good morning, Mr. Chair, 13 Commission, Floodway Authority and concerned 14 citizens. My name is George Sokol, as I said, 15 chairman of the board, and I will now put Lloyd 16 Crooks, our representative on. 17 MR. CROOKS: Thank you, George. 18 Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I will be 19 essentially coordinating our presentation this 20 morning. I will begin with me giving some of the 21 background information on the district and 22 information leading up to the issues that we wish 23 to present to the Commission this morning. And I 24 will be assisted in that task with these two 25 gentlemen, these two producers here, Ron Dubinsky 01291 1 and Verner Johnson. The technical portion of the 2 presentation, which will be by far the largest and 3 most significant, will be presented by Jon 4 Stefanson, consulting engineer to the district, 5 and he will be assisted by Alf Poetker. And Jake 6 Buhler, the conservation district manager will be 7 available for any local knowledge, or to be called 8 on for any questions in that area, but he will be 9 giving the summary to our presentation as well. 10 So just let me begin by saying the 11 Cooks Creek Conservation District has been in 12 operation for 26 years. It was incorporated in 13 1979 under the Conservation Districts Act. 14 The member municipalities of the 15 conservation district include the RMs of 16 Springfield, Tache, Ste. Anne, Reynolds and 17 Brokenhead. Each of these municipalities has 18 representation on the conservation district board, 19 or one of its subcommittees at least, and the 20 programs in the district and their activities are 21 funded through a combination of government grants, 22 contributions from the member municipalities, and 23 whatever partnerships that they may arrange with 24 other agencies and organizations. 25 The mandate of the -- there are 15 01292 1 conservation districts in the Province. Cooks 2 Creek was the fifth one to be established. The 3 mandate of the conservation districts are to 4 conduct conservation and resource management 5 activities within their boundaries. And these 6 activities may include soil conservation programs, 7 wildlife habitat management, conservation 8 education, and naturally surface water management 9 is also a big issue. 10 And while each of these districts may 11 have a different focus, the main reason that the 12 Cooks Creek Conservation District was established 13 was for the purpose primarily of surface water 14 management, primarily as it relates to 15 agricultural activities. That function dominates 16 their activities and their budgeting process. 17 On the screen, you will see a map of 18 the conservation district. It is approximately 19 862 square kilometres in size, and as the name 20 suggests, its boundaries are based primarily on 21 the drainage area of the Cooks Creek and its 22 tributaries, with the addition of the areas on the 23 western side that, as it was pointed out, that 24 drain directly into the floodway itself. These 25 straight lines there, that represents the 01293 1 floodway, the east berm of the floodway. 2 The district extends from the Richer 3 area northwest to approximately highway 44, just 4 north and east of Birds Hill Provincial Park. The 5 towns in the district include Richer, Anola, 6 Dugald, Oakbank and a number of smaller 7 communities. Rural residential development is an 8 important component of the landscape, primarily in 9 the areas surrounding the Birds Hill Provincial 10 Park and in those regions closer to the City of 11 Winnipeg. 12 Effective water management is critical 13 to the area, and in particular as it relates to 14 agriculture. Before the construction of the 15 existing floodway, streams and drainage channels 16 found their way from the region westward into the 17 Red River and the Seine River. When the floodway 18 was constructed, these channels were directed into 19 the floodway through outlet structures designed 20 and constructed specifically for that purpose. 21 Over the years, the surface water 22 management system feeding into the floodway 23 outlets has been continually upgraded. In some 24 instances, the channels emptying into the outlets 25 have caught up with the capability of the outlets. 01294 1 That is the channels entering the floodway cannot 2 be further upgraded. The bottom of the channel 3 can't be lowered any further because they have 4 already reached the elevations of the sills of the 5 existing outlets. 6 With the expansion of the floodway and 7 the associated replacement of the existing 8 outlets, an opportunity exists now that will allow 9 the outlets to be designed and constructed in such 10 a way as to allow for surface water management 11 system upgrading into the distant future. 12 The Cooks Creek Conservation District 13 asks that the Floodway Authority take into full 14 consideration the district's future needs in 15 serving the agriculture industry of the area, as 16 well as other residents, in the design and 17 construction of these new outlets. 18 The Cooks Creek Conservation District, 19 as is much of Southern Manitoba, is situated on 20 the lake bed of former Lake Agassiz. As the ice 21 from the past Ice Age receded to the north, water 22 accumulated along the front of the ice sheet and 23 created a lake. For about 5,000 years, Lake 24 Agassiz covered much of Southern Manitoba in one 25 shape and size or another, as the ice receded, 01295 1 readvanced and then receded again. Finally, about 2 8,000 years ago, it drained for good northward 3 through Hudson Bay. The entire Red River Valley 4 has been impacted by the presence of this lake. 5 The lake left behind an exceedingly 6 flat plain of clays and silt. Having been 7 deposited over 5,000 years, these materials are 8 very deep in certain portions of the valley. 9 Following the disappearance of Lake Agassiz, 10 vegetation established itself. And as periodic 11 climate fluctuations occurred, vegetation on the 12 landscape shifted back and forth between 13 grasslands and park lands. The organic material 14 left behind from this vegetation over the 8,000 15 years since the lake disappeared has formed a 16 thick horizon of fertile soils. These soils, 17 largely Osborne clays, which are some of the 18 heaviest of the soils in the valley, are very 19 valuable as farmland, most of them being in class 20 1 or class 2 category. 21 However, the major limitation, 22 particularly in the Cooks Creek Conservation 23 District, is poor internal drainage and wetness. 24 In much of the conservation district, the slope of 25 the topography is less than one half metre per 01296 1 kilometre, with an individual quarter section of 2 land the slopes to the borders of that land may be 3 measured in centimetres. 4 The clay soils, although fertile, have 5 very low permeability; that is water moves through 6 the soil very slowly. When they reach the 7 capacity to hold water, the excess water just sits 8 on the surface, perhaps sometimes for days. 9 In addition to these problems, the 10 local climate also creates some challenges. While 11 the prairies are perceived by many at least to be 12 a very dry area, troubled by spells of drought, 13 and this area is part of the prairies, long time 14 producers in the area tell us that they have never 15 lost a crop to drought. 16 Southeastern Manitoba receives more 17 rainfall than areas to the west. And you don't 18 have to go very far for an example. The Steinbach 19 climate station, which is not in the district 20 specifically but is representative of the area, 21 has a long term average rainfall for the May to 22 September period of 362 millimeters. 23 Fanneystelle, which is about 30 kilometres 24 southwest of Winnipeg, is situated on similar 25 soils, similar topography, and the average 01297 1 rainfall for that same period over the long term 2 is 330 millimeters. Perhaps more important though 3 is the difference in the figures for the month of 4 June, probably the most critical month since crops 5 are in an important development stage, and 6 activities such as weed control and pest control 7 are very timely in June. 8 Fannystelle averages 78 millimeters of 9 rain, Steinbach gets 95. The result then is 10 ponding and localized flooding on the fields and 11 strong reliance on the local surface water 12 management system. 13 I'm going to bring our producers in 14 now to deal with the issues as it relates to the 15 agricultural industry in the area. These 16 gentlemen farm on land that drains into the 17 floodway area, and they depend on that land for 18 their livelihood. I believe we're going to start 19 with Ron Dubinsky. 20 MR. DUBINSKY: Thank you, Mr. Crooks. 21 Mr. Chairman and Commission, my name is Ron 22 Dubinsky. I have been farming for over 20 years, 23 I've been married eight, and I have three children 24 who will hopefully one day operate the family 25 farm. I'm the third generation to presently farm 01298 1 3,500 acres located in the rural municipalities of 2 Springfield and Tache and are located 4 miles east 3 of the floodway. 4 Currently produced is grain, oil 5 seeds, special crops, pedigree seed crops, and I 6 also operate a custom seed cleaning plant. 7 Agriculture today is faced with some 8 difficult challenges. Returns from crops such as 9 wheat have been steadily declining in recent 10 years. Costs of inputs such as fertilizer, 11 chemicals and fuel have been increasing yearly. 12 The loss of other policies such as the Crow rate 13 have drastically increased the cost of 14 transportation to export markets to producers. 15 With these economic conditions, producers are 16 shifting their production to higher value crops to 17 keep their operations viable. These higher value 18 crops such as beans, corn, sunflowers, require 19 higher input costs and more specialized equipment 20 for a successful harvest. 21 High value crops are also less 22 tolerant to standing water than cereal crops, 23 therefore, net losses can occur after only 24 24 hours of standing water. With more money invested 25 in a crop, there is more risk of money to lose due 01299 1 to standing water. In agriculture field 2 operations such as seeding, spraying and 3 harvesting, the timing is very essential. Even 4 small delays due to standing water add up to big 5 losses for the producer. 6 Existing crops that are growing can 7 also suffer from great devaluation. For example, 8 the crop will be worth less at the point of sale, 9 or yield losses can occur also from standing 10 water. These losses can sometimes be avoided by 11 better water management system. Sometimes lower 12 value crops are chosen for this very reason if 13 they only provide small returns. 14 Every acre in use must be productive 15 to provide a positive return and a viable future 16 for generations to come. Thank you. And I'll 17 turn it over back to Mr. Crooks. 18 MR. CROOKS: Thanks, Ron. Now Verner 19 Johnson. 20 MS. JOHNSON: Hello, Mr. Chairman. 21 My name is Verner Johnson. I've lived in the area 22 southeast of Dugald all my life. I started 23 farming there in 1985 with approximately 24 1,500 acres. Today, along with my wife and young 25 children, we farm close to 6,000 acres. The farm 01300 1 is located 8 miles due east of the floodway. 2 That's exactly where the farm is. Some of the 3 land is a lot closer. All of our water drains 4 into the floodway from our entire farm, so it is a 5 great concern to all of us in that area. 6 In the Cooks Creek Conservation 7 District, 15 to 20 per cent of the yield lost from 8 standing crops is because of wetness. This is an 9 average, year over year number. Sometimes it can 10 be zero, sometimes it can be 50 or 60, but 15 to 11 20 per cent average per year is lost due to 12 wetness. 13 Average annual loss to the district is 14 $7.4 million. These numbers are arrived from, on 15 an average basket of crops, our average gross 16 return per acre is $250; 20 per cent of that is 17 $50. So 148,000 crop land acres in the watershed 18 district, calculating those numbers, comes to 19 7.4 million. Half of these losses we estimate 20 could be avoided through better drainage. And 21 these numbers are not exaggerated numbers, these 22 are factual conservative numbers. Just to give 23 you an example, $50 an acre equals about 7 bushels 24 of canola, which is easily lost, or 12 bushels of 25 wheat which is easily lost due to standing water 01301 1 on the land. 2 Some of the reasons leading to these 3 losses are we need to get the standing water off 4 the crop within 24 to 36 hours, depending on the 5 type of crop that's out there. If it's on longer 6 than 36 hours, it's either dead or too sick to 7 provide a return. Timing of field operations as 8 well, seeding, spraying, harvesting -- the other 9 thing that's been brought to mention already is 10 the heavy rainfall patterns that we have in 11 southeastern Manitoba as compared to other areas. 12 In other parts of the province, they are looking 13 to conserve water. Here we get plenty and in rain 14 events that happen three, four, five inches at a 15 time. So surface water management to us is 16 critical. And of course, the heavy clay texture 17 of our soil doesn't allow any water to permeate 18 down. 19 In 2001, $789,000 paid to producers 20 unable to seed, that is from Manitoba Crop 21 Insurance; in 2004, $959,000 paid out. That's 22 just paid out for acres not able to seed, that's 23 not included in the crop losses. 24 Showing accumulation of water on crop 25 land after a summer rain, and as you can see, it 01302 1 doesn't matter what the farmer does to bring the 2 water to the ditch, it ain't going anywhere. 3 That's a good illustration of what our problems 4 are. 5 One thing I wanted to bring to the 6 attention is that we're not trying to compete with 7 the floodway capacity in the springtime. Our 8 problems are in June and July when the floodway is 9 completely empty, as we drive back and forth to 10 Winnipeg over an empty floodway and come back a 11 few miles east and there's water laying all over 12 the land. 13 The other things that have changed 14 over the years, when the floodway was built back 15 in the '60s, they were able to -- farms at that 16 point were a certain size. And just to give you 17 an example, there might have been six or eight 18 farmers on a section of land. Well, due to 19 economics, now you've got one or two farmers on a 20 section of land. The ability for a farmer to 21 drain the water off that land is far greater now 22 than it was 30 or 40 years. Because if you've got 23 six or eight guys, if they needed to drain the 24 land, the water ran across each other's property 25 and they needed to cooperate, and that always 01303 1 didn't happen. But now when you've got one farmer 2 farming a section of land, he is free to drain 3 that land to the public drainage system on a more 4 timely manner. 5 The other ability is that the 6 technology and equipment that we have nowadays, 7 you know, there's laser guided equipment that's 8 available, and many farmers have it, in order to 9 be more efficient at draining the water. So 10 what's happened is that the public system of 11 drainage has not kept up with the farmers' system 12 of drainage. 13 The net returns per acre, as Ron was 14 mentioning, are incredibly small. We need every 15 acre to be productive to remain viable. Our farms 16 are larger and we have to be that way in order to 17 be viable. There is no other alternative. We 18 can't go back to farming 160 acres of land and 19 expect to be viable. That's just something that's 20 been dictated to us by economics, so we have to 21 deal with that. We can't change that, we just 22 have to deal with it. 23 Losses go beyond the farm gate. We're 24 not just talking about losses to the farmers. We 25 live in communities, we live in a province that 01304 1 depends largely on agriculture to bring new money 2 into the economy every year. In our local economy 3 here, there is millions of dollars that are lost 4 on an average on a yearly basis. These dollars 5 just don't stay in farmers' pockets, they get put 6 back into the economy. That helps everybody. 7 There's also lots of dollars being paid out 8 through crop insurance that wouldn't necessarily 9 have to be paid out if there was a better system 10 of drainage. 11 The floodway is the start of this. 12 Drainage also includes our local drains as well, 13 but the floodway is before us right now and it is 14 a project that's taking place. 15 And when we talk about drop 16 structures, these structures are going to be in 17 place for 50, maybe 75 years, and they are 18 concrete drop structures. We can't come back in 19 10 years and say, well, we need this one lowered. 20 They will look at us and laugh and say, why 21 wouldn't you talk about that when it was being 22 built? That's what we're doing right now. The 23 elevation of these drop structures is critical to 24 future drainage in our area. 25 In summary, I can't emphasize enough 01305 1 the importance of surface water drainage to the 2 agricultural communities east of the floodway. 3 We're not asking for much here, some small design 4 changes to the inlet structures that have already 5 been proposed. I believe these changes to be 6 straightforward and a common sense approach to 7 allow for the future upgrading of agricultural 8 drains. And like I said, when I say future, these 9 drains are expected to be there for 50 to 75 10 years. The lowering of these structures to the 11 level of our recommendations is critical to the 12 future of surface water management in the area 13 east of the Red River Floodway. Thank you. 14 MR. CROOKS: Thanks, Verner. In order 15 for the local agricultural producers to be 16 successful, as we've just heard, continual 17 upgrading of the surface water management system 18 is necessary. However, the conservation district 19 recognizes that that can't be conducted without 20 some foresight and some careful consideration. 21 In recognition of that, the 22 conservation district will be undertaking a 23 surface water management strategy. The process 24 has begun to seek out a consulting firm to carry 25 out the task on behalf of the district. Appendix 01306 1 "A" in the submission given to the Commission 2 provides a copy of the district resolution, which 3 was passed in January, which sets this process in 4 motion. And Appendix "B" in the submission to the 5 Commission was a report prepared in June of 2004, 6 floodway east side drainage plan, a plan to 7 upgrade the agricultural drainage network that 8 finds outlet into the east side of the Red River 9 Floodway, a preliminary report prepared by 10 Stefanson Watershed Services and Cochrane 11 Engineering for the district. That indicates 12 their commitment at least as early as June of last 13 year to begin the process of developing a 14 strategy. 15 It is expected that once the strategy 16 has been completed and developed, that improvement 17 of the infrastructure within the district will 18 start in the short to medium term. 19 The Conservation District's initiative 20 is consistent with Manitoba's water strategy and 21 provincial goals. The water strategy from 2003 22 states, as you'll see on the screen, 23 "The objective of Manitoba's water 24 drainage policies is to enhance 25 economic viability of Manitoba's 01307 1 agriculture community through the 2 provision of comprehensive, planned 3 drainage infrastructure." 4 The Manitoba water policy as developed in 1990, 5 policy 6.2 states, 6 "The standard of drainage for an area 7 shall be based on the productive 8 capacity of the soil and on technical, 9 economic and environmental criteria, 10 recognizing watershed community and 11 farm impacts." 12 In addition, as part of the 13 implementation of the Manitoba water strategy, as 14 I understand it at least, the province has 15 embarked on its integrated water resources 16 planning and management initiative. This 17 initiative is still in the development stage but 18 it is expected that over time it will develop 19 plans for water management over most of 20 agricultural Manitoba. 21 Just turn to the impact of the 22 floodway now. As indicated earlier, the floodway 23 forms a significant portion of the western 24 boundary of the district. When it was first 25 established, there were 14 streams and channels 01308 1 that entered the Red River and the Seine River 2 from the east. And when the floodway was 3 constructed, these channels, some of them were 4 combined, and the results were that there were 5 only seven outlets into the floodway coming in 6 from the east. 7 While there have been local concerns 8 over the effectiveness of some of these 9 arrangements, and that will be discussed a little 10 later on, the floodway has indeed provided a net 11 benefit for the district. For example, the 12 opportunity to channel water into the Red River 13 through the floodway has been a benefit to the 14 district. 15 The floodway could easily handle any 16 maximum flows that the surface water management 17 system may deliver to it. And also, as Verner had 18 mentioned, the summer flows are of most concern to 19 agricultural producers, and these flows would 20 enter the floodway at a time when flows in the 21 floodway are low or minimal. 22 In addition, high flows in the 23 floodway do not present a problem to incoming 24 flows. 25 The existing outlets into the 01309 1 floodway, outlets or inlets into the floodway, 2 were designed to the standard of the day in the 3 1960s. However, the further improvements to the 4 surface water management system in the Cooks Creek 5 district are now limited by the elevations of the 6 sills of these outlets. 7 It has been acknowledged by the 8 Floodway Authority that when these outlets are 9 being replaced, and all of those of concern to the 10 district will be replaced, they will be installed 11 with a lower sill elevation than what currently 12 exists. Once again, the Conservation District is 13 requesting that when the new outlets are being 14 designed, consideration must be given not only to 15 the foreseeable future, but they must build in a 16 factor for unforeseen circumstances. 17 The Cooks Creek Conservation District 18 supports floodway expansion. It is important to 19 protect Winnipeg. It's the economic and political 20 centre of the province. It also is home to more 21 than half of the province's population. And the 22 new construction also provides the conservation 23 district an opportunity to improve its surface 24 water management infrastructure. But there are 25 issues to address such as the potential impacts on 01310 1 groundwater quality, during and following 2 construction, and a sustained supply of 3 groundwater after construction. 4 It's worthy of note that the 5 Conservation District is showing some responsible 6 management in this area by taking on a program of 7 its own of locating and sealing abandoned wells in 8 the district for the purpose of protecting the 9 quality of groundwater. 10 Also the concern over the provision of 11 adequate transportation infrastructure is an 12 issue. The district has a significant rural 13 residential population that requires safe and 14 adequate access to the city, where many of these 15 people work. In addition, the agricultural 16 community requires proper access to Winnipeg to 17 deliver their products and to have access to 18 agricultural suppliers in the city and so on. 19 Now, the district is aware that these 20 issues have been and will be brought to the 21 attention of the Commission by others appearing 22 here. So the district is completely cognizant of 23 these issues and fully supports the efforts of the 24 others bringing them to you. 25 Therefore, to avoid repetition, we 01311 1 will focus on the presentation of the issues 2 related to surface water management system in the 3 Cooks Creek Conservation District and how certain 4 actions taken by floodway expansion can be of 5 immense benefit over time. 6 At this time then, I will turn over 7 the presentation to Mr. Jon Stefanson, consultant 8 engineer with the Cooks Creek Conservation 9 District, and he will take you through the 10 engineering aspects of our presentation, and he 11 will be supported by Alf Poetker. Jon. 12 MR. STEFANSON: Thank you. First I 13 would like to make a few comments to reinforce 14 some of the comments that Mr. Crooks has already 15 made about the physical circumstances that we are 16 dealing with. And the purpose of that is to try 17 to make sure that the Commission and others fully 18 understand why agricultural land drainage is 19 important here. It may also serve to answer a 20 question posed to me by Mr. Motheral last week. 21 First a comment about the whole Red 22 River Valley and what it is. This is obvious to 23 most people here, but probably not all. The Red 24 River Valley is not a river valley in the usual 25 sense, it is a basin. It is a basin that is 01312 1 confined by certain topographical features, the 2 Manitoba escarpment to the west provides a clear 3 boundary to the basin. To the east, there is a 4 less definitive rise in elevation that also 5 confines the basin. It is the area where lake 6 Agassiz lingered for the longest time before it 7 finally drained away to the north, longest time 8 outside of Lake Winnipeg. And that has defined 9 the characteristics that we are dealing with 10 today. 11 The importance of agricultural land 12 drainage has to do with three key aspects, lake 13 bed topography, an underlying layer of clay and 14 fertile topsoil. 15 Now, I think most people could easily 16 imagine that when a lake bed has been around for 17 5,000 or so years, drains away, and drains away 18 fairly quickly, that we would be left with a 19 rather flat topography with shallow depressions 20 that would fill with water every time it rains, 21 and that water wouldn't go anywhere. 22 The second thing is a thick layer of 23 lake deposition clay of relatively low 24 permeability -- that is to say when water ponds on 25 the surface, it will not move into the ground, 01313 1 except very slowly, and probably when the clay is 2 saturated, essentially not at all. 3 The third thing is fertile topsoil. 4 Now, we have a layer of topsoil that is a legacy 5 created by thousands of years of grassland growth 6 since the lake drained away. So we have an area 7 that is extremely productive for agricultural 8 purposes, for cropping. But in order for that, 9 for agricultural operations to be successful, we 10 need to introduce manmade facilities to remove the 11 surface water from those shallow depressions. 12 Actually, the Red River Valley is 13 covered by an extensive and intensive network of 14 agricultural drains to serve that purpose. 15 Now, this situation in the Red River 16 Valley is unique in the province, and it is unique 17 at least in terms of the scale on the prairies, 18 this basin where the characteristics are 19 determined by a lake that sat around for 5,000 20 years. 21 Mr. Crooks has also mentioned, and 22 I'll just mention it again, that whereas people 23 may think of the prairies more in terms of drought 24 than excess precipitation, but as you approach the 25 eastern extent of the prairies, you do run into 01314 1 greater annual rainfall. And as he mentioned, 2 local producers say that they don't lose crop to 3 drought, they lose crop periodically to excess 4 precipitation. 5 When we speak of agricultural drainage 6 in this context, we are speaking of a specific 7 type of drainage. The removal of water from 8 shallow depressions and, of course, standing crop 9 on a lake bed topography. When we speak of 10 upgrading the agricultural system, we are speaking 11 of improving the drainage characteristics to 12 better service the land, we are not speaking of 13 expanding the system. 14 Mr. Crooks mentioned that the 15 conservation district is positioning itself to 16 undertake a comprehensive review of the system, 17 surface water management system. I think we 18 should realize that the drainage is not everything 19 here. The Conservation District's mandate goes 20 beyond that to anything involved with surface 21 water management. And so when they look at a 22 strategy for the future, they are dealing with 23 land drainage and any other aspect where the needs 24 and the opportunities can be identified. 25 Most of what I'll be talking about 01315 1 relates to the drop structures into the floodway, 2 and the purpose of putting up this photo is to try 3 and impress in the minds of the Commission just 4 what these structures look like. And this is the 5 component of the drop structure that is at the top 6 of the floodway channel. The top photo is looking 7 towards the floodway and the bottom photo is 8 looking away from the floodway up the incoming 9 drains that are located on floodway property. 10 So the upper photo indicates the 11 concrete component. In the background you can see 12 the entrance to the pipes which are buried down 13 the channel side wall. At the bottom there will 14 be another concrete structure that will dissipate 15 the energy. So I'd like you to keep this photo in 16 mind as we move on. 17 There are three issues that the 18 district feels that require attention in regard to 19 the floodway expansion. The first is hydraulic 20 flow capacity. Now, the original structures when 21 the floodway was first built were built to a 1 per 22 cent frequency standard, that is to say to a 23 standard of the flow that would occur from a given 24 drainage area once in a hundred years in the 25 long-term average. And the channels on floodway 01316 1 property that connect the incoming agricultural 2 drains to the drop structures were designed to a 2 3 per cent standard, or flows that would occur once 4 in 50 years -- flows that would occur or be 5 exceeded, we should be clear on that, flows that 6 will occur or be exceeded once in 50 years. 7 The Floodway Authority has determined 8 that they will replace the structures using the 9 same standards, the structures and the channels on 10 floodway property to the same standards. But in 11 the predesign exercise, they find that when they 12 apply the hydrology of today to determine what the 13 standards mean, that they come up with flows that 14 are substantially larger than were used for the 15 original structures. 