00430 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Wednesday, February 16, 2005 14 Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street 15 Winnipeg, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00431 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 17 Participants: 18 Mr. Bob Starr - Ritchot Concerned Citizens Mr. Bob Bodnaruk - RM of Springfield 19 Mr. Steve Strang - RM of St. Clements Mr. Orvel Currie - Counsel to Municipalities 20 Mr. Doug Chorney - Coalition for Flood Protection North 21 Mr. Kerry McLuhan - Coalition for Flood Protection North 22 Mr. Rob Loudfoot - 768 Association Mr. Y. Shumuk - 768 Association 23 Paul Clifton - Paul Clifton Mr. Jeff Frank - Rivers West 24 Gaile Whelan Enns - Manitoba Wildlands Earl Stevenson - Peguis Indian Band 25 00432 1 Participants: (continued) 2 3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation 4 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel 5 Presenters: February 16, 2005 6 Brian Wilson - Alpine Ski Division 7 Paul Jordan - Forks/North Portage Muriel Bugera - Crow Wing Trail 8 Rosemay Dzus - Manitoba Recreational Trail Association 9 Janice Lukes -St. Norbert Heritage Trail 10 Norman Gousseau - Enterprise Riel Bruce McKee - Personal 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00433 1 INDEX OF EXHBITS 2 3 4 41 Cumulative Effects Practitioners 487 Guide 5 42 Bio report for Rick Bowering 518 6 43 Presentation by Rosemary Dzus, 606 7 Manitoba Recreational Trails Association 8 44 Recreational Use of Red River 621 9 Floodway Land, presentation by Janice Lukes and Norman Gousseau 10 45 Crow Wing Trail Association Chemin 629 11 Saint-Paul Inc. presentation 12 46 Presentation by Alpine Ski Division 641 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00434 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00435 1 1 Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2 2 Upon commencing at 1:00 p.m. 3 3 4 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. 5 5 Welcome back. Welcome to day three. I understand 6 6 that the Floodway Authority wishes to make a few 7 7 comments in respect of cumulative effects 8 8 assessment. That's good because I was actually 9 9 going to open on the same point. We'll turn it 10 10 over to you, Mr. Rempel, or whoever else. 11 11 MR. REMPEL: Thanks very much, 12 12 Mr. Chair. What we thought we would do is in 13 13 response to some of the questions that were asked 14 14 yesterday, and apparently some confusion about 15 15 incrementality and so on, we thought we'd make a 16 16 short presentation with some explanations and some 17 17 examples of how we have applied cumulative 18 18 effects. So Mr. Cam Osler will take us through 19 19 some slides and then I believe Dr. Morgan will 20 20 show how that was applied, that those principles 21 21 were applied to a groundwater example. Mr. Osler. 22 22 MR. C. OSLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 23 23 prepared an exhibit. There are copies available 24 24 to the board and to the participants and I'll 25 25 speak to the exhibit. 00436 1 We were talking yesterday about the 2 incremental issue with respect to cumulative 3 effects and that's what I'm focusing my attention 4 on. If we look at the Cumulative Effects 5 Assessment Practitioner's Guide, they provide a 6 definition of cumulative effects assessment in 7 their Appendix "A" glossary which is as follows: 8 "An assessment of the incremental 9 effects of an action on the 10 environment when the effects are 11 combined with those from other past, 12 existing and future actions." 13 Our understanding in a hearing like 14 this is that we are assessing the effects of an 15 action due to a project that's under regulatory 16 review. We're assessing the effects of the action 17 of the floodway expansion on the environment and 18 that will be each component of the environment 19 separately, when the effects of that project are 20 combined with those of other past, existing and 21 future actions. And the word "actions" in this 22 context includes both projects and activities. 23 Okay. 24 Second slide. In our EIS chapter 2, 25 pages 2-5 through 2-8, we reviewed cumulative 00437 1 effects assessment and with a few references to 2 this guide that I just quoted and we attached the 3 sections that we referenced in Appendix 2. 4 The attachment in appendix 2(b) 5 includes the quote I'm going to deal with right 6 here. This quote occurs at page 2(b) in appendix 7 2(b). And it comes after the heading in the guide 8 "What a project specific cumulative effects 9 assessment fundamentally needs to do." And it 10 lists three things and I've quoted them in their 11 entirety. 12 So cumulative effects assessment for a 13 project like this one under regulatory review 14 needs to do three things. First, we need to 15 determine if the project under review will have an 16 effect on a VEC. 17 Now, in the context of the guide, the 18 term VEC is a valued ecosystem component. We have 19 in other contexts for another application used the 20 term valued environmental component. In this 21 particular application, we haven't used that 22 language. But everything we examine, every part 23 of the environment, the physical components, the 24 biological components, the socio-economic 25 components, we have identified the items that we 00438 1 think are important that need to be assessed. And 2 they are, for the context of this discussion, 3 valued components of the environment. 4 So the first step you've got to do is 5 determine whether the project will have an effect 6 on the valued part of the environment. In my 7 submission, only proceed further if there is such 8 an effect. 9 Part two of the guide. 10 "If such an effect can be 11 demonstrated, determine if the 12 incremental effect," 13 that's the effect of that project on that part of 14 of the environment, 15 "acts cumulatively with the effects of 16 other actions either past, existing or 17 future." 18 Third, the ultimate job, 19 "Determine if the effect of the 20 project," 21 which is the same incremental effect we've been 22 talking about, 23 "in combination with the other 24 effects," 25 that's the effects past, existing or future, 00439 1 "of other actions," 2 not the one we're looking at, 3 "may cause a significant change now or 4 in the future in the characteristics 5 of the valued environmental component 6 or ecosystem component after the 7 application of mitigation for that 8 project." 9 Of course that's effectively a 10 residual effect, the effect that exists from this 11 project after mitigation. And the entire exercise 12 of assessment with respect to adverse effects of a 13 project is to determine whether or not that 14 project residual effect, after mitigation, the 15 incremental effect of that project is significant 16 if it's adverse, and likely I would add. The word 17 "likely" isn't put in there but it's in the guide 18 all over the place. Is it likely, is it adverse, 19 and is the significance of the effect likely to 20 occur in the future on a sustained basis. 21 Now, that's the guide as to sort of 22 what we're doing here, fundamental things we have 23 to do. What I'd like to do is now take an example 24 in order to get the language that we're using very 25 clear. And this is not meant to be an example 00440 1 that pertains to the facts of the floodway 2 expansion. It's an example just to get language 3 clear as to how we're using it. 4 Okay. I'm going to do this slide 5 you've got in front of you, we'll do it 6 progressively. The cumulative effects assessment 7 of a project on a specific environment component, 8 that's what we're assuming we're talking about. 9 Any project you want to dream up, any particular 10 component of the environment we need to assess. 11 We're looking at the effects over 12 time, through time, and we're looking at the 13 magnitude of the effect on that component on the 14 environment. We have a thing called a baseline 15 which is our assessment of the magnitude of that 16 effect on the environment -- the magnitude of 17 effects on the environment that will exist without 18 this project coming into existence through time. 19 In many people's mind, there is a 20 concept implicit there was an environment 21 undisturbed, or at least way back in time called 22 the natural environment. And of course the 23 difference between that and the baseline reflects 24 the impact of previous actions. It could have 25 been several of them. In this case, we 00441 1 hypothesized that there is two actions, action "A" 2 and action "B". And those, in our opinion, are 3 the effect of past actions on that component of 4 the environment. They explain how the baseline 5 got to be different than something called the 6 natural or something that existed a long time ago. 7 We then bring into the picture the 8 project that we're trying to assess. In our 9 language, the incremental effect of that project 10 after mitigation, its residual effects is defined 11 to be the difference between the world that would 12 have existed without that project and the effect 13 of that project on that component of the 14 environment. 15 The residual effect is the shorter 16 arrow in the diagram. It is the distance between 17 the baseline and the effect that exists overall 18 after the project has come into play. These are 19 all assessed as being likely issues. I'm not 20 getting into those. 21 The point, as we see it, of cumulative 22 effects assessment is to try and establish the 23 context of that incremental residual effect after 24 mitigation. 25 For the sake of this discussion, we 00442 1 will assume that we can all agree on thresholds. 2 It doesn't always -- it isn't nearly always that 3 easy. But the concepts imply that one can 4 determine a level called a threshold in principle 5 or in theory beyond which the actions of this 6 project on the environment would be unacceptable. 7 It would be concluded to be not only adverse but 8 significantly adverse. 9 If you're below that line by any 10 significant degree, you would conclude the project 11 as acceptable and doesn't create a significant 12 adverse effect. If you move above that magical 13 line or an area around that line, you would 14 conclude that the project is adverse, significant 15 and therefore creates the problem that we're all 16 trying to find out if there is such a problem due 17 to the project. 18 Now, there could be other levels of 19 threshold in principle. Obviously, the one I just 20 gave you, this project would not have a 21 significant adverse effect would be the 22 conclusion. 23 Threshold 2, we just looked at 24 threshold 1, threshold 2 is a hypothetical one for 25 the purpose of discussion which was lying just 00443 1 above the baseline before we introduced this 2 project. And the clear implication of introducing 3 this project into that environment is to create an 4 adverse effect that would be deemed to be 5 unacceptable. It's pushing the level of effect on 6 that environmental component above the threshold 7 into the unacceptable zone. 8 In that case, the project makes all 9 the difference in the world between an acceptable 10 set of situations and an unacceptable one. 11 A third hypothetical threshold that we 12 all have to understand can exist is one threshold 13 3 in the diagram where previous actions before we 14 consider this project have already created a 15 disturbed environment that people would conclude 16 to be beyond the threshold of acceptability. 17 Now that may have been authorized duly 18 in law. There is nothing in the environment acts 19 that say you cannot do things that have 20 significant adverse effects but you have to go 21 through the right process for them. Or it might 22 have happened long before the current acts and 23 therefore be Godfathered or grandfathered. But 24 nonetheless, that's the reality that we would face 25 in certain circumstances. 00444 1 The guide gives us guidance on 2 different types of situations. And it does 3 address the threshold 3 case and says, you know, 4 and we have addressed it when talking about 5 thresholds as such in our evidence at page 2-13. 6 The point is if the environment has been so 7 disturbed before, that this project itself does 8 not really add to the disturbance and doesn't 9 create a significant change, one might not 10 conclude that the project is unacceptable. 11 There are situations where that 12 conclusion could flow. Not that they would flow 13 in all circumstances but it's a possibility that 14 the guide envisages. 15 I want to go into a couple of other 16 things in a minute. Well, maybe we'll go into the 17 next slide just to bring the future into the 18 picture. Everything we have just looked at, we 19 add one more thing to the cumulative effects 20 assessment, a future action. Just to get the 21 language correct, the way we're using it anyway, 22 the baseline without that project is the actions 23 "A" and "B" in the diagram. And the future 24 project, from the point of view of our assessment, 25 modifies that baseline. It shows the baseline 00445 1 evolving without the project. And the effect of 2 past and future actions therefore is the combined 3 effect of all of those things, actions "A", "B" 4 and future action in the diagram on that 5 environment component. 6 Now we introduce the project that 7 we're trying to assess. The project's residual 8 effect after mitigation is indeed the extra 9 distance above the baseline now modified by past 10 and future actions that this project imposes on 11 that component of the environment. 12 The picture that we see there can also 13 introduce thresholds again. Threshold 1 would be 14 a situation where, despite all of these combined 15 effects, the incremental effect of this project 16 does not push the environment component we're 17 looking at beyond its threshold. And the 18 threshold 2 in the diagram is the situation where 19 indeed this project, when combined with future and 20 past actions does indeed push this threshold, push 21 the environment in this particular area, this 22 particular component beyond its threshold. 23 And so that's how we're using the 24 words first of all. 25 Secondly, our submission is that the 00446 1 whole point of this planning guide and 2 requirements under law is to ensure that the 3 incremental effect of the project, after its 4 mitigation, is viewed properly in a proper 5 context. That you have really put your mind to 6 the effects that had been flowing from other 7 actions that people should be thinking about that 8 are affecting this component of the environment. 9 You are not considering it in absentia from all 10 these other things. 11 In the end, if you consider all the 12 relevant things you're doing in environmental 13 assessment properly, and thus the phrase 14 cumulative environmental effects assessment is 15 simply doing environmental assessment properly. 16 I would also point out that in some 17 situations, many situations perhaps, thresholds 18 are not as clear as they are in this diagram. And 19 in many situations, the effects of all the various 20 actions that are affecting an environmental 21 component, and groundwater may be a good example 22 in this hearing, are affected by a number of other 23 factors that have got nothing much to do with what 24 we're talking about here. And trying to decipher 25 those can sometimes be very complicated. 00447 1 Ultimately, we want to know what the 2 baseline is. We may not be able to trace all of 3 the things that cause it very clearly and we're 4 not obligated to trying and assess the 5 responsibility of action "A" versus action "B" in 6 creating that baseline. Our job is to make sure 7 we've got a proper baseline. 8 I would say, secondly, that if you're 9 thinking of very simple examples, apart from the 10 diagrams. We can all think of someone standing in 11 some water. And if the existing situation is the 12 water is coming up to your waist, okay, that's 13 interesting. But if I add a few more feet of 14 water, maybe it doesn't get over my chin. Maybe I 15 hadn't created a threshold yet. But if I get to 16 the point where the project that I'm considering 17 adds enough more water, I will drown. That's a 18 very simple concept of threshold. And it means 19 that an inch may be very important under the right 20 circumstance. A foot may not matter under other 21 circumstances. Several feet may not matter under 22 other circumstances. 23 I think the whole point of this 24 exercise is to understand the context in which the 25 effect, the residual incremental effect of the 00448 1 project you are looking at works. If you get 2 enough water to go above my chin but you give me a 3 breathing apparatus so it doesn't matter, maybe 4 you've mitigated it, maybe you haven't. We can 5 debate that elsewhere. But the point is you have 6 to think of these things, I submit, and get down 7 to the core concepts that are underlying it. 8 That's the language. I think those 9 are the fundamentals that I wanted to emphasize. 10 I'd like to now just apply the words in two 11 contexts to complete what I want to talk about 12 that are relevant to this hearing. 13 When we're talking about assessment, 14 cumulative effects assessment of the Floodway 15 Expansion Project, we talked yesterday about 16 upstream water levels. And let's talk about them 17 under the context of what we call in our 18 assessment "operation active." Meaning there is 19 flooding and we're operating the floodway. And 20 what's the situation that we have to describe in 21 this environmental assessment. 22 The baseline is the world without the 23 project, the water levels upstream of the floodway 24 inlet. And the natural, in this case ironically, 25 is a defined term given the way in which the 00449 1 floodway operations are structured. There is a 2 thing created called a natural water level for 3 everybody to assess. 4 And the difference between those two 5 which exists without this new project is called 6 artificial flooding resulting from the existing 7 floodway, and probably a few other things as well. 8 But that's the evidence. And through time, at any 9 one level of operation of the floodway, you'll get 10 a certain level of artificial flooding upstream of 11 the inlet. And that is the effect of past 12 actions. 13 Introducing the Floodway Expansion 14 Project into this particular component of the 15 environment, in most situations that we were 16 considering, but not necessarily all situations, 17 has an effect. In some extreme situations, when 18 you get the flood of 1 in 700 years or more, it 19 probably has no effect. But in most of the 20 situations we were thinking about and talking 21 about yesterday, the floodway expansion has some 22 effect. And to the extent it has any effect, it 23 is to reduce the level of flooding upstream to 24 reduce the artificial flooding upstream. That is 25 the evidence. 00450 1 From the point of view of an 2 environmental assessment, the residual effect of 3 this project in this particular part of the 4 environment on this particular component of the 5 environment is the reduction in flooding that 6 would have otherwise occurred. It is therefore a 7 positive effect, not an adverse effect, and would 8 not lead us to pursue further even the discussion 9 of cumulative adverse effects and their 10 significance. 11 The fundamental perspective underlying 12 all of our thinking is that concept is diagrammed 13 there. I think the issue from many people's 14 points of view is concern over the effects of the 15 past project and the extent to which they would 16 like to see it mitigated more by other actions or 17 whatever or they have other concerns to do with 18 the past actions. This project, though, has that 19 effect, that residual effect on that component of 20 the environment and it is not adverse. And its 21 impact, its effect by any standard that we can use 22 is an improvement relative to what was there 23 before. 24 The situation that was there before 25 may well have exceeded a threshold from many 00451 1 people's perspective. It may still exceed a 2 threshold as a result of the floodway expansion. 3 Floodway expansion may not have brought it back to 4 an acceptable level from some people's points of 5 view. But our issue is what's the residual effect 6 of this project, it's incremental effect on that 7 environmental component, and it is positive by any 8 use of the language. 9 I won't deal with Winnipeg because 10 it's I think understood but let's deal with 11 downstream under the same concept. The evidence 12 we were talking about yesterday here shows the 13 situation downstream of the floodway. 14 The baseline that we start from 15 without any new project, the evidence is that that 16 baseline is lower than what would have existed in 17 nature. That reflects the effects of other 18 actions in the past. 19 The effect of past actions. The 20 floodway I'm told doesn't really have much effect 21 in this situation but the Portage Diversion, the 22 Shellmouth Controls have had a significant effect 23 in the past. So the baseline there is lower than 24 it would have been under these operation active 25 conditions, flood conditions, than the natural. 00452 1 What is the impact or the effect of 2 introducing the Floodway Expansion Project into 3 this particular environment? Again, the evidence 4 is that under a broad set of circumstances into 5 varying degrees, the floodway expansion will 6 generally, under major floods, increase, to some 7 extent, the water levels downstream of the inlet 8 for certain distances. This residual effect, 9 after mitigation, is assessed all the way through 10 the environmental assessment because it is 11 adverse. It does flow from the project and 12 therefore it needs to be assessed on each 13 component of the environment and including any 14 cumulative issues of the past. But in this 15 diagram, looking at this particular element of the 16 situation, the past actions were generally 17 positive by most people's standards. This action, 18 this new project is reversing or acting against 19 those past actions. 20 The point of the final conclusions 21 that we reach is having assessed it, we don't find 22 the effects of that change to be significant. It 23 is adverse but we don't find it to be significant. 24 And the key elements of that I leave to the 25 evidence to discuss as to why we find that. But 00453 1 in a particular case of the effects on the people 2 and their property, the commitment of the 3 proponent is to mitigate the effect through 4 sandbagging. And if that mitigation is 5 inadequate, to compensate even though this is not 6 artificial flooding and would not be eligible for 7 compensation under the existing legislation. 