16 In any case, the design flows that are 17 used for agricultural systems are not determined 18 in the same method. They are not determined on a 19 frequency basis, they are used by another method. 20 But if you take the results of that and try to 21 relate it to frequency flows, you will find that 22 they are equal to about 10 per cent frequency 23 flows; in other words, flows that will occur or be 24 exceeded once in ten years on the long-term 25 average. 01317 1 So it's pretty evident that the 2 requirements of the, or the capacities that will 3 be built into the floodway structures, which are 4 essentially equal, or correspond to flood 5 protection standards, are far in excess of 6 anything that we could conceive of as being 7 required for agricultural systems. 8 So we are prepared to say, depending 9 on what the final design exercise comes up with, 10 but we are prepared to say that this issue has 11 been taken care of. 12 Now, we move onto the second issue, 13 which is to provide in the design -- this is a 14 rather lengthy title here -- but to provide 15 features in the designs of the structures so that 16 future lowering of the agricultural systems can be 17 accomplished and won't be constrained by the 18 structures. 19 Now, when agricultural systems are 20 upgraded, this generally means an increase in 21 capacity. The purpose of upgrading, of course, is 22 to improve the service to the land. It generally 23 involves an increase in capacity, which means a 24 larger channel, a wider channel and a deeper 25 channel. Wider doesn't concern us in this 01318 1 context, but lowering the channel bottom does. 2 Also when a drainage system is 3 improved in this context, there may be a reason to 4 increase the bottom slope. And just to explain 5 what that means in this context, in the Red River 6 Valley it's common for the public component of the 7 agricultural systems to be designed with a drain 8 bottom slope of 0.02 per cent, which translates 9 into a drop of about a foot in a mile, a drop of 10 about a foot in a mile of channel. These slopes 11 are chosen in design not because they are most 12 effective, but because the topography doesn't 13 allow you to apply a steeper slope. 14 Here we have the deep floodway 15 channel, so we are not constrained in the same 16 way, at least until we advance some distance away 17 from the floodway. So that is another reason 18 for -- that the future upgrading may require 19 channel bottom lowering at the floodway boundary. 20 And there may be other reasons having to do with 21 how we choose to have the system function. 22 So the MFA has recognized that the 23 need to make provisions for future upgrading is 24 valid and they are prepared to go some distance 25 towards providing that. Now, I can't speak for 01319 1 the district, but I think it's fair to say that 2 they appreciate the general approach that Doug 3 McNeil has taken, with the support of Rick Hay and 4 Brian Peter in regard to this matter. But the 5 district now must do everything it can to make 6 sure that the full requirements are fully 7 understood. 8 The proper expression I think for the 9 situation was well expressed by somebody from the 10 MFA in response to a TAC question, and they said 11 the following, and I quote: 12 "Local authorities will therefore be 13 afforded the opportunity to upgrade 14 the capacity of the land drainage 15 system without being constrained by 16 the structures of the system's 17 outfall, mainly the floodway." 18 Without being constrained by the structures, that 19 is key. As Verner has alluded to, once the outlet 20 structures are constructed, they will be very 21 difficult and expensive to alter. 22 In the predesign exercise they 23 identified, or they suggested a lowering of the 24 new drop structure, the lowering of the inlet to 25 the new drop structures of .6 metres as compared 01320 1 to the structures that are being replaced. And 2 Mr. McNeil last week indicated that this is simply 3 conceptual and it will be determined in the final 4 design. 5 We have examined the survey 6 information on the incoming drains and arrived at 7 our own figures of what a reasonable allowance 8 would be for the foreseeable upgrading. And by 9 that, I mean the upgrading that is likely to occur 10 in the near or medium term, what we can foresee in 11 terms of our current approaches to land drainage. 12 And we feel we need to go a bit beyond what the 13 authority so far has indicated in from the 14 predesign exercise. 15 In the predesign exercise, it is 16 indicated that the existing structures are 40 17 years old, which of course we know. They 18 speculated that the structures had 10 to 20 years 19 of useful life left. That will give you a total 20 life of a structure of 50 to 60 years. It also 21 recommended that they use concrete pipes instead 22 of the current corrugated metal pipes, and they 23 indicated that the purpose of that would be to 24 extend the life of the structure. 25 So I think it's fair to say that if 01321 1 these structures are properly designed and 2 properly constructed, properly maintained, and 3 periodically repaired when they get a little 4 older, and provided we don't expand the floodway 5 again, that these structures could last for 60, 6 80, or maybe well beyond that in terms -- before 7 they would need to be replaced. So we're 8 suggesting that when it comes to the future needs 9 of, possible future needs in terms of agricultural 10 system upgrading, that we think in terms of the 11 same sort of time frame. 12 We can deal now with what we can 13 reasonably foresee, but we also need to make 14 allowance for what we cannot foresee. Agriculture 15 has changed over the 40 years that the floodway 16 has been in existence. It will likely change 17 further within the practical, or before these new 18 structures need to be replaced. Decisions that 19 will be made further into the future about how 20 these systems will be upgraded or designed will be 21 made by people who won't even be born for a number 22 of years yet. 23 So for the moment, we are proposing an 24 additional lowering of .8 metres beyond what we 25 can reasonably foresee. In other words, the .8 01322 1 metres really accounts for the unforeseeable. 2 Now, this of course has to be related 3 to structure design and so on. 4 The slide now indicates, for sampling 5 of the main drains, what we are talking about in 6 terms of making provisions for the foreseeable 7 future and for the unforeseeable. 8 Now, the more difficult parts I pass 9 onto Alf Poetker. So I will ask him to comment on 10 this slide as to what these figures mean and how 11 they were arrived. 12 MR. POETKER: The recommended 13 elevations of the inlet structures to the floodway 14 were derived on the basis of the foreseeable 15 drainage channel lowering, plus an additional 16 allowance for future channel reconstruction or 17 reconfiguration that is not currently 18 contemplated. 19 The first number in each of the 20 formulas shown on this slide has been computed 21 using an empirical drainage formula that was 22 developed for the Cooks Creek Conservation 23 District. This is detailed on pages 7 to 15 of 24 the June 2004 report which is attached as Appendix 25 "B" to the Cooks Creek submission to this hearing. 01323 1 The calculations have been undertaken 2 by Cochrane Engineering using detailed survey and 3 design information through the entire reach of 4 each drain. Elevations of the field drains 5 created by the individual producers along the 6 municipal drains have been used in establishing 7 the required water surface elevations. 8 In addition to the calculated 9 elevations for each drain, a further allowance has 10 been made of 0.8 metres, as has already been 11 mentioned by Mr. Stefanson. 12 One example of potential future 13 channel reconfiguration is the Seine River 14 tributary diversion. This is explained on page 22 15 and shown in figure 14 of the aforementioned June 16 2004 report. A preliminary calculation of the 17 required lowering of the Prairie Grove drain, if 18 this diversion is undertaken, indicates that an 19 additional 0.4 to 0.5 metres would be required 20 over and above the 0.95 metres that is calculated 21 for the Prairie Grove drain alone. To allow for 22 refinement of the calculations and for factors 23 unknown, this has been increased to 0.8 metres for 24 purposes of our recommendation. 25 The figures shown in this slide 01324 1 represent the present and future drainage system 2 requirements which will ultimately be needed at 3 the floodway property line. 4 Back to Mr. Stefanson. 5 MR. STEFANSON: The predesign exercise 6 indicated, just fairly casually, an approach to 7 how these structures and approaching channels 8 would be designed. We are proposing something 9 slightly different, and I'll just run you through 10 it. 11 The basic approach that we are 12 suggesting is that the channels on the floodway 13 property which connect the agricultural drains of 14 the floodway boundary with the drop structures, 15 and these channels can be in some cases one, two, 16 three miles long. We are suggesting that they be 17 designed for the 2 per cent capacity, according to 18 the criteria that the MFA has established. And 19 that's simply designed as independent entities 20 without regard to the provision for future 21 lowering that we are talking about. 22 Because of the increase in hydrology, 23 these structures will be -- these channels will be 24 larger than the previous ones, and almost 25 inevitably that means, of course, that they will 01325 1 be wider and deeper if normal efficient channel 2 design parameters are used. So it's almost 3 inevitable that they will arrive at the floodway 4 boundary with a channel bottom that is lower than 5 that of the incoming agricultural drain. So there 6 will be a drop structure at that location to 7 handle the transition from one level to another. 8 Drop structures, of course, are simply devices to 9 lower the water from one level to another without 10 erosion. 11 The next step would be to design the 12 structure into the floodway in such a way that it 13 would have a temporary sill at the level of the 2 14 per cent channel bottom, and a provision to lower 15 it as required. What we're talking about here, of 16 course, is simply conceptual. We're not relating 17 it to any particular structure location, we're 18 just simply defining an approach and how this will 19 shake out in terms of each location will be 20 determined in the final design exercise. 21 What we're suggesting is that the 2 22 per cent channel on the floodway property and the 23 structure, drop structure at the floodway boundary 24 are components that will be required in any case. 25 They do not specifically relate to the provision 01326 1 for lowering the channel in the future, lowering 2 the incoming agricultural drainage channel in the 3 future. The provision at the outlet structure 4 that will allow the lowering of the effective sill 5 is the part that is added to account for future 6 agricultural drain lowering. 7 And this is just a sketch to run 8 through that again so that it's clear, hopefully 9 clear. This is simply a schematic, it's not 10 related to anything, any location. It's not even 11 to scale or in proportion, it simply is an attempt 12 to relate the features that make it up. 13 I'll just run through it. This 14 represents the ground surface. I have ignored the 15 embankments because they are off to one side. 16 This is the ground surface and the side wall of 17 the floodway channel and the base. This would 18 represent the bottom, the existing bottom of the 19 agricultural drain that's coming into the floodway 20 boundary, and continues on, on the dotted line, as 21 per current existing situation, to the drop 22 structure, and this would represent the lip of the 23 drop structure. And then this line would 24 represent the bottom of the culverts that are 25 buried in the floodway wall. 01327 1 We are suggesting then that the 2 per 2 cent channel be designed as an independent entity, 3 as I mentioned. And this would very likely bring 4 it below the agricultural drain of the floodway 5 boundary, and you would have a drop structure at 6 this location. 7 And at the outlet structure into the 8 floodway, we would see a provision, which I'll 9 talk about in a minute, that would allow the sill 10 to be lowered as required in the future. 11 Now, cost of course is a very 12 important factor to consider, and we're suggesting 13 that our approach is cost effective. The channel 14 structure, the drop structure at the channel 15 boundary, although as we say we consider this to 16 be part of the facilities that will be installed 17 in any case, but we are just simply suggesting a 18 simple sheet steel piling and rock structure which 19 has been used by Water Stewardship, or more to the 20 point, by the old Water Resources Branch over very 21 many years on the channels that were their 22 responsibility. 23 It also allows for lowering fairly 24 easily, because the weir of the structure is made 25 up of the top of the sheet steel piling, and these 01328 1 can be cut down or driven further into the ground, 2 or whatever, to lower that weir as required in the 3 future. 4 Now, the provision for inlet lowering 5 at the outlet, we are suggesting a permanent sill 6 at an elevation that is below the incoming 2 per 7 cent channel, and a stop log, concrete stop log 8 feature to raise the sill from the permanent sill 9 up to the level of the bottom of the 2 per cent 10 channel. And just as sort of an aside, the stop 11 log feature would also allow adding stop logs at 12 those locations where there is any concern about 13 high floodway levels or overflow that may back 14 out. And probably Skholny Creek location is the 15 only one where that is relevant. 16 To cover that again, this is a sketch 17 of a component of a drop structure and it 18 relates -- I hope that you can relate this back to 19 the photograph that we showed earlier. It is the 20 concrete component that is set on the top of the 21 floodway channel. 22 The flow is -- just to make sure that 23 you're oriented properly -- the flow would enter 24 from the upper right-hand and flow down to the 25 lower left-hand. And in terms of the photograph 01329 1 that you're looking at, you're looking at it in 2 this direction. So we have the concrete structure 3 and the round holes here that would connect to the 4 pipes that are buried down the slope of the 5 channel wall. 6 Now, we have added an indication, and 7 again this is just an indication, an indication of 8 a stop log feature here. And just to make sure 9 that this is understood, the 2 per cent channel 10 would be at the same elevation as the top of the 11 top stop log. There's more to it, of course, in 12 terms of hydraulic design, but for simple 13 explanation. 14 And one thing I would like to point up 15 on here is that the permanent sill elevation 16 represents the ultimate lowering that can occur. 17 And what we're suggesting by using this approach, 18 whether you choose one elevation or another for 19 that permanent sill elevation is not an important 20 cost factor. So we have, I would suggest that we 21 have some flexibility to add something a little 22 extra without being all that concerned about the 23 cost of it. 24 Just some comments about how we say 25 this would work. With the upgrading of the 01330 1 agricultural system -- of course this may occur 2 more than once over the life of the drop 3 structures -- when lowering does occur, a lowering 4 of the agricultural system at the floodway 5 boundary, then we would see a lowering of the drop 6 structure at the floodway boundary. And if that 7 lowering of the agricultural system essentially 8 wipes out that structure and further lowering is 9 required, then there would be a lowering of the 2 10 per cent channel on floodway property, and a 11 corresponding removal of stop logs to correspond 12 to the new elevation of the 2 per cent channel. 13 I think I'll just go back, just to run 14 through that again on the basis of this sketch. 15 When the agricultural system is to be lowered, and 16 I mentioned that this could happen more than once, 17 then this drop structure would be lowered 18 accordingly. And if we got to the point where we 19 are at the bottom of the 2 per cent channel and 20 more lowering is required, then we would lower the 21 2 per cent channel and remove equivalent stop logs 22 at the structure. 23 Again, this is where the actual -- 24 this is the area where we make the provision for 25 lowering of the agricultural system. 01331 1 Okay. We are going onto another issue 2 here, and that is the possibility of adding 3 additional drop structure outlets at new 4 locations. And when the original floodway was 5 constructed, of course it cut across the paths of 6 existing agricultural drains which were flowing 7 westward. In some cases, the flows from these 8 drains were diverted along the floodway within 9 floodway property, but outside of the embankments. 10 And in some cases two or three drains, flows from 11 two or three drains were combined into one outlet 12 structure. And why this was done, I can only 13 presume it was to save some capital cost. 14 But intuitively most people would 15 think that to take the channel directly into the 16 floodway would be more effective than running it 17 down, diverting it along the floodway for one, two 18 or three miles before you empty it into the 19 floodway. 20 The district has looked at the 21 situation to see where there might be locations 22 that were feasible for additional structures and 23 that would serve a useful purpose. In some cases, 24 works by the district would be required in 25 conjunction with the new outlets. 01332 1 The cost of adding structures would be 2 offset to some degree, and I don't want to 3 overemphasize this, but would be offset to some 4 degree by the reduced capacity of requirements of 5 the structures that would be constructed at the 6 existing locations. And in some cases, the 7 channel and floodway property would no longer be 8 required, it would probably serve some local 9 purpose, but it would not have to be upgraded. 10 So the district wishes that, or asks 11 that the MFA seriously consider the feasibility of 12 each of these. And I'm going to run through them 13 individually just very quickly just so that the 14 Commission can understand what we are talking 15 about. 16 The first one is the proposed Garven 17 Road drain outlet, and there is two slides to 18 follow which will help to make these points make a 19 little more sense. In this case, where Garven 20 Road comes up to the floodway boundary, it is 21 diverted for about three miles to another drainage 22 outlet, or a drainage outlet that it shares with 23 the Skholny Creek, and there are other smaller 24 drains also coming into that diversion. 25 There is some local dissatisfaction 01333 1 about how the system functions. The suggestion 2 here is to redirect the Garven Road half a mile 3 west into the floodway. It appears to be 4 technically feasible without any problem, and 5 would allow improvement possibly to attain some of 6 the local drainage systems to make them more 7 effective. 8 And in terms of this local 9 dissatisfaction, there was an independent 10 engineering study by East St. Paul in 2001 which 11 looked at options to improve the drainage in that 12 area, and one of the options was to construct the 13 new outlet that we are suggesting. 14 Now, I'm going to ask Mr. Sokol to 15 come in here in a minute, but just to go to the 16 next slide. This is a rather busy sketch, but 17 what it represents -- and I'll try to indicate it 18 on the slide -- the outlet into the floodway is at 19 this location. The boundary, it indicates the 20 drainage area for that outlet, entire drainage 21 area. And in terms of scale what we are seeing 22 here is a square mile. Now, the Garven Road drain 23 is at this location and it runs up along this 24 diversion to the floodway outlet. 25 And this is a close-up at the point 01334 1 where we are suggesting an alternate route. The 2 Garven Road drain runs up through this system 3 here, and another over two and a half or so miles 4 to the floodway, to the outlet into the floodway. 5 What we are suggesting is a diversion that runs 6 along here, it would be necessary to cross 59 7 Highway and straight into the floodway. It covers 8 about half a mile. 9 George Sokol has some personal 10 experience with what goes on in this area, so I am 11 going to ask him to make a few comments. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Excuse me, did you 13 direct us to which figures you're using? I see 14 the label at the bottom of the picture here, but I 15 don't know where it is in the pages you have 16 mentioned. 17 MR. STEFANSON: Well, the label at the 18 bottom of the picture is misleading. We have 19 simply pulled this out of the submission to the 20 authority, so it relates to the submission to the 21 authority. And specifically it's the report 22 entitled "Proposals Regarding Red River Floodway 23 Expansion Impacts on East Side Agricultural Land 24 Drainage Services," presented by the Cooks Creek 25 Conservation District to the Manitoba Floodway 01335 1 Expansion Authority, and more specifically to Doug 2 McNeil and his group. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: We have found it so you 4 can proceed, thank you. 5 MR. SOKOL: Thanks, Jon. 6 I just want to bring up just a few 7 pointers on this corner. Garven Road here, going 8 back, and a lot of you will be familiar with it, 9 if you go back about two miles you come up to the 10 hills to the golf courses. And this runs to 11 Skholny Creek roughly three miles. And this area 12 from the east end to this point of two miles has 13 an elevation drop between 20 to 30 feet and maybe 14 greater. So the water does come down here quite 15 fast when it comes. 16 There is evidence of a spot right here 17 in a field that usually is about 25, 30 acres 18 disappears. This piece of property here has been 19 abandoned. It's been hay land, but the alfalfa 20 has drowned out so bad on it, it's left. It 21 continues on all the way along here up to Skholny 22 Creek. 23 A number of years ago the floodway 24 cleaned the drain up to here, and it was left -- 25 this is highways -- so everything is at a 01336 1 standstill. And this is what we wanted to bring 2 up to you, why we think it should go this way. 3 Thank you. Back to you, Jon. 4 MR. STEFANSON: Okay. We'll move onto 5 the next -- oh, this is still Garven Road. It's a 6 photo to indicate, this is looking eastward from 7 the top of the floodway channel. And it simply 8 indicates that there is no technical reason why 9 you could not bring the channel through here and 10 establish an outlet structure. The embankments 11 are to the left and to the right. There is no 12 embankment in the route that would be followed. 13 The next one is the proposed 14 Springfield Road drain outlet, and again there 15 will be a couple of slides to follow. When it 16 comes to the floodway boundary, it is diverted 17 about two miles to a shared outlet, shared with 18 the Cooks Creek -- not the Cooks Creek, the Carrs 19 Creek drainage outlet. There are some flooding 20 and drainage complaints on nearby agricultural 21 land. It is -- what we're suggesting is that it 22 be redirected directly to the floodway by 23 following a route along a railway. And just on 24 the basis of initial examination, it appears to be 25 technically feasible. 01337 1 By the way, the Conservation District 2 did carry out some elevation surveys on each of 3 these locations to confirm, at least on a casual 4 basis, that they are technically feasible. 5 And here again is the outlet. The 6 outlet for the area and the boundary indicates the 7 drainage boundary to that outlet. The Springfield 8 Road drain is on the southern part of it and makes 9 up, it looks like, more than half of the drainage 10 area. And it is diverted along this route here to 11 the outlet, along with the Carrs Creek drain which 12 comes in here. 13 This is again continuing with the 14 Springfield Road drain, and whereas now it comes 15 in, crosses to Highway 207, crosses the railway 16 and proceeds along the floodway for about 17 two miles. We are suggesting that it could be 18 redirected along the south side of the railway 19 right to the floodway. This would eliminate a 20 trestle here which will have to be replaced before 21 too long. Of course when we say alongside the 22 railway, we are saying at a safe distance from the 23 railway that the railway will accept, and that 24 will of course mean acquiring a right-of-way in 25 order to place the system. 01338 1 Again, still with Springfield Road 2 drain, this is a contour sketch of the point where 3 the new system, either on the north side or the 4 south side -- by the way, there is an alternative 5 possibility on the north side, but the preferred 6 option is on the south side. And this simply 7 indicates the gap between the embankments, which 8 suggests that there would be room to place a 9 channel and a drop structure. These opinions, of 10 course, would need to be confirmed. 11 The next one is the proposed PTH 15 12 drain outlet. This is a relatively small scale 13 situation, a two mile drain along the highway 14 which flows to the east. When it hits the 15 floodway boundary, it is diverted south for a mile 16 to an outlet that's shared with the north and 17 south Bibeau drain systems. And there are some 18 significant complaints of problems with the 19 agricultural drainage at the point where the 20 diversion south is made from 59 highway. Also 21 during spring snow melt, the diversion frequently 22 overflows and threatens residences along 207 23 highway. 24 And this is what we are referring to. 25 The drain comes along 15 highway and then is 01339 1 diverted south for a mile to an outlet that is 2 shared with two other agricultural drainage 3 systems. And we are suggesting that it may be 4 feasible to simply run it straight into the 5 floodway. There are some questions about what 6 will be done along 15 highway, but our 7 understanding is that anything that is done 8 relating to 15 highway will occur to the north 9 rather than to the south. 10 Now we have the Prairie Grove drain. 11 This is a little more complicated, but it shares 12 an outlet with the centre line drain. There are 13 some complaints about how the outlet actually 14 operates in this area. There appears to be -- 15 from the descriptions given, there appears to be a 16 greater backwater effect from the structure than 17 one would expect. And the PR 207 crosses very, 18 very close upstream and it appears to exacerbate 19 the effect. 20 There are a number of options about 21 how the lower Prairie Grove drain could be 22 redirected, and it could potentially combine with 23 the Seine River tributary diversion proposal if 24 that ever should go ahead. 25 And again, another couple of slides. 01340 1 This indicates the drainage area that's 2 relatively, to the other sketches it's a 3 relatively large drainage area and the outlet is 4 in this location. 5 This is rather busy, but there are a 6 couple of options here that could be carried out. 7 The Prairie Grove drain could be diverted at a 8 point off the photo here and brought directly west 9 to hit the number 1 highway, and then direct it 10 into the floodway at that point. 11 There is another considered option 12 that would divert it at this point and bring it to 13 the floodway right-of-way and either be directed 14 south to number 1 highway or north to the existing 15 outlet. 16 These are -- I won't go into any more 17 detail on these things. These are things that the 18 district, if these are to be seriously considered, 19 the district has to do a bit of thinking as to 20 just what they would want to do with it. 21 The last one is the DeMeyer Road 22 drain, and this is a drain that is diverted about 23 three miles along the floodway to 59 highway and 24 the Seine River, the new Seine River diversion. 25 This one would require excavation to the floodway 01341 1 embankment. 2 And here again is the drainage area. 3 Demeyer Road runs along this area, I can't really 4 explain it in ways that the transcripts will make 5 any sense, but it is diverted for about two miles 6 along or three miles along the floodway boundary 7 until it reaches the new Seine River diversion at 8 Grande Pointe at 59 highway. And the diversion 9 along the highway simply empties into that 10 diversion before it flows into the floodway over 11 the new drop structure at that location. 12 Here is, again, a contour sketch to 13 indicate the embankment, the embankment stretches 14 across here. To establish a new outlet for the 15 DeMeyer Road drain as it comes to the floodway 16 boundary would require dealing with that 17 embankment. But the embankment is much less 18 formidable here than it is in other areas. Even 19 with the sketch, you can see it's higher to both 20 sides, it narrows down here for some reason, but 21 it is one of the better places that you could 22 actually establish a route through the embankment. 23 Now, all of these are proposals that 24 the district wishes to have examined. And 25 basically what they would like to see is that the 01342 1 Floodway Authority take these suggestions, or 2 these proposals for new structures seriously 3 enough to instruct the final design engineers to 4 do an analysis of them to determine the 5 feasibility in final terms and to determine the 6 cost of them, and then to relate that to the other 7 option of simply upgrading the diversion channels 8 on the floodway property and see how we come out 9 of it. 10 That pretty much concludes my portion 11 of this presentation, I believe. 12 MR. CROOKS: Thanks, Jon. Thank you, 13 Jon and Alf. 14 Mr. Jake Buhler now is going to just 15 summarize the presentation for the Commission and 16 bring the points home I guess. Jake. 17 MR. BUHLER: In summary, effective 18 surface water management is critical to the 19 agricultural industry in the Cooks Creek 20 Conservation District. The changing agriculture 21 requires a higher standard of drainage. The 22 district is developing a water management strategy 23 to meet those needs. The outlets at the floodway 24 are the key to an effective upgrade of the 25 infrastructure. All of the outlets of concern 01343 1 will be replaced during construction. 2 Future lowering of drains -- sill 3 elevations of the outlet structures is the issue. 4 The Floodway Authority is proposing structure 5 lowering of .6 metres. The district believes that 6 does not adequately provide for potential upgrades 7 in the long-term future. The district recommends 8 the sill elevations be lowered by an additional .8 9 metres. 10 Additional outlets -- the surface 11 water could be more effectively managed with 12 additional outlets. The costs could be partially 13 offset by reducing the capacity requirements of 14 other outlets. We request the MFA to examine the 15 feasibility of the proposed additional outlets. 16 The floodway expansion and the 17 associated replacement of the outlet structures 18 provides an opportunity to plan and act for the 19 long term. This opportunity will not likely 20 present itself again within our lifetime. Now is 21 the time to apply foresight and vision on behalf 22 of the next generation and beyond. 23 Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an 24 opportunity to present our issues to the 25 Commission today regarding the floodway expansion 01344 1 and how it will affect our district and our 2 residents. However, I must stress, in our opinion 3 to date, the issues of concern have not been 4 adequately addressed by the Floodway Authority. 5 Groundwater quality, quantity during 6 and after construction is still an issue. We 7 support the RMs in their effort to address this 8 issue with the MFA. We also support the RMs in 9 the transportation links between our area and the 10 City of Winnipeg. 11 And that brings us to the issue of 12 drainage outlet structures and drainage along the 13 east side of the floodway. I hope that we have 14 clearly demonstrated that the new surface water 15 outlets, structures on the east side of the 16 floodway need to be constructed in a manner as to 17 have sufficient structure capacity, structure sill 18 elevations to serve our area and residents not 19 only today but also in the future. 20 We also clearly see a need for 21 additional outlet structures on the east side of 22 the floodway to address the problem of flooding in 23 our district next to the floodway. We field 24 approximately 500 plus calls per year with respect 25 to issues of drainage and associated surface water 01345 1 problems in the area. The district drains and 2 infrastructure have been constructed and/or 3 reconstructed in this region in most cases to the 4 capacity that the floodway infrastructure would 5 allow. While to date we have enjoyed a good 6 working relationship with the MFA, the Cooks Creek 7 Conservation District is aware of and has 8 personally experienced situations where promises 9 made by various government levels and government 10 agencies were not kept. 11 In the 1980s, we signed an agreement 12 on projects that ran from '82 to '94 and beyond. 13 We asked the RM of Springfield to levy their 14 residents a drainage tax and they have collected 15 over $1 million. When it came time to pay the 16 bills incurred on the project, it took until 1997 17 just to retrieve a small percentage of that senior 18 level of government cost sharing in that 19 agreement. 20 The Cooks Creek Conservation District 21 strongly encourages the Clean Environment 22 Commission to make the drainage outlet structures 23 and additional outlet drainage structures a 24 condition on the licence of the Floodway 25 Authority. 01346 1 I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 2 and Commission. 3 MR. CROOKS: That concludes our 4 presentation. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you to all of you 6 for your thorough presentation this morning. As 7 noted earlier, we won't engage in any kind of 8 questioning of you at this time. I assume that 9 some, if not all, of you will be available 10 tomorrow for questions from commissioners and from 11 the proponent, if they have any? 12 MR. BUHLER: Yes, we will. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will 14 immediately, after lunch, be starting with the 15 presentation of the three municipalities. I would 16 ask you all to be back here ready to go just 17 before one o'clock. 18 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, just 19 before we break, I hope you'll indulge me. I need 20 to read in the documents as part of this 21 presentation. The surface water management issues 22 related to Red River Floodway Expansion 23 presentation will be Exhibit number 53. The CVs 24 for experts for the Cooks Creek Conservation 25 District will be Exhibit 54. The submission, 01347 1 Surface Water Management Issues in Cooks Creek 2 Conservation District Related to the Red River 3 Floodway Expansion Project will be Exhibit 55. 4 Number 56 will be Floodway East Side Drainage 5 Plan, a plan to upgrade the agricultural drainage 6 network that finds outlet into the east side of 7 the Red River floodway, preliminary report. And 8 57 is a proposal regarding Red River Floodway 9 Expansion impacts on east side agricultural 10 drainage services presented to the Manitoba 11 Floodway Expansion Authority Hydraulic Engineering 12 Department by the Cooks Creek Conservation 13 District, November 15, 2004. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Back in 15 exactly one hour. 16 17 (EXHIBIT 53: Presentation: Surface 18 Water Management Issues Related to the 19 Red River Floodway Expansion. A 20 Presentation to the Manitoba Clean 21 Environment Commission, February 21, 22 2005. Presented by : Cooks Creek 23 Conservation District) 24 25 (EXHIBIT 54: CVs for experts for Cooks 01348 1 Creek Conservation District) 2 3 (EXHIBIT 55: Submission: Surface Water 4 Management Issues in Cooks Creek 5 Conservation District Related to the 6 Red River Floodway Expansion Project. 7 A submission to the Manitoba Clean 8 Environment Commission February 2005) 9 10 (EXHIBIT 56: Floodway East Side 11 Drainage Plan, A Plan to Upgrade the 12 Agricultural Drainage Network that 13 finds Outlet into the East Side of the 14 Red River Floodway. A Preliminary 15 report. Submitted to: Cooks Creek 16 Conservation District, R.M. of 17 Springfield. June 2004) 18 (EXHIBIT 57: Proposal Regarding Red 19 River Floodway Expansion Impacts on 20 East Side Agricultural Drainage 21 Services. Presented to the Manitoba 22 Floodway Expansion Authority, 23 Hydraulic Engineering Department by 24 the Cooks Creek Conservation District, 25 November 15, 2004) 01349 1 (Proceedings recessed at 11:57 a.m. 2 and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.) 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could we come 5 back to order, please. First item of business, in 6 fact item of business for the rest of the 7 afternoon will be a presentation on behalf of the 8 three municipalities. I'll ask Mr. Currie to 9 introduce his co-panelists and then we will have 10 the Commission secretary swear them in. 11 MR. CURRIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 And as you can see, we are quite anxious to get on 13 with our case. I have to my far left Peter Hayes 14 from Conestoga-Rovers. And of course to his right 15 is Mr. Gary Palmateer and I'm just going to ask, 16 before we start the presentation, Mr. Chairman, 17 that they give a bit of a brief biography of 18 themselves so that you understand their background 19 more for the public because of course we have 20 included their CVs in your submission. And with 21 that, I'd ask that you consider tab 6 of the 22 participant municipalities' presentation for 23 review. As we go through, Mr. Hayes will cover 24 off those issues hopefully. 25 So with that, I guess we can get it 01350 1 under way with starting with Mr. Hayes, to my far 2 left, asking him to give us a brief biography of 3 his credentials. 4 MR. HAYES: Thank you, Orvel. Hi, my 5 name is Peter Hayes. I'm with Conestoga-Rovers & 6 Associates. I had been with CRA for the last 18 7 years. I'm an associate and hydrogeologist with 8 the firm. 9 Just a short biography of my 10 experience. Over the last 18 years, going on 19, 11 I had been involved extensively in groundwater 12 resource evaluation and development. That 13 includes for aggregate industry, municipalities, 14 development of water supply, landfill site 15 approvals and permiting has been a large part of 16 my background. I am also involved in remedial 17 investigations and feasibility studies, ground 18 fill redevelopment. 19 Of particular note and of relevance to 20 this undertaking, I have, over the last two years, 21 have been the project manager and hydrogeologist 22 for a large scale construction dewatering project 23 in Ontario. It's 10 kilometres in length. I 24 assisted in the development and implementation of 25 a proactive and reactive groundwater monitoring 01351 1 and mitigation plan as it related to any 2 dewatering effects for that undertaking, all of 3 which is sort of played into my testimony today. 4 Included within this project is a 5 development of a comprehensive monitoring network, 6 prediction of the effects of the undertaking and 7 the determination and the result in actions of any 8 groundwater/surface water interaction. 9 MR. CURRIE: Thank you, Peter. Now, 10 Gary, I'll ask of you the same. 11 MR. PALMATEER: Hello, my name is Gary 12 Palmateer. I have been with the Ministry of the 13 Environment actually for 23 years in Ontario and 14 later joined the Conestoga-Rovers company but as a 15 partner for a few years. And our company name at 16 the time was GAP EnviroMicrobial Services, for the 17 lack of a more interesting name. 18 After the year 2000, my shares of the 19 company were bought out by Conestoga-Rovers and 20 that's who I work for but we maintain that name. 21 I have, as an environmental 22 microbiologist, been working in the field of 23 drinking water and studying and assessing 24 environmental contamination of surface and 25 groundwater for my entire career. Over the years, 01352 1 I have dealt with quite a variety of incidences of 2 contamination of both surface and groundwater 3 sources, subsequent contamination of distribution 4 systems and so on. 5 I have participated in serious 6 outbreaks where there was loss of life, people 7 were very ill, starting out in 1978 with polio 8 outbreak in southwestern Ontario. 9 I worked, as I say, for the Ontario 10 Ministry Environment through a number of years, 11 conducting applied research part of the time and 12 also supervised/managed a laboratory. 13 Today our laboratory is state of the 14 art and we continue to provide consultation and 15 analytical support in studies, in investigations 16 into contamination of drinking water, recreational 17 waters. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I should also correctly 19 note that this presentation is being made on 20 behalf of the Coalition for Flood Protection North 21 of the Floodway and the results of it are also 22 being relied on by the municipalities in their 23 presentation. 24 Ms. Johnson, would you please swear in 25 the witnesses. 01353 1 2 (GARY PALMATEER: SWORN) 3 (PETER HAYES: SWORN) 4 5 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 6 MR. HAYES: Thank you. As a point of 7 introduction, I'll give a brief presentation 8 overview. These are some of the points in 9 generality which we'll be discussing today, a 10 brief introduction. 11 Concerns of the Coalition for Flood 12 Protection North of the Floodway. I'll give a 13 brief regional overview. Number 4 would be the 14 environmental impacts attributed to the existing 15 floodway versus pre-floodway conditions. The next 16 item would be incremental impacts expected within 17 the expanded floodway itself. And finally a 18 review of the Environmental Impact Statement 19 proposed Floodway Expansion Project. 20 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chairman, I don't 21 mean to interrupt. I just wondered if there is an 22 extra copy of the speaking notes if they are going 23 to be entered as an exhibit. It would be nice to 24 follow along if that's available. 25 MR. HAYES: I don't believe we have an 01354 1 extra copy of the notes but we can provide it for 2 you. 3 MR. HANDLON: That's fine. 4 MR. HAYES: Introduction then. As we 5 all know, it's intended just to set the setting 6 and context. The Winnipeg region is prone to 7 widespread floods due to the flat topography and 8 clay soils. The existing floodway water diversion 9 was built from 1962 to '68 and the existing 10 floodway plus the Red River is capable of handling 11 a peak flow for a one in 100 year flood event. 12 Following the 1997 flood, which as I 13 understand was approximately 1 in 90 year event, 14 it was recommended that the floodway be upgraded 15 and the expanded floodway is proposed to handle 16 peak flows for a 1 in 700 year event. 17 The Coalition for Flood Protection 18 North of the Floodway is a group representing 19 collective concerns of the citizens in regards to 20 a number of items and these include, but not 21 exclusively, flood protection, floodway expansion, 22 floodway operation, environmental quality as 23 affected by the floodway and compensation for 24 landowners artificially flooded when operating the 25 floodway. This coalition is led by Jack Jonasson. 01355 1 Some of the concerns of the coalition, 2 and the municipalities share a number of these 3 concerns themselves, is ice jam problems north of 4 the floodway outlet, incremental flooding beyond 5 the state of nature north of the floodway. The 6 floodway expansion offers no flood control 7 benefits to property owners north of the floodway 8 and no compensation is available to property 9 owners whose lands are flooded along or downstream 10 of the floodway as a result of floodway operation. 11 An associate of mine, Mr. James Moore, 12 an engineer, will speak to CRA's review of 13 flooding issues in a subsequent presentation. 14 It's my understanding that will happen in the next 15 day or two. 16 What Mr. Palmateer and I are here to 17 talk to everyone this afternoon about are concerns 18 largely related to groundwater quality -- 19 groundwater and water quality. The drainage of 20 contaminated water into the floodway channel from 21 sewer outflows and drop structures are of concern. 22 Uncontrolled groundwater discharge to the floodway 23 channel when the floodway is not in operation and 24 the lowering of the overall water table is of 25 concern and form part of our assessment. 01356 1 As we did our review, a concern 2 developed with respect to infiltration of 3 contaminated flood water to the regional aquifer 4 when the floodway is in operation. We'll discuss 5 to some length in this regard. 6 The other item is, based on our 7 determination, there was insufficient baseline 8 water quality monitoring and microbial parameters 9 is presented in the EIS or other background 10 studies that we've reviewed. 11 Lastly, it's the coalition's 12 contention that the Manitoba Floodway Authority 13 needs to commit to more substantial and long-term 14 groundwater protection strategy. 15 First off then with a brief regional 16 overview. As we are all aware, the Red River 17 flows from south to north. The floodway itself, 18 as it is currently configured, floodway diverts 19 excess flood water to the east of Winnipeg in 20 times of flood. Widespread area is artificially 21 flooded to protect Winnipeg using the existing 22 floodway and several drainage ditches and sewers 23 are diverted into the floodway channel itself, all 24 of which we will speak to in some detail in 25 regards to certain drop structures that was 01357 1 sampled in the course of our investigation. 2 Topography, as we are all aware, the 3 Winnipeg region is fairly flat. I've shown you 4 this morning, it's more properly -- it's a basin, 5 a depression. The river valley itself is not a 6 strong topographic feature. The elevation 7 difference is only five metres between the 8 floodway inlet and the outfall. The other 9 topographic feature of concern, as has been 10 discussed in previous testimony, is this mound of 11 sand and gravel around Birds Hill just northeast 12 of Winnipeg. And that's approximately 30 metres 13 higher than the surrounding ground. 14 As we heard this morning, I was quite 15 pleased to be present at that presentation, the 16 Winnipeg region is poorly drained. Most of the 17 region was wetland and there are still concerns to 18 this day about making drainage improvements to 19 improve surface water drainage on the land. The 20 clay itself prevents rapid infiltration of water 21 and there is widespread flooding that's common in 22 the spring following snow melt. And there has 23 been, in the record and as we heard earlier, the 24 floodway itself does operate during the summer 25 period after heavy thunderstorms. 01358 1 These pictures I'm sure most of us 2 have seen before. This figure I'm pointing to 3 here is in the lower Red River Valley and depicts 4 those areas that were flooded by the Red River in 5 1950 as compared to 1997. And review of this 6 figure largely indicates it's of similar magnitude 7 of, somewhat expanded, as part of the 1997 flood 8 event. 9 The figure to the right here is the 10 northern Red River. It again shows flooding 11 largely at the southern portion of Lake Winnipeg 12 and those areas from the outfall along the Red 13 River Valley itself in and around Selkirk and 14 north to Lake Winnipeg. 15 We've inserted some photos here just 16 to give the site setting a little more visual 17 effect. The Selkirk bridge under both non-flood 18 conditions and under flooding conditions. Under 19 flooding conditions in April 2004, this picture 20 was chosen largely to demonstrate the ice jam or 21 it's very close to the bottom of the bridge 22 structure itself. The Red River inlet structure, 23 which we are all quite familiar with, is also 24 depicted as well as the Red River Valley 25 downstream of Lockport. 01359 1 This next slide discusses, in 2 generality, the geology in and around the 3 floodway. As a general principle, there is five 4 to 20 metres of clay deposits. And these are 5 glaciolacustrine in origin. There is a weathered 6 surface to the clay of approximately 3 to 5 metres 7 below ground surface. The weathered clay is 8 easily shown it's a brown clay as compared to a 9 gray clay which is typically seen as unweathered. 10 It's an important differentiation in that the 11 weathered clay is fractured, is more permeable 12 than the underlying gray clay which is essentially 13 unweathered, although there are cracks and 14 hairline fractures in the unweathered clay itself. 15 Beneath the clay is a silt till, this 16 red unit here, and that's present in most 17 localities along the floodway. It's a silt and -- 18 sandy silt till and underlies the clay itself. 19 Within this unit, there are known to be sandy 20 deposits which can be used for water supply as 21 well but they are rather discontinuous. 22 The supplementary feature here is that 23 Birds Hill Kame or sand and gravel mound which is 24 very much of hydrogeologic significance and that 25 is present. And you'll note here that the sand 01360 1 itself directly overlies bedrock. We don't see 2 that silt till, that intervening silt till as a 3 barrier between the sand and the region of bedrock 4 aquifer. 5 The carbonate bedrock is a regional 6 aquifer. It's a fractured bedrock. It very much 7 utilizes a source of water supply in the area. 8 It's important to note it is a bedrock sequence so 9 there are flow conduits, there are preferential 10 flow paths within the bedrock. It's a complex 11 system as compared to sand and gravel which is 12 rather uniform or homogeneous. The rock itself 13 can be irregularly fractured and these flow paths 14 need to be documented and a little more effort has 15 to go into the determination of the appropriate 16 primary flow paths within the bedrock sequence. 17 Underlying that regional aquifer to 18 depth, there is other bedrock formations. The 19 Winnipeg formation which is a sandstone and shale, 20 it's much deeper. It is utilized or can be 21 utilized as a source of supply but it's not a 22 normal practice. And of course below that is the 23 precambrian shield. 24 A couple more pictures. The clay unit 25 itself, which is pretty much everywhere in the 01361 1 area, this picture I'm pointing to now shows the 2 continuity of that upper clay deposit, these 3 boulders and sand and gravel on top of that are 4 carried down by the floodway itself. 5 Just below that is an area which we'll 6 touch upon later in the presentation but it's near 7 the outfall, and what we see here is that till and 8 bedrock rubble exposed along the floodway bottom. 9 It's an indication and it's been documented that 10 the bedrock itself is at or near the bottom of the 11 floodway in this location. And it's one of the 12 areas of concern or sensitivity that it's not only 13 been outlined by the proponent but we see it too 14 as a sensitive area. 15 The Birds Hill aquifer itself or the 16 Birds Hill complex is used as a source of 17 aggregate extraction. It's not only a source of 18 groundwater but it's got this competing land use. 19 And again, just a confirmation of the 20 presence of the bedrock just south of Lockport. 21 Here's a picture here. It might be better seen in 22 more detail close up but there is bedrock exposed 23 at or near the Red River Valley. 24 This cross-section we've seen in 25 previous testimony by the proponent and there's a 01362 1 couple of features I'd like to point out of 2 particular relevance. From the southern part of 3 the outlet, approximately halfway, this green line 4 that runs the length of the cross-section shows 5 generally where the floodway is completed. This 6 upper hashed area is the weathered clay. And this 7 more competent or solid area here is the 8 unweathered clay deposit. So for the first half 9 of the floodway, it seems that the floodway itself 10 is largely completed in that clayey deposit. It's 11 a relatively low permeability. Underlying that, 12 we have the till unit which is more of a higher 13 permeability and there is the bedrock sequence 14 here. 15 This first area of sensitive area, I 16 guess I would describe it as, this is where we see 17 this underlying till, this sandy silt till is at 18 the bottom of the floodway. And it's also 19 coincident, and you can't really see here, but 20 this is what we discovered yesterday. These are 21 the areas where the proponent has noted spring 22 discharge. It is coincident to an area where this 23 clay or this competent clay unit is not present 24 and we have bedrock encroaching on the bottom of 25 the floodway itself and we've got this more 01363 1 permeable unit. So that's where we're getting 2 breaches in the floodway. 3 The second area here is the Birds Hill 4 aquifer itself, that mound of sand and gravel I 5 talked about earlier. But again, in this 6 locality, this Birds Hill aquifer sequence here. 7 And again, there is a blue arrow there. That's 8 another spring that has been noted by the 9 proponent. But again, though, it's not shown 10 explicitly on this picture here, there seems to be 11 some intervening sandy and silt clay but it is 12 known that that sand and gravel deposit directly 13 overlies bedrock in the Springhill area. That's 14 the second sensitive area. And it may be within 15 three metres of the floodway bottom, the bedrock 16 sequence. But again, we don't have that 17 intervening unweathered gray clay protecting the 18 sand or acting as a barrier or separating the sand 19 from the bedrock sequence. 20 Lastly is this third area here from 21 the Birds Hill area right to the floodway outlet 22 in which we have a number of -- I can't really see 23 it here but I know there are several springs 24 noted. Dunning Road is one of them. And again, 25 the floodway itself is either excavated or it's 01364 1 completed within this sand and silt unit, not the 2 more impermeable clay unit. And we also see, and 3 as I've shown in my pictures earlier, there's a 4 lot of bedrock rubble in the latter part here 5 right to the outfall which says that bedrock is at 6 or near surface. 7 So in summary then, the southern half 8 of the floodway from approximately kilometre 0 to 9 25 is excavated entirely it seems into this 10 glaciolacustrine clay. Most of the northern half 11 of kilometre 25 to approximately 50 is excavated 12 through that clay into the underlying glacial 13 till. 14 Bedrock within five metres of the 15 bottom of the floodway occurs in many regions in 16 this from kilometre 25 to 50. And bedrock, at 17 least within three metres of the floodway bottom, 18 from kilometre 47 to 50. The floodway itself, as 19 we know, is excavated through the Birds Hill 20 aquifer from kilometre 33 to 35. And the last two 21 points speak to the bedrock as being within two to 22 four metres. The bedrock is within two to four 23 metres below the floodway bottom where it is 24 excavated through the sand. And the bedrock 25 outcrops are reported south of Springhill near 01365 1 Dunning Road in the low flow crossing and my 2 associate Wayne Clifton had indicated that to me. 3 A Now we're here to talk about 4 groundwater and there are three principle aquifers 5 in the study area. That Birds Hill sand and 6 gravel aquifer, that large mounded deposit is seen 7 as an unconfined aquifer. It provides water 8 quality to a significant number of people. And 9 we'll go into the exact numbers of individuals or 10 businesses relying upon that aquifer. 11 Regionally, it's that fractured 12 carbonate bedrock aquifer, it's generally a 13 confined aquifer system. It's utilized as a 14 source of supply. And as I touched on earlier, 15 that deep underlying sandstone aquifer is present, 16 is not widely used as a source of domestic supply 17 in the area but can be if needed. 18 This table itself provides a summary 19 or generalization of the different units and 20 characteristics, and something termed the 21 hydraulic conductivity. I'll spend a minute on 22 that definition. The hydraulic conductivity is an 23 empirical measure of the rate at which groundwater 24 will move through that different geologic media. 25 The lower the value, the more -- the less 01366 1 permeable it is. The higher the value, the more 2 permeable. And I'll interpret it not so much in 3 numbers but on a comparative basis. Sand and 4 gravel aquifer, that first unit shown, is highly 5 permeable as you would expect sand and gravel to 6 be. And it is used as a source of supply. 7 The underlying lacustrine clay, 8 there's two areas within it; as I indicated 9 earlier, a weathered portion and an unweathered 10 portion. There's a definite conductivity contrast 11 in which water will move more readily in the 12 weathered portion. It is fractured as compared to 13 the unweathered portion, that underlying gray clay 14 is less fractured. 15 The calcareous silt till, the unit 16 that underlies, it's a basal till unit that 17 underlies the lacustrine clay is relatively 18 impermeable as compared to sand and gravel 19 sequences. Although in some areas, it is known to 20 be very sandy and is definitely more permeable. 21 Again, the principle bedrock or water 22 supply unit is that fractured carbonate bedrock. 23 Fracturing in this unit occurs in the upper 15 to 24 30 metres. Again, it's a concept we must 25 understand. Bedrock itself is not uniformly 01367 1 fractured. There are preferred pathways, flow 2 conduits within that bedrock sequence. 3 The trick to doing any contaminant 4 transport modeling or evaluation effect is make 5 sure you are in that primary flow zone that you 6 are monitoring where the water moves 7 preferentially. And that's something that we'll 8 come back to a little later in the presentation. 9 The other underlying units are of 10 importance perhaps from an academic standpoint but 11 don't really play into our presentation here 12 today. 13 Again, we'll talk a little bit more 14 about the bedrock aquifer itself, the carbonate 15 sequence. It is the principle aquifer of the 16 region. It is confined or protected by this 17 lacustrine clay and till in most regions. That 18 confining layer, that barrier precludes a 19 significant amount of groundwater surface water 20 interaction. The recharge area for the carbonate 21 aquifer is further to the east where there is -- 22 where it is closer to ground surface. But within 23 our study area to the west, you've got this 24 overlying barrier to protect it from surface water 25 infiltration. 01368 1 To put numbers to it, there is, 2 according to our review for the study area, 3 various regional municipalities, various area 4 municipalities in the study area, there is about 5 40,000 people that rely on this aquifer for 6 domestic water supply. A significant number. 7 That's why it's important to have a complete 8 understanding of this aquifer system and any 9 interrelationship it might have with the proposed 10 undertaking. 11 The other principle aquifer in our 12 study area is that Birds Hill aquifer, is that 13 mound of sand and gravel that is readily seen. 14 What you see is the aquifer. It's a relatively 15 high yield of good water quality. It's used by 16 the communities of Birds Hill, East St. Paul, 17 Oakbank, some trailer parks, campgrounds. And 18 again, in general summary, there's about 1,200 19 households or 3,000 people that rely upon this 20 aquifer as a source of domestic supply. 