8 So this is a situation where even 9 though we haven't gone above natural and we will 10 not, I advise, go above natural under any floodway 11 conditions that are being assessed, this effect is 12 still deemed to be adverse and needs to be 13 assessed throughout the assessment. 14 Mr. Chairman, I'm finished what I was 15 going to present. Before we go to the next step 16 which is an example of the groundwater area, just 17 to help do two things, give an example but also 18 get clarity on the groundwater, we can have some 19 questions if you want. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to take 21 this down in the next explanation? 22 MR. C. OSLER: I was going to take 23 this down in the next explanation, yes. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask a couple of 25 questions. First of all, let me say that I found 00454 1 your explanation to be very helpful. I think it 2 met what I believe to be cumulative effects 3 assessment. I think maybe you guys need to hire a 4 writer. Maybe you're just too expert and you're 5 putting material forward at an expert level when 6 we're dealing with public hearings and, you know, 7 we're somewhat lay people. 8 And that was also confused somewhat by 9 some statements, particularly by Mr. Gilroy 10 publicly and in his letter of December 20th. If 11 you read the letters carefully, you can see what 12 he is saying but if you don't read it carefully, 13 and many of us don't read things thoroughly, the 14 implication was, was that past effects are not 15 under consideration at all. I mean you have just 16 said that, you know, if you did your cumulative 17 assessment in this manner, then I for one, and I 18 can't speak for my colleagues or the consultants 19 behind me, but I am more satisfied than I was 20 yesterday. 21 I mean yesterday, in answer to some of 22 our questions, we got the impression, or I got the 23 impression anyway, that again we were just dealing 24 with incremental and that you weren't even 25 considering the past effects. 00455 1 Last night, as I was thinking over 2 this a bit and talking with some of my colleagues, 3 this thought came to me that, you know, you could 4 have an insignificant past effect coupled with an 5 insignificant current effect that together would 6 be a significant effect. But the way it was 7 presented to us yesterday or at least the way I 8 received it yesterday, by defining the incremental 9 effect as insignificant, you were dismissing the 10 fact that it could combine with another 11 insignificant effect to be a significant one -- if 12 that's not too confusing. 13 So let me go to a question that's 14 related to a bigger picture, not specifically to 15 cumulative effects assessment. But this blue 16 part, the floodway expansion or the project effect 17 residual, this will be caused by operation of the 18 floodway? Am I correct? 19 MR. C. OSLER: This particular effect 20 that we're looking at in this diagram is an 21 operation effect that comes from working the 22 floodway expansion in a flood event. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: And that's artificial 24 flooding. 25 MR. C. OSLER: No. In this particular 00456 1 diagram, sir, we're looking at the downstream 2 water levels. We can go back. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: But it would be 4 artificial flooding downstream. 5 MR. C. OSLER: Well, let me just say 6 two things. One is -- 7 THE CHAIRMAN: It's still below 8 natural. 9 MR. C. OSLER: Yes, that's the point. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: But it's additional 11 water as a result of the operation of the 12 floodway. 13 MR. C. OSLER: It is incremental 14 flooding as a result of the Floodway Expansion 15 Project. But everybody in Manitoba who uses the 16 word "artificial flooding" would get upset with me 17 if I called it artificial flooding because that's 18 a defined term in their mind meaning flooding 19 effects that are above natural due to the 20 operation of the floodway. Do you understand? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I fully understand. 22 MR. C. OSLER: Okay. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rempel? 24 MR. REMPEL: Mr. McNeil would like to 25 explain the common use of the word "artificial 00457 1 flooding." 2 MR. MCNEIL: Well, what I was going to 3 do is just indicate in my words the definition of 4 artificial flooding which is in the Red River 5 Floodway Act and that's flooding above the state 6 of nature. And what we're showing in this diagram 7 is that the flooding caused by this project for 8 the 700 year flood downstream of Lockport is still 9 below the state of nature. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Just one moment. 11 Can you bring back that other slide? So you're 12 admitting -- well, maybe I shouldn't put words in 13 your mouth. The blue part on this slide, it 14 represents artificial flooding? 15 MR. C. OSLER: The distance between 16 the natural and the baseline, the arrow that 17 covers the effects of past actions is artificial 18 flooding as defined by the Floodway Acts. 19 Correct, Doug? 20 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: The, whatever colour 22 that is, grey or light green or something, is the 23 artificial flooding? 24 MR. C. OSLER: Yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: And the blue part is 00458 1 the residual effect. So in effect, you could draw 2 the blue thing differently and show a lower 3 artificial flooding? 4 MR. C. OSLER: What the effect of the 5 floodway expansion is to reduce the artificial 6 flooding upstream of the project under the flood 7 conditions that we're talking about. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: So the operation of the 9 project in certain flood scenarios would still 10 cause artificial flooding? 11 MR. C. OSLER: Definitely. 12 MR. MCNEIL: I'd like to add that 13 after floodway expansion, there will be artificial 14 flooding from the 120 year up to the 700 year. 15 With the existing floodway, artificial flooding 16 occurs for floods larger than the 90 year. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes. I fully 18 understand that. With the expanded floodway, 19 there will still be artificial flooding in certain 20 scenarios but at a lower rate? 21 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: So when you're seeking 23 a licence for operations, you are seeking a 24 licence that, in those scenarios, will allow for 25 artificial flooding? 00459 1 MR. C. OSLER: Yes is the point. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 3 MR. C. OSLER: Just if I could. The 4 reason why we wanted to do this is we could 5 appreciate yesterday that the language is 6 confusing and we hadn't done a good enough job. 7 I'm speaking for myself anyway. The problem that 8 seems to arise is the use of the word "effects" in 9 the language. And we have to always remember that 10 effect has to be of something on something. These 11 effects are all on the same thing but they come 12 from different things. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I realize that, you 14 know, and I've gone back to a number of these 15 documents a number of times over the last few days 16 and weeks. After my experience last spring when I 17 was still a relative newcomer, I went and checked 18 out the CEAA Practitioner's Guideline. And I put 19 a lot of effort into trying to understand this. 20 But a lot of the people in the public, and these 21 are public hearings and for their benefit, they 22 are having more difficulty than I am I assume. I 23 shouldn't put it that way. They haven't had the 24 opportunity to study up on it as much as I have, 25 to try to understand. 00460 1 MR. C. OSLER: And frankly, as a 2 practitioner, I accepted our job as to try and 3 explain it properly. And if we hadn't done it 4 yet, we'll keep trying. That's why we're here. 5 It's not just for the Commission but for anybody 6 else. We get into a language that we get used to 7 using. But I would admit that this language is 8 difficult even for the professionals as I said in 9 the other hearings. So we'll keep trying and we 10 actually appreciate the opportunity given to us to 11 do it better. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 13 Mr. Webster? 14 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, thank you. I 15 wanted to ask a further question on this 16 particular diagram. First of all, I wanted to say 17 also that I very much appreciated your clear 18 explanation today. This will be something we can 19 refer to in the course of our discussions over the 20 next days and hopefully not too many weeks. But 21 it will make life a lot easier, your having gone 22 to the trouble to put this together. So thank 23 you. 24 I wanted to come back to this 25 particular one because it seems to me in this 00461 1 particular diagram, in this one only, your 2 baseline is in fact determined by the way the 3 floodway is operated. It's not a property of the 4 new floodway. It's in fact the property of how 5 it's operated at a particular load, in other 6 words, under a particular set of conditions. You 7 would choose to operate it that way under I think 8 it's rule 2 conditions. Am I correct? 9 MR. C. OSLER: Yes. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And so in fact, I'm 11 going to now say to you that I'm not sure that I 12 understand why you put the baseline there. Is 13 that baseline in this case not a fixed baseline 14 but a moving baseline? 15 MR. C. OSLER: Okay. I have fun with 16 all my colleagues on the same level but I was 17 instructed to keep it simple and not to get into 18 the complexities. 19 You have to give me the latitude of 20 saying I'm trying to get the concept straight and 21 this is a real situation under rule 2. It doesn't 22 apply to the same degree in all circumstances 23 under rule 2. But when we have a flood of a 24 certain magnitude that gets us into rule 2 under 25 the -- and let's just ignore the engineering 00462 1 differences that rule 2 will kick in at a slightly 2 later point, okay. We've got a 1 in 150 year 3 flood or 1 in 200 year flood. So rule 2 will kick 4 in whether we use it in the existing floodway or 5 the expanded floodway. 6 In that situation, this diagram is 7 intended to explain the world and it says whatever 8 the world would have been without this new 9 project, the artificial flooding would be reduced 10 with this project. That is the evidence. 11 Now everybody can now debate what they 12 want to debate about that. As an environmental 13 assessment team, that's the information we are 14 given to work with and we are then asked to assess 15 it. And the only way we can assess it is that 16 that effect, relative to the world that existed 17 without the project is positive given the language 18 that we're asked to use. And it doesn't even 19 start into chain linked connections the assessment 20 of an adverse effect. It doesn't get past the 21 first step. 22 MR. WEBSTER: I think the reason for 23 pursuing this particular question was that my 24 understanding, and I suspect we'll be asking you 25 questions about this further, was that the 00463 1 objective was to operate the floodway now and with 2 the expanded floodway in such a way that 3 artificial flooding is minimized. And so rule 2 4 does take us into that kind of territory. But 5 artificial flooding, since it's such an 6 antagonistic situation for some people, it seems 7 only partially acceptable to put it under the 8 baseline rather than above it. And I think that 9 that, as I say, may be a subject for some further 10 discussion. But under the circumstances that you 11 have described it, I accept that that diagram 12 expresses what you're saying quite well. Thank 13 you. 14 MR. C. OSLER: Thank you. And I think 15 that that is the issue for many people in the 16 hearing, is the acceptability of that baseline. 17 But I do want to facilitate useful conversation 18 because our assessment treats it as the baseline 19 for the reasons I have given. Somebody would have 20 to modify the operation of the floodway in order 21 for us to look at a different set of possibilities 22 in the future. But that's the framework we were 23 given, that's the project we've been asked to 24 assess. 25 MR. WEBSTER: So please keep these 00464 1 slides handy. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler and 3 Mr. Rempel, and this won't be the final word on 4 it, but you have explained that this is what 5 cumulative effects means. Can you assure us that 6 this is what you have done throughout the 7 Environmental Impact Statement that's before us? 8 MR. C. OSLER: Yes, sir. Despite the 9 confusions of our way of expressing it, this is 10 what we've done to the best of our ability. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: And we'll be coming 12 back to that. 13 MR. REMPEL: Perhaps this is a good 14 time then to show you an example of how it was 15 applied in a particular instance that also touches 16 on some of the questions that Dr. Webster raised 17 about the Springhill groundwater aquifer. So 18 Dr. Morgan will take you through a few slides 19 here. 20 MR. MORGAN: Before I get too much 21 into this, I'm not sure if each of you have a copy 22 of the EIS because often when we're discussing the 23 groundwater section -- 24 THE CHAIRMAN: The EIS? 25 MR. MORGAN: Of the EIS, the main 00465 1 volume. Because often when we're discussing the 2 groundwater section, we might refer to something 3 which isn't in our slide but there's lots of 4 figures in that section on groundwater starting at 5 page 514. If you don't have a copy, we've made a 6 few extra copies just of that section. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this what -- 8 MR. MORGAN: That's it, okay. Yeah, 9 that's it. That's just from the EIS. It's not 10 new evidence in any way, just to be clear. 11 First off, I just wanted to give you a little 12 background on my role, and I'm on the 13 environmental assessment team, and Mr. Smith's 14 role, and he is on the engineering design team. 15 The engineering design team worked at, actually 16 started looking at the groundwater, as I said, 17 even before we got started it was known to be an 18 issue. And so they had started collecting data 19 and doing analysis, and they continued on doing 20 analysis and determining what the effects of an 21 expansion project will be, and they went through 22 some rounds where they looked at deepening, what 23 the effect would be, and we commented on that, you 24 know, with information from at what the public had 25 told us. And they kept working through 00466 1 iterations, and as we have found the iteration now 2 is there is no deepening. 3 So we've each had different roles. My 4 role is to take those -- he's got about six 5 reports in there -- was to review those reports. 6 And I have summarized it in the EIS, in those 15 7 pages, what the -- and I'll go through that a 8 little bit more after this, but I have summarized 9 it and I've made an assessment, as Mr. Cam Osler 10 said, on what is the effect and whether it's 11 likely and significant. That's our role. 12 But you may have questions, and they 13 are very good in terms of how are you going to do 14 this in more detail? Mr. Smith will be able to 15 answer those on the practicalities of the 16 engineering design or mitigation activity. So he 17 will be available here and he will answer some of 18 your questions that you might have. I know 19 Dr. Webster was interested in seeing some of the 20 details of what actually are you doing. 21 So in that sense, I just wanted to, 22 looking at the groundwater section in the EIS at 23 section 5.4, what we start out doing in the first 24 part is just describing how we are going to do the 25 assessment, what the baseline is. 00467 1 We talk about the existing environment 2 in section 5.4.3, and I'll show you a little bit 3 of that, next slide there. This map, 5.4.1 in the 4 EIS, is a plan view of -- you've got it in front 5 of you, it's a bit hard to read, but there's the 6 Red River here, the Assiniboine River there, 7 flowing up to Lockport here. This is the floodway 8 noted here. What these are is piezometric levels. 9 This is the elevation of the groundwater above sea 10 level, these circles here, and these blue arrows 11 is sort of the general direction of the flow of 12 the groundwater. This hill here is Birds Hill 13 Provincial Park, and it also is a hill in terms of 14 underground and the groundwater, it is a hill, 15 it's a recharge area. 16 What we've also put on here is some 17 cross section -- we wanted to see what this looks 18 like when you slice through here. This is the RM 19 of East St. Paul, St. Clements and Springfield is 20 in this region, so this is the area of interest. 21 Cross section BB is when we take a slice through 22 the aquifer and take a look at it. AA is a slice 23 through the aquifer more in the Winnipeg region, 24 BB is more in the region of the northern 25 municipalities. 00468 1 Next slide. This is section AA as it 2 slices sort of through Winnipeg. These are the 3 key attributes, is that there is a carbonate or 4 limestone aquifer overlaid by till and clay and 5 some silt. And the floodway is here and the Red 6 River is here. This is the general flow from the 7 east to the west towards the river. This is the 8 scale here, in terms of kilometres, and this is a 9 vertical scale in terms of feet above sea level. 10 Usually the vertical scale is larger, so we can 11 see the difference in elevations. 12 I just pause for a second because I 13 know those were two, three very busy diagrams, so 14 if you have any questions on that. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: At the top right, it 16 shows to be almost 900 feet above sea level. So 17 are we talking above ground here? 18 MR. MORGAN: No, this is way out east, 19 this is a scale 30 kilometres out. It's out, not 20 900 -- that is 900 feet above sea level and 21 that's -- 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Like the City of 23 Winnipeg is what, about 750? 24 MR. MORGAN: The City of Winnipeg is 25 down here. 00469 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this ground level or 2 below ground? Oh, this is surface level, okay. 3 MR. MORGAN: Surface level, yeah. 4 Next slide, this is the cross 5 section -- maybe go back to the first one just to 6 remind everybody here where this BB is, one more 7 back. BB is through Birds Hill Park here, the 8 floodway, and it's roughly generally through that, 9 this is not an exact slice, but generally what 10 happens in the northern regions. Go two slides 11 forward. 12 This is the Birds Hill. This dashed 13 line is the piezometric head. What that means is 14 it's the water level, but it's under pressure, so 15 it's the pressure head of the aquifer. So in some 16 places naturally it's flowing up. 17 These flow arrows here are sort of the 18 direction of the flow. The recharge comes onto 19 this unconfined aquifer, which means it's got no 20 till or clay on top of it. It flows down from the 21 sand and gravel into the bedrock or carbonate 22 aquifer. It flows under pressure up and into the 23 river. This water is flowing up through the 24 river. Some of it, since there is, since the 25 floodway, some of it does, as has been said 00470 1 earlier, goes into the floodway. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a natural flow 3 into the floodway or is it caused by excavation in 4 the '60s? I mean, this is natural underground 5 flow. 6 MR. MORGAN: The flow is that natural 7 underground, and Mr. Smith can add to the details 8 if you'd like here. When the floodway was built, 9 it did intercept some of the flow that's going 10 towards the river. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So it's just an 12 interception of natural flow. 13 MR. MORGAN: It's an interception. 14 One of the things I want to get clear here is this 15 is a continuously moving situation. Groundwater 16 is not like a bucket that you're tapping into and 17 removing something, it's flowing all the time, and 18 it's flowing towards a discharge point, which is 19 the Red River. Much of it still goes that way, 20 and at this point it's very, when you get into 21 places like Lister Rapids it does actually cut 22 across the bedrock, that's why there is the rapids 23 there, but some of it is intercepted. 24 Any more questions? 25 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I'd like to at this 00471 1 point ask you, in the planned construction of the 2 expanded floodway, just exactly what are you 3 planning to do at this point? Because this work 4 that you've shown us here has to do with what 5 happened in the past. 6 MR. MORGAN: Yes, that's exactly it. 7 When I was going through, and I've said it, when I 8 go through the EIS, this is baseline conditions. 9 And on top of this other things have happened too. 10 And currently -- if I get this wrong, I don't know 11 exactly where it is, East St. Paul, correct me -- 12 but on the east side of the floodway, East St. 13 Paul has municipal wells which they pump out of 14 the sand and gravel aquifer, and then through a 15 pipe run over to their municipality. So their 16 wells are in this region here east of the 17 floodway. So they are on -- this side of the flow 18 is where they do the interception for the 19 municipal wells, not on the downstream side but on 20 the upstream side of the natural flow. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you explain those 22 two dotted lines? One is a piezometer surface and 23 one is a water table. 24 MR. SMITH: There is two different 25 systems here, as Dave has indicated. The upper 00472 1 sand and gravel is a local recharge area where you 2 have rain and snow melt coming directly in. And 3 underneath it is a bedrock aquifer with the 4 recharges coming out at around St. Anne's and 5 further to the west. So what you see on those two 6 lines on top -- so the recharge is coming in here, 7 and this upper line represents the water level, if 8 you went and dug a hole in the ground or drilled a 9 well, that's where you would hit water in the sand 10 and gravel aquifer. If you drilled a deep hole 11 down into the bedrock, the water pressure in the 12 bedrock down here would only rise up to this 13 level. So you have a net downward gradient 14 between these two pressures, that's why that flow 15 is going down into the bedrock and in part flowing 16 outward towards the floodway and the Red River. 17 So this line here represents the 18 pressure down here, and the upper line represents 19 the pressure in the sand and gravel. 20 MR. WEBSTER: I'd like to just 21 continue with this. You have the floodway 22 incised, the vertical scale I realize is 23 exaggerated here, but you've incised the floodway 24 into the surficial clay of the area, and in some 25 cases you have cut through that into the till, and 00473 1 the till is still pretty fine material. 