21 We've all seen this picture. I have 22 seen it a couple of times since I've been here. 23 But this is the regional groundwater flow. And 24 I'll just touch on briefly, but there is that 25 Birds Hill aquifer complex. There is radial 01369 1 groundwater flow off that mound but principle 2 groundwater flow, this is a bedrock groundwater 3 flow, is from east to west towards the Red River 4 and beyond. You see some discharge to the Red 5 River. Again, anything that comes off the mound 6 will eventually make its way this way. 7 This table, simply put, is just 8 confirmation of the, according to the various 9 geographic districts, the number of drinking water 10 wells in use is significant. And it's all 11 within -- all surrounding the area of the 12 floodway. There's 8,500 drinking water wells in 13 the area itself. 14 A lot of our focus, a lot of our study 15 will relate to groundwater susceptibility to 16 surface water contamination. That's our concern. 17 That's the crux of our concern. There are 18 indications that there is a degree of connection 19 between the floodway and these aquifers. Our 20 concern relates to that connection. 21 As a general rule when the floodway is 22 not in operation, groundwater discharges to the 23 floodway. When the floodway is in operation, as 24 the water levels rise up in the floodway -- as the 25 water levels rise, there's a potential for that 01370 1 water to rise to a point where it then will 2 reverse the flow. And instead of groundwater 3 discharging, it's reached a sufficient height such 4 that it will infiltrate back into the aquifer. 5 Of particular concern is the carbonate 6 bedrock and the Birds Hill aquifer, their 7 susceptibility to the surface water impacts and 8 the surface water intrusions when the floodway is 9 in operation, particularly as it relates to 10 contaminate transport and movement. As part of 11 our assessment, one of the deficiencies that I saw 12 or we saw in our review was there wasn't a proper 13 analysis or study as it might relate to microbial 14 impacts, their fate in transport within these 15 aquifers, the Birds Hill aquifer and especially 16 the carbonate aquifer where there is no filtering 17 action. If there is a direct connection to that 18 carbonate system, any contaminants, once there, 19 will not be filtered out and can move readily and 20 rapidly within the carbonate bedrock. 21 There is a quotation here from Freeze 22 and Cherry. They are very much well known in the 23 field of hydrogeology. And it's their assertion, 24 dating back to 1979, these micro-organisms can 25 survive for months and travel great distances 01371 1 within a CARR system or carbonate aquifer. 2 Mr. Palmateer will speak more directly as to the 3 nature of those microbial contaminants and their 4 fate in transport in the groundwater system. 5 Next couple of slides, I generally 6 depicted how the floodway will interact with these 7 various geologic units. Now this first case, this 8 case 1, this is a schematic which generally shows 9 how the floodway interacts with the surrounding 10 geologic materials. Again, shown on this 11 schematic is this upper clay unit. And there's a 12 weathered portion and unweathered clay portion. 13 This case 1 is for the fractured till overlying 14 the bedrock aquifer as in the case north of 15 Transcona when the floodway is not in operation. 16 If we were to go back to that 17 cross-section, there's three general areas. We've 18 got that first part of the floodway in which the 19 floodway is largely completed within the clay unit 20 or the till unit. And there is later on, some of 21 the other schematics or cases I'll present show 22 where the floodway is in a sandy aquifer. But in 23 this case here, we're seeing when the floodway is 24 not in operation, the groundwater flow in the 25 bedrock aquifer is from east to west. There is 01372 1 some infiltration through the weathered clay unit 2 downwards into the till and there may be a 3 potential for bedrock to -- bedrock flow to try 4 and make its way up into the floodway. But it's 5 prevented to do so where there's sufficient 6 thickness of this till unit here. There may be 7 breaches where it's sufficiently thin or there may 8 be a blow-out such that this may occur. 9 Now this case 2 shows that same 10 geologic condition where we have fractured till 11 overlying the bedrock aquifer but the floodway is 12 in operation. And here, again, because the 13 head -- because the floodway is now full or near 14 full, there is a potential for this water to now 15 make its way down through the till unit into the 16 limestone aquifer. It is prevented largely from 17 doing so by the fact that the permeability here is 18 sufficient in most instances to preclude this from 19 happening. The flood itself, as you know, 20 happens -- it isn't a flash flood, it builds over 21 weeks and may be around for a month or six weeks 22 before it finally diminishes and goes down. But 23 during that time, this barrier here should, in 24 most instances, provide sufficient protection for 25 the bedrock, the limestone aquifer, if it is of 01373 1 sufficient thickness and there's no sand units 2 within it which do occur further to the north. 3 This case I'm presenting here called 4 case 3, this is around the Birds Hill area. This 5 is a schematic showing what happens when the 6 floodway is not in operation. And of course, this 7 is where we have the Oasis well field is nearby. 8 We have the Birds Hill Kame deposit and it runs 9 off this or that mound. We have instances where 10 we still have this bedrock flow from east to west 11 in the limestone aquifer. But we know and it's 12 been measured and the proponent has found areas of 13 spring discharge into the floodway. The depth of 14 sand overlying bedrock is anywhere from 2 to 5 15 metres. In some instances, there may be a 16 situation where the bedrock is at or very near the 17 surface less than that. 18 This case 4 is the same depiction but 19 now the floodway is full. And now whereas before 20 we see groundwater discharge here, there's a 21 potential for that to be reversed in that the 22 proponent has indicated or modelled that this 23 would occur. The proponent has indicated it's of 24 rather localized effect. It is our assertion 25 that's not certain, we'll get more into that 01374 1 later. But what happens is when the floodway is 2 full, you've got this reversal. Instead of water 3 discharging out, you've got surface water going 4 through the areas of thin sand or even through the 5 thicker sand units and recharging or surcharging 6 that limestone bedrock. And this is our source of 7 water supply. And as I said, groundwater can move 8 very quickly in this medium. It can move tens, 9 hundreds of metres in a day because of this 10 conduit flow, its rather rapid flow. Here within 11 the sand system, it's an order of magnitude less. 12 Groundwater flow is metres per day. This could be 13 tens, and in extreme cases, hundreds of metres per 14 day. So that needs to be factored into any 15 assessment. 16 These photos again are just to show 17 the Springhill area. The floodway is excavated 18 through the Birds Hill aquifer. There is an area, 19 as we saw this morning, which intrudes upon the 20 floodway and was the subject of further 21 investigation by the proponent. And they produced 22 a report in November 2004 outlining the extent and 23 nature of the sandy deposit in the floodway 24 itself. 25 There are wells in close proximity to 01375 1 the floodway. Of course we all know about the 2 East St. Paul wells. There is a Red River College 3 Truck Driving Training Centre, the ski hill and 4 Oasis campground. 5 Now this case 5 is for the first half 6 of the floodway. In all fairness, it's important 7 to -- that's a different geologic area where we 8 have the, in large measure, the clay directly. 9 The floodway itself is completed within that clay 10 unit, and to demonstrate what would happen under a 11 similar scenario during floodway operation and in 12 normal circumstances when the floodway is not in 13 operation. So the difference here is that the 14 floodway is completed within this clay, not within 15 the till sequence or not within a sand sequence. 16 Generally speaking, we have sufficient thickness 17 of unweathered gray clay at the bottom of the 18 floodway which prevents or will prevent any 19 communication between surface water or as the 20 floodway fills up with the underlying till or the 21 limestone bedrock. This natural or native 22 material affords a great deal of protection. 23 And we can see here when the floodway 24 is in operation, again there may be a minor 25 component of recharge. As a generalization, there 01376 1 are fractures within this clay unit, even the 2 unweathered portion, but it's a very muted flow 3 path. There is no direct or obvious connection or 4 there shouldn't be. Some of the data suggests 5 there are areas even within this where the 6 floodway is completed and the unweathered clay 7 where we are seeing some hydraulic effects on the 8 limestone aquifer, and I'll go over those later. 9 I don't understand why but that's an area of 10 investigation. But generally speaking, this 11 unweathered clay protects the main regional 12 aquifer here during floodway operation. 13 As has been indicated by the 14 proponent, a review of the documentation, when the 15 existing Red River Floodway was constructed, there 16 was a profound impact on the hydraulic head which 17 is a fancy way of saying water levels, in the 18 bedrock and Birds Hill aquifer. The water table 19 itself was in a state of flux or change for a 10 20 year period following that floodway completion. 21 It took 10 years once the floodway was put in 22 place for water levels to stabilize. 23 Following completion of the existing 24 floodway, water levels dropped generally two to 25 six metres near the floodway and we had a drop of 01377 1 about a metre, noted 10 kilometres away from the 2 floodway. So it's of large extent. It isn't a 3 localized effect. The floodway itself did affect 4 water levels up to 10 kilometres away. 5 This is a drawing depicting the 6 lowering of that water table since construction on 7 the existing floodway. And I'll go -- in 8 subsequent slides here, I'll show you a graph of 9 water levels for two locations. The first 10 location, the next slide, slide 33, we'll talk 11 about an observation well here. You can see these 12 different colours here. This yellow is depicting 13 areas where there is a one to two metre drop. The 14 next area was two to three metres and then all the 15 way up to I think that last value is greater than 16 five metres. So we have the largest effect here 17 of five metres diminishing out here to the 18 periphery where you had one to two metres of water 19 level decline. And this is in the bedrock aquifer 20 largely. 21 But you can see here, and as you may 22 recall, the first half of the floodway is 23 completed within that lacustrine clay. So there 24 shouldn't be that much of an interconnection 25 between the floodway and the bedrock because of 01378 1 that protective barrier. But there was a large 2 water level decline in this locality here. 3 So what this graph -- this is the 4 first one where when the floodway was 5 pre-construction, the water level is about 233 6 metres and it dropped. The floodway was completed 7 in 1968 and there are variations. But on the 8 whole, there was a six metre decline at that well 9 location, that observation well location. These 10 gyrations, these up and downs are responses of the 11 aquifer to floodway operation which I believe 12 clearly indicates there is a degree of 13 communication between the floodway and this 14 observation well location. So there is a 15 connection. This is quite telling that when the 16 floodway is operated, the water levels go up when 17 it goes down. 18 Similarly now, this well, this 19 observation well is located near the Oasis well 20 field. We didn't see the same decline in water 21 levels during pre-floodway conditions versus 22 floodway when it was completed. However on the 23 whole, there was a two metre decline. So water 24 levels did decline. And again, you see these 25 peaks here are in response, not the same degree of 01379 1 response we saw in the previous slide, but there 2 is an increase of maybe a half a metre to a metre 3 in certain localities or in this locality when the 4 floodway is in operation, again demonstrating that 5 degree of connection. That when the floodway is 6 in operation, there is that surface 7 water/groundwater interaction. 8 So in summary here, there is a water 9 table drop of 2 to 6 metres near the floodway 10 right-of-way observed since construction of the 11 existing floodway. There was water table effects 12 up to 11 kilometres from the existing floodway. 13 There is -- I think Manitoba Conservation 14 estimated base flow, that's both, I think it's 15 groundwater and surface water flow, to be 16 approximately .14 metres cubed per second. To put 17 that in context, that's 140 litres per second. I 18 checked my math and it works out to 12 million 19 litres per day. I think that is the kind of 20 volume I can relate to. That's a lot of water, 21 that's the base in the low flow channel itself. 22 Much of the uncontrolled groundwater 23 discharge occurs from the Birds Hill aquifer area 24 where there is known springs and discharges, and 25 up to 6 million litres a day is lost via these 01380 1 groundwater seeps into the floodway. 2 Again, just as a point of comparison, 3 that type of volume of water could supply, you 4 know, 10,000 to 15,000 homes. 5 I've talked on it earlier and I'm 6 going to get into more detail here, but basically 7 the concerns relate to the potential for aquifer 8 contamination. The fluctuations in the water 9 table observed in those provincial monitoring 10 wells I've shown to you showed that there is a 11 connection. We had a water table that fluctuated 12 up to six metres adjacent to the floodway and the 13 bedrock aquifer. We had that response upwards of 14 one metre ten kilometres away from the floodway. 15 All of these responses indicate a hydraulic 16 connection between the floodway and the bedrock 17 aquifer. The bedrock aquifer water levels 18 response far away from the floodway potentially 19 indicates that flood water moves rapidly in this 20 bedrock sequence. 21 Now, I'm particularly concerned, and I 22 guess that's why we're all here in part, what 23 happened in 1997. And this figure again tries to 24 demonstrate the water table response to the water 25 level response during the 1997 flood. Again, 01381 1 we've got various colours depicting the level of 2 response. Water levels rose in the bedrock 3 aquifer during this flooding period. 4 Of note, again, where the floodway is 5 in the -- completed largely in clay, we had a 6 strong response of up to five metres. This pink 7 area is five metres. And it diminished out to 8 this one metre response in yellow. But there is, 9 in this first half of the floodway, there is 10 definitely a response due to the operation of the 11 floodway in 1997. 12 In the Birds Hill area, this here, 13 this Kame deposit, there's a much less response 14 and largely it relates to the fact that it is a 15 sand and gravel aquifer, but there was a response 16 noted in 1997. 17 Again, we're saying a strong response 18 is where I showed you earlier, where we had 19 bedrock at or near surface at the terminus of the 20 floodway near Lockport. There's significant water 21 level influences in the bedrock during the 1997 22 flood. 23 This hydrograph here, again, while the 24 previous slide showed in colour, this is the 25 response of the floodway, the floodway hydrograph. 01382 1 And again this is a monitoring well near the 2 floodway outlet that closely mimics the duration, 3 timing of that floodway hydrograph. And another 4 monitoring well west of the Red River, there is a 5 delay but it definitely shows a response due to 6 the flooding event. 7 This composite graph, again, we've got 8 the floodway hydrograph and these are for the 9 provincial monitoring wells at the Oasis well 10 field. And the carbonate aquifer, we see a 11 response during the period of flood. When the 12 water level rose up here, we similarly saw a rise 13 although not to the same degree, although we 14 expect it be the same degree, but there definitely 15 was a response that directly correlates with the 16 floodway operation. 17 Similarly in this monitoring well 18 here, the carbonate aquifer again, in the sand 19 aquifer at Birds Hill there was a muted response 20 but nevertheless a response due to the floodway 21 operation. 22 So in summary then, when the floodway 23 is in operation, water from the floodway can, and 24 by all appearances infiltrates into the carbonate 25 aquifer in the vicinity of the floodway causing 01383 1 the water table response. Within the carbonate 2 aquifer there is a potential, a very real 3 potential to travel great distances through that 4 carbonate aquifer. 5 The susceptibility of groundwater 6 users to adverse water quality impacts depends 7 upon the potential or characteristics of the 8 contaminants to reach, including microbial 9 pathogens, to reach and travel through the 10 aquifer. 11 So in areas of thin till, in areas 12 where the floodway is completed at or near 13 bedrock, where we don't have these intervening 14 layers of clay to act as a barrier, to mitigate or 15 prevent surface water to interact with these 16 aquifers, those are the areas of sensitivity, 17 those are the areas of concern. 18 To this end, as part of our program, 19 in order to get a handle on ambient surface and 20 groundwater conditions, when we reviewed the 21 documentation there was not a rigorous record of 22 water quality as it would relate to surface water 23 quality in the floodway, nor in surrounding 24 groundwater quality. So as part of our mandate we 25 sampled six surface water locations and three 01384 1 groundwater wells in or adjacent to the floodway 2 to characterize water quality. 3 We sampled our wells in surface water 4 locations for general chemistry, dissolved metals 5 and microbial parameters. The purpose of the 6 sampling then was to determine whether there is 7 currently a source of contaminated water in the 8 floodway. Of course, it wasn't during a period of 9 flood operation, but this would be a baseline 10 condition during a period of non-floodway 11 operation. 12 And again, for the three locations we 13 sampled the groundwater locations, we were to 14 look -- I was looking for, was there a lingering 15 or a current condition when the floodway is not 16 operational? 17 So in summary, surface water location, 18 I think if my math is still correct, I think there 19 was six locations in surface water up and down the 20 floodway, and I'll try and point them out to you. 21 There was a first sample here in the inlet 22 structure. There was the outfall structure at 23 Transcona, the second sample location. I think 24 it's up here. There is a Cooks Creek diversion 25 drop structure, sample three. There is a 01385 1 Springfield drop structure here. We sampled other 2 drop structures here as well, as well as 3 groundwater samples around the Oasis well field in 4 here. 5 I'll introduce in concept what we 6 found and then maybe Gary can add to it. In a 7 nutshell, generally speaking from a surface water 8 perspective, there was a significant area which 9 indicated -- there was a strong indication of 10 fecal contamination that was observed in the 11 Transcona storm sewer outfall. There is very high 12 levels of e.coli, streptococcus, aeruginosa, 13 coliphage, all of which indicated that human 14 sewage was being discharged at this location. 15 All sample locations were of 16 acceptable water quality with regards to dissolved 17 metals and general chemistry, excepting there was 18 an elevated conductivity at the Transcona outfall. 19 I'll turn it over to Gary here and he 20 can perhaps give some perspective on these 21 detections, these microbiology detections at the 22 outfall of Transcona. 23 MR. PALMATEER: One of the things that 24 one can do in trying to make an assessment of 25 surface water quality is to, you may take a water 01386 1 sample and analyze it for specific parameters. In 2 my case we were particularly interested in 3 microbes. But the other approach is to sample the 4 sediment, if there is a sediment accumulation in 5 an area that you're interested in, because 6 microbes such as the fecal associated 7 microorganisms survive for a very long period of 8 time in sediments versus the water column just 9 above the sediment. 10 So sampling the water anywhere along 11 the floodway gives you kind of a snapshot as to 12 what the water quality is like at that time. 13 However, if there is a sediment accumulation and 14 this water has resulted in perhaps in a very low 15 velocity allowing sediment particulates to drop 16 out, that sediment can contain micro-organisms 17 that will give you an indication of what has been 18 passing along this route for some time. The 19 exception would occur if you had a heavy rain and 20 suddenly scoured these sediments away. 21 As a point of interest, we looked at 22 the levels of what's typically called fecal 23 indicator bacteria at the sediments of the 24 Transcona storm sewer outfall and found high 25 levels of E. coli and fecal streptococci. The 01387 1 presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, it's a human 2 pathogen as well as an indicator of human waste, 3 was at the level of just slightly diluted sewage. 4 Another group of organisms that people 5 are aware of, they are not too knowledgeable 6 about, and that's viruses. Many viruses from 7 humans are of course passed in sewage. Viruses 8 have the ability to survive for a very long time. 9 They also are problematic from an environmental 10 health standpoint because any ingestion of viruses 11 can result in infection, with very low numbers of 12 virus particles being ingested. 13 I will give you an example, the 14 bacterium salmonella which most people have come 15 to read about at some time or other, often 16 associated with chickens. Salmonella bacteria, 17 when ingested, can cause an infection but largely 18 only after you ingest about 100,000 bacteria. On 19 the other hand in comparison, virus particles such 20 as the Norwalk or Rotaviruses or Adeno viruses, 21 they are considered very virulent so that only one 22 to 10 particles can result in serious infection, 23 even in healthy individuals. 24 And as a microbiologist dealing with 25 infectious agents, we know, and I think the public 01388 1 knows to some degree that the very young and 2 elderly are much more sensitive to infection by 3 any micro-organism. And then there are a whole 4 group of our population which is growing all the 5 time, and that's immuno-compromised people. 6 Persons undergoing cancer treatment, usually if 7 they are undergoing chemotherapy, will have little 8 immune system to protect them from organisms such 9 as the types that are associated with sewage. But 10 also, and I will maybe mention a little bit about 11 the types of pathogens associated with livestock. 12 To the south of the City of Winnipeg, 13 there is an intense livestock area, livestock 14 farming. I am presently involved in a study at 15 the moment with Environment Canada and we have 16 identified seven areas across Canada of intense 17 livestock farming, and this is one of them. 18 The concern is that there are many 19 pathogenic organisms, and this is somewhat new to 20 people, to the public. There are many microbes, 21 bacteria, viral and protozoan parasites that are 22 associated with dairy cattle, beef cattle, swine, 23 poultry that can cause infection in these animals. 24 However, it can cause infections in humans. These 25 are called zoonotic microorganisms. 01389 1 Now some of the newer emerging 2 pathogens are Cryptosporidium, it's a protozoan 3 parasites that can survive for long periods in the 4 environment, including in groundwater. There is 5 another bacterium called Campylobacter jenuni, it 6 causes bloody diarrhea and happened to be one of 7 the two organisms that cause the outbreak in 8 Walkerton. 9 Of course, you heard of the hamburger, 10 E. Coli 0157, and it frequently does cause 11 infections in people, serious infections in 12 children from eating food that are contaminated, 13 usually hamburger meat, beef and so on. However, 14 this organism thrives in manure, can survive in 15 manure for a long time, particularly of young 16 calves. It can be found in swine as well. 17 The interesting thing about the latter 18 two bacteria, Campylobacter and E. Coli, these 19 particular bacteria, is that they are very 20 virulent just like the viruses. E. Coli that can 21 cause infection in humans again, we would have to 22 ingest in the order of ten to 100,000 bacteria 23 before you develop infection. In the case of both 24 Campylobactor and E. Coli 0157, anywhere from 10 25 to 150 cells is sufficient to cause infection. 01390 1 Now, one of the -- in sampling the 2 sediment at the Transcona outfall, we detected the 3 protozoan parasite Giardia. The Giardia were 4 found at 400 and I believe it is 50 some cysts per 5 gram of wet weight of sediment. The infective 6 dose for Giardia is only 10 cysts. So I want to 7 emphasize that although 15, 20 years ago there was 8 not a lot of talk about any of these three or four 9 micro-organisms, they were barely known to exist 10 then, they are well known to exist now and cause 11 infection in humans. If you look at a much 12 stronger database that's available in the United 13 States, they are largely the most common cause of 14 infections from people consuming contaminated 15 groundwater. 16 Now, that in itself is part of the 17 reason that Peter and I have looked at this 18 information supplied to us, and Peter has made 19 some comments, and will go on to comment about the 20 hydrogeological characteristics of groundwater in 21 particular areas of the floodway. 22 If you ask me, is there great 23 potential for these organisms to enter into the 24 groundwater even in your sensitive areas, I would 25 say no, it's not highly probable. But in 01391 1 reviewing some of the testimony last week, one of 2 the presenters brought up the fact that the 3 expansion of the floodway can limit the risk of 4 serious flooding in Winnipeg, reduce this risk 5 from I think it was 37 per cent down to 7 per 6 cent. And that's a real improvement, and I 7 certainly have no challenge to that. But I want 8 to point out that if you were to do a microbial 9 risk assessment on two or three of these sensitive 10 areas that Peter is talking about with respect to 11 a potential illness occurrence, and I'm not saying 12 fatalities or anything like that, but the 13 potential for illness in these areas, I can 14 guarantee you from the data I have seen right now, 15 without doing the work, it's not zero per cent. 16 Now, having said that, I would suggest 17 that some consideration be given by this group in 18 finalizing, getting to the point when their final 19 design is being put forth, that the potential risk 20 for illness outbreak because of contamination of 21 groundwater could in fact occur. 22 Again, when one might ask, well, where 23 would these organisms come from? And I would not 24 say necessarily from this outfall that we happen 25 to be looking at, but I might suggest that you 01392 1 could come up with a scenario of what if, if you 2 like, where perhaps during a summer period when 3 you had a sudden period of extensive rain, thunder 4 showers, that may have resulted in the floodway 5 going into operation. Now, not in the spring or 6 the fall when runoff and snow melt, at least as 7 far as the spring is concerned, is occurring but 8 rather in the summer months when the source of 9 this contamination may be south of the city, but 10 in actual fact in the agricultural area where the 11 intensive livestock operations go on. 12 What I'm suggesting, what I think 13 Peter and I are wanting to make this point with 14 you, that the risk of something like this 15 occurring may be the kind of thing that will look 16 relatively small. However, when the stars 17 align -- and what I mean is you might have that 18 rain event combined with a liquid hog manure 19 holding tank failure, when that slug of waste 20 comes down the river and into the floodway, this 21 event may last not weeks but a couple of hours 22 only. And that's what we are talking about in 23 terms of the contamination event. 24 I know your modeling has shown you the 25 unlikelihood of something like this occurring and 01393 1 I wouldn't argue that at all. But because there 2 is some areas that we I think agree that might 3 have a potential for contamination because of the 4 hydraulic connection, it's worthy of looking more 5 carefully at the groundwater, specifically in 6 wells that exist, and establish a baseline, and 7 not just with coliform bacteria but with some of 8 the fecal indicators as well, including virus, 9 then utilize that for a baseline. 10 If you wish, what is being done now in 11 Ontario, is being done in some of the eastern 12 provinces, is the determination of whether there 13 is a direct influence of surface water with 14 groundwater using a specific test called MPA. The 15 groundwater people likely are familiar with this, 16 but it's a simple test that the U.S. has developed 17 and now the U.S. EPA rely on religiously to 18 determine whether there is an impact of surface 19 water with groundwater. 20 And I have worked with hydrogeologists 21 for years doing tracing studies with them, using 22 microbes and so forth, and I know cities in the 23 United States who have been told by the U.S. EPA 24 they do have an impact with surface water in their 25 groundwater, and are being forced to put in very 01394 1 expensive water treatment. And they have hired 2 hydrogeological firms of great renown to evaluate 3 whether this is in fact true. And the U.S. EPA 4 has disregarded all this expensive investigative 5 work and found this MPA analysis, this microscopic 6 particle analysis, as the bottom line. 7 Now, it's not the case in Ontario and 8 I don't know if it's the case at all across the 9 country, but it certainly is in the United States. 10 What I have seen is groundwater people, 11 hydrogeology companies now requesting this test 12 because it's relatively inexpensive. It involves 13 filtering about a thousand gallons of water from 14 the groundwater at specific times of the year. In 15 your case, perhaps very soon, when you'd begin to 16 get some snow melt, and perhaps later before you 17 plan your actual excavation in the beginning of 18 your work. And I would suggest something like 19 this at strategic sites where you think there 20 could be some possible impact. 21 I'll leave it at that for the moment, 22 Peter. 23 MR. HAYES: Gary, the E. coli itself I 24 think the proponent has put forward that there is, 25 they are relying on some data to 1985 and allude 01395 1 to the fact that it's been, there is a record to 2 this very date. And Gary, can you speak to the 3 suitability of that parameter as an indicator? 4 MR. PALMATEER: Well, coliform 5 bacteria, as was mentioned the other day, 6 Dr. Morgan mentioned, gives an indication of 7 whether bacteria are present in surface water. 8 Coliform bacteria are a group of bacteria, it's 9 almost a lay term, coliform. It actually 10 describes four different genre of bacteria, most 11 of which, with the exception of one of the four, 12 are associated with soil and vegetation. And if 13 they weren't found in soil, and if they weren't 14 found in the river water, one would really 15 question that. Now coliforms don't naturally 16 exist in groundwater, though, and they can be an 17 indicator of surface water impacting groundwater. 18 But to get an indication of whether 19 there's potential pathogens in the water, some 20 more sophisticated group of indicator organisms is 21 required. And actually part of this project we're 22 working on that I mentioned with Environment 23 Canada has led us to believe there are probably a 24 bacterium, a virus and protozoan parasite, all 25 three required to get a really solid indication of 01396 1 whether fecal matter of human or animal origin is 2 present, and to what degree their risk might be 3 involved if this water were ingested, or if people 4 were swimming in this water for recreational 5 activities. 6 I guess the little shorter answer 7 would be that coliform bacteria by themselves are 8 probably not a very good indicator anymore in 9 terms of determining whether fecal waste of human 10 or animal origin are in the water, but rather some 11 of the indicator organisms that are associated 12 with feces. Enterococci are a very good 13 indicator. In our investigation, we'd almost rate 14 them better than E. coli. They survive better in 15 surface water and survive much more like some of 16 the parasites and viruses. 17 MR. HAYES: Thank you, Gary. What I'd 18 like to do now is just have a broad interpretation 19 of the surface water sampling results, and I'll 20 speak to the groundwater results that we, it is 21 part of our program. In simple terms, our 22 sampling program did come up with a direct source 23 of fecal contamination to the floodway channel 24 through the Transcona storm sewer outlet. There 25 were indications that this impact was diluted 01397 1 along the floodway low flow channel, but it's 2 still detected at Dunning Road crossing 15 3 kilometres downstream. 4 Needless to say, the impacts we 5 measured and observed at the Transcona outfall or 6 sewer should not be occurring. This sewer itself 7 should be conveying storm water drainage. 8 As part of our sampling program, we 9 did sample some other drop structures and the 10 water quality was very much different than what we 11 saw at Transcona, but it was typical of 12 agricultural drainage or storm sewer drainage. 13 In summary, the impacts observed at 14 the Transcona storm sewer outlet, if anything, 15 demonstrate the need to regularly monitor water 16 quality at this outlet and the other agricultural 17 drops because they are a potential source of 18 contamination to the floodway, and as we'll go 19 into it further, it could affect the groundwater 20 system. 21 This slide here just shows in some 22 detail the location of the Transcona storm sewer 23 outfall, both in picture and schematic. We did, 24 once we detected those compounds at the outfall, 25 we did a subsequent event, and Gary talked to 01398 1 some, to the significance. We took a water and 2 sediment sample at the outfall in December of 3 2004. The sediment samples themselves indicated 4 that -- this wasn't a one time event, we just 5 didn't happen upon it at the right time. The 6 impacts noted in the sediment themselves, which is 7 more of a historical record of discharge, 8 indicated that it had been ongoing for some time. 9 In subsequent discussions with the 10 City of Winnipeg, there was blockages observed 11 within their storm sewer system, its combined 12 system with the sanitary. So there are times when 13 it becomes blocked, that there is a potential for 14 sanitary discharge to flow over into the storm and 15 discharge. 16 These blockages were cleared. We 17 received a report on that matter and it's appended 18 to our report. However, there still seems to be, 19 even though blockages were cleared, there is 20 indication of an ongoing discharge that is 21 impacted. There is still indications of sewage 22 commingling with the storm water, and as far as we 23 know, that hasn't been resolved yet. 24 The last bullet refers to a second 25 sampling event. And we did that event, and Gary 01399 1 talked about the outcome there. That's when we 2 discussed the various pathogens that we were able 3 to isolate. And we have a report that we can 4 submit for the record as well following our 5 presentation. 6 So we feel from our sampling program 7 and from our knowledge of the potential 8 contaminants and concerns, microbial impacts, 9 there is a concern in that there is a source. Now 10 it's all about how do we get that source, how does 11 it connect to the aquifer? 12 The widening of the floodway itself 13 will increase the area for infiltration along the 14 side walls, which is a significant immeasurable 15 incremental effect. Typically conservative 16 contaminants, I'm not talking about microbiology 17 here, such as chloride or metals, they get 18 filtered or absorbed to the clay particles and 19 they are attenuated. 20 The pathogenic bacteria or microbes 21 can penetrate in sandy materials. It's been known 22 and documented two to three metres in thickness. 23 And again once it gets into the bedrock aquifer 24 they can move relatively quickly and they can 25 survive days and weeks. So there is a potential 01400 1 concern there. 2 In granular media, sand and gravel, 3 there is filtering mechanisms that will prevent 4 these pathogens from moving rapidly through. But 5 again in the bedrock system, we don't have that 6 filtering mechanism. It's a relatively 7 unobstructed flow in the bedrock system. 8 Again the areas of concern are those 9 sensitive areas I touched on at the beginning of 10 my presentation. There's at least three locations 11 that are termed sensitive not only by the 12 proponent, but are of concern as it might relate 13 to contaminant transport, mobility, and 14 infiltration of surface water to the groundwater. 15 Gary talked about various 16 methodologies to determine the risk. What is 17 needed is a risk assessment, an evaluation, a 18 quantification of the degree of risk associated 19 with the movement of contaminants in these 20 sensitive areas, the communication of surface 21 water to groundwater in these locations. That's 22 what we feel is necessary. 23 We just talked about briefly, we not 24 only sampled surface water, we sampled groundwater 25 as part of our investigation. We sampled three 01401 1 wells, two were actual water supply wells, the 2 East St. Paul supply well number five, and also 3 there is the Red River College truck training 4 centre. And we sampled the provincial monitoring 5 well in the vicinity of the Oasis well field. 6 This map here shows the locations. 7 The area shown in the box is the well field 8 itself. This area here, the green dots are the 9 areas that we sampled. 10 Generally speaking, all of our samples 11 were of fairly good water quality in regards to 12 general chemistry and dissolved metals. The water 13 was softer in comparison to the surface water 14 samples. The conductivity again was lower in 15 comparison to the surface water results. Two of 16 the samples showed good water quality with regards 17 to microbial parameters; however, a low level of 18 fecal contamination was noted at the Red River 19 College truck training centre. 20 Now, it's our understanding that 21 supply is used only for hand washing and bathroom 22 and that sort of thing. However, it is still in 23 our minds an indicator and requires further 24 investigation as to the source of that impact. It 25 demonstrates that there is a source of concern. 01402 1 Gary talked about it in his discussion 2 on sources, and that's one of the things that 3 we're concerned about. And when I initially 4 looking into the project, there was a discussion 5 about the incremental effects. And there's two 6 points I'd like to make. What has changed since 7 the floodway was constructed and what has changed 8 in fact since 1997? 9 There is a relative recent occurrence 10 of where we have these intensive livestock 11 operations that have sprung up in localities 12 primarily to the south, but there are a 13 significant source of nutrients and contaminant 14 loading to surface water bodies that didn't exist 15 when the floodway was initially constructed. The 16 nature of farming has changed in the last 50 years 17 from small individual family run operations to 18 large industrial enterprises. And the number of 19 animals we are dealing with are significantly 20 greater than they were 10, 15, 20 years ago. 21 They are of concern because, you know, 22 it's obvious in agricultural land uses, there is 23 spreading of manure, storm water drainage from 24 these areas, potentially laden with contaminants 25 of concern. There is accidental spills related to 01403 1 these operations -- at the wrong place at the 2 wrong time. And this map here shows, it's taken 3 from what's termed the Atlas of Canada, and it's 4 documentation in 2001 of these large farming 5 operations. 6 The floodway itself is basically, you 7 can see at my pointer here, it is generally in 8 this locality. So there's two divisions I have 9 highlighted here. I didn't talk about this 10 division. But in summary, division two which 11 Steinbach is the centre here, just to put some 12 perspective, in 2001 it was indicated that this 13 division, there was 85,000 cattle and calves, 14 almost a million pigs and 4 million chickens, 15 there is a significant amount of waste management, 16 manure waste management that has to go on within 17 this division. 18 Division 12, which is this northerly 19 portion here, which basically completes that area 20 of the floodway, there's a very much diminished 21 number of animals but it's still significant, 22 20,000 cattle, 33,000 pigs and 78,000 chickens. 23 And so again, I want to emphasize that 24 this is relatively new, this is being superimposed 25 on the watershed, superimposed on the Red River 01404 1 basin. This is a relatively new source of 2 contaminants that did not exist when the floodway 3 was initially constructed, but as we all know 4 exists today. 5 And as a matter of point of order, I 6 guess, when the floodway itself was constructed, 7 when it was conceived following the 1950's flood, 8 when it was constructed in the 1960's, the field 9 of hydrogeology was just beginning. It was -- 10 hydrogeology groundwater was not front and centre. 11 The floodway itself was initially constructed and 12 it has done a very good job to convey flood waters 13 around Winnipeg. It's been remarkable how 14 successful it has handled that problem. But what 15 wasn't a consideration, was not front and centre, 16 was hydrogeologic concerns. Particularly as it 17 might relate to -- obviously there was a 18 groundwater lowering which was documented at the 19 time of the initial construction of the floodway, 20 but this whole aspect of contaminants, transport, 21 and movement in the groundwater sequence was not 22 even on the radar when the initial floodway was 23 constructed. The science itself was just starting 24 to be developed. It's only in the last, you know, 25 the '70's, '80's, '90's, the last 30 years that 01405 1 the science has come into fruition. So this is 2 relatively new. 3 So when the initial floodway was 4 constructed, it wasn't even conceived as an issue 5 or a problem. Today we know better. Today we 6 have experience, some of which is a direct outcome 7 of tragic consequences, but we know better and we 8 need to address that. And the proponent has 9 touched on hydrogeologic issues, but we need to go 10 that extra step just to complete the process. 11 This slide here, just in summary, 12 depicts some of the incremental effects of the 13 proposed widening of the floodway, the deepening 14 and widening. Now, I understand deepening has 15 been second thought, or in direct reaction to some 16 of the comments that's been -- deepening is not 17 really front and centre, but widening itself will 18 incrementally increase groundwater discharge to 19 the floodway. If the floodway was deepened by 20 half a metre, there would be increased groundwater 21 discharge. The proponent has indicated that. 22 Of concern, and it has been touched on 23 by some of the other questioners today, I share 24 the concern of the 287 wells that the proponent 25 indicated is potentially affected by the floodway, 01406 1 only 25 wells were sampled. This is a shortcoming 2 that should be addressed. All wells within the 3 potentially affected area and outside the area 4 should be sampled as part of a baseline condition. 5 Because only then can you determine with certainty 6 whether there has been an incremental or adverse 7 effect at some future date. And as we touched on 8 earlier, to date, even though the 25 wells, we 9 don't have microbial water quality analysis, we 10 don't have it for the indicated parameters Mr. 11 Palmateer talked about. If there is anything, 12 it's rudimentary total coliform or E. coli values. 13 What we need, and they talked about 14 that today so I was very pleased about the 15 environmental management system, but we need to 16 have confidence, we need to have a proactive 17 management and mitigation program. We need to 18 have it fully documented, subject to peer review, 19 inputs from the public and municipalities, all the 20 potentially affected parties, we need to have a 21 proactive management and mitigation program, not 22 only for the construction period but also for the 23 operational period. 24 During construction there are -- and 25 it's all agreed by everybody there will be local 01407 1 effects, as part of bridge construction, but there 2 is a construction time frame, but there is an 3 operational time frame. That's where we need what 4 I term as a proactive management and mitigation 5 program. 6 Now, I won't go into any great detail, 7 Gary has talked a lot about the potential for 8 adverse effects as it relates to pathogens and 9 microbial impacts. I've got two examples here and 10 I won't go into the details, but basically we all 11 know about Walkerton. There were in both 12 situations, both Walkerton and I've described a 13 situation in Orangeville, Ontario, in both 14 situations there were flags raised. There were 15 concerns but they weren't acted upon. 16 There were concerns in the case of 17 Walkerton. It was known that there was a 18 potential groundwater surface water interaction. 19 And for many years, during the normal operating 20 operation of that well field, the existing 21 protocols and procedures were sufficient to deal 22 with it. But again, there came a time when, due 23 to sudden storm events and the various other 24 issues that some are well aware of, it all came 25 together and with tragic consequences. 01408 1 Similarly in Orangeville, you know, 2 there was, in the early '80s there was a situation 3 where we had a till overlying the aquifer, the 4 municipal aquifer, and it was seen as being 5 protective. But again, there was, you know, 6 circumstances were such, it was an infrequent 7 occurrence, but it was the right place at the 8 right time or the wrong place at the wrong time. 9 And with these type of contaminants you don't have 10 the grace -- it's not to trivialize longer term 11 health effects, but these are rather immediate. 12 It doesn't take long. You can ingest, as Gary 13 talked about, relatively few of these pathogens to 14 cause someone to be sick. It doesn't take a lot 15 and it is relatively rapid. So you don't have the 16 protection or grace of, if it happened over a 20 17 year period there is definitely a concern for some 18 contaminants, TC or things like that. But these 19 type of contaminants are relatively immediate, it 20 is acute, and this is what the concern is all 21 about. So we have to be vigilant. 22 And we've got enough flags already. 23 Let's nail it down, let's be certain. There's an 24 opportunity here, with a proper risk assessment 25 for each of those sensitive areas to say, well, do 01409 1 we need to improve the design, is there 2 justification? And if so, let's do it now rather 3 than wait and be reactive and saying, we should 4 have done something, or something tragically 5 happens. 6 So in general summary, there is 7 something about regular water quality and 8 monitoring of surface and groundwater. That's an 9 important thing. It has happened, but not with, 10 you know, it's a sporadic record. We need to -- I 11 think the proponent is putting forward the need 12 and requirement for a monitoring program, but 13 again, the details of which are sketchy, and the 14 commitments to, I don't know how it will be 15 enforced or regulated or brought as a condition of 16 approval. That's what I hope will happen. There 17 needs to be some mechanism to ensure that that 18 monitoring program gets put in place. 19 And again, anybody responsible, if the 20 floodway does cause an incremental effect, if the 21 operation of the floodway causes an adverse effect 22 or potential adverse effect, the floodway itself 23 needs to take responsibility for that. 24 I'll briefly go through some of the 25 conclusions and recommendations, and then at the 01410 1 end of the presentation I'll talk to concepts, 2 concepts that would preclude or mitigate that 3 groundwater surface water interaction, the need of 4 which would all be validated through this risk 5 assessment process, in such there would be further 6 investigations, risk analysis, subject to third 7 party peer review, and accepted by the Manitoba 8 Environment as an appropriate assessment of the 9 degree of risk. 10 If it was determined there were 11 sensitive areas that we needed to upgrade the 12 floodway, and preclude or prevent groundwater 13 surface/water interaction, that would be the 14 justification, that would be the opportunity to do 15 it, during construction. 16 So in summary then, some of which are 17 obvious, there are areas beneath the existing and 18 expanded floodway that are underlain by thin clay, 19 till or sand deposits, or exposed bedrock which 20 provide a pathway for the infiltration of impacted 21 surface water. Those are the sensitive areas that 22 we talked about. I think the proponent has 23 already recognized these sensitive areas. 24 What is important is the migration of 25 contaminants through these areas, through the 01411 1 fractured or thin clay. When I am saying thin, 2 less than two metres. Areas of sand or where 3 bedrock is exposed, this is where the bedrock 4 aquifer is highly susceptible to surface water 5 contamination, in particular the unrestricted 6 migration of microbial pathogens. 7 The groundwater levels in the bedrock 8 in Birds Hill aquifers have been adversely 9 affected. And they are lowered during the 10 construction period and there will be further 11 incremental water level declines, but not to the 12 same degree that could have been constructed when 13 the initial floodway was constructed. We saw, 14 there is documentation of effects as far as 10, 11 15 kilometres away even during flooding period we are 16 seeing the same sort of effect. 17 As part of our investigations, we were 18 able, without too much trouble, to find a 19 significant, and it looks like to have been an 20 ongoing source of microbial pathogens, through 21 direct discharge of sewage impacted storm water to 22 the floodway at the Transcona/Kildare Avenue 23 outfall. 24 Additional sources of impact in the 25 watershed need to be ascertained, inventoried. 01412 1 This will include rural drains, livestock 2 operations. There are, you know, we found this 3 rather easily, there are other known and obvious 4 areas that need to be investigated, both -- you 5 know, we have to look not only where they are and 6 how impacts might potentially migrate from their 7 locality to the floodway, but also on a seasonal 8 basis, there may be a seasonal component. 9 During -- and I didn't really talk 10 about in the presentation, in large measure it's 11 in the report itself about -- I am talking about 12 number 7 here, where we have flooding there is 13 adverse ground water quality impacts. The record 14 is not complete in that what has been provided, 15 there's been some sporadic sampling of wells 16 during flooding operation, but it's known that 17 there's been increased conductivity readings 18 during periods of flood, increased conductivity in 19 groundwater wells around the floodway are 20 indications of that surface water infiltration. 21 We need to be more definitive. We 22 need to sample for a broader array of parameters, 23 not only conductivity, microbial pathogens, 24 general chemistry, metals, those type of 25 parameters, we need to characterize what happens 01413 1 during flooding operations and in periods of 2 non-flood as a background. 3 A deepening of the floodway, whether 4 it is widening, or even if there is certain areas 5 that still be will deepened, will cause 6 surrounding groundwaters to decline, albeit not to 7 the same level -- I think the proponent puts 8 forward in some localities .6 metres. 9 Number 9 speaks to the construction of 10 a liner barrier system, an under rain system. Now 11 again, and I'll finish off the presentation with a 12 concept. All of which -- you know there are 13 sensitive areas where the unweathered clay is thin 14 or absent, like less than two metres, where we 15 have bedrock in close communication with the 16 floodway, where we have thin deposits of sand. 17 And as I discussed earlier in the presentation, 18 there are large areas, significant areas which we 19 are seeing hydraulic effects during floodway 20 operation in 1997 of five, six, seven kilometres 21 away. So that's a zone of area, or zone of effect 22 that needs to be evaluated whether that's real, we 23 need to determine that. 24 And it's of concern that all of this 25 will lead to a risk assessment of the particular 01414 1 sensitive areas to validate the need or 2 requirement for an upgrade to the floodway itself. 3 As the proponent has indicated, there 4 will be local temporary water level declines as 5 part of temporary construction dewatering. It's 6 obvious to say we're all in agreement it will be 7 temporary, but for an individual or homeowner to 8 be without water for a day, a week, a month, that 9 needs to be communicated, and there is discussion 10 today about a community liaison group and working 11 out those problems ahead of time, and that's 12 great. But again, there needs to be a formalized 13 proactive and reactive mitigation protocol and 14 procedure put in place prior to starting any 15 construction. 16 If there are wells in areas that are 17 known to be affected, there was discussion today 18 that, you know, temporary water supply would be a 19 last resort, there may be other ways, deepening 20 wells, I don't know, municipal supplies or other 21 source of water replacement during the period of 22 construction. That's all well and true, but that 23 takes time to implement. So there has to be 24 sufficient time to identify those wells that will 25 be affected during construction dewatering. 01415 1 Within that time frame before construction 2 dewatering commences, there has to be alternative 3 supply in place. So we need the time to do that. 4 And I've touched on it several times, 5 what's paramount is prior to any construction it's 6 going to help everybody if we have a comprehensive 7 baseline program of water levels, of groundwater 8 quality, prior to any construction. That will be 9 the definitive baseline to determine whether there 10 is an adverse effect as a result of this floodway 11 expansion. That's paramount. Without that 12 information, it's going to be tough to prove and 13 it will be tough to prove for individuals because 14 there won't be the before and after to compare to. 15 So it's critical. 16 As part of any environmental 17 management plan, there's audits in the 18 environmental management system being put forward 19 today, but there should be a third party 20 responsible for, as it would relate to the 21 implementation of a finalized environmental 22 protection plan. It's best management practice. 23 It takes -- I know from experience there has to be 24 someone making sure that the environmental 25 management plan is implemented correctly in the 01416 1 operation or construction phase, and also during 2 the floodway operation, it speaks to an arm's 3 length relationship, and it's definitely a best 4 management practice. 5 And I'll discuss this a little later. 6 I'm almost done, but these GUDI studies, 7 groundwater under the direct influence of surface 8 water. In a nutshell, that's our concern for 9 those sensitive areas I talked about earlier. 10 It's required not only for all municipal wells, 11 but private wells in the area known to be affected 12 to do the recharge of surface water to ground 13 water during flooding events. 14 So that type of work needs to be done. 15 And in its outcome, if there is this groundwater 16 surface water interaction, if it has been 17 documented, there needs to be a well head 18 protection zone for municipal supplies in the 19 area, all of which would lead to an upgrade of 20 treatment systems. If there is this groundwater 21 surface water interconnection, there will be need 22 to have more robust treatment systems beyond 23 disinfection to deal with the contaminants of 24 concern, extra filtration and other, ultraviolet 25 or other more robust treatment needs to be put in 01417 1 place. 2 So that's really important is this 3 proactive water quality and quantity monitoring 4 and mitigation program. This should be in place 5 prior to any construction, dewatering or expanded 6 floodway operation. This is very important. 7 And I would like to comment. The 8 modeling conducted, the hydrogeologic modeling 9 which showed the proponent has indicated, and I 10 hope they take some of my points into 11 consideration, but by their modeling they only 12 show limited area of influence during floodway 13 operation. But it wasn't a contaminant transport, 14 fate and transport modeling exercise. It doesn't 15 address the potential of contaminants and their 16 migration in the groundwater system, it only talks 17 about hydraulics. So that fate and transport for 18 the modeling needs to be undertaken. 19 The last item is something termed the 20 reactive procedure and protocol. So what is 21 required is a proactive program, one of 22 communication and addressing problems before they 23 occur. In areas that are known to be affected, or 24 potentially affected, there has to be plans 25 developed. But there will always be a requirement 01418 1 for reaction, reactive procedures and protocols. 2 If the unforeseen happens, there has to be a road 3 map or plan or a program in place that's well 4 communicated, that's all laid out so everybody 5 knows if someone gets a phone call, there's a 6 complaint, my well has gone dry, I have a water 7 quality concern, how is that dealt with and what 8 are the commitments with provision of temporary 9 water supply and investigation? 10 As an outcome of this too there has to 11 be a formalized contingency plan. What if things, 12 despite all the best intentions, despite all the 13 best modeling efforts and proactive efforts, if 14 things do go awry, there is a requirement for 15 contingency plans to be developed and demonstrated 16 as technically and economically feasible. And the 17 funds for that implementation need to be 18 available. 19 These contingency plans are to 20 address -- well, unlikely, well not likely but 21 conceivable problems that could occur, and the 22 need for, the extent and need for these 23 contingency plans needs to be developed and the 24 rationale presented, but it's good practice to 25 have this in place before there is a problem. So 01419 1 again, if there's a water quality concern, if 2 there's a water quantity concern, if water level 3 is declined at the Oasis well field over and above 4 what is predicted, that there is a plan in place, 5 that no one has to go out and do a concept and 6 start from scratch. It's already been addressed 7 and can be dealt with in a relatively short time 8 frame. 9 Now, Gary and I both talked about 10 groundwater under the direct influence of surface 11 water. And it is within our submittal, the 12 guidelines, the approach that is recommended. 