2 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 3 MR. WEBSTER: Does the old floodway 4 cut anywhere into the sand and gravel aquifer? 5 MR. SMITH: Yes. The till, as you 6 indicated, is mainly a silt, clay content, but 7 there's a local zone where this deposit is a 8 glacial deposit and it's called a Kame Esker 9 complex, but basically there is a tail on it that 10 locally extends right across where the floodway 11 was constructed. And that occurs just near 12 Highway 59 bridge. Maybe if we can go into the 13 next slide. 14 MR. MORGAN: Actually, this leads to 15 your next question about what is being done at 16 those points. 17 MR. SMITH: Maybe go back to the first 18 slide. Yes. So the section is taken here -- 19 MR. MORGAN: Excuse me, just for the 20 record, this is the regional groundwater map 21 slide. 22 MR. SMITH: So the section that you 23 looked at was right here. There is a local tail. 24 I'm just trying to see where that Highway 59 25 crosses. It's near the Springhill ski. So right 00474 1 there you see that bulge in the contours to the 2 west. And that area, the sand and gravel, locally 3 there's a lens or a deposit that extends a little 4 further west. And at that point the floodway when 5 it was constructed intercepted that granular zone. 6 And in fact, in the '60s when they did that, they 7 removed or mined out that material for the most 8 part, but that's where you had the 9 interconnection. 10 MR. WEBSTER: My understanding, if I 11 understand this correctly, is that that is the 12 place where there was basically a leak created in 13 the aquifer which caused the drawdown of the area 14 to the east. Am I correct? Is that a simple and 15 more or less accurate way of describing the 16 problem? 17 MR. SMITH: Well, actually that's 18 where they constructed a clay plug along either 19 side of the floodway across that zone that 20 intersected the granular. So there was actually 21 no leak, other than what had naturally been 22 occurring prior to the floodway construction. So 23 there is some seepage that still passes beneath 24 the floodway through the bedrock and in the base 25 granular, but the estimate is that the flow 00475 1 through there was comparable to what had been 2 occurring naturally. 3 MR. WEBSTER: So the flow occurs all 4 of the time through these various layers to 5 varying degrees and at various rates, but when you 6 cut across, when the original floodway cut across 7 that particular finger from the deposit, from the 8 sand and gravel deposit, is that what caused 9 essentially a catastrophic lowering of the water 10 table to the east of the area, which caused the 11 wells have to be re-established? 12 MR. SMITH: Are you referring to the 13 20-foot drop all along the floodway? No, that's 14 something that occurred over the period of a 15 couple of years, and that's really the bedrock 16 discharging up through the till. It's a separate 17 aquifer system. 18 MR. WEBSTER: Because that starts to 19 answer the question that I was heading for 20 yesterday, and that was, if it's possible to put a 21 barrier in at the site of the finger of the sand 22 and gravel coming across the floodway, is it 23 possible, in fact, in reconstructing the floodway, 24 to remediate the problem that occurred with the 25 lowering of the general water table east of the 00476 1 floodway in the course of constructing the new 2 floodway? 3 MR. SMITH: The simple answer would be 4 no, not practical. 5 MR. WEBSTER: That is where I was 6 heading with my questions, because it seems to me 7 that needs to be carefully explained and 8 understood. You're talking about then the passage 9 of water through till into the floodway that was 10 made easier by the floodway being built in the 11 first place, it facilitated that seepage, it 12 accelerated something that was natural in the 13 first place; is that what you're telling us? 14 MR. SMITH: That's correct, the flow 15 was occurring naturally to the west. 16 MR. WEBSTER: And the only way of 17 preventing that would be to line the entire 18 floodway from -- I'm not quite sure where from and 19 to -- but it would be to line the entire floodway, 20 for instance, with concrete so there was no 21 opportunity for leakage. Perhaps I'm not 22 proposing a practical -- 23 MR. SMITH: That's correct. But it's 24 not practical to line the channel, because if you 25 had that 20-foot of head pressure on the underside 00477 1 of it, it would just blow it off. 2 MR. WEBSTER: Those are important 3 things I think for us to understand. 4 MR. SMITH: And the other part of that 5 is that the flow in the bedrock aquifer coming 6 from the east, the total flow that we see on those 7 arrows is still there, until it gets to the 8 floodway and you lose some discharge. Even though 9 the piezometric head is dropped, the flow recharge 10 volumes are the same. 11 MR. WEBSTER: In the context of the 12 discussion we had first of all with the diagrams 13 that helped explain cumulative effects and so 14 forth, then where we're going with this is that 15 the construction of the expanded floodway cannot 16 in fact give you an effect that is better than 17 what was there when the original floodway was 18 constructed. In fact, you're stuck with the 19 effect of losing that groundwater through that 20 system. Am I correct? 21 MR. MORGAN: That's the baseline that 22 we have. But a baseline includes not only the 23 effect of the groundwater, but we also now have 24 the East St. Paul wells that were put in, in the 25 1990s as part of the baseline. That's all part of 00478 1 the baseline where we are. 2 MR. WEBSTER: The point I guess I was 3 raising was whether in fact the construction of 4 the expanded floodway could have any kind of a 5 counter effect on that particular loss of 6 groundwater, and from what you've explained, it 7 cannot. Am I correct? 8 MR. MORGAN: The project that we 9 assessed, it does not change the baseline, no. 10 MR. WEBSTER: Nor could it? Do you 11 see what I am getting at? 12 MR. MORGAN: I'm not sure what you 13 mean. 14 MR. WEBSTER: I'm talking about 15 whether in fact it's possible -- 16 MR. MORGAN: Practically, you are 17 asking Mr. Smith, is it a practical design 18 consideration to line it. 19 MR. WEBSTER: This is a key point to 20 anybody who lives in that area and is worried 21 about the groundwater resource, as to whether in 22 fact in expanding the floodway, whether in fact 23 you can fix the problem or whether you are going 24 to make it worse. And it seems to me it's really 25 quite important to understand the practicalities 00479 1 of what you're going to do, and what you have 2 decided to do, what in fact is practical for you 3 to do and what you can't do. 4 MR. SMITH: There are some things that 5 we're looking at doing to improve, but as you 6 said, you can't recover the 20-foot of head there. 7 It's not practical. 8 MR. MORGAN: I'm not sure -- you 9 talked about remediation, which has been discussed 10 but outside the project, Mr. McNeil might be able 11 to talk about what the government -- 12 MR. WEBSTER: The whole point was, you 13 put a barrier across the thing at one place, and 14 that's the sand and gravel aquifer that you put 15 across, and I visualized incorrectly that in fact 16 it was a similar situation further along. You 17 have explained it now that in fact it's a till 18 system that you put it through, and you can't put 19 a barrier there with any practicality. In fact, 20 in putting the barrier, in fact you put a till 21 barrier in there, is that correct? It's till and 22 clay? 23 MR. MORGAN: Well, we'll go through 24 that, we have more slides. That was getting to 25 your question yesterday. 00480 1 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 2 MR. MORGAN: We felt it was useful to 3 do two things here. One was to show that a lot of 4 this background information and the baseline, as 5 described by Mr. Osler, that stuff is described in 6 each section of the EIS, and in groundwater it is 7 described, this is the baseline condition. Then 8 we went to looking at what are the potential 9 effects of the project? How are they mitigated? 10 When they are mitigated, is the residual adverse 11 effect significant? That's what our role was. So 12 we can go through this and you can look at it in 13 terms of the EIS, you can ask more detailed 14 questions in terms of practicalities of 15 engineering design. 16 MR. WEBSTER: What I am interested in 17 your doing is telling us in fact how you are going 18 to construct the floodway through that area. 19 MR. MORGAN: Yes. Next slide. So 20 just go back one more here, just to say, so what 21 we show here is not quite exactly the same area, 22 but we focus in on this area here right by the 23 floodway, how are we going to construct that, what 24 are the potential effects, how are these effects 25 mitigated so there's no residual adverse effect? 00481 1 So that's the next one. 2 Okay, this a cross section in detail 3 of the existing floodway. This is the groundwater 4 surface or piezometric head, I think, but it is 5 the unconfined aquifer at this stage. This area 6 in here is a silty till, and because it's got a 7 low permeability, it keeps the elevation of the 8 groundwater at a higher level to the east side of 9 the floodway than on the west side. 10 Now, the construction in this Oasis 11 Road region here is to widen the floodway only in 12 this area. And go to the next slide. This cross 13 section is located at Oasis Road and the East St. 14 Paul -- just go back one more. This is a 15 sensitive area and it was looked at in the EIS, 16 it's looked at in the engineering report -- what 17 was the engineering report letter? They will look 18 it up. It's in section 5.4, and these diagrams 19 are 5.4-7. So the horizontal distance is on the 20 bottom here and the vertical in metric is on this 21 side here. 22 So looking at the detail when they are 23 widening here, there's potential -- the next 24 slide -- to cut into this silty till which is a 25 permeable barrier. If this was done without 00482 1 remediation, there would be a drop of water, and 2 the modelers, KGS, determined from a calibrated 3 model that this would be about a 2.6 metre effect 4 right at the floodway. However, with groundwater 5 it is like a flowing surface, it flows slowly but 6 it is flowing like a river. As you go back the 7 effect tapers off. And at the floodway 8 right-of-way, that's right here, the effect is 0.5 9 metres. 10 Now, as stated earlier in terms of 11 examples of cumulative effects, we know that there 12 was significant effects from the existing 13 floodway. We know from -- we listened to the 14 people, that the groundwater is a very important 15 issue, the wells are right here, this was not an 16 acceptable effect. Therefore, mitigation would be 17 required. That is the next slide. 18 A mitigation measure could be a clay 19 cutoff wall. Now, clay would be even a higher, 20 more highly impermeable material than silt. This 21 is actually -- remember, the horizontal scale and 22 the vertical, the vertical is very distorted, so 23 this is much wider than, much wider than shown 24 here. And this would raise the water level back 25 up to the existing situation. So with the cutoff 00483 1 wall there's no effect. So in our assessment the 2 mitigation to reduce residual effects is 3 insignificant. 4 So you can ask actually -- there is a 5 lot of engineering detail, and maybe Mr. Smith can 6 expand upon that. In appendix P and Q, two 7 reports talk about the details of this mitigation 8 and the analysis. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: And this cutoff wall 10 won't get blown out? 11 MR. MORGAN: It's not expected to, no, 12 it's going to be engineered and designed. 13 MR. SMITH: The cutoff wall would be 14 at least the machine width, 10, possibly 20 feet 15 in width, but we'll ensure that it's stable so 16 there won't be any problem with seepage blowouts. 17 MR. WEBSTER: Have you some further 18 diagrams of the construction that you are planning 19 to do that you could show us? 20 MR. MORGAN: No, this is the detail we 21 have up there, no further diagrams. 22 MR. SMITH: I could add that we have 23 done some follow-up investigations at that site 24 and it was submitted as a supplementary report to 25 the preliminary engineering report. And that 00484 1 shows the drill holes along that line. The cutoff 2 wall we are anticipating will be in the order of 3 300 metres in length, which is about half of the 4 total length of the excavation on that side of the 5 floodway in that area. And from the drilling that 6 we have completed, we anticipate that beyond that 7 point we would not intercept the granular zone. 8 And that of course is subject to, during 9 construction we'll refine the detail if necessary. 10 MR. WEBSTER: I know you do have 11 diagrams of the actual channel construction, and I 12 think it would be prudent at this point for you to 13 show us what the horizontal -- this is basically a 14 profile of the area. How about showing us a plan 15 of what it looks like so we can visualize what 16 this means in terms of the channel? Because the 17 channel at this point -- 18 MR. MORGAN: We'd have to look at the 19 engineering reports to extract that drawing. I 20 don't have that in a PowerPoint right now. We'll 21 call it up. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. What I'm 23 looking for is clarity in the understanding as to 24 what you're planning to do. You've thrown great 25 illumination on what your plans are here by going 00485 1 through this trouble today. 2 MR. MORGAN: It's no trouble. 3 MR. WEBSTER: I appreciate it. 4 MR. MORGAN: It was an opportunity you 5 gave us to clarify the issues. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: While you're doing that 7 I might ask a question, it would be a cumulative 8 effects question I guess. In respect of this 9 groundwater in this area, did you consider the 10 effects of future development in the area, 11 particularly east of the floodway? We know that 12 East St. Paul is one of the most rapidly growing 13 municipalities in the province. Just not too far 14 away over the border, Springfield is growing 15 fairly quickly as well. Did you look at the 16 effects of that development and taking more 17 groundwater, what effect that might have on 18 long-term groundwater? 19 MR. MORGAN: The effects of future 20 projects were considered, which is why we wanted 21 no project effect. We have no effect from the 22 project by mitigating, so we're not adding to 23 anything that could happen in the future. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler. 25 MR. OSLER: From the point of view of 00486 1 what I was talking about, let me put it this way. 2 We want to use this as an example really in the 3 context of cumulative effects, more than a 4 detailed discussion of the engineering of the 5 groundwater issue, although we thought it might 6 help set the stage for questions you may have on 7 that as well. But we took seriously the problem 8 and therefore mitigated it so that there would be 9 no effect. That's the essence of the diagram. 10 Given that there's no effect, we don't 11 get past step one in my second slide. So although 12 they put their mind to the issue that there is 13 increasing pressure on the ground water in this 14 area, they did not study it in great detail. If 15 they are asked, I'm sure they would give 16 gratuitous comment as to the nature of the issues 17 from the point of view of what they have learned, 18 and I gather our technical team fully supports the 19 idea of the regional study as the way to grapple 20 with this. 21 In my opinion, from my end of it, 22 which is to make sure we're doing the cumulative 23 effects assessment consistently, we did it 24 consistently. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 00487 1 MR. REMPEL: That concludes our 2 preliminary presentation, so we now go back to you 3 for cross-examination. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. 5 MR. REMPEL: Oh, we will have the 6 drawing. Mr. McNeil advises me the drawing is 7 about to appear. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll wait 9 another few moments then. 10 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, while 11 we're just waiting, can I enter the Cumulative 12 Effects Practitioners Guide as Exhibit number 41. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 14 (EXHIBIT 41: Cumulative Effects 15 Practitioners Guide) 16 MR. REMPEL: We have the figure now, 17 Mr. Chair. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 MR. SMITH: This is a drawing of the 20 investigations we did this past fall when we 21 realized that there was a concern. And just to 22 orientate you, this is the Highway 59 north bridge 23 across here. This area is the ski hill, or it's 24 called Springhill ski hill. And just for you to 25 appreciate this scale bar here, that's 250 metres. 00488 1 And so the area that we're talking about -- first 2 maybe just so you understand the geology a little 3 built, right here is actually a big pit, an active 4 pit where the sand and gravel has been removed, 5 but the extension of that went across the floodway 6 right up into this other area where there is 7 another pit here. So this area in here was 8 originally what we referred to as that extension 9 of the Birds Hill aquifer which goes way beyond 10 us, naturally occurring across here. And when the 11 floodway was excavated there was construction on 12 either side to put in a clay till plug, if you 13 will, and prevent the groundwater from just 14 draining straight into the floodway. 15 Now when we're widening, this is a 16 very complicated area, and the drawing you may 17 find is pretty busy too, but essentially what the 18 issue is here is we have transmission line 19 crossings, the existing ski hill, and various 20 other complications. So the solution was 21 ultimately to excavate the channel only on the one 22 side in this area. So this is the zone that we're 23 talking about, from here up to here. It's about 24 600 metres in length, give or take, and about 60 25 metres of excavation back from the existing slope 00489 1 of the channel. So this, sort of the whiter flat 2 area here is the centre of the channel, these are 3 the existing slide slopes at a slope of three to 4 one. So we're going to move that back by 60 5 metres essentially. 6 When we move it back the concern is 7 that right along the Oasis Road here is where the 8 domestic wells are located, and the concern -- 9 sorry, the municipal wells for the RM of East St. 10 Paul, there's four that are in the sand and 11 gravel -- and the concern was that if we lowered 12 the water table in those wells, they are already 13 probably over pumping the aquifer in that area. 14 They don't have any room for further drawdown. So 15 we wanted to ensure we did not impact those wells. 16 And that's why in this section along here, when we 17 did our drilling we have established that that 18 granular extension could come across roughly half 19 of this area. This zone is for the most part 20 till. So, the cutoff that we are proposing would 21 be along here and it would be inside the limit of 22 the extended floodway, and so with a clay plug 23 built up the slope and then a granular outer face 24 placed over top of it to meet this final slope 25 here. 00490 1 MR. WEBSTER: So if I read that 2 diagram correctly, then that more or less vertical 3 line there marks the position of the barrier? 4 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 5 MR. WEBSTER: And the edge of the 6 floodway, as it is planned to be, is further west. 7 It is the solid dark line that extends around the 8 ski hill and then up under the bridge; is that 9 correct? 10 MR. SMITH: The toe of the expanded 11 floodway would be here, and it would come back 12 into the existing toe along this area, and that's 13 where the ski hill is. 14 MR. WEBSTER: And at the ski hill 15 you'd excavate only on the west side? 16 MR. SMITH: That's correct, and we'd 17 switch over and then here -- 18 MR. WEBSTER: And then swing back 19 again? 20 MR. SMITH: Yes. 21 MR. WEBSTER: But the barrier is set 22 back by a couple of hundred metres from the lip of 23 the ditch? 24 MR. SMITH: You mean the cutoff? 25 MR. WEBSTER: Yeah. 00491 1 MR. SMITH: Yes. With slope here -- 2 well, this would only be about, it's a three to 3 one slope, so if it was say a 20-foot deep cut, 4 you'd be 60 feet back, and then another to the top 5 of the slope, and then have a granular cover and 6 then another 10 or 20 feet of the clay plug. 7 MR. WEBSTER: So effectively what that 8 will look like, as you make that barrier, is you 9 will, am I correct, dig a 20-foot wide trench and 10 then put clay backfill into that area? 11 MR. SMITH: Well -- 12 MR. WEBSTER: Is that how it's done? 13 MR. SMITH: That's one possible way. 14 In fact, we could even go with just a trench of 15 that nature. It may be more practical to just 16 over excavate and replace clay with that. And in 17 that event, what we would anticipate is putting in 18 some temporary wells to the east of that zone to 19 intercept the water and pump it into the municipal 20 system, so that they are not impacted during 21 construction. 22 MR. WEBSTER: All I'm trying to do is 23 visualize what you're planning to do there so that 24 it's clear what that barrier constitutes, what 25 it's going to look like. 00492 1 MR. SMITH: I think the plan at this 2 time is to over excavate in that area and place 3 clay with conventional packer equipment. 4 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, so that effectively 5 will be a limited plug and it effectively blocks 6 the toe of that sand and gravel aquifer so that 7 where the floodway cuts across it, it doesn't in 8 fact represent an opening. 9 MR. SMITH: Yes, that's correct. 10 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith, just for the 12 record, the reason you're not cutting on the west 13 side of the floodway is because of transmission 14 towers or hydro towers? 15 MR. SMITH: Yes, that's correct. 16 There's a crossing here which is a major 17 transmission line that exports to the United 18 States, and if we -- just to move those towers, 19 the price that we had been given is a dollar 20 figure in the order of $10 million to interrupt 21 that line. So that is why we had taken all 22 efforts to try and avoid this particular, these 23 towers here. There is another tower closer in on 24 a smaller line that we will look at relocating. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 00493 1 MR. SMITH: Just one last thing. I'll 2 give the figure number here that's up on the 3 board. It's out of the Springhill Oasis Road 4 supplemental report, and it's drawing 251G010C. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are we done on 6 all of this business? 7 Thank you for all of this explanation 8 this afternoon, it's helped a lot. 9 Getting back to the cross-examination 10 that we were conducting yesterday, I'm going to 11 address a number of issues today on hydraulic 12 matters, and I've got them separated into about 13 four or five or six different areas. I'm going to 14 go through each one separately, and I'll ask the 15 lead questions, and then if either of my 16 colleagues or our legal counsel has further 17 questions, they will do that before I move on to 18 the next one. 19 The first thing I'd like to address is 20 impact of operations on upstream water levels, and 21 just by way of background, I'd like to ask a few 22 questions about what happened during the 1997 23 flood. 24 I would like to know how you'd 25 determine what natural water levels would have 00494 1 occurred if there had been no floodway in 1997. 2 Is it correct that you'd compute the natural flow 3 in the Assiniboine River assuming no Shellmouth 4 Dam and no Portage Diversion? 5 MR. REMPEL: Mr. McNeil will answer 6 these questions. 7 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, it sounds like 8 you might be getting into a series of operational 9 questions. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 11 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Bowering from 12 Manitoba Water Stewardship represents the 13 operator, and because he's present here today, he 14 has agreed to answer these, and he would be the 15 best person to answer these. He hasn't been 16 introduced to the panel yet. And also, because he 17 broke his ankle, unfortunately this past weekend, 18 he's not so mobile. We were wondering if he would 19 be able to answer these questions from the front 20 row? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, certainly. 22 Mr. Bowering, we'll have our commission secretary 23 swear you in. 24 (RICK BOWERING: SWORN) 25 THE CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Bowering, I 00495 1 have a number of questions in respect of what 2 happened during 1997. And the first one was, I am 3 trying to determine how we, or how you determined 4 natural water levels without the floodway. So my 5 first question was in respect of the natural flow 6 on the Assiniboine River, you compute that 7 assuming no Shellmouth Dam and no Portage 8 Diversion? 9 MR. BOWERING: That is correct. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: So then we add in the 11 flow in the Red River. You compute the natural 12 levels in the Red and in Winnipeg assuming no 13 floodway? 14 MR. BOWERING: That's correct. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: So this gets a bit 16 complicated as you need to sort of accurately know 17 the flows in both systems and resulting water 18 levels? 19 MR. BOWERING: Correct. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: So in 1997, what was 21 the magnitude of the artificial flooding upstream? 22 MR. BOWERING: Based on the study that 23 we commissioned from Acres, which was completed in 24 2004, they compute the magnitude of the artificial 25 flooding was 2.2 feet at the floodway inlet. 00496 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, yesterday, and I'm 2 not sure if you were here yesterday, but the 3 Floodway Authority put some diagrams up on the 4 screen that showed that at a one in 90 year flood, 5 there would be no artificial flooding I think at 6 the rule 1 stage. 7 MR. BOWERING: Correct. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: 1997 was only slightly 9 higher than a one in 90 year. 10 MR. BOWERING: That's correct, it was 11 somewhat higher but it wasn't a lot higher. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: So there should -- the 13 way I looked at that diagram, and I have a copy of 14 it in front of me, there should only have been a 15 very slight bit of artificial flooding in 1997; is 16 that correct? 17 MR. BOWERING: The situation is that 18 as flows continue to increase, while you are in 19 rule 1, as flows continue to increase, water 20 levels in the valley increase, flows going down 21 the floodway and flows going through the city all 22 increase together. But then once you -- if we 23 could have the one that shows -- well, that will 24 probably work, yeah. If I could have -- have you 25 got a light pointer? 00497 1 Once you reach the point where you 2 hold the flows -- as flows continue to increase, 3 once you reach the point where you hold the flows 4 in the river going into Winnipeg constant, then 5 where does the water go? Well, as the water 6 level -- the water level can then either go down 7 the floodway or store in the valley south of the 8 river. 9 So the thing that changes at that 10 point, and it's quite a critical change, is that 11 suddenly you don't allow any additional flow to go 12 into Winnipeg. So whereas up to that point flows 13 in Winnipeg were increasing as flows in the 14 floodway were increasing, as soon as you hold it 15 level, then that extra water has to go somewhere. 16 Well, it goes into the floodway by gravity and it 17 takes higher level for more water to get into the 18 floodway. 19 So at least in the short-term, as soon 20 as you shut off the flow, the increased flow going 21 into Winnipeg, the only place for that water to go 22 is to build up. And that's why on this curve you 23 see that you are following the line, rule 1 very 24 closely, but then you make a dramatic increase in 25 steepness of the line. And that is because once 00498 1 you are not allowing anymore to go down into the 2 city, then the water level starts increasing quite 3 rapidly just south of the city. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: That's when rule 2 5 kicks in? 6 MR. BOWERING: Yes. 7 MR. MCNEIL: Can I just interrupt? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 9 MR. MCNEIL: For the record, Rick 10 Bowering is referring to figure 5.3-3 of the EIS. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So in 1997 12 when this happened, when rule 2 kicked in, you 13 were aware that, you or provincial officials were 14 aware that there would be artificial flooding. 15 MR. BOWERING: We were aware there was 16 artificial flooding. The curves we were using at 17 that time were the curves that were developed when 18 the floodway was originally -- when the floodway 19 was originally built. Those curves were showing 20 just over one foot of artificial flooding, 21 1.1-foot of artificial flooding. And subsequently 22 those curves were questioned, and we eventually 23 came to recomputing the curves, and so now they 24 show 2.2 feet of artificial flooding for '97. But 25 at that point we thought we were between half a 00499 1 foot and one foot of artificial flooding. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: And am I correct in 3 that in 1997, because of these increased flows, 4 that there was a decision made to I guess change 5 rule 2. Wasn't it 25.5? 6 MR. BOWERING: Rule 1 as initially 7 written was for 25.5 at James Avenue would limit 8 the end of rule 1. The situation that happened 9 in -- now, as you say, the interaction with the 10 Assiniboine is a little bit complicated. The 11 situation in 1997 is that it was very high flows 12 on the Red and relatively low flows on the 13 Assiniboine. So that means the amount of flow 14 passing north of the confluence was almost all 15 coming from the Red, whereas normally, and the 16 design floods it was based on envisioned a higher 17 percentage coming from the Assiniboine. 18 The result of that meant just south of 19 the confluence, the amount coming in the Red was 20 higher than envisioned by the design. Higher flow 21 means a steeper water surface, so even though we 22 were at -- well, this is another graph that's just 23 prompted me along here -- even if we were at 24.5 24 at -- where is James Avenue, right about in here, 25 James Avenue is right about in here. The water 00500 1 surface elevation was at 24.5, and you see this is 2 the flood protection level which is basically the 3 top of the primary dykes, and so the desire is to 4 have 2 feet below that. 5 The trouble is, as you get towards the 6 south end of the city, the levels were already 7 above 25.5. So even though the rules say 24.5 at 8 James Avenue, there were some places at the south 9 end of the city where we were getting very close 10 to the top of the dykes. And the decision was 11 made that it just, it was just too risky to allow 12 water levels in Winnipeg to rise any higher. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: So we now have new 14 rules in place? 15 MR. BOWERING: Correct. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: And you have recomputed 17 the natural levels, et cetera. In future, can you 18 foresee any situation where you may again have to 19 change the rule curves arbitrarily during a flood 20 event? Again, I ask this question, it reflects 21 the concerns that we've heard from some of the 22 citizens south of the city. 23 MR. BOWERING: Correct. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: If we're going to have 25 artificial flooding, can we assure them as to how 00501 1 high it will be? 2 MR. BOWERING: Our objective is to 3 follow those operating rules rigorously, that is 4 our plan. 5 Let me just kind of lay out the basic 6 principle that we see -- that was behind the 7 operation -- the design of the floodway and our 8 current operation of the floodway. The basic 9 principle, the first overriding principle is to 10 protect Winnipeg from catastrophic flooding. That 11 is why it was built. That remains the first 12 principle. 13 The second principle is, while you do 14 that, don't aggravate flooding anywhere else. 15 Therefore, no artificial flooding is the second 16 principle. And as much as possible, 99 years out 17 of a hundred, we can meet both of those 18 principles. We can prevent catastrophic flooding 19 in the City of Winnipeg without causing 20 catastrophic flooding. 21 However, that is when rule 2 comes in. 22 If you do get a point where in order to continue 23 to allow flow to go into Winnipeg, it risks 24 catastrophic flooding in Winnipeg, then rule 2 25 says in that situation you do not let any more 00502 1 water go into Winnipeg because the primary 2 objective is to prevent flooding, extensive 3 flooding in Winnipeg. And therefore, you then 4 break that second principle, and if you have to 5 make a choice between the two, then you allow 6 flooding south of Winnipeg, artificial flooding 7 south of Winnipeg rather than cause catastrophic 8 flooding in Winnipeg. 9 Now, given that preamble, I really 10 can't think of a situation now that we have really 11 carefully and rigorously reviewed the operating 12 rules. I really can't think of a situation where 13 you would violate them, unless while a flood was 14 developing some emergency happened in the City of 15 Winnipeg. Say a dyke in Norwood somehow started 16 leaking or something, and the city says if you 17 could give us two days of constant water level 18 while we fix that dyke, then we'd be able to 19 protect a whole area of the city. Again, as 20 engineers, we would have to make a decision in 21 light of those two principles of what is the -- of 22 what is the likely thing. 23 The chances of that, though, are very 24 slim. We have a dyking commissioner whose job is 25 to make sure those dykes are maintained in good 00503 1 condition, and he reports every year on the 2 condition of the dykes. So the chances of that 3 are very remote. So I would say we operate 4 according to those rules very rigorously. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 MR. MOTHERAL: Just as a 7 clarification, would that be a decision of 8 engineers or the minister? 9 MR. BOWERING: For an important 10 decision like that, we surely would consult with 11 the minister, but the situation in 1997, it was 12 basically -- it was basically the decision of the 13 Director of Water Branch in consultation, but it 14 really was not a political decision. He really 15 said, well, do what is the right thing. We had to 16 convince him that we thought it was the right 17 thing. 18 MR. MOTHERAL: I guess if I could 19 rephrase it, it would be the minister's decision 20 under the advisement of the engineers? 21 MR. BOWERING: That's correct. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I'm somewhat 23 repeating what you just said. So if the city 24 maintains or upgrades its primary dykes, then with 25 a flood event similar to 1997 there would be no 00504 1 artificial flooding? 2 MR. BOWERING: That is correct. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 4 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, Doug McNeil, 5 let me just clarify -- with an expanded floodway. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes. Okay, thank 7 you. Good point. 8 Can you just describe what 9 improvements there had been in flow forecasting 10 since 1997 that would help this whole situation? 11 MR. BOWERING: Since 1997 we have made 12 considerable effort at improving our data 13 networks. Forecasts really depend on accurate 14 data. And so we had quite a bit of trouble with 15 some of the water level gauges in the valley 16 because they were getting flooded out, and so they 17 have been raised and flood proofed, while we were 18 flood proofing the valley we were also flood 19 proofing the data gauges. We had also added some 20 gauges. So we have considered better data 21 networks to help us with future floods. 22 Another issue is that our forecasting 23 procedures were based on the data we had up to 24 that point, and of course we hadn't experienced 25 the 1997 flood. One of the rules of science is 00505 1 that as long as you are applying formulas within 2 the range of known data, you can have fairly good 3 confidence in them, but once you go beyond the 4 known data, your confidence becomes a little less 5 certain. So we have reworked our forecasting 6 procedures, we fine-tuned them based on the data 7 that we observed in 1997. So from an engineering 8 point of view, that was a very useful piece of 9 information. 10 Third, we have improved our 11 communication with the National Weather Service 12 who forecast in the United States. And they have, 13 because of all the problems -- they had more 14 problems in forecasting the U.S. portion that we 15 did -- they have done a major upgrading to their 16 forecasting procedures for the Red River in the 17 United States, a major increase. It's a much 18 better model now than they had back then. About 19 80 per cent of the flow coming in through Winnipeg 20 on the Red River comes from the U.S. portion of 21 the basin. So having accurate data from the U.S. 22 portion of the basin is very useful. 23 Then the other problem we ran into in 24 1997, even though relatively good forecasts 25 considering the problems that we had, we had 00506 1 pretty good forecasts. The forecasting system for 2 Manitoba were all for points along the river, 3 because up until 1997, flooding happened just 4 along the banks of the river. Of course, in 1997, 5 it got so wide, in some places it was 40 6 kilometres wide, so it became very difficult to 7 say, well, the forecast says that at Ste. Agathe 8 there is going to be so much level, what is it 9 going to be way over on the side? So we have 10 developed a much more complicated routing model, 11 the model is called MIKE-11, and it is a model 12 that allows us to tell water levels all over the 13 water, all over what we might call the Red Sea, 14 all over the flooded area. 15 Now, of course, that provides vast 16 amounts of data. It actually computes a level I 17 think every 15 seconds during the whole duration 18 of the flood, so it creates vast amounts of data. 19 And so in order to use this data, we have created 20 a website that local people can use where they can 21 find site specific forecasts. They can find site 22 specific historic levels for their area. Once we 23 are in a flood, we will be using this MIKE-11 24 model to provide forecasts on the web that people 25 can look to. So people will be able to get much 00507 1 more accurate site specific forecasts once we are 2 into the next major flood. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Is the MIKE-11 model 4 the best model? I'm told that there is another 5 model, 2D Telemac model; how would they compare? 6 MR. BOWERING: You know until about 10 7 years ago, only university researchers used 2D 8 models and not many people used one dimensional 9 models. Up until 10 years ago, the standard 10 method was using U.S. corp of engineers HEC 2 11 model, so the MIKE-11 model was quite an advance 12 from that. 13 Now, what the MIKE-11 model does is if 14 you tell it where the water is going to go, it 15 will compute very accurately what the water 16 surface profiles will be. The advantage of a two 17 dimensional model is you don't have to tell it 18 where it is going to go, you just have to give it 19 a valley and it will figure out for itself where 20 it is going to go. 21 So a two dimension model is a better 22 model than a one dimensional model. They are 23 quite a bit more difficult to use, take a lot more 24 computation time. And we are already in a 25 situation with the complexity of the model -- by 00508 1 the way, we are in the process of extending this 2 model all the way down to the south end of the Red 3 River, down in South Dakota, so it's a very large 4 complex model. And to do a two dimensional model 5 of that size probably in ten years will be 6 operationally feasible, at this point it's 7 probably not. And so the way that we have used 8 two dimensional models is to fine tune specific 9 questions in areas like the floodway inlet, where 10 complicated things happen and the model helps us 11 to zero in on exactly what's happening there. But 12 for operational purposes, we believe that the 13 MIKE-11 model is really the best model for the 14 job. 15 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I'd just like 16 to add, it's my understanding with the Telemac 2D 17 model it takes up to 48 hours for one run, and 18 that's just not practical when you are in the 19 midst of a flood, trying to forecast the water 20 levels; is that correct? 21 MR. BOWERING: Yes, that's the issue 22 I'm trying to get at. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you suggesting, 24 Mr. Bowering, that in ten years time it might be 25 better or more capable of doing it in a speedier 00509 1 manner? 2 MR. BOWERING: You know, the other 3 interesting thing we have found whenever we had 4 run the 2D model, we find that the MIKE-11 model 5 is very close to what the 2D model is giving us. 6 We really haven't run into a situation where the 7 2D model gives us any surprises. At this point we 8 are very confident with the results we are getting 9 from the MIKE-11 model. It could be -- you know, 10 technology changes so rapidly, it could be in 10 11 or 15 years another technology would be better. 12 At this point, though, I think the MIKE-11 model 13 is a very, very useful tool for our valley. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Backing up 15 a moment to the artificial flooding question. In 16 future, or the next time, and let's hope it's not 17 too soon, the next time we have a major flood that 18 does cause artificial flooding, how quickly after 19 the end of the flood will you be able to determine 20 how much artificial flooding there was? 21 MR. BOWERING: Well, we will know 22 right about at the time of artificial flooding 23 that we've gone into artificial flooding, 24 especially with these improved models, we will 25 know that probably before it happens. And so this 00510 1 website I'm talking about will be projecting into 2 the future artificial flooding. 3 Now, the reality of the situation, you 4 want to be pretty sure you're right before you 5 project that. But I suppose the straight answer 6 to your question is, under the new Red River 7 Floodway Act we are required to file a report by 8 June 30th of every year of exactly what happened 9 and whether we caused artificial flooding. And if 10 we did cause artificial flooding, we have to map 11 exactly where that is and how deep it happened. 12 So there will be a report published by 13 the 30th of June in any year in which we operate. 14 The reality of the situation, though, is as soon 15 as we go into artificial flooding, we will know 16 it. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: So officially, more or 18 less six weeks after the event? 19 MR. BOWERING: That's correct. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 21 Mr. Webster. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Thanks. We've been 23 talking about entering into artificial flooding 24 and the trigger point for that, and it's linked to 25 a water level down in the middle of Winnipeg at 00511 1 James Avenue. And you some minutes ago told us 2 that back in '97, you were in a situation where 3 the river was actually higher than the trigger 4 point in the south end of the city, which caused 5 you to have to go into artificial flooding where 6 you would normally not have had to do so. 7 My question is, should we be 8 recommending a different point for the measurement 9 of that trigger point, or should in fact we be 10 thinking in the City of Winnipeg about raising 11 dykes so that the trigger point that is there is a 12 practical one? Because if we have a situation 13 again, it may lead us into an embarrassing, or a 14 difficult situation where in fact the rules can't 15 be interpreted the way they are supposed to be. 16 MR. BOWERING: That's a good question. 17 The rules were reviewed after the 1997 flood, the 18 minister established the Red River Floodway 19 Operation Review Committee. I chaired that 20 committee. It had representation from the 21 federal/provincial government, and also had 22 representation from the 3 RMs most affected south 23 of Winnipeg, and also from the City of Winnipeg. 24 And they looked carefully at this issue. And in 25 actual fact, the rule that they recommended and 00512 1 which was adopted for -- if I could just look it 2 up here -- the rule that was adopted for rule 2 -- 3 I'm not finding the exact wording here, I'm just 4 sort of in the middle of my report. But the 5 concept is, it specifies James Avenue and also -- 6 or if it's within .6 metres or 2 feet of the flood 7 protection level anywhere along the river. 8 Because we had that problem in 1997 -- oh good, 9 they are in the EIS page 5-6, in chapter 5 of the 10 EIS. Furthermore -- oh, yes, here it is. It is 11 in operating rule 1. 12 "The floodway should be operated so as 13 to maintain natural water levels on 14 the Red River at the entrance to the 15 floodway channel..." 