13 Now in those sensitive areas that we 14 described, those three sensitive areas in the 15 latter portion of the floodway, there needs to be 16 some sort of GUDI analysis for all wells in the 17 region where water table response was observed and 18 is in fact real during the 1997 floodway 19 operation. And again, we need, there is a need 20 for an upgrade for a microbiology sampling program 21 in the baseline water quality study. Where and 22 when are the GUDI studies most needed? Obviously 23 the Oasis well field, any well within five 24 kilometres of the floodway drawing from the 25 bedrock aquifer. Obviously start with the wells 01420 1 closest to the floodway. There is a need, GUDI 2 requirements, it's not a one-time snapshot, there 3 are times obviously during the year, there are 4 seasonal influences, it needs to be conducted in 5 the spring, in the summer. It's a monitoring 6 program of quality and water levels, and again, 7 when the floodway is in operation and when it is 8 not. 9 And there is, as Gary touched on, you 10 need to monitor water quality for general 11 chemistry, metals, microbial parameters, and do 12 that U.S. EPA sanctioned MPA analysis. 13 Now I touched on this earlier. When 14 we do the risk assessment for those sensitive 15 areas, that's going to tell us, tell everyone 16 whether there's a need, a specific requirement, a 17 quantifiable need to upgrade, to go to the expense 18 and effort to upgrade the expanded floodway. And 19 what I'm presenting here is a concept, if there 20 was a requirement to upgrade the floodway, what 21 could be done. There is an answer, and this is a 22 general depiction or concept for that area of the 23 floodway that is excavated into till or clay. 24 I'll just talk briefly about it. So 25 this is very similar to the schematic I presented 01421 1 earlier in which we have the unweathered clay and 2 weathered clay on top. We have a till unit here 3 and we have the limestone aquifer here. And 4 during the periods of non-floodway operation, we 5 have since constructed or seen the need, or the 6 risk assessment has indicated the need in this 7 locality to upgrade the floodway to include a 8 composite barrier system. It could be a 9 derivative of this. This again is just a concept, 10 but we have riprap for erosion control, a 11 geotextile to separate the riprap from the 12 recompacted clay barrier. Again an HDPE, a high 13 density polyethylene membrane below that. There 14 may be a requirement, if this was just recompacted 15 clay by itself, it does erode, hence, that is why 16 you need the erosion protection. The clay itself 17 is subject to freeze thaw, so it may crack over 18 time. So that's again why there may be a 19 requirement for this HDPE geomembrane, and a 20 geotextile beneath that to separate the membrane 21 from the underlying material. So again that's a 22 concept. 23 The intent there is to provide surety 24 during the periods of flood that the surface water 25 will not have the opportunity to adversely affect 01422 1 the limestone aquifer. 2 Again, this is the same picture but 3 the floodway now is full, and again you don't see 4 any, there is no surface water breaking through 5 into the limestone aquifer. 6 This last concept again would be 7 validated through a risk assessment, requirements 8 for it, again are for that other area, that other 9 geologic area of concern where we have, in the 10 Birds Hill area where we have the sand. We don't 11 have the clay deposits surrounding the floodway 12 but we have the sand aquifer. And as you may 13 recall, there is indications without this 14 composite barrier system, what would happen is the 15 sand -- the groundwater would break out here and 16 go into the floodway. 17 In this concept what is different from 18 the slide I just presented is we have replaced, 19 there is now a course gravel under drain. So any 20 upwelling from the limestone aquifer or the Birds 21 Hill Kame complex would no longer directly 22 discharge into the floodway during non-floodway 23 operation, but would be conveyed beneath it, 24 around it, or there are sand deposits that it 25 could be connected to and it would take a more 01423 1 natural course. 2 Again, this is a concept when the 3 floodway is filled in this situation, rather than 4 where we know, and the proponent has indicated as 5 well that there is this, when the floodway is in 6 operation that some of this water will infiltrate 7 the sand aquifer and the bedrock sequence. This 8 upgraded composite barrier system will prevent 9 that from happening. And so during flood 10 operation the same thing will occur. Any 11 discharge from the sand aquifer or the bedrock 12 aquifer would not mix with this water, or 13 conversely this water will not mix with this 14 limestone aquifer and everything would just carry 15 on as it naturally would. 16 I'd just like to make some closing 17 comments. It's been very constructive for me to 18 sit through the hearing process over the last 19 couple of days. I've grown more to understand the 20 level of work that has not only gone on, and it 21 has been considerable, but also to try and 22 understand the process. 23 And the concerns I have, as would be 24 typical in an undertaking of this magnitude, for 25 example, the modeling undertaken, the 01424 1 hydrogeologic modeling undertaken would normally, 2 as a best management practice, be subject to peer 3 review. And this would be by an independent party 4 that would peer review the modeling undertaken and 5 basically sign off that it meets the intent, or 6 that it meets the needs of the project. 7 As I understand, that hasn't occurred, 8 but that's an important step because it lends 9 credibility that nothing was missed. It's an 10 important exercise. This project itself is a huge 11 undertaking. There's been a lot of work that's 12 been done, a lot of good work, but you've got to 13 make sure that in areas of particular -- we're 14 basically relying on that item to indicate that 15 there's no concern, the proponent is, that there's 16 no concern with this groundwater/surface water 17 interaction. We need to have surety. I think 18 everybody needs to have surety that it's not 19 occurring. So we need peer review, we need the 20 risk assessment. 21 And typically, as part of the process 22 as well, I understand there was a technical review 23 committee, but there is -- usually as part of any 24 project there is a proponent, there is potentially 25 affected parties, there is the province, the 01425 1 Ministry of the Environment does a peer review of 2 sorts. And so that's been missing in this 3 exercise as I see it, of what I have reviewed, and 4 that's an important check and balance as well. 5 And in summary, in order to -- I think 6 what we've highlighted here, there is sufficient 7 areas of concern that need to be dealt with as 8 part of a risk assessment which would determine 9 the need for, or the expense, the need, the 10 requirement for upgrading the floodway itself to 11 prevent that groundwater/surface water 12 interaction. There needs to be a process and 13 surety. I would think as an outcome of these 14 hearings, or these presentations, that there's 15 been a lot committed to a monitoring plan, an 16 environmental management plan. There needs to be 17 a formal process or surety that these will form 18 conditions of approval that will be carried 19 forward as part of the construction of the 20 floodway. 21 Is there anything you'd like to say, 22 Gary? 23 MR. PALMATEER: I think that's it. 24 I'd be glad to take questions. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I 01426 1 would propose that we take a 15 minute break at 2 this time. When we reconvene, the Floodway 3 Authority will lead off on any cross-examination. 4 I would hope that they don't use all of the time 5 until five o'clock, because the Clean Environment 6 Commission will also have some questions to ask of 7 these folks, and they have to leave at 5:00 to 8 catch a plane. 9 10 (Proceedings recessed at 2:55 p.m. and 11 reconvened at 3:10 p.m.) 12 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Order please, could 14 people please take their seats. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Handlon. 16 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. Mr. Hayes, 17 Mr. Palmateer, my name is Rick Handlon. I'm 18 counsel for the Floodway Authority. With me to my 19 left is Mr. Bert Smith. To his left is Marci 20 Friedman-Hamm. And to her left is Mr. Rob 21 Sinclair. They are with the KGS group. 22 I take it in preparation for your 23 report, that you had read the EIS that's been 24 filed here, in these proceedings, correct? 25 MR. HAYES: Correct. 01427 1 MR. HANDLON: Have you read the 2 engineering reports that are referenced in the EIS 3 prepared by -- 4 MR. HAYES: Not in totality, but they 5 have been referred to. 6 MR. HANDLON: I see a number of times 7 in your report, the written report, that's not the 8 presentation that we saw today, that there are a 9 number of references in the body of your report 10 itself which reference KGS, Acres and UMA, and 11 would that be the main report that was put 12 together by the engineers in July of 2004? 13 MR. HAYES: Largely, yes. 14 MR. HANDLON: And in your 15 presentation -- first of all, you indicated that 16 you were retained by the coalition, and the full 17 name is the Coalition for Flood Protection North 18 of Floodway; correct? 19 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 20 MR. HANDLON: Can you tell us when 21 your company, your firm was first retained, 22 approximately? 23 MR. HAYES: October, November of last 24 year. 25 MR. HANDLON: Of 2004? 01428 1 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 2 MR. HANDLON: And your presentation 3 here is both on behalf of that coalition and also 4 on behalf of the three municipalities. I won't 5 name them again, we know who they are. 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. There is a certain 7 synergy and coherence to the presentation, so we 8 thought best to combine them. 9 MR. HANDLON: And you indicated in 10 your first slide or second slide that the 11 coalition was lead by Mr. Jack Jonasson. And from 12 your report itself, you have in one of the earlier 13 pages in the introduction, you say that the 14 coalition is a group lead by Jack Jonasson which 15 aims to support residents' concerns of impacts 16 associated with the Red River floodway and 17 campaign for solutions. And that would be an 18 accurate statement? It is not quite the same as 19 what you showed on your initial slides today. 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. It is a little more 21 proactive I suppose, but yes. 22 MR. HANDLON: The first statement was 23 a little more proactive? 24 MR. HAYES: The campaign part, yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: The concerns regarding 01429 1 impacts, certainly they were concerns, and you had 2 two slides dealing with the impacts, and some of 3 those impacts related to the existing floodway 4 rather than the expansion to the floodway itself? 5 MR. HAYES: Yes. 6 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And certainly the 7 list of concerns, and I won't go through them 8 individually, a number of those concerns, we can 9 fairly readily identify them, are concerns 10 relating to the existing floodway? 11 MR. HAYES: Yes. 12 MR. HANDLON: Now, your report, and I 13 have had the pleasure of reading your report and 14 rereading it a number of times in the last short 15 while. Just for clarity, we received -- there was 16 a letter from Mr. Currie enclosing the report on 17 February 7th. I didn't get it until a few days 18 later. That was well within the week prior to the 19 beginning of these hearings. When was your report 20 completed? 21 MR. HAYES: I will check. It was 22 completed in January of 2005. 23 MR. HANDLON: When in January? 24 MR. HAYES: I don't recall the exact 25 date. 01430 1 MR. HANDLON: Was it mid, beginning, 2 end? 3 MR. HAYES: It wasn't at the 4 beginning. I think it was middle to end. I'm not 5 sure. 6 MR. HANDLON: Do you know why your 7 report, if it was prepared in January, was not 8 sent until within the week prior to the beginning 9 of this hearing? 10 MR. HAYES: No, I don't know why. 11 MR. HANDLON: Who did you send it to? 12 MR. HAYES: I sent it to Mr. Currie 13 and to the Coalition. 14 MR. HANDLON: And obviously, for the 15 benefit of all concerned at this hearing, the 16 earlier the people would have this report, and it 17 is quite a lengthy report, it is some 50 pages 18 with many tables and figures and other diagrams, 19 the longer they had to review and digest it, the 20 more efficient this process would be; you agree 21 with that? 22 MR. HAYES: For myself as well, 23 reviewing your submission, yes, more time is 24 better. 25 MR. HANDLON: And you were aware that 01431 1 the EIS was filed in August of 2004. You didn't 2 get it until later, correct? 3 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 4 MR. HANDLON: And at the time when you 5 first were retained in the fall of 2004, you had 6 access to not only the EIS, but the engineering 7 reports that supported or formed the basis of the 8 engineering analysis that was contained in the 9 EIS, that was available to you? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes, it was. 11 MR. HANDLON: And we know from the 12 evidence that there was a contact from the 13 Floodway Authority in the spring of 2004 from 14 Mr. Gilroy, and it was to Councillor Strang. He 15 was one of the councillors for the RM of St. 16 Clements. And he pointed out that the engineering 17 team would be available to provide full access to 18 the engineering and to discuss any concerns that 19 Reeve Strang had with respect to any element of 20 the project. Were you aware that you could 21 contact KGS or the other engineers to obtain 22 clarification on any part of their engineering 23 reports or to discuss issues with them? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes. And I received a 25 call from KGS in that regard, indicating that the 01432 1 EIS was one document, but there was other 2 documents that I should be aware do exist that 3 support the impact statement. 4 MR. HANDLON: Okay. 5 MR. HAYES: And I acknowledge that. 6 MR. HANDLON: The EIS itself does 7 identify in the body of it that the various 8 engineering reports, and they are referred to as 9 appendices to that report? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes. We received both 11 hard copy and subsequently an electronic version 12 of those reports. 13 MR. HANDLON: And it was from KGS, was 14 it? 15 MR. HAYES: I'm not sure how I got 16 those. 17 MR. HANDLON: Do you know who it was 18 from KGS that contacted you? 19 MR. HAYES: It was the project 20 manager. 21 MR. HANDLON: Rick Carson? 22 MR. HAYES: Rick Carson. 23 MR. HANDLON: And he said to you that 24 you could contact them if you had any questions or 25 concerns or to discuss the matter with them 01433 1 generally? 2 MR. HAYES: Yes. 3 MR. HANDLON: You knew that if there 4 were any proposals that you had on changes to any 5 of the design criteria, that you could discuss 6 them with the engineers that were the project 7 leaders, or the engineers of this project, 8 engineers of record, if we can call it that? 9 MR. HAYES: If necessary in time for 10 meeting, yes. 11 MR. HANDLON: Right. And I understand 12 that you did not contact Mr. Smith or anyone else 13 from KGS with respect to clarification or 14 discussion of issues with them over the course of 15 your retainer? 16 MR. HAYES: That's correct. The only 17 interrogatory was through a submittal of questions 18 and there was a response to those questions. 19 MR. HANDLON: And that was through a 20 formal process? 21 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 22 MR. HANDLON: You knew you didn't have 23 to stand on formality, that you could speak to the 24 engineers if you wished, and that offer was made 25 open to you? 01434 1 MR. HAYES: Yes, it wasn't -- I knew 2 it could be available, if necessary. 3 MR. HANDLON: Yes. In your report, 4 and I've reviewed the various appendices to your 5 report, and you had shown today I think four or 6 five case studies, and you talked about the 7 different sensitive areas. Can you call those 8 slides up again? 9 MR. HAYES: I will try. You mean the 10 concepts or -- 11 MR. HANDLON: Not at the end, it was 12 the original case studies and they were found in 13 your report itself. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: They are the 15 cross-sections of the floodway showing the 16 floodway in different -- 17 MR. HANDLON: They are your figures -- 18 figures 12 through 15. 19 MR. HAYES: Is this one of them here? 20 MR. HANDLON: Yes, it is. And if you 21 could go to your case study number 3. 22 MR. HAYES: Case 3. You wanted case 3 23 you said? 24 MR. HANDLON: Right. Thank you. And 25 what I just notice, and it was just a very quick 01435 1 comparison of your case study number 3 in your 2 report to what you have stated here, to case 3 number 3, I keep referring to case studies, case 4 3. If you could look to case 3 in your report, 5 and I believe it is the same location, which was 6 sand overlying bedrock aquifer, Spring Hill area. 7 MR. HAYES: Yes. 8 MR. HANDLON: And I note that the 9 configuration is the same and all of the details 10 are the same. However, you do have different 11 measurements shown on your case study to the one 12 that you have on the screen. 13 MR. HAYES: The two to five. 14 MR. HANDLON: Particularly in the area 15 of the till area on the base of the floodway, 16 which in your case study -- or sorry, in your case 17 number 3 in your report, is shown to be 4 to 18 8 metres, and in your presentation it is shown to 19 be 2 to 5 metres. 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. HANDLON: And that was a change 22 that you have made in the last few days? 23 MR. HAYES: It was a refinement. 24 MR. HANDLON: Do you know when that 25 was made? 01436 1 MR. HAYES: In the preparation of this 2 presentation. All of the figures were obviously 3 revisited, if necessary, and determinations were 4 made as to how to best present the concepts. 5 MR. HANDLON: In order to make that 6 change, do you know what you looked at and studied 7 in order to determine the level of till below the 8 floodway itself to the limestone aquifer? 9 MR. HAYES: That figure, it is our 10 figure 10, that geologic cross-section, and also 11 the November 2004 investigation report that was 12 submitted as part of the Oasis well field. 13 MR. HANDLON: Sorry, the 14 cross-section, that was one of the slides that you 15 put up this morning? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes. 17 MR. HANDLON: And that was a new 18 slide, wasn't it? We have in the course of your 19 presentation quite a number of new slides that I 20 didn't readily recognize when I first saw them, 21 and I hadn't committed them all to memory. This 22 is one, this is the geologic cross-section along 23 the Red River floodway, that's a new -- 24 MR. HAYES: The base is in our report. 25 I don't know if it is a coloured figure in our 01437 1 report. The presentation itself, there was some 2 improvements made, and those three areas of 3 concern were highlighted in order to facilitate 4 the presentation. The text in our report 5 discusses areas of concern and I was thinking how 6 best to illustrate that in the course of the 7 presentation, so that's why this figure was 8 improved, or additional details added to 9 facilitate the presentation. 10 MR. HANDLON: What table or figure is 11 that in your report itself that you drew that 12 information from? 13 MR. HAYES: You can see there is still 14 a figure 10 attached to it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Just as a matter of 16 record, it is not -- there is no figure number in 17 your report attached to that particular document. 18 It is essentially the same without the printed 19 text and those rectangular boxes. 20 MR. HAYES: Yes, and this same figure 21 is one that's been produced by the proponent. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: It is about three or 23 four pages before the cases. 24 MR. HANDLON: If you could -- sorry, 25 I'm rushing here a bit because I understand that 01438 1 you have a commitment, and we will do the best 2 that we can. If you could refer to your case 4, 3 in your slide. 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. 5 MR. HANDLON: My advice is that the 6 level of the flood waters is higher than where it 7 should be, it should only be to the level of the 8 dyke, it should be below the prairie? 9 MR. HAYES: That's fair comment. 10 MR. HANDLON: Fair comment, okay. 11 MR. HAYES: These cases were meant to 12 be illustrative as to the potential for surface 13 water to flow into the underlying aquifers, but I 14 accept your comment. 15 MR. HANDLON: And the well itself 16 which is shown on the right hand side, the -- 17 MR. HAYES: The municipal well? 18 MR. HANDLON: This would be the 19 municipal well, and this is into the limestone 20 aquifer and it is into a confined aquifer, 21 correct? 22 MR. HAYES: In that locality, I don't 23 believe it is confined. 24 MR. HANDLON: Sorry, this shows it 25 going into the limestone aquifer, and my 01439 1 understanding is that it actually doesn't go that 2 far. 3 MR. HAYES: Yes, you are correct, it 4 goes into the sand. 5 MR. HANDLON: And the last item, the 6 water table level which is shown should actually 7 be higher as you go further east? 8 MR. HAYES: Oh, I'm sort of mimicking 9 the topography of the kame, yes. 10 MR. HANDLON: That's correct? 11 MR. HAYES: Yes. 12 MR. HANDLON: I'm going to take you, 13 if you have the report there, the actual report, 14 take you through some portions of it. If you 15 could turn to page 5 and I will go through these, 16 I have a series of questions. 17 MR. HAYES: Certainly. 18 MR. HANDLON: When you gave your 19 review of the technical documents pertaining to 20 the Red River Floodway Expansion Project you had 21 the regional overview, the second section was 22 topography and drainage, that would be information 23 that you would have taken from the EIS or from the 24 supporting engineering documents? 25 MR. HAYES: Largely, yes. 01440 1 MR. HANDLON: And on the sixth page I 2 note, and this is the location where there are a 3 number of references, you have in the third line 4 reference to KGS/Acres/UMA 2004, that would be to 5 the main engineering report? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And I see that reference 8 about three other times on that page. So I take 9 it that you gathered quite a lot of the 10 information and the analysis done by the 11 engineering reports that were provided? 12 MR. HAYES: In large measure, yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: And at page 9, you have 14 the heading geology and groundwater. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: And there is a reference 17 to the bedrock aquifer that you've described in 18 your presentation today. And my understanding is 19 that that is as you described, a confined aquifer? 20 MR. HAYES: On a regional basis, yes, 21 it is. 22 MR. HANDLON: And you indicated in 23 your report that the recharge area for the 24 carbonate aquifer, also described as a limestone 25 aquifer on your slides, is an area where there is 01441 1 little clay in that recharge area that's east of 2 Anola, Manitoba? 3 MR. HAYES: Yes. 4 MR. HANDLON: And you point out in 5 your report in the next section as to the clay, 6 that the overburden on the carbonate aquifer is a 7 thick clay section? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. 9 MR. HANDLON: And at page 10 of your 10 report, you talk about the Red River, and that's 11 in the paragraph just before the heading glacial 12 till. 13 MR. HAYES: Yes. 14 MR. HANDLON: And I will read this, 15 "The Red River has also eroded through the Lake 16 Agassiz clay sediments such that the bottom of the 17 river is till, or in the Lockport area, bedrock. 18 The lack of clay underlying the Red River allows 19 groundwater from confined aquifers below the clay 20 to discharge naturally to the river and in periods 21 of flood provide a pathway for the infiltration of 22 surface water." 23 MR. HAYES: Potentially, yes. 24 MR. HANDLON: So we know that from 25 that description then that there would be an 01442 1 upward gradient in the bottom of the Red River 2 itself, where there would be natural drainage from 3 the confined aquifer, the carbonate aquifer, which 4 is east of the Red River, which would discharge 5 into the Red River? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And I believe that at 8 another location in your report you talked about 9 during the winter months the primary source of 10 water, additional water in the Red River, would be 11 from that upward gradient from the carbonate 12 aquifer. 13 MR. HAYES: That would be a source, 14 yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: Now, in your report you 16 refer in quite a number of locations, to not only 17 the clay, but also part of the overburden which is 18 the glacial till. And I take it that when you 19 referenced that that you would have been relying 20 on the engineering reports provided by KGS? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes. 22 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And you 23 understand that they did a certain analysis of the 24 till as to its permeability, because permeability 25 can vary in different till substances, correct? 01443 1 MR. HAYES: Yes. 2 MR. HANDLON: So you were aware -- you 3 didn't do any separate analysis yourself as to the 4 permeability of the till in this area, it would be 5 on the basis of the information contained in the 6 reports from KGS? 7 MR. HAYES: No, I didn't do any 8 independent testing or analysis. I may have 9 relied upon my own experience and knowledge as it 10 would relate to glacial lacustrian clays or sandy 11 tills and their permeability, based on my 12 experience. 13 MR. HANDLON: Right. And a till is 14 just a general description. There could be a till 15 which is high permeability or a till which is low 16 permeability? 17 MR. HAYES: There is definite 18 variability in a till deposit. 19 MR. HANDLON: And you understood from 20 the engineering reports that the degree of 21 permeability was an issue that was studied by the 22 engineers, through the lead engineers, KGS? 23 MR. HAYES: Yes, it was alluded to. 24 There was sandier deposits in the till sequence 25 and they were identified and found. 01444 1 MR. HANDLON: And we can point to the 2 report, and I think you referenced that in certain 3 parts of the KGS report that some of the tills 4 referenced as low permeability till, you have seen 5 that in their reports? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And you didn't do a 8 separate analysis to challenge that assessment? 9 MR. HAYES: No. 10 MR. HANDLON: Now you have described 11 in your report today the sand and gravel aquifer, 12 the Birds Hill aquifer, and is it correct to say 13 that it is an unconfined aquifer? 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: Now, my understanding, 16 and bear with me if I'm correct or not, that a 17 confined aquifer itself is under pressure? 18 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 19 MR. HANDLON: And it is because there 20 is, in this area particularly, and with other 21 confined aquifers, there is a certain overburden 22 that provides the confinement, provides a certain 23 degree of compression? 24 MR. HAYES: Confinement, yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: And here we know that 01445 1 the confinement of the carbonate aquifer is the 2 overburden which is comprised of clay, and the 3 next layer is till, correct? 4 MR. HAYES: Where sufficient 5 thickness, it is clay overlying the till sequence. 6 7 MR. HANDLON: When a well is drilled 8 into a confined aquifer because the aquifer itself 9 is under pressure, that the piezometric level of 10 the surface of the well water itself would be 11 usually higher, depending on the degree of 12 compression and pressure, than the aquifer itself? 13 MR. HAYES: Yes. 14 MR. HANDLON: So if you drill down 15 into the confined aquifer, the water, there would 16 be certain pressure gradients that would raise the 17 piezometric level of the water higher than the 18 carbonate level itself, or the water in the 19 carbonate? 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. HANDLON: And that's different, 22 though, with an unconfined aquifer, that an 23 unconfined aquifer means that there is no 24 overburden, that the water is generally reference 25 to the water table itself, and that's a level of 01446 1 the water within the aquifer? 2 MR. HAYES: Yes. 3 MR. HANDLON: So, if you drill down 4 into an unconfined aquifer then, the unconfined 5 aquifer isn't under the same pressure, so that the 6 level of the water in the well going into that 7 unconfined aquifer would be the same as the water 8 table itself? 9 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 10 MR. HANDLON: Page 15 of your report, 11 and I believe this was probably described in your 12 presentation today, but it is in the end of the 13 second full paragraph you state, "In order for 14 surface water to infiltrate to groundwater, the 15 water level in the floodway must also be higher 16 than the water table, and the hydraulic head in 17 the aquifer." 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. HANDLON: So that in normal 20 operations or, sorry, in non-flood events, if 21 there is an upward pressure gradient in the 22 floodway itself, which could be water pressure 23 into the floodway, that would prevent any water 24 within the low flow channel from infiltrating into 25 the -- infiltrating below into the surrounding 01447 1 soils, till? 2 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 3 MR. HANDLON: Okay. Now, in your 4 report at page 21, and this is under the section 5 3.7, groundwater quantity, in the first paragraph, 6 the second last sentence you say that, "the water 7 table was in a state of flux for up to 10 years 8 following the floodway construction, until a new 9 steady state water table configuration was reached 10 with the floodway in place." And you say wells 11 further from the floodway, or in the Birds Hill 12 aquifer, took longer to respond to construction of 13 the floodway. And you go on to state that point 14 again at page 40. Page 40, the second full 15 paragraph, you state, "That water levels took up 16 to 15 years to reach a new equilibrium in the 17 Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer and the wells 18 in the carbonate aquifer located at greater 19 distances from the floodway." And I understand 20 that in making that assessment that you, in the 21 first reference at page 21, that you made 22 reference to a well that was located in figure 18, 23 which was J1013, those are the last three numbers 24 or digits, correct? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 01448 1 MR. HANDLON: And if we can turn to 2 that figure 18. 3 MR. HAYES: I have done that. 4 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And these were -- 5 this was a municipal monitoring level, was it? 6 MR. HAYES: I think so, I'm not sure 7 if it is provincial or municipal, but it is a 8 monitoring well. 9 MR. HANDLON: And was it on the basis 10 of the information contained, or that you obtained 11 regarding this well that you came to the 12 conclusion that you did, that the water table in 13 the area of the Birds Hill aquifer was in a state 14 of flux for 15 years after the floodway 15 construction? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes. 17 MR. HANDLON: And in fact, that's 18 stated in the bottom of that figure. You say that 19 the water level drops a total of 3 metres over the 20 15 years following completion of the Red River 21 floodway in 1968, and this drop is due to floodway 22 channel draining the aquifer. Did you look at 23 anything else, any other information to come to 24 that conclusion? 25 MR. HAYES: Sorry, could you repeat 01449 1 that? 2 MR. HANDLON: The conclusion that you 3 have come to about this long period of time for 4 the sand and gravel aquifer to hit an equilibrium, 5 did you look at any other information other than 6 the information from this particular well? 7 MR. HAYES: I think we have in the 8 presentation, there is another where it didn't 9 take the 15 year period. 10 MR. HANDLON: But certainly on the 11 basis of this one well and well results you came 12 to that conclusion? 13 MR. HAYES: It is a fact at this 14 location, yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: And you repeat that 16 comment a number of times in your report, even 17 near the end of the report, you draw certain 18 conclusions from the fact that it was your opinion 19 that the floodway construction caused that 20 fluctuation for a lengthy period of time, correct? 21 MR. HAYES: It seems very coincident, 22 yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: And I provided to your 24 counsel this afternoon a copy of your figure 18, 25 together with two other hydrographs. Figure 18 is 01450 1 a hydrograph, I am advised. 2 Could you put this on the projector? 3 Just the top one. So the top hydrograph shown on 4 our overhead is the figure 18 from your report, 5 correct? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes, it is. 7 MR. HANDLON: And my understanding is 8 that this well is located two miles east of Oasis 9 Road? 10 MR. HAYES: I accept your statement. 11 MR. HANDLON: And it would be in a 12 sand and gravel aquifer? 13 MR. HAYES: Yes. 14 MR. HANDLON: And what it shows on the 15 vertical scale is the groundwater levels that were 16 measured over a period from late 1960s through to 17 2000? 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And we see a 20 steep decline leading up to 1970, a dropping, a 21 leveling off at 241.5 metres, correct? And then 22 it drops down over a period of the next ten years, 23 and then there is a steady increase to levels in 24 2000. 25 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 01451 1 MR. HANDLON: And so this would show 2 the levels that would be the water table in that 3 well over that lengthy period of time? 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. 5 MR. HANDLON: Okay. I have been 6 advised what we have provided, just by comparative 7 purposes, is a hydrograph for a well in the 8 Sandilands region of Manitoba, which in my 9 understanding it is totally unrelated to the Birds 10 Hill aquifer or the floodway; would you agree with 11 that? 12 MR. HAYES: So it would be seen as a 13 background or -- 14 MR. HANDLON: Yes. And I appreciate 15 we only received your report recently, and so we 16 did a comparison of two other sand and gravel 17 aquifers to see the trends over the same period of 18 time. 19 MR. HAYES: That's good practice. 20 MR. HANDLON: And if we could look at 21 the -- firstly, on the Sandilands hydrograph we 22 see a similar pattern of reduced water table over 23 the same period of time as shown in the hydrograph 24 from the well in the Birds Hill area? 25 MR. HAYES: Similar, but there is a 01452 1 significant difference. 2 MR. HANDLON: Okay. Well, but we see 3 it dropping down significantly over the period. 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. 5 MR. HANDLON: In 1980, through the 6 '80s, and the lowest period would be about 1991, 7 correct? 8 MR. HAYES: In that part there is a 9 good agreement. 10 MR. HANDLON: Good agreement between 11 the two. There is a very similar -- if you look 12 at the hydrograph for the Winkler sand and gravel 13 aquifer, there is a fairly similar agreement, 14 would you not agree with that? 15 MR. HAYES: For that period that you 16 just mentioned, the period of decline, yes. 17 MR. HANDLON: So it would appear 18 comparing figure 18, which is the hydrograph for 19 the Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer, that there 20 are climatic conditions that would be at play here 21 which would affect water table in the sand and 22 gravel aquifers? 23 MR. HAYES: All things being equal for 24 that period of time, there would be some climatic 25 influences, yes. 01453 1 MR. HANDLON: So your conclusion that 2 the floodway was the only factor that showed -- 3 that was responsible for a fluctuation in the 4 water table in the sand and gravel aquifer did not 5 consider climatic conditions? 6 MR. HAYES: I think by -- obviously 7 climatic conditions would always have an input 8 into any water level. 9 MR. HANDLON: And certainly when you 10 put this hydrograph as a figure in your report, 11 and you made the statement that you did, it showed 12 a fairly dramatic reduction and a state of 13 fluctuation for a number of years, correct? 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: And the conclusion that 16 you drew or you communicated, was that that 17 fluctuation was due to the influence of the 18 floodway. 19 MR. HAYES: It would be due to the 20 influence of the floodway and climatic conditions. 21 MR. HANDLON: But you don't say that 22 in your report, do you? 23 MR. HAYES: No. And I don't say 24 climatic conditions. 25 MR. HANDLON: No, you don't. Does 01454 1 anywhere in your report, either in the text or 2 figure, suggest that climatic conditions may be a 3 factor in the fluctuations which are shown? 4 MR. HAYES: No, in this hydrograph 5 there is no reference to the climatic conditions. 6 MR. HANDLON: In order to get a true 7 picture of the hydrograph and the effect of 8 floodway, one has to consider the climatic 9 conditions as well, correct? 10 MR. HAYES: That's correct. That's a 11 proper assessment, yes. Well -- 12 MR. HANDLON: And I suggest to you, 13 sir, that -- 14 MR. CURRIE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, 15 I believe Mr. Hayes has a continued answer. 16 MR. HANDLON: I didn't mean to cut him 17 off. Go ahead. 18 MR. CURRIE: As it was put forward, 19 very straightforward for the MFA, it is 20 appropriate that Mr. Hayes be allowed to complete 21 his answer. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Point taken, Mr. 23 Currie. Mr. Hayes. 24 MR. HAYES: Your point is well taken, 25 climatic influences need to be addressed or 01455 1 quantified in order to define the magnitude of any 2 decline or increase. And where the effects or the 3 climatic effects can be determined are presented 4 in your hydrographs. In the hydrograph, in the 5 top hydrograph, during the same period to the 6 recent, there was a recovery from the early 1990s 7 that went from say 239 and a half to just 8 around -- fluctuating around 241. But it is very 9 much lower than the water levels pre 1970, when 10 water levels were in around 242 and a half, 243. 11 That's in direct comparison and contrast with the 12 hydrographs that you presented as representing 13 background or climatic influenced monitoring wells 14 outside of the floodway in which, during that same 15 recovery period, post 1990, the water levels very 16 much agree with the pre 1970s levels. So that 17 differential between what we are seeing in the 18 year 2000 versus the pre 1970 levels in the Oasis 19 well field, or that first hydrograph I put 20 forward, is a direct consequence of the floodway 21 operation. We are seeing a two metre decline, 22 whereas in the background monitors that you 23 provided we don't see a two metre decline. The 24 post 1970 levels are in strong agreement with the 25 post 2000 levels. So, the water levels came back, 01456 1 whereas in this hydrograph that's been presented, 2 they didn't come back. We still have a two metre 3 discrepancy. 4 MR. HANDLON: And we see from the 5 other hydrographs that they did not come back to 6 the level that they were in 1970, none of them, 7 correct? 8 MR. HAYES: They came back a lot 9 closer. That middle hydrograph in 1970, I read 10 375 and a half, it is a fair number. And then 11 post 2000, it came to 375, so within half a metre. 12 MR. HANDLON: Do you know when -- go 13 ahead. 14 MR. HAYES: So the lower hydrograph, 15 just reviewing it pre 1970, there is levels 16 between 273 and 273 and a half. And post 2000, 17 no, it didn't approach those levels. I'm reading 18 between 272 and 272 and a half. So a metre lower 19 than pre 1970 levels. In the lower hydrograph we 20 are within a half metre. In the middle 21 hydrograph -- But in the hydrograph, the one at 22 the top, we are not half or a metre, we are still 23 two metres off. 24 MR. HANDLON: We are not debating the 25 finite points here. But the -- 01457 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Order. 2 MR. HANDLON: But the point of the 3 matter is that your conclusion that this 4 fluctuation shown by figure 18 was solely the 5 result of floodway is incorrect, I suggest. 6 MR. HAYES: That's correct. Properly 7 there is climatic influences. 8 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. Just one 9 last point. I don't want to belabour it, but did 10 you consider when the municipality of East St. 11 Paul put in their municipal wells into the 12 aquifer? 13 MR. HAYES: No. 14 MR. HANDLON: That could have an 15 effect on the overall drawdown? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, it could, if there 17 was mining of the aquifer. I don't believe that's 18 the case. I think it is in evidence over the last 19 day or two, it was indicated that there is a 20 relatively rapid response to pumping. It goes up 21 and down quickly. And I have not seen a record 22 where there has been a general decline due to 23 municipal pumping. 24 MR. HANDLON: Your figure 19, if you 25 could put that up on the screen, please. It would 01458 1 be figure 19 from your report. And at page 22 of 2 your report, I think that's the first time that 3 you reference this figure and the information 4 where you develop this information, this graph -- 5 sorry, it is not a graph, but this description, 6 would be from certain municipal wells? 7 MR. HAYES: The provincial monitoring 8 wells. 9 MR. HANDLON: The provincial 10 monitoring wells. And I believe that you 11 described this morning that there was a stretch 12 from the floodway inlet through -- which is in the 13 dark red colour? 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: And the dark red shows 16 the yellow is a one metre rise in the water levels 17 during the 1997 flood? 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. HANDLON: And the darker colour, 20 the red or pink, shows the highest rise? 21 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 22 MR. HANDLON: And we know from your 23 description that the floodway itself is the 24 thickest layer of clay overlying the carbonate 25 aquifers in the southern area before highway 01459 1 number 1 or highway 59? 2 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 3 MR. HANDLON: And you have that 4 lengthy area which is shown in red. But my 5 understanding is that there would only be two 6 provincial monitoring wells that you would have 7 gathered information from? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes, the monitoring 9 network is not detailed, I guess. 10 MR. HANDLON: So, certainly in that 11 area, that's a large area to draw conclusions from 12 two provincial monitoring wells? 13 MR. HAYES: I think -- we didn't 14 eliminate any. We used what was available. 15 MR. HANDLON: Right. But just looking 16 on it, and it may not be clear from the diagram 17 itself, the first monitoring well that you took 18 information from is right at the end of that bulb, 19 which is right at the river itself, right in that 20 location? 21 MR. HAYES: That's correct, and the 22 second one is right over here. 23 MR. HANDLON: And in fact, in the end 24 of the bulb, and maybe it is clear in the figure 25 in your report, is closer to the Red River perhaps 01460 1 than the floodway itself? Certainly in the same 2 vicinity, but certainly the monitoring well is 3 very close to the Red River? 4 MR. HAYES: To the floodway? 5 MR. HANDLON: At the floodway inlet. 6 MR. HAYES: Very much so, yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And you pointed out the 8 next monitoring well, is that close to highway 9 number 1? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes. 11 MR. HANDLON: And do you know what 12 distance that is approximately? 13 MR. HAYES: From the inlet? 14 MR. HANDLON: From the inlet to the 15 second monitoring well. 16 MR. HAYES: It looks to be about eight 17 kilometres. 18 MR. HANDLON: And my understanding 19 from what you've described today and what we have 20 discussed during my questions of you, that the Red 21 River itself would have had an influence on the 22 monitoring well at the area of the first 23 monitoring well closest to the river? 24 MR. HAYES: At the inlet? 25 MR. HANDLON: Yes. 01461 1 MR. HAYES: Yes, I would agree with 2 that premise, that there would be a significant 3 effect because of the Red River at that location. 4 MR. HANDLON: Because you have 5 described before, like the floodway, the Red River 6 itself has an upward gradient through most of the 7 year, but when there is periods where there is 8 very high level of water, there may be a downward 9 gradient? 10 MR. HAYES: I'm not so sure at this 11 locality. More where we have -- and I'm not so 12 sure I said that about the Red River itself. 13 MR. HANDLON: No, you didn't, I'm just 14 drawing that conclusion. 15 MR. HAYES: I don't think so, as it 16 would relate to the inlet area. 17 MR. HANDLON: If you haven't 18 considered that, that's fine. Did you consider 19 that when you were doing this? 20 MR. HAYES: No, what has been 21 presented here is the data as to the explanation. 22 For example, what is the cause of that increase 23 here or the cause of that there. I haven't 24 determined that. 25 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And I think you 01462 1 may have mentioned earlier in your evidence that 2 there was, in this area, and it wasn't 3 specifically in relation to this figure, that 4 there was an unexplained area, that there are some 5 results that are unexplained. Is this the 6 unexplained result? 7 MR. HAYES: This an unexplained 8 result. Because we know from the cross-section 9 that I put forward, there is sufficient clay at 10 depth at the floodway base, so there should not be 11 a significant bedrock floodway interaction. So 12 your premise about perhaps this one being 13 influenced by the Red River is plausible. But I 14 haven't determined that. 15 MR. HANDLON: And it could be because 16 of the lengthy distance between the two monitoring 17 wells. The first well could have influence from 18 the Red River, and the second well itself by the 19 TransCanada Highway could have its own features 20 that could be affecting the results? 21 MR. HAYES: It could be. We just went 22 with the data that we had. 23 MR. HANDLON: I appreciate that. 24 MR. HAYES: It is one of those areas 25 that needs to be investigated. 01463 1 MR. HANDLON: So, you are not holding 2 this out as a true picture of the rise in the 3 aquifer during -- for certainly that entire length 4 of section? 5 MR. HAYES: No. I guess what it is 6 telling me, and it is corroborated by the fact 7 that we have these other areas outside of that 8 area of -- I can't read it myself -- five metres, 9 that pink area, other areas and other monitors 10 that showed this area here, the two to three 11 metres, and the three to four metres, I think we 12 have labeled, and it is not clear on the slide, 13 but the degree of rise at the various monitors as 14 we determined in bracket. So looking at it, at 15 this locality here, there was an apparent two and 16 a half metre increase compared to this locality 17 here where we saw 1.3 metres. This locality, if 18 I'm pointing correctly, 2.3 metres, and in this 19 area, right at the extreme area here, we saw three 20 and a half metres. 21 MR. HANDLON: If we could move on in 22 that figure 19. And in reference to your report, 23 you took the results from the provincial 24 monitoring results from the 1997 flood? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 01464 1 MR. HANDLON: And said that the water 2 table response to that -- and you refer to it as a 3 hydraulic response? 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. 5 MR. HANDLON: And you refer to that on 6 page 22 of your report, and also on page 29. 7 MR. HAYES: I accept your reference. 8 MR. HANDLON: Sorry, 22 and 29. And 9 at page 22, just going to the first reference, you 10 say such a water table response could only occur 11 if a hydraulic connection exists between the 12 floodway and the aquifer. You make that 13 statement? 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: We know in this area, we 16 are talking not about a water table in the 17 carbonate aquifer, is it not more correctly stated 18 to be the piezometric surface? 19 MR. HAYES: Yes, there is a pressure 20 component to it. 21 MR. HANDLON: Water table usually 22 refers to the level of the water in an unconfined 23 aquifer? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: And you use that 01465 1 throughout, but what you are referring to when you 2 refer to water table, because this a confined 3 aquifer, you are referring to the rise of the 4 piezometric level? 5 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 6 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And I understand 7 that there is a difference as to the volume of 8 water that can cause a rise in a water table in an 9 unconfined aquifer to the rise in the water 10 pressure -- really in a confined aquifer it is a 11 rise in the water pressure up to the piezometric 12 level? 13 MR. HAYES: Yes, there is -- in a 14 confined aquifer pressure will change water 15 levels. 16 MR. HANDLON: Right. And so when we 17 see the rise in the monitoring of wells, that are 18 into the carbonate aquifer, that's a rise in the 19 water pressure itself? 20 MR. HAYES: Water pressure perhaps, 21 yes. 22 MR. HANDLON: And I have been 23 instructed that there is a difference in the 24 quantity of water that would be required to cause 25 an increase in the water table in an unconfined 01466 1 aquifer to a similar rise in the water pressure in 2 a confined aquifer? 3 MR. HAYES: Comparatively speaking, 4 you need a lot more water to effect a rise in an 5 unconfined aquifer. 6 MR. HANDLON: We gave a diagram, I 7 think if we give it to you, it might be helpful, 8 if we can put that on the screen. We won't go 9 into a detailed engineering discussion on this 10 particular concept, but I think this is 11 graphically shown that in an unconfined -- the 12 picture on the left is an unconfined aquifer, and 13 it shows the water table with the two lines. And 14 there is a section taken out as to the amount of 15 water that would be required to draw down to -- to 16 show a drawdown in the water table, in the left 17 hand side? So, that there would be -- since it is 18 unconfined, the water is not under pressure, so 19 that to have a unit reduction in the water table 20 it shows graphically filling a small cup, correct? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes. 22 MR. HANDLON: And to show graphically 23 the difference with a confined aquifer, because we 24 are dealing with water under pressure, that there 25 would be a small amount of water that would be 01467 1 released to actually bring down the water level by 2 a similar amount in a confined aquifer? 3 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 4 MR. HANDLON: And that's because of 5 the water pressure? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And because of the 8 pressure of the compression of the water and 9 compression of the materials within that the water 10 is being carried? 11 MR. HAYES: Yes. 12 MR. HANDLON: So that similarly, or 13 say the converse of that, when we have a rise in 14 the water pressure in an unconfined aquifer then, 15 you would need a full volume of water to rise, to 16 cause that water level to rise? 17 MR. HAYES: It works in the reverse, 18 yes. 19 MR. HANDLON: And similar with a 20 confined aquifer, a small amount of water would 21 result in a much greater increase in the 22 piezometric surface level? 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. HANDLON: So that when we are 25 dealing with your discussion here about the 1997 01468 1 records from the flood and the rise in the, you 2 say water table levels, really it is piezometric 3 levels of the wells, correct? 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. 5 MR. HANDLON: And that would not be a 6 factor of the amount of the water that is 7 intruding to cause the upward pressure, but would 8 be a result of the factors of the storage 9 coefficient and the compression of the water and 10 the underlying surface? 11 MR. HAYES: It is both. 12 MR. HANDLON: Okay. So I understand 13 by this principle that you could have a small 14 amount of water that could cause water levels 15 quite a distance from the floodway, the 16 piezometric levels actually, rise as you have 17 shown in your diagram, correct? 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. Conversely if there 19 is a decline it works the other way, sustained 20 declines, things like that. I might add if the 21 pressure change from -- it should be fairly 22 uniform, that was the only contributing factor on 23 both sides of the floodway. Obviously there is a 24 regional gradient to overcome. And the shape of 25 the effect is asymmetrical. There is a definite 01469 1 less effect to the east and more effect to the 2 west. But if it was only the result -- those 3 changes in water levels were only the result of 4 pressure changes, it would be more uniform on both 5 sides of the floodway, and we are not seeing that. 6 So there must be some other contributing factor. 7 MR. HANDLON: But the point I'm making 8 is that you are not suggesting in your report that 9 the rise in the piezometric levels in these wells, 10 which is a distance away from the floodway, is not 11 a result of the infiltration of surface water 12 transported that distance? 13 MR. HAYES: It is unlikely. 14 MR. HANDLON: It is not likely at all, 15 is it? 16 MR. HAYES: It is unlikely. 17 MR. HANDLON: It is a result of the 18 water pressure and storage coefficient that we 19 discussed. 20 MR. HAYES: Certainly at a distance 21 that would be a predominant explanation as to why 22 there would be a response ten kilometres away. 23 That explanation, as we move closer to the 24 floodway, and as accepted by the proponent, there 25 is an influence to the east, especially to the 01470 1 west, in certain localities more so to the north 2 than the south, but I think the fact that we have 3 this asymmetrical shape says there is a competing 4 influence on water levels. So I accept your 5 supposition for those wells to the west and at a 6 greater distance, the 10 kilometres -- those wells 7 10 kilometres away, that made the pressure 8 effects, and this concept is the main contributing 9 factor. But it doesn't explain everything. 10 MR. HANDLON: It doesn't explain 11 everything. But we certainly know it would 12 explain any rise in the confined aquifer is a 13 result of water pressure? 14 MR. HAYES: Yes, or in areas that we 15 have -- it is not up there. Areas where we know 16 we have direct communication where it is not 17 confined. The confined aquifer is, you are quite 18 correct, has -- In this locality to the north 19 where we know we have bedrock at or near surface, 20 where the bedrock aquifer is not behaving as a 21 confined aquifer, it is becoming unconfined. 22 MR. HANDLON: We know that in the area 23 of the sand and gravel, you have described that 24 well, that it is in an unconfined aquifer. Just 25 bear with me for a minute on this point. 01471 1 It has been described to me that water 2 pressure is -- we know from situations when there 3 is a flood event and there is flood waters in the 4 floodway, that instead of an upward gradient of 5 the water, there can be a downward gradient, and 6 you have described that, correct? 7 MR. HAYES: Yes. 8 MR. HANDLON: And we know from the 9 downward gradient in the areas of the confined 10 aquifer then there would be pressure down, there 11 has been modeling that's been done by KGS that's 12 contained in the EIS, summarized in the EIS and 13 also contained in their engineering reports, 14 correct? 15 MR. HAYES: Yes, there is. 16 MR. HANDLON: Did you read all of the 17 engineering reports dealing with their modeling of 18 the situation of flood waters in the floodway and 19 the downward gradient? 20 MR. HAYES: Not in detail, only as it 21 related to the outcome and review of their 22 proposed or indicated zone of effect, and the 23 timing. The modeling, as I understand it, 24 recognizes that there would be infiltration of 25 surface water into the overburden. 01472 1 MR. HANDLON: Yes, into the 2 overburden. 3 MR. HAYES: And into the bedrock 4 aquifer, but it would take time for it to come 5 back out, so I saw the output, I guess. 6 MR. HANDLON: So you would have read 7 that in the EIS itself? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. 9 MR. HANDLON: Did you go to the 10 underlying reports, which are appendices M through 11 Q, that describe the modeling, describe all of the 12 details of that? 13 MR. HAYES: I didn't do it in any 14 rigorous detail, no. 15 MR. HANDLON: Certainly my 16 understanding is that in their description that in 17 a flood event that the downward gradient -- 18 instead of a release of pressure, when there is a 19 release of pressure that can cause water going 20 into the floodway itself, and that's one of the 21 issues that you described on the quantity of 22 groundwater, that there is a certain loss of 23 groundwater into the floodway? 24 MR. HAYES: And when I -- yes, and 25 when I did review the modeling I took it it 01473 1 validated that there was -- the proponent 2 indicated that there was, they believed, a 3 potential for surface water to infiltrate to the 4 groundwater. The only thing, they've presented a 5 very localized effect, but it validated that we 6 are in agreement that there is this groundwater 7 surface water interaction that reverses itself 8 during periods of flood. And I took that to be a 9 sign of -- a point of agreement. 10 MR. HANDLON: Yes, but you didn't -- 11 and I will move on from that point. But certainly 12 if we can go through the various circumstances, so 13 in periods when there isn't flood waters in the 14 floodway, then there is an upward gradient, water 15 can be discharged into the floodway in certain 16 areas, correct? 17 MR. HAYES: Yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: Just like at the Red 19 River itself, there is a number of upward gradient 20 into the Red River because the Red River itself 21 over many centuries has eroded all of the clay, so 22 water is an upward gradient through the river 23 itself -- sorry, water from the carbonate aquifer 24 discharges into the river? 25 MR. HAYES: Perhaps. The only area 01474 1 that I'm aware of is that area around Lockport 2 where I can see bedrock. I did a site inspection 3 as part of my investigations, and I observed that 4 locality. I can't speak to any other. 5 MR. HANDLON: I believe you referred 6 to that in your report, that there would be 7 discharge of the aquifer into the Red River, other 8 than at that location. I believe you said through 9 the till, am I incorrect? 10 MR. HAYES: Perhaps. But the 11 magnitude would be very different. And I know 12 with certainty there is discharge in Lockport. 13 MR. HANDLON: So certainly there is no 14 question -- my understanding is that the aquifer 15 itself, before the floodway, that the aquifer 16 itself would drain into the Red River? 17 MR. HAYES: Around Lockport, 18 certainly. 19 MR. HANDLON: And in other locations 20 is my understanding. 21 MR. HAYES: I don't know with 22 certainty but -- 23 MR. HANDLON: You haven't studied 24 that? 25 MR. HAYES: No, I have not. 01475 1 MR. HANDLON: In any event, going back 2 to my point. In the period of a flood event where 3 there is flood waters in the floodway for a short 4 period of time and there is a downward gradient, 5 then that would cause this pressure effect, the 6 hydraulic pressure, and you refer to it in the 7 monitoring wells that you studied that are part of 8 figure 19? 9 MR. HAYES: During floodway operation? 10 MR. HANDLON: During the floodway 11 operation, yes. 12 MR. HAYES: There would be a pressure 13 effect especially as it would relate to the 14 southern portion of the floodway, it is a 15 contributing factor, but it is not the only factor 16 even in the south. 