16 and here is the key, 17 "...until the water surface elevation 18 at James Avenue gauge reaches 19 24.5 feet." 20 This is the part we have always understood and 21 always talked about, 22 "... or the river level anywhere along 23 the Red River within the City of 24 Winnipeg reaches 2 feet below the 25 flood protection level of 27.8 feet." 00513 1 So we put both into cover both eventualities. 2 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, if I might, I 3 also sat on that committee when I was a 4 representative with the City of Winnipeg. I'd 5 like to give you some background so that you 6 understand why there was that change to the rule. 7 I'm just going to call up that diagram again. 8 This diagram is out of the Floodway Operation 9 Review Committee report dated December 1999. 10 MR. BOWERING: December 1999. 11 MR. MCNEIL: When the rules were 12 developed, in consideration that the primary dykes 13 existed since 1950, but also later -- and by the 14 way, the dykes were originally built to be 15 equivalent to 26.5 feet at James Avenue, 2 feet -- 16 sorry, 4 feet below the 1950 water level. 17 Then in 1980, Manitoba passed 18 legislation and said that the primary dykes shall 19 meet the flood protection level, and that the 20 flood protection level shall be a flood event as 21 determined by the minister, plus 2 feet of free 22 board. The flood event was the 160 year return 23 flood event, which is what the floodway was 24 originally designed to based on the hydrology of 25 the day in the 1950s. So the water level that the 00514 1 dykes need to protect to is equivalent 25.8. I 2 don't know why there is that discrepancy about 3 25.5 and 25.8. I never did understand that. 4 However, it's very close and hard to measure that 5 difference. 6 It assumes a design flood of 160 7 years. And in that design flood there is a 8 certain profile or slope to the water surface. So 9 what you see on this graph, and the graph is 10 titled "1997 peak Red River level," and as I 11 indicated, it's in the Floodway Operations Review 12 Committee report. The red line is the flood 13 protection level based on the 160 year flood and a 14 water surface profile of 80,000 cubic feet per 15 second, plus that 2 feet of free board. But in 16 1997, we got a flood very close to that design 17 event. By the way, the design event is 18 169,000 cubic feet per second, and the total flood 19 event in 1997 was 163,000 cubic feet per second. 20 In 1997 the proportion of flow was 21 more from the Red than what the design event 22 assumed. And so the profile of that water surface 23 resulted in a water level higher in the south end 24 of the city than the design event. And therefore, 25 we saw water levels of, equivalent to James Avenue 00515 1 of 25.1 right at the inlet control structure, just 2 downstream of it, 25.4, 25.7, 25.2 in between the 3 inlet structure and the south perimeter highway. 4 Actually, it was kind of a funny 5 story, when we first got reports of those water 6 levels, we were amazed, what's going on here, it's 7 not following the design event? For every flood, 8 you will get different water surface elevations 9 and different water surface profiles. That's the 10 reality. 11 And it made us realize that there was 12 that difference in flow distribution or 13 proportion, and we were at risk, we were already 14 within that 2 feet of free board zone in the south 15 end of the city. And that's when the city called 16 upon the province and said, you cannot go to 25.5 17 at James Avenue, that extra foot at James will 18 translate to an extra foot in the south end of the 19 city, we'll have less than a foot of free board on 20 the primary dykes. 21 In fact, at one point the gates were 22 adjusted that sent a wave through the city that 23 almost overtopped some of the primary dykes in St. 24 Norbert. 25 So that was the issue and what 00516 1 occurred in 1997, and the Floodway Operation 2 Advisory or Review Committee took a hard look at 3 that situation and made the recommendation to 4 change the rule to accommodate this for a future 5 flood event, because hydraulic engineers believe 6 that this event will be more likely in the future, 7 i.e. more proportion of flow from the Red than the 8 Assiniboine in a future event of the same 9 magnitude of 1997. 10 In fact, the Manitoba Water Commission 11 that reviewed the operations during 1997 basically 12 indicated that it was prudent for the Manitoba 13 Conservation Water Branch, Rick Bowering and his 14 staff, to operate the floodway in that fashion in 15 1997. 16 MR. WEBSTER: So I guess I come back 17 to my question again, and that is, should we be 18 using James Avenue level as the trigger point, or 19 should we be using a trigger point somewhere else, 20 or should we be adjusting the dykes in the south 21 end of the city to accommodate that, or in fact 22 are we okay the way we are? 23 MR. BOWERING: I believe we are okay 24 the way we are. As Doug says, every flood is 25 different, and that is one of the most important 00517 1 lessons we learn as we work with floods. We think 2 we've got how floods work in Winnipeg figured out, 3 and then the next one is a little bit different. 4 James Avenue is kind of like at the fulcrum, you 5 know, the next one might be worse in the north end 6 of the city. We think James Avenue is a pretty 7 good one to use. It really represents where the 8 damage would happen until the downtown area, and 9 we're pretty comfortable with that. 10 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, one more thing 11 that I would like to add is that for many years 12 the only measuring point in the city was at James 13 Avenue. During 1997 it was also at the Kildonan 14 Bridge or the Bishop Grandin Bridge, as well as 15 the Chief Peguis Trail Bridge, and then because of 16 the significance of the event there were daily 17 surveys of the water surface profile throughout 18 the city. And either the city has or has plans to 19 install more gauges throughout the city. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I have one I think 21 final question on this subject, and I'm not sure 22 whether it would be Mr. Bowering or Mr. McNeil. 23 But in a one in 700 year flood, with the expanded 24 floodway, how far upstream will there be 25 artificial flooding? 00518 1 MR. MCNEIL: It will be Morris. That 2 will be the extent of the effect, yes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: So it will taper from 4 whatever? 5 MR. MCNEIL: It tapers from 6 approximately six feet at the inlet control 7 structure, artificial flooding, to zero at Morris. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. I 9 think that concludes our questions on this area 10 for now. And I think it's also an appropriate 11 time to take a break, so let's come back at 12 quarter after 3:00 sharp. 13 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, just 14 before we break, could I enter a brief bio for 15 Rick Bowering as exhibit number 42, and to 16 Mr. Handlon's question, the Oasis Road report is 17 Exhibit 37. 18 19 (EXHIBIT 42: Bio report for Rick 20 Bowering) 21 22 (Proceedings recessed at 3:00 and 23 reconvened at 3:15 p.m.) 24 25 00519 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we please come back 2 to order. We will get back to the 3 cross-examination. Mr. Bowering, I think you can 4 relax for now, thank you very much for your 5 forthright responses. I'm going to turn now to a 6 few questions around the gaps in the east dyke. 7 And I think I understand why you are doing it. 8 But I guess because of these gaps it will have the 9 effect of significantly increasing the overbank 10 flow in the Grande Pointe area; is that correct? 11 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. I'm just 12 trying to find a diagram, Mr. Chair, that would 13 explain this. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Perhaps, Mr. 15 McNeil, you could start with a brief explanation 16 of the purpose of them and then -- 17 MR. MCNEIL: I will go through an 18 explanation of this right away. I believe this 19 diagram is figure 4.3-2, and it is in the EIS, 20 page 4-21. Just to orientate you, down in the 21 lower left corner is the inlet control structure 22 and the entrance to the floodway, you see the Red 23 River through the city squiggling up on the left 24 hand side of the illustration. And you see the 25 floodway channel itself from the entrance taking 00520 1 off in that northeasterly direction and then in 2 the top right hand corner is the highway number 1 3 crossing. So, prior to 1997 the only way for 4 water that accumulates behind the floodway 5 embankment and behind the west dyke, the only way 6 for it to get into the floodway was the original 7 floodway entrance. And what happened in 1997 and, 8 of course, prior to 1997, we hadn't experienced a 9 flood of that magnitude with as much overland 10 flooding as had occurred. The overland flooding 11 reached over as far and beyond the east side of 12 highway 59 and that water -- and I will use some 13 fairly straightforward terms here -- piled up 14 behind, or to the south of the floodway 15 embankments. 16 And now I'm going to show you that the 17 water that ended up around the Grande Pointe area, 18 west of highway 59, and even in the east side of 19 highway 59, had to get across highway 59 and then 20 travel southwesterly along the south side of the 21 embankment to the floodway all the way back to the 22 Red River and the entrance to the floodway to get 23 into the floodway, and then take off, of course, 24 down the floodway. 25 So in a sense this water piles up 00521 1 because it doesn't efficiently get into the 2 floodway and there was a difference of water 3 elevation. If I remember correctly, it was about 4 a foot and a half from on this side, right near 5 the entrance on the south side of the floodway, 6 just around the corner and into the floodway. 7 This was obviously a concern. And government -- 8 together with the Federal Government, Manitoba 9 Government, Federal Government, hired I believe it 10 was Acres Engineering together with the Canadian 11 Hydraulics Centre, which is the arm of the 12 National Research Council, and they performed a 2D 13 hydraulic analysis of this situation. They used 14 the Telemac model that was identified earlier. 15 And they came up with a scheme to help relieve 16 this water by creating holes in the embankment. 17 Initially they indicated for the '97 event to help 18 relieve the water levels upstream, that I believe 19 this gap, which is just east of St. Mary's Road, 20 the first gap, as we call it, is about 700 meters 21 wide -- rather 500 meters wide, and the second gap 22 close to Grande Pointe, west of Grande Pointe, is 23 about 700 meters wide. And these gaps were 24 designed both in width and in lip elevation, or 25 bottom elevation, to kick in at a certain sized 00522 1 flood. I think it is the 1996 flood level that 2 the first gap kicks in and starts to relieve the 3 water accumulating in this area, and then the 4 other gap kicks in for something below the 1997 5 flood to relieve that. 6 Now with the expanded floodway the 700 7 year flood of course is higher than the 1997 by 8 about six feet. And so a greater extent of the 9 area west of highway 59, and I apologize, earlier 10 I was pointing to highway 59 up here and actually 11 highway 59 is in this area, and that squiggly line 12 is the Seine River. In any event, in the 700 year 13 flood a greater part of the west area of highway 14 59 will flood, and to help relieve that area as 15 part of floodway expansion we will create a bigger 16 gap in this area. Right now this Seine River 17 diversion discharges into the floodway. There is 18 a small opening in the embankment, but it is not 19 large enough to relieve that. 20 What is important here is that after 21 expansion with three gaps in operation for a 700 22 year flood, 95 percent of the flow will go through 23 those gaps and 5 percent of the flow will go 24 through the original entrance. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification, 00523 1 those embankments aren't dykes or dams, they don't 2 hold any of the water in, they are just above the 3 regular prairie, are they not? 4 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. In this 5 region the water level in the floodway will always 6 be below the water on the landscape in this 7 region, so those embankments are not dykes. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: There is no danger of 9 water spilling out of the floodway because of 10 those gaps? 11 MR. MCNEIL: No, the drainage 12 channel -- 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Unless we get a one in 14 10,000 year flood. 15 MR. MCNEIL: Even then the water on 16 the prairie will be higher. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 18 MR. MCNEIL: One clarification, and 19 this is a concern for people living around the 20 Seine River diversion discharge structure, is that 21 the water level in the floodway is high enough to 22 back up into that drainage channel and after 23 expansion, though, it will not spill above 24 prairie. So sometimes the water level does get 25 high enough to back up into the drainage channels 00524 1 but not spill above prairie. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any negative 3 sides to having these gaps? 4 MR. MCNEIL: Not at all. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: For residents or 6 farmers or people living or working in this area? 7 MR. MCNEIL: Not at all. In fact, 8 they provide a slight benefit by decreasing the 9 water level immediately around them for several 10 hundred meters south. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, in response to one 12 of our IRs, or information requests, I think it is 13 9D, you indicate that velocity hot spots will 14 occur in the Grande Pointe area as a result of 15 these gaps. What do you mean by hot spots? 16 MR. MCNEIL: Can I just confer with 17 somebody for one second, please? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course. 19 MR. MCNEIL: I guess the simple 20 answer, Mr. Chair, is that as water goes around a 21 corner -- typically what happens in hydraulic 22 structures is that when water is constricted to a 23 narrower opening, whether it is the inlet control 24 structure or these gaps, the water speeds up, and 25 it may speed up to a point where it might be 00525 1 erosive. And so in those locations where you have 2 velocity hot spots, then you have to look at what 3 is necessary to avoid erosion. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: So this would be 5 erosion on the edge of the gaps or in the channel? 6 MR. MCNEIL: Typically around the edge 7 of the gaps where the water has to squeeze from 8 the lake into the opening, and as it goes through 9 that opening. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: And I assume that it is 11 because of these gaps that you are not widening 12 the first however many kilometres of the floodway? 13 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. The 14 floodway channel does not need to start being 15 widened until west of, or sorry, just east of the 16 CPR Emerson bridge, which is just -- the bridge 17 itself is between the Seine River and highway 59. 18 So because of the efficiency of water entering in 19 stages through the original entrance and the first 20 and second gap, that section of the floodway 21 between the entrance and approximately the Seine 22 River, does not need to be increased in capacity. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: So then back to my 24 original question, are there any concerns about 25 the effect of significantly increasing this 00526 1 overbank flow, particularly in the Grande Pointe 2 area? Let me speak in respect of local planning 3 and development controls and matters like that. 4 MR. MCNEIL: I guess I still don't 5 quite understand your question, Mr. Chair. I will 6 go right to the 700 year flood. First of all, the 7 Grande Pointe dyke, which is immediately -- well 8 first of all, the Grande Pointe area, subdivision 9 in the RM of Ritchot is immediately west of 10 Highway 59, south of the floodway structure. And 11 following the 1997 flood, under that community 12 ring dyke program that was financed by the 13 province and the feds, they built a dyke around 14 that community to the '97 plus 2 foot level. 15 Highway 59 forms the east leg of that dyke, and 16 then the dyke crosses the Seine River and then 17 runs on the west side of the river back to the 18 embankment. In a 700 year flood, the water level 19 in this area will be higher than the '97 plus two 20 protection level of Grande Pointe. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I should have 22 elaborated a little more initially. This comes 23 out of one of your responses to the 768 24 Association and their IR number 3. You indicate, 25 and I quote. 00527 1 "Although overland flow conveyance 2 must be maintained through appropriate 3 local planning and development 4 controls, dedicated conveyance 5 channels are not required." 6 MR. MCNEIL: Could you repeat the IR 7 number so we can look that up, please? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: 768, IR number 3. 9 MR. MCNEIL: So the question that was 10 raised, have dedicated conveyance routes been 11 planned for the overland flows that would approach 12 the three gaps and future east embankment of the 13 floodway? And the simple answer is no. 14 The progression of flood overland is 15 very slow. And in fact, in the area south of the 16 floodway, it first -- the Red River backs up 17 Richardson Coulee, which almost reaches the first 18 gap. And as it floods and spills over into the 19 flood plain, it does so in a very slow manner. 20 And that's throughout, even as the flood plain -- 21 or the spillage of water from the Red River, as 22 the flood progresses throughout the other areas, 23 for the most part it is fairly slow. And so there 24 is no planned routes to lead that water to those 25 gaps. It does, as I said, for the first gap, 00528 1 follow a natural route by backing up the 2 Richardson Coulee. 3 And then the progression of the flood 4 is slow right up until the gaps are fully 5 utilized. So the water just slowly rises and then 6 builds up to the level of whatever flood occurs. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So are there 8 overland flow conveyances required anywhere else 9 in the Red River Valley? 10 MR. MCNEIL: No. 11 MR. BOWERING: Could I add something 12 here? 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 14 MR. BOWERING: I think what 768 15 Association -- what 768 Association was I think 16 getting at is, could something restrict that 17 conveyance? And for example, a raising of an 18 east/west road like the Richardson Road is the 19 kind of thing that could restrict that conveyance. 20 So it is really up to us as Water Stewardship to 21 ensure that such things don't happen, particularly 22 on those very important conveyance routes. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. 24 Webster. 25 MR. WEBSTER: One further point. My 00529 1 understanding at this point is that that southern 2 bank of the floodway at this point in fact need 3 not have any berm, any dyke on it at all, that 4 soil is there simply because you want a place to 5 put it. Am I correct? 6 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct, the bank 7 there is primarily a spoil bank. 8 MR. WEBSTER: So, in fact, that soil 9 in what turns out to be three residual piles there 10 is, in fact, material that you would really rather 11 not have there at all; is that correct? 12 MR. MCNEIL: Well, actually, Mr. 13 Carson was just reminding me that the other 14 purpose of those embankments is to -- if ice was 15 to get into the channel -- is that right, Rick -- 16 to keep it within the channel? Even though we 17 don't like ice getting into the channel. 18 MR. WEBSTER: So it does have some 19 purpose, that was the point of my question. 20 Because elsewhere in the channel, as I recall, 21 there has been some mining of those banks for 22 construction projects and so forth, and I wondered 23 in fact if that area would be enhanced by people 24 taking more of the soil away? If it has a 25 mechanical purpose, then that's not a good idea 00530 1 then. 2 MR. MCNEIL: Correct. 3 MR. WEBSTER: So what you are telling 4 me, in fact, is that you have a design there where 5 not only the gaps but the remaining berms have a 6 purpose? 7 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, I'm misleading you 8 here, and I didn't understand what Rick was 9 saying. 10 The embankment in this area, which 11 still exists today, is intended wholly to prevent 12 ice from the river to get into the channel. So it 13 serves a purpose in this vicinity between St. 14 Mary's Road and the southern tip of that 15 embankment on the east side of the Red River. 16 But to go back to your earlier 17 question, or statement, in fact for the flood 18 proofing program, Manitoba Water Stewardship did 19 allow mining of some of that material in this 20 vicinity, immediately east of St. Mary's Road, to 21 go towards some of those flood proofing projects, 22 because in this area you don't need that 23 embankment to protect the flood plain from water 24 in the floodway. 25 MR. WEBSTER: So there is that 00531 1 embankment, there is a portion further down the 2 channel, and another one further down the channel 3 before we get to the Seine River. Are all three 4 of those in the same category? 5 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. 6 MR. WEBSTER: In fact, if they were 7 removed, the overland flow into the channel would 8 be facilitated and the number of hot spots would 9 be reduced? 10 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, except that we have 11 shown through hydraulic analysis -- figure 21 of 12 appendix H of preliminary engineering report 13 indicates velocity profiles, and they are not 14 significant. And of course, the engineering 15 analysis was to optimize the size of these 16 openings for these larger floods, so -- 17 MR. WEBSTER: Again, my point would 18 be, is it something that we should be recommending 19 that those areas be considered to be available for 20 people to use as a resource, or are they in fact 21 something that we should leaving where they are 22 because they are an integral part of your plan for 23 a functioning floodway? 24 MR. MCNEIL: In this area, those ones 25 wouldn't be needed, no. 00532 1 MR. WEBSTER: They are not an integral 2 part of the functioning of the floodway, they are 3 extra? 4 MR. MCNEIL: Right. 