17 MR. HANDLON: Yes. Just so I 18 understand it, this pressure factor, so instead of 19 a release of water from the aquifer which is under 20 pressure being released into the floodway, there 21 is a reversal, and the reversal causes not only 22 potentially the water to stop flowing into the 23 aquifer itself, but there is a downward gradient 24 for a period of time; correct? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. I think the 01476 1 proponent has already indicated that where there 2 is actual release from the carbonate aquifer to 3 the floodway occurs in the area that they located 4 as spring discharges, and that's primarily in the 5 southern half of the -- 6 MR. HANDLON: Let me follow through. 7 There is a downward gradient, so one would 8 naturally expect, as you have reported in the 9 monitoring wells, because of that increase in 10 pressure, small amounts of water can cause an 11 increase in the piezometric level in the various 12 monitoring wells some distance away? 13 MR. HAYES: It is a contributing 14 factor, yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: And it doesn't mean, as 16 I said before that the water -- and you said it is 17 not likely would travel that distance, and I 18 suggest that it doesn't suggest -- 19 MR. HAYES: To the west, travel the 10 20 kilometres to the west -- I'm sorry, east. 21 MR. HANDLON: Okay. You had me 22 confused. 23 MR. HAYES: I'm backwards, I'm from 24 out east. 25 MR. HANDLON: You are measuring, 01477 1 primarily your figure deals with piezometric 2 levels to the east? 3 MR. HAYES: Yes. 4 MR. HANDLON: We have got that 5 straight. 6 So my understanding is that a pressure 7 gradient can happen, and we can use a box or we 8 can use any other figure, that if my hand is a 9 downward gradient of flood waters in the floodway, 10 and Mr. Smith's hand is on the other side of the 11 book, and I press it, and I put pressure on it, 12 and the book is water from the aquifer itself, 13 that that can cause a rise in the piezometric 14 level in the monitoring wells without our hands 15 contacting one another? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, with a certain 17 elasticity, yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: So, it isn't a question 19 of when -- and you drew this analysis of these 20 water table fluctuations, you've sort of developed 21 on that and from that have identified that there 22 are certain connections between the floodway and 23 the aquifer itself. But it is certainly a 24 pressure gradient, it doesn't certainly 25 necessarily indicate that flood waters are being 01478 1 in contact any distance from the floodway itself, 2 as suggested by KGS? 3 MR. HAYES: That in itself doesn't 4 necessarily indicate that there is that 5 separation, it is a contributing factor, but it is 6 not -- you can't say it is the only factor. 7 MR. HANDLON: No, but you have raised 8 it. You've -- there has been a modeling done by 9 KGS, and from that modeling, they have predicted 10 with that the existing floodway and with the 11 expanded floodway, that during certain flood 12 events because of the reversal of pressure that 13 the groundwater -- sorry, the surface water will 14 only go into the till in certain areas for a 15 certain period of time, then after the reversal 16 back to the normal conditions, those waters will 17 be brought back into the floodway itself. And you 18 don't disagree with that principle? 19 MR. HAYES: Your modeling itself says 20 there is this back and forth. 21 MR. HANDLON: And so what you have 22 indicated or shown in your study, or you have 23 pointed out, is that there are these pressure 24 effects, hydraulic pressure effects some distance 25 away. But that doesn't mean to say, as you said, 01479 1 that the water travels that distance. It may not 2 travel any distance, it may not travel any 3 distance into the aquifer at all. 4 MR. HAYES: In certain localities, 5 yes, in other localities it will. 6 MR. HANDLON: So in certain 7 localities, and certainly the modeling done by KGS 8 doesn't show in a flood event any migration of the 9 flood waters into -- you don't disagree with the 10 modeling as done by KGS then? 11 MR. HAYES: I guess I was -- when I 12 reviewed the modeling, again, my review, it 13 validated the assumption, there are areas along 14 the floodway where we had groundwater/surface 15 water interaction during a normal operation, and 16 floodway operation, that normal interaction is 17 reversed. The modeling presented validated that 18 premise. I believe I took it that there is an 19 acceptance on the proponent's side that there is 20 this groundwater/surface water interaction. 21 That's the basis on which I reviewed the modeling. 22 I didn't do a peer review. It was not 23 my intention to do a peer review of the inputs, 24 the model's nuts and bolts, whether it was 25 properly conducted, whether the sensitivity was 01480 1 done. 2 As I mentioned in my presentation, it 3 is my experience if -- and certainly in this 4 situation where we are all in agreement that there 5 is groundwater surface interaction, and we are 6 relying upon that model to determine whether or 7 not we are going to mitigate or react or need to 8 prevent this groundwater surface, if we are 9 relying on that modeling, it is typical that that 10 be peer reviewed, that there be an assessment done 11 to make sure that that modeling is correct. 12 Because the observations are telling us that there 13 is this groundwater/surface water interaction. 14 And complicated by the carbonate aquifer itself, 15 its complex flow patterns, it is not a homogeneous 16 media, it is not uniform, it is complex. And a 17 model as presented, I need further confirmation 18 that it was appropriate and can model flow in a 19 bedrock setting. 20 MR. HANDLON: Now you have indicated, 21 you introduced the point on the modeling and peer 22 review. That wasn't in your report, was it? 23 MR. HAYES: No, to be honest -- 24 MR. HANDLON: The suggestion of a peer 25 review of the -- 01481 1 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, once again, 2 may I ask the Commission to allow Mr. Hayes to 3 finish the question before my learned friend 4 decides that he should take the next step. It has 5 been something consistently respected by me for 6 his clients, and I would ask for the same respect 7 in return. 8 MR. HANDLON: It was just an 9 oversight, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we 10 need a long discussion about it. If he points it 11 out that I haven't let him finish the question, 12 that's fine, please finish the question. I am 13 sorry, you have probably forgotten now. 14 MR. HAYES: This is a new point, it 15 wasn't presented in my submission. I have had the 16 opportunity, and it has been a useful exercise to 17 attend these hearings over the last several days. 18 And as I was listening to the proponents' 19 presentation, I wasn't here last week, but last 20 day there was modeling presented, and these 21 concepts are based upon my experience, and I felt 22 it was important to add or supplement my 23 presentation, because I think it is an important 24 consideration. Because there has been a great 25 reliance on this modeling, as I understand it, to 01482 1 justify that there is no further action required. 2 And so we need to do this. It is my experience 3 that it is best management practice to do that 4 type of peer review, if that's the only thing that 5 we are relying upon. 6 MR. HANDLON: And my point being, you 7 have had a retainer since the fall of 2004, you 8 have had full access to KGS, to the engineers to 9 ask information. 10 MR. HAYES: Yes. 11 MR. HANDLON: And this is the first 12 time that you have raised this issue, correct? I 13 just want -- 14 MR. HAYES: Yes, it is. 15 MR. HANDLON: And going back then, you 16 are aware of the regulatory process, are you, in 17 the review that's taken place subsequent to the 18 EIS? Certainly the EIS was filed in August of 19 2004. There was a reference in the EIS to the 20 engineering reports that the EIS was based on. 21 There was a review by the technical advisory 22 committee. I don't know if you are familiar with 23 that? 24 MR. HAYES: Not in detail, but I'm 25 aware of its existence and its role. 01483 1 MR. HANDLON: There was a review by 2 the technical advisory committee, there was a 3 public review of the EIS, there was a request both 4 through the project administration team, comments 5 from TAC, which is a technical advisory committee 6 on issues related to the EIS. So whether it is a 7 form -- it is a process, you agree with me that 8 that's a process of review? 9 MR. HAYES: Yes. I haven't seen those 10 review comments nor -- I haven't seen whether the 11 review was as detailed as would be required when 12 one is reviewing a modeling exercise, that someone 13 has to actually go in the proponent's office, look 14 in the inputs, find out the boundary effects, 15 establish -- there is all sorts of parameters. 16 MR. HANDLON: Your point is you 17 weren't involved in that process, but you agree 18 there is a review process and that you weren't 19 asked to be involved or didn't volunteer to be 20 involved in? 21 MR. HAYES: I was not asked to be 22 involved. 23 MR. HANDLON: Yes. But you knew that 24 your report was going to be reviewed in this 25 Commission's hearing and that there was a review 01484 1 process that had gone on? 2 MR. HAYES: Yes, I was aware in 3 generality of that process. 4 MR. HANDLON: If you could just give 5 me a minute? 6 Just on that figure 19, again, I think 7 we are near the end of that. If you could turn to 8 page 30 of your report, and in the first full 9 paragraph you say, 10 "To protect groundwater users water 11 quality should be monitored regularly 12 in these areas..." 13 and you refer again to figure 19, 14 "...and if necessary, boil water 15 advisories should be issued, or other 16 appropriate means of protecting 17 residents from contamination." 18 And you talk about an early warning system. In 19 that again, figure 19, you are taking that this 20 hydraulic response could mean that there was some 21 interface between the waters of the floodway into 22 the aquifer itself, but certainly they didn't 23 travel the distance to those wells? 24 MR. HAYES: No, all of that needs to 25 be validated. An appropriate monitoring network, 01485 1 we have this supposition, I understand essentially 2 to the south that maybe those are largely pressure 3 effects. The monitoring network as it sits is not 4 sufficient to adequately, with surety, that 5 everything that we believe is going on is 6 happening. So it needs -- I stand by the 7 statements in the report. 8 MR. HANDLON: Certainly on the basis 9 of the modeling done by KGS using the mod flow 10 program, and you are familiar with a mod flow 11 program, correct? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes, I am. 13 MR. HANDLON: It is actually the 14 preferred method in undertaking water capture 15 studies under the GUDI protocol. 16 MR. HAYES: Yes. 17 MR. HANDLON: But certainly on the 18 basis of their modeling, there would be no 19 suggestion of water, flood waters going into the 20 aquifer that could result in a boil water order, I 21 suggest. 22 MR. HAYES: That in itself wouldn't be 23 justification for a boil water advisory, you are 24 correct. It was put forward as -- there are a 25 number of variables, a number of inputs that need 01486 1 to be considered before that was to happen. It 2 was a flag. It was more work needs to be done to 3 determine. In areas definitely where there is a 4 groundwater/surface water interaction, if there is 5 no upgrade or mitigation efforts to the floodway 6 and if this does occur and wells are impacted, 7 then the boil water advisory might be an outcome. 8 MR. HANDLON: If you could turn to 9 page 31 of your report? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes. 11 MR. HANDLON: And it is again under a 12 heading, Recognized Groundwater Quality Impacts 13 Linked to the Floodway, and in the second 14 paragraph you have a statement, 15 "According to KGS (2004A)...", 16 that would refer to the main engineering report, 17 would it? 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. HANDLON: "...the following wells 20 demonstrate water quality impacts 21 likely caused by infiltration of 22 surface water from the floodway...", 23 and then you have a semi-colon and then there is a 24 reference to five wells? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 01487 1 MR. HANDLON: I just want to be clear 2 on that, because it is my understanding from 3 reading the engineering reports that KGS did not 4 make that statement, they did not state that those 5 well results show water quality impacts likely 6 caused by infiltration of surface water from the 7 floodway. 8 MR. HAYES: That's correct. It is 9 alluding to the fact that was the basis of our 10 determination, that is our opinion. 11 MR. HANDLON: Right. And in fact in 12 appendix Q of the engineering reports, page 3-4, 13 and do you know if you've read that engineering 14 report? 15 MR. HAYES: That reference doesn't -- 16 I'm not recognizing it. Could I see a copy of it? 17 MR. HANDLON: Yes, the Commission, it 18 is Q. We have a copy. Section 3-5, and they 19 state -- do you have it there? 20 MR. HAYES: Yes, I do. 21 MR. HANDLON: And it reads, 22 "Historic groundwater and surface 23 water quality results were evaluated 24 to look for evidence of surface water 25 infiltration into the groundwater 01488 1 during periods of floodway use, 2 although seasonal fluctuations in 3 groundwater...", 4 is it parameters or quality? 5 MR. HAYES: Parameters. 6 MR. HANDLON: "...parameters were 7 found they did not necessarily 8 correlate with floodway use." 9 MR. HAYES: Yes. 10 MR. HANDLON: So that's their opinion, 11 certainly. You didn't mean to state in your 12 report that that was -- 13 MR. HAYES: No, I should have been 14 more succinct, it is CRA's opinion. 15 MR. HANDLON: And when you made that 16 statement in your report, you may not have even 17 looked at appendix Q to see what the analysis of 18 KGS was on that point? 19 MR. HAYES: I don't specifically 20 recall. Your report is in colour, mine wasn't. 21 But I still stand by our statements. 22 MR. HANDLON: But certainly, and 23 certainly the analysis by KGS is quite different 24 from the analysis, the conclusion that you've come 25 to? 01489 1 MR. HAYES: Yes, it is. 2 MR. WEBSTER: Could I have that 3 reference again to the section in appendix Q? 4 MR. HANDLON: Section 3-5. 5 MR. WEBSTER: I don't have a section 6 3-5 in my appendix Q. 7 MR. HANDLON: I believe it is page 8 3-5. 9 MR. WEBSTER: There is only one 10 sentence on it. Okay, sorry, section 33, thank 11 you. 12 MR. HANDLON: And the issue that you 13 analyzed in your report, and I won't go into it 14 detail, is you measured the electrical 15 conductivity of the water, and there is a 16 fluctuation in the electrical conductivity of the 17 water shown from the samples of these wells, that 18 when there is a recharge from surface water in the 19 spring, spring events, it would have a lower 20 conductivity, correct? And there would be higher 21 conductivity during the winter months? 22 MR. HAYES: Conversely, it typically 23 increases in the spring, conductivity, and 24 decreased in other seasons. We found the 25 monitoring record sporadic. There wasn't a lot, 01490 1 we couldn't draw a lot of conclusions or trends 2 because of the dearth of information. 3 MR. HANDLON: Certainly the 4 information that you have outlined here is not 5 conclusive on this point? 6 THE WITNESS: No, it isn't. 7 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. Now, if you 8 could turn in your report to page 35, please? And 9 in that section 4.5, and we are dealing with 10 mitigation measures to reduce groundwater 11 discharge to the floodway. And certainly, in the 12 first sentence, that was your opinion when you 13 wrote the report, 14 "The increased loss of groundwater to 15 the floodway channel can generally be 16 reduced through widening the floodway 17 instead of deepening it." 18 Correct? 19 MR. HAYES: Yes. 20 MR. HANDLON: And that was, certainly 21 at the time there was preference, or the 22 recommendation is that there should be, if there 23 is going to be expanded capacity of this floodway 24 it is better to widen it than deepen it. 25 MR. HAYES: It is the lesser of two 01491 1 approaches. 2 MR. HANDLON: And certainly we know, 3 and you haven't studied the environmental effects 4 on the City of Winnipeg for the major flood that 5 can occur? 6 MR. HAYES: No, I haven't. I think 7 your group has done a good job. 8 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. And the next 9 page you talk about the proposed cutoff wall, and 10 we have heard quite a bit of evidence about that 11 during the course of the presentation by the 12 Floodway Authority. And at the end of the first 13 paragraph you state that, however the documented 14 water level declines was -- the existing floodway 15 indicated that it was not successful. Did you 16 look at any of the design criteria for that cutoff 17 wall, and when we talked about it I believe it was 18 also referred to as clay plug. I take it you 19 didn't look at all of the engineering reports that 20 detail this? 21 MR. HAYES: No, I did not. 22 MR. HANDLON: Turning to page -- 23 sorry, again at page 36, it is talking about, in 24 item 4.6, mitigation measures to reduce surface 25 water infiltration into aquifers, and you refer in 01492 1 that to lining of the floodway channel in certain 2 areas, and that's referred to later on as well? 3 MR. HAYES: Yes. 4 MR. HANDLON: And your presentation 5 this afternoon was -- that was the first 6 presentation I think we established earlier where 7 you actually detailed that conceptual idea of how 8 that could take place? 9 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 10 MR. HANDLON: And in order to line the 11 floodway channel in those areas where that may be 12 considered, certainly there would be required to 13 be some deepening if one was to keep the same 14 grade? 15 MR. HAYES: For the period of 16 construction? 17 MR. HANDLON: Certainly for the period 18 of construction, yes. 19 MR. HAYES: If it is validated to be 20 necessary, those improvements, the lining of the 21 floodway, whether it is a composite liner or a 22 variation of the concepts that I put forward, and 23 if a risk assessment determined that to be 24 necessary, yes, you are correct, there may be a 25 requirement to deepen it temporarily as part of 01493 1 the construction of it. It is something for the 2 engineers to figure out. 3 MR. HANDLON: It has been technically 4 feasible? 5 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 6 MR. HANDLON: Technically feasible, 7 and when you discuss in one section of your report 8 the proposed cutoff wall in the area of Oasis 9 Road, that's detailed in the engineering reports, 10 correct? 11 MR. HAYES: Yes. 12 MR. HANDLON: And I believe your 13 reference, when you refer to that, you say that it 14 has to be determined to be technically, both 15 technically feasible and economically feasible? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes. 17 MR. HANDLON: So certainly those 18 are -- obviously the technical feasibility is the 19 first criteria or the first issue to look at, and 20 then secondly, any mitigation measure has to be 21 looked at as far as the economic feasibility is 22 concerned? 23 MR. HAYES: That's good engineering 24 practice. 25 MR. HANDLON: And at page 42 of your 01494 1 report, you refer to a portion of the EIS, it is 2 in the bottom paragraph, section 5.4.2.2. And are 3 you aware from yesterday that there was an errata 4 sheet for the EIS? 5 MR. HAYES: Yes, and it changed that 6 statement completely. 7 MR. HANDLON: Right. And so now it 8 reads, 9 "KGS reviewed the Red River water 10 quality data and found..." 11 so there is no -- so that first reference is taken 12 out? 13 MR. HAYES: Yes. 14 MR. HANDLON: And you pointed this out 15 in your report that there was an inconsistency. 16 Now we have explained the inconsistency was simply 17 an error in the report. 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. In your 20 report -- and I will just identify it in a number 21 of locations -- you refer to ongoing monitoring 22 and testing. And page 43 at the bottom of the 23 page, and this is dealing with the section dealing 24 with groundwater quality, you say, 25 "More detailed water quality sampling 01495 1 should be developed to better 2 characterize the effect of the 3 existing floodway and groundwater 4 quality during a flood, and mitigation 5 measures need to be developed to 6 protect residents from poor 7 groundwater quality due to 8 infiltration of flood waters." 9 And certainly you understand from the presentation 10 from the Floodway Authority that monitoring is 11 planned and a testing program is being planned? 12 MR. HAYES: I welcome that. I have 13 concerns. It has good intentions. The details 14 are very important, and plus the commitment and 15 the formalization as a condition of approval, all 16 of these things are important elements, and I 17 don't see that. I don't -- and that type of 18 monitoring needs to be vetted with input from a 19 third party and an approving authority so that all 20 aspects are addressed. 21 MR. HANDLON: And certainly that's 22 what this public forum is about. It is to raise 23 issues and have concerns. And certainly from an 24 issue that you raised, there is no issue as to the 25 need for monitoring and the commitment for 01496 1 monitoring, and certainly that's an important 2 step. 3 MR. HAYES: It is an important step, 4 and I welcomed the statements that this plan would 5 be developed. What is equally important is not 6 only development of the plan, but it has to form a 7 condition of approval that this plan be 8 implemented, that there be third party review, 9 that there be regular reporting, the details of 10 which need to be worked out with the approval 11 authority, with the appropriate -- whether it is 12 the oversight committee, or Manitoba Environment, 13 there has to be some third party review of that 14 document, and it has to be attached specifically 15 as a condition of approval. It can't be left as a 16 dangling unresolved item, it should be a 17 condition. That's standard. 18 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chairman, could we 19 take a five minute recess? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Well -- 21 MR. HAYES: I would welcome that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask a few 23 administrative questions here? Is it you who has 24 to catch a plane, Mr. Hayes? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes, it is. 01497 1 THE CHAIRMAN: What time do you have 2 to be out of here? 3 MR. HAYES: I have to convert -- my 4 plane leaves at 7:00 o'clock so I have to be out. 5 I could stay until 6:00. 6 I'm being optimistic I can see. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So -- 8 MR. CURRIE: At the very latest, Mr. 9 Chairman, I believe he can only stay until 5:15 at 10 the extreme latest, and I think that's as far as I 11 can get it for Mr. Hayes. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hayes, are you 13 available one day early next week to return? 14 MR. HAYES: I can return for one day, 15 certainly. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think this is a very 17 important issue that must be fully canvassed. And 18 I know that some of my colleagues have questions 19 of you, and I know that we give other participant 20 groups the opportunity of cross-examination, and I 21 know at least one wishes to ask at least one 22 question. I don't think we will get through all 23 of that today. I don't know how much more Mr. 24 Handlon has, so perhaps we could have a five 25 minute break, come back for 15 minutes, and then 01498 1 try and make arrangements to have you come back 2 next week. 3 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chairman, given 4 those comments, perhaps it would be appropriate to 5 adjourn now. This is a situation where we haven't 6 had a chance to review -- if Mr. Hayes is going to 7 be returning, we wouldn't want to close, we are 8 near completion but certainly would like to review 9 those slides and have additional questions. I 10 don't know that a lot can be accomplished in ten 11 minutes, although we don't have a lot more, I 12 don't think. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I would hope 14 that you don't take the next four or five days to 15 develop another lengthy cross-examination of Mr. 16 Hayes. 17 MR. HANDLON: They will be refined. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, before we 20 adjourn, could we -- 21 THE CHAIRMAN: We aren't adjourning 22 yet, we have a few matters to take care of. 23 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Could we add Mr. 24 Hayes and Mr. Palmateer's presentation as exhibit 25 number 58; and the Rural Municipality of 01499 1 Springfield, the Rural Municipality of St. 2 Clements, and the Rural Municipality of East St. 3 Paul's submission before the Clean Environment 4 Commission on the Red River Expansion Project as 5 exhibit 59. Thank you. 6 7 (EXHIBIT 58: Presentation: RM of 8 Springfield, RM of St. Clements, RM of 9 East St. Paul, and Coalition for Flood 10 Protection North of the Floodway, 11 Presented by: Peter Hayes and Garry 12 Palmateer) 13 14 (EXHIBIT 59: Submission: Submissions 15 before the Clean Environment 16 Commission on the Red River Floodway 17 Expansion Project, the Rural 18 Municipality of Springfield, the Rural 19 Municipality of St. Clements and the 20 Rural Municipality of East St.Paul) 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 23 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, just 24 another brief administrative task, I have Mr. 25 Palmateer who is flying out slightly behind Mr. 01500 1 Hayes, so I'm not sure whether we are going to be 2 working with him today or not. If there is any 3 questions for him, he is gone as well. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Handlon, do you 5 have any specific questions that you wish to ask 6 of Mr. Palmateer or -- 7 MR. HANDLON: Maybe we should take a 8 five minute break and consider that point. There 9 is certainly no need to keep Mr. Palmateer here. 10 MR. JONASSON: I have another 11 administrative question. We are doing this within 12 a budget and to bring these guys back, we don't 13 have it. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Don't worry about that, 15 Mr. Jonasson. 16 MR. JONASSON: Thank you very much. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: We wouldn't let a few 18 dollars compromise our process. Let's take five 19 minutes, come back here, five minutes exactly, and 20 see where we are at. 21 (RECESS TAKEN) 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come back to 23 order, please? Mr. Handlon, do you have any 24 further questions at this time? 25 MR. HANDLON: Not at this time. 01501 1 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, just for 2 the record, I would like it clear that we are 3 bringing Mr. Hayes back, potentially Mr. 4 Palmateer, for the purposes of cross-examination 5 on areas that have not already been covered, not 6 on recrossing those areas, and potentially on 7 material confined to what they define as new 8 information within the presentation. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you need 10 comment on that, Mr. Handlon. I take that as a 11 very valid comment and I made a similar comment 12 earlier before we broke, and you indicated that 13 your continued cross-examination next week would 14 not be very extensive, and I take that as a -- Mr. 15 Palmateer, you are available on Tuesday of next 16 week? 17 MR. PALMATEER: I have to check. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Hayes has 19 indicated that he would be available preferably on 20 Tuesday of next week. 21 MR. HAYES: I too need to be -- for 22 100 percent certain, but my memory indicates 23 Tuesday. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We are aware of that, 25 and we will deal through either Mr. Jonasson or 01502 1 Mr. Currie and get you both back, if at all 2 possible, on Tuesday of next week. 3 MR. HAYES: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: And my guesstimate, and 5 some of them have been off in the last day or two, 6 maybe two to four hours of time to conclude, a 7 short time for Mr. Handlon, some time for my 8 colleagues on the panel and perhaps one or two 9 participants. And we will also deal with Mr. 10 Jonasson or Mr. Currie in respect of travel 11 arrangements. 12 MR. CURRIE: It is probably best to 13 deal with my office, Mr. Chairman, I have been the 14 primary contact in dealing with this. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. I 16 think then that that brings us pretty near to a 17 close. I have already indicated to two or three 18 people that I would like to speak to them after we 19 adjourn just to set up tomorrow's schedule. Mr. 20 Currie, would you have a couple of minutes to join 21 us as well, since your parties are involved? 22 We will be meeting tomorrow back here 23 at 1:00 o'clock. Tomorrow evening we have I 24 believe five individuals who will be making 25 presentations in the evening. So the bulk, the 01503 1 core of the participant presentations will occur 2 during the afternoon, and in the evening we will 3 hear from the public presenters. So see you all 4 tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 o'clock. 5 6 (Proceedings adjourned at 5:10 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01504 1 OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 5 I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official 6 Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby 7 certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct 8 transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at 9 the time and place hereinbefore stated. 10 11 12 13 ---------------------------- 14 Cecelia Reid 15 Official Examiner, Q.B. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25