5 MR. BOWERING: Can I add that they do 6 have a small residual value in that if you have a 7 large wind on the Red Sea south, in a very large 8 flood, they do provide some wave barrier 9 protection from the other dyke. So I think Water 10 Stewardship would prefer to see something left 11 there for that purpose. 12 MR. MCNEIL: Actually, Mr. Bowering 13 does make a good point. We had planned in any 14 event to raise portions of this dyke for that 15 purpose, but that would be -- leaving these here 16 would add value to that wind and wave situation. 17 That's important. 18 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any other 20 restrictions? You mentioned some road 21 restrictions. Will there be any restrictions on 22 homes or farms in this area because of this 23 overland flow? Will people be prohibited from 24 building, or will they have a higher standard of 25 building in this area? Will that be required? 00533 1 MR. MCNEIL: I guess the assumption 2 when this analysis was made is that there wouldn't 3 be any restrictions immediately upstream of these 4 gaps. In terms of the effectiveness on the gaps, 5 I don't believe it would be significant, but it 6 would be not a good situation for any development 7 immediately in this area because of the potential 8 for wind and wave uprush immediately upstream of 9 the structure. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think we 11 can leave the gaps for now and go down to the 12 other end of the floodway and have a few questions 13 about the outlet structure. 14 Now, were two options considered, like 15 a straight one as you have now and then a flared 16 outlet structure, were they considered in your 17 engineering considerations? 18 MR. MCNEIL: I'm going to ask Rick 19 Carson to answer these more detailed engineering 20 questions. 21 MR. CARSON: Could you repeat the 22 question, please? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that you 24 considered sort of two options for the outlet 25 structure, more or less situated as the current 00534 1 one is, but wider, or a flared one that would turn 2 the angle somewhat more into the river; is that 3 correct? 4 MR. CARSON: That wasn't really the 5 structure, that was the outlet channel which leads 6 from the structure to the river. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 8 MR. CARSON: And we considered two 9 configurations of that channel. That was back in 10 the earlier studies, and we left it with a rather 11 conservative design with a wide curvature to let 12 the flow re-enter the river. But then there were 13 subsequent studies done on a more detailed basis 14 using a two dimensional model analysis that showed 15 that we didn't have to do that, it really didn't 16 impact on the west side of the Red River if we had 17 a more abrupt change in angle there. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: It made no difference, 19 if you flared it a bit more to the right, it 20 didn't make much difference or any difference on 21 the other bank? 22 MR. CARSON: No, it did not. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: No difference at all or 24 very little? 25 MR. CARSON: Well, very, very small 00535 1 differences that were really insignificant. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now in the 3 documents you indicate that the width of the 4 structure may be reduced from 100 metres to 5 90 metres, or even to 80 metres. And this might 6 also change the size of the stilling basin. When 7 will this decision be made as to what the 8 structure will look like, and what effects might 9 the different sizes have, and should those effects 10 be something that we should be considering through 11 this process? 12 MR. CARSON: That actually has been 13 the subject of some study in the last several 14 months. There was a physical model constructed at 15 the University of Manitoba that wasn't quite 16 finished at the time that we submitted the EIS and 17 our engineering reports, and that carried on into 18 the fall. And the results of that study showed 19 that it would be feasible to reduce the width from 20 the 100-metre dimension that's shown in the EIS 21 documents to something like 90 metres in width. 22 And what the model results showed was that the 23 difference in wave action and energy dissipation 24 was really not significantly different between the 25 100-metre structure width and the 90-metre, and it 00536 1 would have some savings in cost. So the 2 recommendation to the floodway authority is to go 3 to the narrower structure. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: So has it been 5 determined then that it will be 90 metres? 6 MR. CARSON: We have recommended that 7 to the floodway authority, yes. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: So will the impacts -- 9 what are the differences, what different impacts 10 are there downstream between 100 metres and 11 90 metres? 12 MR. CARSON: They are really 13 insignificant. We found that the wave action 14 might be slightly higher, but in terms of 15 potential for increased erosion downstream, it 16 would just not be significant. The difference 17 were so small. And correct, we are protecting the 18 west bank of the Red River in that reach in any 19 case. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I realize that, but 21 will you need to put more or less protection 22 because of the 90 verses 100? 23 MR. CARSON: No. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: It won't have any 25 effective impact? 00537 1 MR. MORGAN: I just wanted to clarify 2 that in the EIS under erosion control the whole 3 design of this new outlet structure will reduce 4 erosion in the future for the same floods. Any of 5 these modifications don't change any of those 6 conclusions that it is a beneficial effect on 7 erosion, and that the outlet structure has no 8 adverse effect. Even with these modifications 9 that they have done lately, it still has a 10 positive effect. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. 12 Webster. 13 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. I would 14 appreciate it very much if you would describe to 15 us what the excess structure is planned to be 16 like, and what the purpose of the stilling basin 17 is and how it functions, and what the action is of 18 the components of the stilling basin, please? 19 MR. REMPEL: We will try to pull up a 20 drawing that will assist in the explanation, Dr. 21 Webster. 22 MR. CARSON: I will walk you through 23 this drawing. There is a lot of lines on there 24 and it may not be clear to the audience exactly 25 what we are showing here. This is a highly 00538 1 technical engineering sketch. 2 MR. MORGAN: These are in the EIS 3 under project description, figure 4.5-1, and 4.5-2 4 is the cross section that we will talk about 5 later. 6 MR. CARSON: What we are showing here 7 is the floodway channel approaching the structure 8 here, this is the outlet structure. Actually, the 9 existing outlet structure is shown in that small 10 outline there, and then the expanded structure is 11 shown in that extent that I'm pointing at. And 12 then of course of the outlet channel goes back out 13 to river, and this is the Red River flowing along 14 here. And here is the west bank of the Red River 15 that I spoke of that will be protected. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: How long is the channel 17 from the lip of structure to the Red? 18 MR. CARSON: If memory serves -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Along the middle line I 20 guess? 21 MR. CARSON: -- it is something like 22 800 metres, something in that order. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Quite a bit, almost a 24 kilometre. 25 MR. CARSON: From the lip -- all 00539 1 right, closer to 300, sorry. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 3 MR. CARSON: Maybe it was 800 hundred 4 feet. 5 So the structure is here, it will be 6 widened towards the southeast. And could we have 7 the next slide there? So this is what this 8 structure looks like in plan view, and the flow 9 direction is from the bottom of the slide to the 10 top. And the crest of the structure is 11 approximately, like the highest portion of the 12 structure is here -- this is plan view of course. 13 And then it has a series of what are chute blocks 14 at the base of the crest down into the stilling 15 basin. And then the floor of the stilling basin 16 has what is called baffle blocks, and then it has 17 also what is called a dentated end seal, which 18 also has blocks. 19 If we could show the cross section? 20 Now this shows the stilling basin in a cross 21 section, and again there is lots of lines here 22 that I wish didn't exist. But this is the crest 23 that I spoke of, of the structure, and this is the 24 floor of what we call the stilling basin. And in 25 it there is these, there are baffle blocks located 00540 1 roughly in the centre of the stilling basin, and 2 also blocks as part of the end sill, at the end of 3 the stilling basin. And there is also what we 4 call chute blocks at the base of the chute. And 5 these all serve the purpose of breaking up the 6 high velocity jet that flows over the crest and 7 plunges into the stilling basin. And the entire 8 function of the stilling basin is to dissipate the 9 energy before it gets back into the river or the 10 channel downstream. 11 The old structure had none of these -- 12 neither the chute blocks nor the baffle blocks nor 13 the end sill, it was just a flat fairly simple 14 stilling basin that did not, in retrospect, act 15 very effectively. 16 Does that answer the question? 17 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. I notice 18 that the lip of the new structure is in fact 19 higher than the lip of the old structure. Can you 20 explain why that needs to be? Because the bottom 21 of the channel is not higher or lower, as I 22 understand it? 23 MR. CARSON: Yes. The existing 24 structure is shown here in phantom line there, and 25 the new crest is about two metres higher than the 00541 1 old one, and there it is right there. The reason 2 for that is, it is integrated with the channel 3 design. And the width of the structure has been 4 increased so that the energy dissipation will be 5 effective at the new design discharge, which is 6 nearly 4,000 cubic metres per second, whereas the 7 design discharge for the existing structure was 8 only 1700 cubic metres per second. And in order 9 to achieve that energy dissipation, and we made 10 the width such that it would pass the flow with 11 roughly the same discharge per unit width as the 12 existing structure, and as a result of that, in 13 order to achieve that without causing excessive 14 erosion in the channel upstream, we had to raise 15 the crest by two metres. So it was sort of a 16 product of the integrated design of the outlet 17 structure and the channel as well. 18 Doug points out that we could show on 19 this cross section the low flow channel pipes that 20 are in the crest. So under normal conditions, 21 when there isn't a flood passing through the 22 channel, water can be released through that 23 structure without causing the water level to pond 24 up and go over the new crest. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you, that was my 00542 1 next question, how far back that water would be 2 ponded. Because in fact I understood that was to 3 be changed, that you weren't going to pond any 4 more. So, in fact, that represents those 5 essentially culverts through the crest for low 6 flow; is that correct? 7 MR. MCNEIL: Just for clarification, 8 Dr. Webster -- Doug McNeil speaking -- the pipes 9 exist in the existing structure, they have gates 10 on them, and there was an agreement between 11 Manitoba and Ducks Unlimited to pond on purpose to 12 create habitat. But since then -- there is lots 13 of waterfowl habitat in Manitoba, that's not an 14 issue, but what was an issue with DFO was making 15 sure if any fish get into the floodway channel 16 that they have a route out. And that's why that 17 agreement was terminated and there will be no 18 ponding behind the structure. 19 MR. WEBSTER: So the raised height of 20 the lip there addresses needs of the high flow 21 during the use of the channel, and the excess, or 22 the extra height does not create a problem with 23 having to dissipate more energy as the water flows 24 down into the stilling basin? 25 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 00543 1 MR. WEBSTER: So the design takes care 2 of that extra height. Why then is the extra 3 height there, on the lip? 4 MR. MCNEIL: We are just talking about 5 some of the hydraulic principles. The structure, 6 the floodway channel and the outlet both have to 7 be designed for the maximum event, and it is the 8 4,000 cubic metres per second or the 140,000 cubic 9 feet per second. In designing this drop 10 structure, like any drop structure you are 11 concerned about the erosive capability of the 12 water as it drops from the higher floodway channel 13 down into the channel that leads to the Red River, 14 and the velocity over the crest of that weir is 15 partly controlled by the height of that weir and 16 the width. And it is basically engineering 17 practice to have a cost effective structure, so 18 the two work together. As Rick indicated, they 19 came up with a design width for the structure, and 20 then part of the resulting analysis is, or design 21 is what is the height of that weir. So for the 22 maximum design event, this is the engineered 23 structure that results to control those 24 velocities. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Now one of the issues is 00544 1 the erosion of the far bank. To what extent can 2 you mitigate that by the design of the baffles in 3 the stilling basin? 4 MR. MCNEIL: The outlet structure that 5 you see here is mitigating the velocities, and it 6 will be something less than what was experienced 7 actually for the '97 event, which was a smaller 8 event than the design event for this structure. 9 The erosion control on the opposite bank is for 10 the waves that seem to propagate across the river 11 channel and hit that opposite bank. And the 12 hydraulic analysis indicated that we need 13 something just over a kilometre of erosion 14 protection on that west bank to ensure that those 15 waves do not have an adverse effect on that bank. 16 MR. WEBSTER: Pardon my ignorance, but 17 you can't reduce those waves by the design of 18 baffling structures in the stilling basin? 19 MR. CARSON: I guess the simple answer 20 is that we are not certain that the waves are the 21 direct source of all of the erosion problems over 22 there. Certainly, this structure goes a long ways 23 to eliminate those. I recall that in the '97 24 flood we estimated that the waves being generated 25 at the outlet structure here were in the order of 00545 1 2 metres in height, and we have reduced that 2 through the chute blocks and baffle blocks and so 3 on to something much less than a metre, half a 4 metre or six-tenths of a metre comes to mind as 5 the reduction that was achieved. 6 MR. WEBSTER: That's about the order 7 of a wake of a motor boat, is it? 8 MR. CARSON: Yes, that would be 9 similar to that, yes. 10 We have another graphic here that 11 might demonstrate the reduction in wave height. I 12 will just bring that up. This is the 1997 flood 13 as represented by our three dimensional numerical 14 model of the outlet structure, and it shows the 15 large waves being generated and passing on 16 downstream. We suspected that that had some 17 impact on the west bank, and it was actually the 18 reason for the protection on that west bank being 19 installed back in the 1970s. So we were trying to 20 improve that particular source of erosion. 21 Now, it might be difficult for you to 22 see or perceive much of a difference there, but we 23 have actually measured in the numerical model the 24 actual benefit in reduction in height of the 25 waves, and it was quite substantial. And it was 00546 1 through this modeling that we determined this 2 difference. 3 Now, this is for the 115-metre wide 4 structure, with the one in 700 year flood, so this 5 is in the order of 2.5 times the amount of water 6 that was actually in the floodway in the 1997 7 flood. So it is an improvement in performance at 8 a much larger discharge capacity. 9 And the recent physical model studies 10 that I referred to earlier were actually with a 11 narrower structure, but gave very similar results 12 to this. 13 These are from the preliminary 14 engineering report, appendix D, I don't believe 15 that they are in the EIS. 16 MR. MORGAN: They are not in the EIS, 17 but the general description of things like the 18 modeling, the improvements are on page 5-38 of the 19 EIS. He has done a very good job of just 20 summarizing that right now. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think 22 that ends our concerns with the outlet. I'm going 23 to turn now to ice jam effects downstream, and I 24 know I heard Mr. Gilroy say yesterday morning that 25 ice jamming was outside of the purview of this, 00547 1 but I guess the questions that I would like to ask 2 would be to explain why. And I have some specific 3 questions, and perhaps by going through these 4 questions we might be able to determine and 5 satisfy why the ice jamming is not a concern 6 because of floodway operation. 7 I will just start out by way of a 8 preamble and note that, at least as recorded 9 between 1852 and 1966 there were seven ice jams in 10 Selkirk, which is a period of about 114 years. 11 And since the operation of the floodway, there 12 have been six ice jams in 35 years. I mean, it is 13 understandable that Selkirk residents might draw a 14 link between the two. But in your preliminary 15 engineering report, and also in appendix L, you 16 conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that 17 the floodway would have any detrimental effect on 18 ice breakup process. Can you summarize the 19 reasons for us? 20 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Carson will respond 21 to those questions. 22 MR. CARSON: Firstly, you mentioned 23 some statistics on the occurrence of ice jams. I 24 would point out also that there were 90 years 25 between 1860 and 1950 that there were no floods 00548 1 that even flooded Winnipeg to any extent. And 2 then since 1950 there has been how many -- half a 3 dozen or eight, there has been a dramatic change 4 in the meteorological conditions or whatever 5 drives these floods, and nobody really knows what 6 the cycles are. And I think that ice jams are 7 probably in a similar category. So that's just 8 sort of a backdrop to what I would describe here. 9 How we approached the ice problem was 10 that we looked at it from a scientific point of 11 view, we looked at what are the causative factors 12 of ice jams in the river, and we looked at the 13 various things that affect ice breakup; for 14 example, ice thickness is one factor, the freeze 15 in water level at which the ice forms; the solar 16 radiation in the spring and how quickly it warms 17 up. Obviously those factors are not influenced in 18 any way by the existing floodway or the expanded 19 floodway. 20 The only thing that the floodway can 21 affect is the rate at which water runs off from 22 the watershed and reaches the area below the 23 outlet structure of the floodway. So we focused 24 on that only influence that could really effect 25 ice jam formation and magnitude. 00549 1 So we analyzed the travel time of flow 2 through the floodway and through the river in 3 Winnipeg and determined that for the range of 4 flood flows that ice jams normally form at, the 5 travel time through the floodway is actually less 6 than through the Red River in Winnipeg. And what 7 it showed was that in fact the floodway has a very 8 small mitigating effect to ice jams. And then we 9 carried on and did a more rigorous scientific 10 analysis using state of the art hydrodynamic 11 simulations of the passage of flow, and tried to 12 simulate the 1996 flood event, because there had 13 been a very severe ice jam in that year. And we 14 compared, through the simulation model, what it 15 would have been like in terms of passage of flow 16 if there were no floodway, or if there had been an 17 expanded floodway. In fact, the same thing, it 18 turned out that there was really an insignificant 19 improvement by either the floodway or the expanded 20 floodway. And that was really the basis of our 21 conclusion that ice jams are not affected in any 22 way by the floodway. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: What causes ice jams, 24 or is that simply answered? 25 MR. CARSON: I don't think it is 00550 1 simply answered, no. Basically, it is a 2 combination of factors. The rate of rise of the 3 water level and the breaking up of the ice, if 4 that happens early in the spring event and the ice 5 is still hard and resistant, it doesn't move very 6 easily out of the area, it can jam at river bends 7 or shallow areas in the river, and back up and be 8 more resistent to breakup and being washed 9 downstream. That's the normal sequence of events 10 that cause ice jams. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, we know that you 12 don't start to operate the floodway until ice is 13 flowing through the floodway gates, the inlet. 14 Has the ice largely cleared from south of Winnipeg 15 before you operate the floodway? 16 MR. CARSON: I would say that is the 17 objective, but I guess I could refer to Rick 18 Bowering, who is more familiar with the operation 19 of the floodway. 20 MR. BOWERING: Yes, our intention is 21 not to operate the floodway until the ice has 22 cleared the floodway structure, because we don't 23 want the ice to go into the channel. In the 1997 24 flood, when the levels were coming up very rapidly 25 and the ice was holding, we actually started the 00551 1 operation, even though there was still some ice in 2 the area, and we had some minor ice jamming at St. 3 Mary's Road. But in most years we do not operate 4 the floodway until the ice moves north. 5 By the way, that is why it seems 6 coincidental that as soon as we operate an ice jam 7 forms. Because another feature of the Red River 8 is it flows south to north, and so it melts in the 9 southern portion, but the ice eventually comes up 10 against the ice sheet on Lake Winnipeg which is 11 backing up the river. So as it moves north, it 12 moves north and if it is going to jam, it 13 eventually jams, and it looks like we started 14 operating just when the jam happened. It is 15 really a chicken and egg thing. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, recognizing that 17 it does thaw from south to north, and when the ice 18 has cleared through the floodway gates and there 19 is no more ice, or almost no more ice south of the 20 floodway inlet, how long until the ice would be 21 cleared or melted north of the inlet, or north of 22 the outlet, or even north of the perimeter? 23 MR. BOWERING: Well, it kind of goes 24 in conjuncts, you know, the ice first of all seems 25 to clear actually in the City of Winnipeg, so we 00552 1 see it jamming against something like the 2 Provencher Bridge. We watch that, we keep in 3 consultation with the City, close watch on the ice 4 jams. And they all kind of start happening at 5 least from say the floodway inlet to the north end 6 of the City of Winnipeg at pretty much the same 7 time over a spread of a week. But once they start 8 moving, they are just floating along with the flow 9 of the river, and I don't know, Rick, how long 10 that takes to get to Selkirk, maybe half a day or 11 something? 12 MR. CARSON: Yes, that's probably a 13 reasonable estimate, yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: So it clears up 15 basically from Winnipeg to Selkirk in half a day? 16 MR. BOWERING: Well, it clears up 17 until it gets to another jam point, then it builds 18 up there for a while, and then releases and moves 19 and builds up and releases, and in a good year it 20 releases all of the way out to Netley Marsh where 21 it eventually dissipates. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Where this is leading 23 me is, when the water is diverted through the 24 floodway, and by the time it gets to the outlet of 25 the floodway, the first water going through, would 00553 1 there, or is there still ice in the river near the 2 outlet or near Selkirk? 3 MR. CARSON: Yes, I would say yes. 4 MR. BOWERING: Particularly if it is 5 jammed, there is lots of ice in that area, because 6 that's kind of where it ends up. 7 MR. CARSON: I guess the point is that 8 that water would have reached that location even 9 faster if the floodway did not exist? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. But then when 11 you divert the water, particularly the first, the 12 leading edge of the water going through the 13 floodway, I think you call it a slug, does that 14 have any effect on ice jamming when that slug or 15 that surge hits at the north end of the outlet? 16 MR. BOWERING: Well, it is not really 17 released like a slug. We operate the gate and 18 then the water level, as I mentioned earlier about 19 when we go into rule 2, the water level starts to 20 slowly lift, and as it lifts, then flows start 21 increasing down the river. So our gate operation 22 does not cause a slug of water to happen, it just 23 starts water flowing down, which then works its 24 way down the channel. So it doesn't really come 25 down like a slug. 00554 1 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, just to 2 clarify what Rick raised, it was rule 1, not rule 3 2. And very often the natural rise of the river 4 in and around the time that the ice is breaking up 5 and starts moving through the inlet control 6 structure, the natural rise of the river can 7 sometimes start spilling into the floodway before 8 the gates are operated. And that's the concern 9 that, or the situation that occurred in 1997, that 10 the ice had started to break up, but the river 11 rose fast enough naturally that some of that 12 broken ice was getting into the floodway. 13 The original designers of the floodway 14 designed -- there is a lip, an entrance lip or a 15 small berm at the entrance to the floodway, and it 16 is higher than the bottom of the floodway at the 17 entrance, and it is there specifically to keep ice 18 out. And the original designers, and I'm putting 19 this in fairly simple terms, knew that typically 20 ice would be gone, broken up and gone, or at least 21 moving with the main flow of the river when the 22 river rose to the point where it would reach the 23 top of that lip. That lip was designed no not 24 allow water into the floodway until ice was gone, 25 and typically they knew that ice was gone when it 00555 1 was about 40,000 cubic feet per second. There is 2 some years where it rises quicker and ice is still 3 there and broken up and starting to move, and then 4 gets into the floodway. 5 And so whether the ice is gone or not, 6 you do get the initial movement of water through 7 the floodway before the gates are operated, and 8 that flow slowly builds up before it reaches the 9 outlet -- sorry, it slowly progressing down the 10 floodway, together with discharge from drainage 11 channels that enter the floodway. In and around 12 Winnipeg and east of Winnipeg the snow melt is 13 running off the drainage channels and discharging 14 to the floodway. So there is a slow buildup of 15 the flow in the floodway, to the point where it is 16 not a slug or surge, it is just a slowly discharge 17 that slowly builds up over that outlet structure 18 and back into the Red River. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm just looking at, it 20 is appendix L, water regime effects, preliminary 21 engineering report, June 2004, and it is done by 22 Acres Manitoba. And on page 414, item 426, issues 23 raised relating to initial floodway operation, and 24 I quote, 25 "Through MFEA's public and RM council 00556 1 consultation process several issues 2 have been raised specifically to deal 3 with initial operation of the 4 floodway. These are: 5 The floodway channel is an efficient 6 conduit allowing more water to arrive 7 in Selkirk sooner than if it would 8 have travelled through the City of 9 Winnipeg. The ice cover does not have 10 time to rot in place and therefore 11 breaks up prematurely and jams." 12 Then there is a second point: 13 "When first operated, the floodway 14 produces a rapid increase in flows and 15 this slug of water running through the 16 system causes the ice to break up 17 prematurely and jam." 18 What does that mean? 19 MR. CARSON: Well, the entrance into 20 those two bullets is actually, in consultation 21 process several issues have been raised, and so 22 what they are describing there or listing are the 23 issues that are perceptions of the public, and we 24 don't agree with those. So they have this 25 perception that there is a slug of water that 00557 1 comes through the floodway and suddenly appears in 2 Selkirk. We don't agree with that. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, so these aren't 4 statements from Acres, these are issues that are 5 raised by other people. 6 MR. CARSON: Definitely, yes. Through 7 MFEA's public and RM council consultation process 8 several issues have been raised and these are -- 9 so these are the issues that were raised, not our 10 view of the real world. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: So at the top of the 12 next page, Mr. Carson, 13 "As discussed previously, the 14 operation of the floodway gates does 15 cause a theoretical short term 16 dynamic." 17 What does that mean? I assume that this is a 18 comment by Acres, not an issue? 19 MR. CARSON: In re-reading this prior 20 to the hearings here, I did come across that 21 sentence, and I believe that was their perception 22 at the time. But, again, that is not our opinion. 23 And I think if they were asked -- and there is no 24 representing Acres here today, but if we were to 25 have them come here, they would confirm that that 00558 1 was their original perception, and since the 2 analysis has been done, they realize that that is 3 incorrect. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. 5 MR. WEBSTER: I have a question in 6 that area then. The floodway operation is -- you 7 would make an attempt to link it with the ice 8 breakup at the south end of the city, in other 9 words at the inlet structure. Is there any 10 attempt made to link the use of the floodway with 11 ice breakup at the north end, that is in the 12 Selkirk area, or is that viewed as being 13 essentially not important in terms of the 14 initiation of the use of the floodway? 15 MR. BOWERING: Maybe I could make a 16 stab at answering that as the operator, and then 17 they could provide some more technical analysis. 18 If operation of the floodway does not 19 aggravate flooding, then whether you operate or 20 not -- does not aggravate ice jamming, then 21 whether you operate or not is really immaterial to 22 ice jamming. I suppose we could hold off 23 operation just to prove it to people, for a couple 24 of days, but our belief based on these technical 25 studies is that it would have no advantage and, of 00559 1 course, would put the city at risk. So we are 2 pretty unlikely to do that. 3 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 4 MR. MCNEIL: Dr. Webster -- Doug 5 McNeil -- are you asking why is ice jamming an 6 issue for the floodway operators at the inlet but 7 not an issue at the outlet, or downstream of the 8 outlet? 9 MR. WEBSTER: I think that would have 10 been implied if we had established there was an 11 effect. But what I was trying to establish, to 12 wind up our discussion, was whether in fact there 13 was any consideration made of the ice conditions 14 at the other end of the floodway, or whether it 15 was simply an inlet challenge that you have looked 16 at. And what I established with you is that in 17 fact it is the inlet that you are concerned about 18 rather than anywhere else in the system, because 19 as far as you can tell there isn't an effect at 20 the other end; is that correct? 21 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 22 MR. WEBSTER: That's what I was 23 establishing, thank you. 24 MR. MCNEIL: Just as an additional 25 point, the ice jam in 2004 occurred before 00560 1 floodway operation began, just to prove that 2 point. 3 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are finished 5 with ice jams. I would like to turn to another 6 area that I guess looks at some alternatives to 7 the 700 year flood design. And I would like to 8 start off by asking the question, is a 700 year 9 criteria typical for flood control projects in 10 Canada or internationally? 11 MR. CARSON: Maybe I will try to 12 answer that and have others from the team chime in 13 if they can add to it. In my experience I have 14 come across situations in North America where 15 there have been more stringent criteria, and other 16 locations where it has been less stringent. Often 17 one in a 100 year protection level is the lowest 18 common denominator. For example, Minnesota has 19 across the state criteria and that's one in 100, 20 unless proven by economic analysis that there is 21 justification for improving that protection to a 22 higher magnitude. And there is a portion of 23 Minneapolis, for example, that is protected to 24 the one in 500 year level of protection, and there 25 are some parts of the Mississippi River that are 00561 1 protected to one in 1,000, one in 1,200 I believe 2 level of protection. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: In Mississippi? 4 MR. CARSON: Along the Mississippi, 5 yes. 6 And of course there is European 7 practice, there is protection at London with the 8 Thames barrier that is about a one in 1,000 event, 9 and there are polders or dykes in Holland that are 10 even more stringent than that. So largely it 11 comes down to what the justification is to protect 12 vulnerable facilities and residences and so on. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So in the design 14 for this proposal you have used the 700 year flood 15 design for all elements of the floodway, the 16 channel, the bridges, the dykes, the outlet 17 structure, everything is built to a 700 year flood 18 event? 19 MR. CARSON: Yes, that's correct. The 20 West Dyke, I guess a person could argue is 21 protected against a combination of events. It is 22 the combination of an one in 700 year event, 23 combined with a one in 100 year wind speed from 24 the south, so it is a combination of wind and 25 waves and flood. So you could argue that that's 00562 1 actually protected to a higher level, but that's a 2 normal procedure in dealing with dykes like that. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you have used a 4 lower criteria on some elements and not on the 5 whole thing, like build a 700 year channel but 6 build bridges to 200 or 225, and the outlet to a 7 lower level, would that have worked? 8 MR. CARSON: The bridges, let me just 9 address that first. If the bridges were designed, 10 let's say for a one in 100 year flood, then they 11 would by definition have their deck levels set at 12 about the one in a 100 year water level. That 13 would mean that if a one in 700 year flood were 14 occur, their decks would be submerged. And under 15 those conditions, the bridges would impose a very 16 severe restriction on discharge capacity in the 17 floodway. So we approached the bridges and the 18 channel as an integrated system that had to be 19 optimized together for the one in 700 year event. 20 And in the end we found that the most effective 21 design was to design the bridges also for an one 22 in 700 year event. It lead to the least cost 23 combination for the lowest possible cost of the 24 floodway expansion. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: You mention bridges, 00563 1 and that takes me off slightly on a tangent. The 2 floodway authority is paying the full costs of 3 replacing all 12 bridges; is that correct? 4 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. Well, the project 5 is paying for the cost of replacing all six 6 highway crossings and retrofitting five railway 7 crossings and replacing one railway crossing per 8 the cost sharing agreement with the Federal 9 Government. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it have been 11 reasonable, I mean, these bridges, both rail and 12 road, varied in age, at some point in the next 13 however long, 10, 20, 30 years, they would have 14 had to be upgraded or replaced anyway. Was there 15 any consideration given to having the current 16 owners of those bridges pay some of the costs? 17 MR. MCNEIL: The province is the owner 18 of all of those bridges. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: The highway bridges. 20 MR. MCNEIL: And the railway bridges 21 as well, and the reason for is that they existed 22 prior to the floodway. So they were there first, 23 the floodway came along, and there are agreements 24 with the users of those bridges that the province 25 is responsible for repair or replacement of those 00564 1 rail bridges. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 3 MR. WEBSTER: Going back to the effect 4 of dyke height in the city, if the province and 5 Federal Government funded more of the cost of 6 dykes in Winnipeg, you could raise the dykes more 7 or build more primary versus temporary dykes, is 8 that correct? Right now the temporary dykes play 9 a reasonable part in the scheme of things. 10 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, just let me explain. 11 There is 68 miles or 110 kilometres of primary 12 dyke in the City of Winnipeg that parallels the 13 Red River for its entire length from south to 14 north in the city, the Assiniboine River, 15 generally from St. James Street to the confluence 16 with the Red River, and the Seine River from the 17 confluence with the Red to about Bishop Grandin 18 Boulevard. 19 The dykes, as I mentioned earlier, 20 were originally constructed in 1950, 1951, to an 21 elevation equivalent to 26.5 at James Avenue, 22 paralleling the 80,000 cubic feet per second 23 through the city. And by the way, that 80,000 is 24 at James Avenue after you consider the Assiniboine 25 River contribution and the Seine River. 00565 1 The dykes are not consistently to the 2 same elevation today. One of the reasons is that 3 in 1956 there was a flood and in 1966 there was a 4 flood, and city and government took action to 5 raise those dykes with clay fill, and not all of 6 them went back to that original 26.5. Further, 7 there has been extensions to the primary dyking 8 system, and those extensions that occurred since 9 1980 were required to be built to 27.8, which is 10 the legislated flood protection level. So the 11 height varies throughout the city. 12 As a result of this -- so the city has 13 an obligation under the dyking authority act to 14 maintain and raise those dykes as necessary, 15 whether permanently or temporarily, to meet the 16 requirements of the legislation. For example, if 17 Scotia Street, which is a primary dyke, was to be 18 reconstructed, and it is a foot short of the 27.8, 19 then the city is obligated to raise it to 27.8 as 20 a matter of course. 21 With the 700 year flood there exists a 22 backwater situation, as that flow, 140,000 cubic 23 feet per second, re-enters the Red River at the 24 outlet structure, it has a backwater effect. It 25 backs up all the way through the City of Winnipeg 00566 1 and zeros out at around the south perimeter. At 2 James Avenue it results in a water level being two 3 feet higher, or equivalent to the 26.5. At the 4 north limit of the city it is about three feet 5 higher than just purely the water level associated 6 with 80,000 cubic feet per second. 7 So there are areas of the city where 8 the primary dykes are not permanently above two 9 feet above the 700 year backwater. And the City, 10 of course, through this, through the studies and 11 through the predesign has identified the areas of 12 the dyke that need to be upgraded permanently. 13 The city has also identified that the 14 cost of permanently upgrading those dykes is 15 $149 million. The $149 million, about half of it 16 is related to river bank stabilization work, and a 17 good portion of the dyke work is basically related 18 to replacing what is probably good pavement, 19 because it is streets. Over 95 percent of the 20 primary dykes in the city are streets, like 21 Scotia, Kildonan, Assiniboine Avenue, et cetera. 22 So what you really need for flood 23 protection is the clay, or dyke portion of the 24 primary dyke system or those streets. The reason 25 that -- and first of all, the city does have an 00567 1 upgrading program for its sewer and flood 2 protection infrastructure, and in the future that 3 will include the primary dykes. But they really 4 need to do a benefit cost analysis to determine 5 where is it most cost effective to raise those 6 primary dykes? When I mentioned in my 7 presentation yesterday that the city, the 8 province, and Manitoba Floodway Authority will be 9 discussing that program, it is to determine what 10 is the most cost effective approach to raising 11 those dykes. For example, does it make sense to 12 raise a dyke that might be deficient six inches, 13 because at six inches is primarily pavement, or 14 does it make more sense to raise those dykes 15 temporarily when necessary for those rare events? 16 MFA, Manitoba Floodway Authority has 17 done an analysis using the city's information as 18 to what would be required to raise all of those 19 dykes to the 700 year backwater plus two feet in 20 an emergency temporarily. And we figured out that 21 it would be about $5 million to raise all of the 22 dykes, and it is approximately -- it is not all 23 the 110 kilometres, I'm guessing it is 25 24 kilometres of the existing system that needs to be 25 raised, and it would be about $5 million, and it 00568 1 would take about a week to do that. And that is 2 actually much less effort than what the city 3 undertook for all of the dyking activity, both 4 primary and secondary, in 1997. 5 So, first of all, it is doable, it is 6 feasible, and it is very cost effective. In areas 7 where the primary dyke -- and that's for raising 8 whatever needs to be raised to protect the city 9 two feet above the 700 year level. So after the 10 floodway is expanded and we get a 700 year event 11 and the city has -- and the dykes exist then as 12 they exist today, that's the effort it would take, 13 $5 million, and by the way, that also includes 14 cleanup afterwards, $5 million and week of effort, 15 and about a tenth of the amount of clay that we 16 moved in 1997. 17 If you look at what is a practical 18 approach over the next several years for raising 19 those primary dykes -- and this is my last 20 point -- I would suggest that any area where the 21 dyke is deficient below the projected water level 22 would be the areas that you would concentrate your 23 efforts, because then you have a secured dyke and 24 your risk of failure would be reduced considerably 25 over a temporary situation. And that amounts to 00569 1 about $35 million worth of effort, that would 2 include replacing the payment pavement and 3 whatever river bank stabilization works are 4 necessary. So that might be something that might 5 be the starting point for consideration of raising 6 the dykes in a permanent program in the future. 7 No matter how long that takes, it doesn't really 8 matter, because we are confident that the dykes 9 can be raised in time for a 700 year event after 10 the floodway is expanded. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we can leave 12 that one behind us for now. I can't seem to get 13 away from artificial flooding, although this is I 14 think more of a design issue than an operation 15 issue. Mr. McNeil, yesterday in your presentation 16 you showed us the figure that we have actually 17 looked at as well, that shows that with the 18 expanded floodway artificial flooding starts at 19 120 year event as opposed to a 90 year flood; is 20 that correct? 21 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: That's with the 23 expanded floodway, it will be -- 24 MR. MCNEIL: You go into rule 2, or 25 you start artificially flooding, or the water 00570 1 level will go above the state of nature for 2 something greater than a 120 year event with the 3 expanded floodway. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: So when they built the 5 original floodway in the '60s, they thought it 6 would be 160 year flood protection with no 7 artificial flooding; is that correct? 8 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: So what changed? 10 MR. MCNEIL: That was based on what we 11 call the hydrology of the day. The designers at 12 that time look at the data that they have on 13 floods, and they do a statistical analysis based 14 on existing floods, and then they make a 15 projection with that statistical analysis as to 16 how big -- sorry, how frequent certain sized 17 floods could be. They had not experienced a 160 18 year event, they had information about the 1826 19 event, and they had a lot of information about 20 smaller events that had occurred in the late 1800s 21 and the early 1900s, up to 1950 or even 1956 when 22 they did that analysis. Based on their analysis 23 of the period of record, and I'm guessing from 24 mid 1800s to 1950, they concluded that a flood 25 event of 169,000 cubic feet per second, and that's 00571 1 contributions from the Red, the Assiniboine, the 2 Seine, the LaSalle, and the tributaries, that that 3 was equivalent to a flood that had a return of one 4 in 160 years. 5 We have the benefit today, or at least 6 in 1997 when that statistical analysis was 7 re-looked at, re-examined, of a lot more data. 8 The more significant floods of '56, '66, '74, '79, 9 '96, and of course '97, changed that analysis, 10 such that what was 160 year flood almost 50 years 11 ago is now considered to be a 100 year flood. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: So, at least on a 13 design basis we are going backwards, we are going 14 from 160 year artificial flood protection to 120 15 year artificial flood protection. 16 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, basically. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: What would it take to 18 maintain that status quo, to build this expansion 19 to 160 year, no artificial flood? 20 MR. MCNEIL: We are guessing that it 21 would be at least $100 million. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Just curious 23 more than anything. 24 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I would just 25 like to add one more thing after conferring with 00572 1 my colleagues. We really don't like to refer to 2 the floods with the return frequency, and the 3 reason is that it changes over time, as we just 4 demonstrated. The reason that the floodway 5 expansion was chosen to increase the capacity from 6 a firm or a reliable 60,000 cubic feet per second 7 to 140 cubic feet per second was because it 8 provided the maximum net benefits. It really 9 doesn't matter what return period you associate 10 with that flood, 500 year, 1,000 year, whatever. 11 The reality is that by protecting the city, and 12 providing a capacity of the floodway of 13 140,000 cubic feet per second, that you avoid 14 damages that are two and a half times greater than 15 the cost of the project. But if you look at 16 providing a floodway that has less capacity, or a 17 floodway that provides more capacity, the 18 difference between the cost of the project and the 19 benefits becomes less, and that's why this project 20 was picked. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: So whether it comes 22 next year or in 700 years, it is still a hell of a 23 big flood. 24 MR. MCNEIL: Correct. 25 MR. CARSON: Can I add just one remark 00573 1 to that? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: To the hell of a big 3 flood? 4 MR. CARSON: The one in 700 year 5 event, it sticks in my throat. It doesn't mean 6 that there will be another 700 years before the 7 flood occurs. What it means is that each year 8 there is a one in 700 chance that that flood can 9 be equalled or exceeded. That's really -- 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm glad you clarified 11 that. I'm aware of that, after reading volumes of 12 material, but probably many folks aren't aware of 13 that. 14 We have come to a bit of a turning 15 point in our cross-examination right now, and we 16 are not quite ready to go into the next area. I 17 think what I might do at this time, and this would 18 sort of flow into this evening when we are open up 19 for the general public, is invite any members of 20 the general public, and I'm not referring to the 21 participant groups who will get their own 22 scheduled slots later in the hearing, but are 23 there any members of the general public who wish 24 to ask questions of the floodway authority in 25 respect to the matter under consideration? 00574 1 It doesn't appear to be the case. 2 Let's just take a short time out again 3 and see if we have another area that we can fill 4 up another 20 minutes or so. 5 (RECESS TAKEN) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come back to 7 order, please? 8 We have one short area, or probably 9 one or two questions in one area. We have had one 10 member of the public indicate a desire to ask a 11 question or two of the authority. We will, the 12 Commission, the panel will have perhaps a half an 13 hour to an hour more of questions tomorrow 14 morning, and that will finish the first part, or 15 sort of the bulk of our cross-examination. 16 Following, when we are finished tomorrow morning 17 the participant groups will be invited to start 18 their cross-examinations. We will have some 19 questions that relate to their issues as they go 20 through their cross-examinations. 21 One area that I would just like to ask 22 a question or two of right now is the matter of 23 recreation. I notice that in the EIS guidelines, 24 and it is under a section called "Components of 25 the project as identified by MFEA are," and it 00575 1 includes "incorporation of recreational facilities 2 to the maximum extent practical." In Mr. Gilroy's 3 December 20th letter he writes that the definition 4 of the project also does not include recreational 5 uses. And I don't know when this occurred, but it 6 was a -- it is a PowerPoint slide from a MFEA 7 presentation which talks about flood protection, 8 construction, employment, recreational 9 opportunities and infrastructure improvements. 10 I guess my question is where, does 11 recreation stand at this point in respect of the 12 project? 13 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I'm going to 14 refer back to the slide that I presented 15 yesterday. I will just leave it like this, all of 16 the points stay in bright yellow. 17 I will just give you a little history 18 about the recreation economic opportunities before 19 I go to this, but basically they have been 20 determined to be outside of the project scope for 21 the environmental assessment of this project. 22 Originally, there are a lot of things in the 23 application for the environmental license in a 24 document called project description, which I 25 believe the Clean Environment Commission has a 00576 1 copy of, that were conceptual in nature when that 2 project description was put together, and then 3 since then had been removed by the Manitoba 4 Floodway Authority for purposes of environmental 5 assessment. 6 Having said that, though, in March of 7 2004, Manitoba Floodway Authority did advertise in 8 the Winnipeg Free Press, and maybe other 9 newspapers, for stakeholders and interested 10 parties to identify what recreational and economic 11 opportunities they would like to see incorporated 12 as part of this project. We did that very early 13 on, coincident with the early stages of predesign 14 of the project, to determine whether or not there 15 were any recreation or economic opportunities that 16 might impact the design of the project with 17 respect to its primary purpose, which is flood 18 protection. For example, white water rafting was 19 out there for a while as a potential recreational 20 opportunity that might be associated with this 21 project. As an aside we sat down with those 22 people and they and the floodway authority came to 23 realize that that wasn't a feasible opportunity. 24 When we went out to the public and people had to 25 respond by April of 2004, they came back with 00577 1 three general ideas for recreation and economic 2 opportunities. They were, use the excavated clay 3 material or granular for public projects, or for 4 flood proofing, or whatever the case may be; use 5 the excavated material to build a ski hill or hang 6 gliding facility; and then the third area was 7 trails. In other words, formalize the 8 unauthorized use of the floodway that goes on 9 today. 10 After seeing all of those 11 opportunities, the floodway authority did prepare 12 an opportunities report which was recently 13 released, but we also came to the conclusion 14 during the predesign phase that the hills, any new 15 hills weren't feasible. For the kinds of hills 16 that some of these proposals included, there was a 17 requirement for way more fill, ten times of fill 18 that we were going to be creating as part of this 19 project. So those were dismissed. 20 The existing Springhill ski hill owner 21 still has the opportunity to take fill from us, if 22 the owner advises us in time, if he wants to 23 enhance the height of the hill that exists there 24 today. We won't be excavating in that area until 25 the second and third years of the project. 00578 1 And then the trail idea, there was a 2 lot of work by stakeholders, interested 3 stakeholders, they formed an umbrella group, 4 Rivers West is leading that group, and they have 5 some conceptual ideas of what the trails should 6 look like along the floodway. 7 However, with all of these proposals 8 and the ones that may go forward into the future, 9 they are still very conceptual, and we see it 10 that, we have eliminated them from the 11 environmental assessment saying they are out of 12 scope because they are conceptual and just a 13 potential future project at this stage of the 14 game. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: We will be hearing from 16 I think at least three trail groups this evening. 17 Thank you, Mr. McNeil. 18 It just actually reminded me of one 19 other question that I wanted to ask today, and it 20 is not really related, it is not related to 21 recreation, but when you were talking about re-use 22 of the materials, it has -- at least one of the -- 23 some of the concerns that we have heard from 24 citizens groups, and this is to some extent a 25 health issue, but also a practical issue for a lot 00579 1 of people -- a lot of the houses that were either 2 rebuilt or moved on to higher ground during or 3 after 1997, this was accommodated by taking 4 scrapers or dozers and digging great big holes in 5 people's front or back yards, and building a hill 6 to plop the house on top of, which leaves these 7 holes that fill up with dirty water in the summer. 8 Is there any thought or any possibility of reusing 9 some of the excavated material to fill those 10 holes? 11 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, certainly that's an 12 option that we haven't worked out in any detail. 13 At the very least we have been discussion that we 14 would make fill available to anybody who is 15 interested in it. On the public sector side, 16 Highways has asked for fill as part of their 17 Highway 101 twining, for example, but we haven't 18 made any final decisions about how that fill will 19 be available, and when, and those kinds of 20 details. 21 One thing I would like to add is we 22 did talk -- we had several pages in the 23 supplement, EIS supplementary filing in section 10 24 about the status of the economic and recreational 25 opportunities. So I direct you to that. 00580 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So recreational 2 opportunities have been removed from the license 3 application? 4 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, there was one 6 person who wanted to ask questions. If you could 7 come up to the front mic, please? Please identify 8 yourself and direct your question to the Floodway 9 Authority panel. 10 THE WITNESS: Valerie Rutherford from 11 the RM of Ritchot, and my concern and question is 12 that the structure is operated at times just to 13 maintain a natural level south of the structure, 14 yet -- when there is no threat to Winnipeg -- when 15 we ask, the answer seems to imply that this 16 structure is for the benefit of Winnipeg and not 17 for anybody else. And I would like to think that 18 any money spent by our Federal Government and our 19 Provincial Government, that many of us should 20 benefit. I wonder if they could tell us why they 21 want to maintain a natural level to the south and 22 yet have a non-flood situation in Winnipeg. Thank 23 you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You might want to just 25 stay in case they need some clarification. 00581 1 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I guess it 2 goes to that first principle that Rick Bowering 3 mentioned, and the whole reason for the flood 4 control structures, not only the floodway but the 5 Shellmouth and the Portage Diversion is there 6 first and foremost to protect Winnipeg from river 7 flooding. 8 However, having said that, in rule 2, 9 when the water level can go above the state of 10 nature and be artificial, rule 2 does allow for an 11 opportunity to not go all the way up to the top of 12 that curve that we demonstrated in the EIS, if in 13 fact the city raises its dykes in time and they 14 are allowed to -- to allow more discharge through 15 the City of Winnipeg. And in fact rule 2 16 describes this better than I am right now. But 17 what we demonstrated in the EIS -- maybe I will 18 call up the curve -- is the worst case situation. 19 If for any reason that the city can't stay ahead 20 of the primary dykes, then rule 2 allows for a 21 consistent discharge through the city all of the 22 way through rule 2 until you reach rule 3. 23 So there is a consideration for the 24 upstream people in rule 2, but the fallback in the 25 worst case position is that in rule 2 the water 00582 1 level, the water flow through the city will be 2 maintained until you get to rule 3. Does that 3 help? 4 MS. RUTHERFORD: No, you didn't answer 5 my question. 6 MR. BOWERING: Can I try? Valerie, 7 this is Rick Bowering, and Valerie, you and I have 8 discussed this on numerous occasions. 9 To start with that basic principle, if 10 we do an economic analysis, a purely economic 11 analysis, even when it looks like there is no 12 flooding in Winnipeg, there are costs to the city 13 for operation. There is operation of their pump 14 stations, quite a number of operations for the 15 city before the level gets high. So it does cost 16 the city some money, and so the cost benefit ratio 17 in let's say a smaller flood like 1996 or 18 something even a little bit smaller than that -- I 19 think what Mrs. Rutherford is suggesting is that 20 in a situation like that, we could get a little 21 more through the city and provide a little bit of 22 relief in the valley. That is technically 23 feasible, it is something that could be done, but 24 if you go through it on a purely economic basis, 25 the city always can give us detailed numbers of 00583 1 how much that would add to their problem. 2 A second consideration has to do with 3 the balancing of flows. The way a river works in 4 its natural situation is some water is stored in 5 the channel as it moves downstream. If we pass 6 more water through the city and therefore drop the 7 water levels in the valley south of Winnipeg, we 8 are losing flood storage, and the result of that 9 is increased levels north of the city. So, if we 10 did operate that, besides letting a little more 11 through the city and therefore increasing their 12 flood fighting costs, we would also have the 13 situation of going, of increasing flood levels 14 north of the city, because we would not be 15 attenuating it as it naturally does in the valley. 16 So although what Mrs. Rutherford is 17 suggesting is surely attractive to residents south 18 of the city, it does have ramifications that we 19 have to consider. 20 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I would also 21 like to add that since we are here because of the 22 project, which is floodway expansion, there is a 23 benefit to upstream residents in that we won't go 24 above natural until the 120 year event with the 25 floodway expansion, whereas today it is 90 year 00584 1 with the existing floodway. And in addition, 2 Manitoba and Canada spent over $100 million in the 3 valley protecting to '97 plus two, and with the 4 expanded floodway, that gives them protection 5 to -- approximately the top of their dykes would 6 be equivalent to 140 year return event with the 7 expanded floodway. 8 MS. RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MS. RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, what 11 the people south of the floodway would like to see 12 is that in those nuisance floods, that we have 13 often, is that they allow the water to go down the 14 floodway and let us benefit sometimes, instead of 15 looking at us as if you have to, we have to 16 maintain level. And Winnipeg isn't flooding and 17 they should be prepared for their spring operation 18 of pumps anyway. We have roads going under, it 19 doesn't seem to matter, our roads go under water 20 and people have to boat to get out to work or go 21 to school, or else move elsewhere. And it has a 22 dire effect on our family life. And if they could 23 just be more sensitive to not worry about 24 maintaining that level of natural to the south of 25 the floodway and allowing more through Winnipeg. 00585 1 Thank you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 3 Mr. Clifton, you will have an 4 opportunity tomorrow morning, you are first on the 5 cross-examination list. 6 MS. CLIFTON: I was wondering if I had 7 the opportunity to supplement what Valerie said? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I would rather you do 9 it tomorrow morning when you have your 10 opportunity. 11 Yes, sir. Come to a mic, please? 12 MR. STEFANIUK: I am Bob Stefaniuk, I 13 am the mayor of the RM of Ritchot, and I have a 14 few questions based on what I heard this 15 afternoon, and based on my understanding of how 16 some of these modifications to the floodway were 17 done. 18 Now, when the notches were done I was 19 part of a study group, and at that time it was 20 suggested by modeling, I guess not suggested as a 21 reality, that these notches during a 1997 flood 22 level would decrease the water level upstream by 23 six inches. Now we are talking about those taking 24 the place of enhancing the floodway inlet. Well, 25 what is correct here? Because the notches 00586 1 themselves, even though they are there now, at 2 that time I thought the operating rule should be 3 changed to address that issue, because the 4 operating rules right now give the province or the 5 operator any -- whether they choose to give that 6 advantage to upstream in the City of Winnipeg or 7 downstream, or upstream in Ritchot, or downstream 8 in Winnipeg, it is not defined who is going to 9 benefit from those notches. So, therefore, I want 10 some clarification of that, not right now, but 11 that just indicates how things were looked at 12 here. I'm not pleased with the answers that I did 13 hear in that regard this afternoon. 14 Also the operating rules were 15 reviewed, that was mentioned, the operating rules 16 were reviewed with the intention that that was for 17 the existing floodway. When the expanded floodway 18 was put in place, it was my full understanding 19 that those operating rules would have to be 20 rewritten. That doesn't appear to be the case 21 either. And if I may, sir. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps Mr. Bowering 23 could respond to your last point about the 24 operating rules. 25 MR. BOWERING: When we looked at what 00587 1 was proposed for expanding the floodway, we could 2 not envision any particular way in which we would 3 need to change the operating rules. So even 4 though when we are first discussing various ideas 5 for increasing flood protection to Winnipeg, we 6 expected that we would probably have to review the 7 operating rules, when we came up with the project 8 that is here, our view is that we probably don't 9 need to. However, we do meet every time we 10 operate with a group that the minister has set up 11 called the Floodway Operation Review Committee, 12 and through that committee anybody could bring 13 such a suggestion forward and we would entertain 14 it. But at this point I don't see any driving 15 reason why we would change the operating rules 16 with the expanded floodway. 17 MR. STEFANIUK: That was the premise 18 that the operating rules were approved by the 19 subject municipalities at that time, that there 20 would be operating rules reviewed when that, when 21 the floodway was expanded. If they don't have to 22 be reviewed or changed, let's have a meeting and 23 have consultation and establish that. 24 The committee that Mr. Bowering refers 25 to does meet, it doesn't meet every time, but it 00588 1 does meet in the spring time. And at that time it 2 is just how we are going to accommodate the 3 expected regime, and usually it is pretty straight 4 forward like last year and the year before. Since 5 '97 we haven't had a huge flood event, so it is 6 not time to bring up the review of the overall 7 operating rules. 8 So now we have a situation that the 9 floodway is expanded, no input has been put into 10 the operating rules, and they are very important 11 because that's where the supposed legislation, the 12 Floodway Act for compensation kicks in. I think 13 it is extremely important. 14 I also have one other point if I may, 15 very quickly. The $149 million to upgrade the 16 primary dykes in the city, I was also involved in 17 an engineering evaluation study of the floodway 18 before in 2002, and at that time it was talked 19 about, you know, the primary dykes and raising 20 them in the city, and it was discussed. And the 21 City of Winnipeg stated categorically at that time 22 that it would be just about impossible to do that 23 kind of operation in time to save the city. So, 24 therefore, now it is possible, so I don't know 25 where it is really lying at. I would like 00589 1 clarification sometime during this process. 2 MR. MCNEIL: Doug McNeil speaking, 3 Mr. Chair. I would be more than happy to answer 4 that question, Reeve Stefaniuk. 5 First of all, I agree with Reeve 6 Stefaniuk that the operating rules are very 7 important. Let's be clear, though, they are not 8 being changed as part of this project. That's 9 what is stated in the EIS. All the analysis that 10 we did and the graphs that we have shown are based 11 on that fact. And the EIS analysis of effects and 12 whatnot was also based on that fact. So, if there 13 is was a suggestion that they might be changed, I 14 agree with Rick Bowering that should go to the 15 operation advisory board as some future planned 16 action. 17 With respect to the primary dykes, 18 what Reeve Stefaniuk is referring to is the 19 analysis that was undertaken for raising the 20 primary dykes, if there was an 1826 flood or some 21 large flood above the 1997 level. And the 22 conclusion was, and this is documented in many 23 presentations, and maybe even the -- certainly the 24 IJC work -- that the level of effort required to 25 protect the city against an 1826 flood with the 00590 1 existing floodway would most certainly result in 2 failure. It means raising all of the primary 3 dykes, 68 miles or 110 kilometres of primary dyke, 4 it means raising them from that average of 26.5 to 5 32.5 James or 34.5 James, and it means moving one 6 heck of a lot of clay. It takes -- it would take, 7 if circumstances were ideal, at least four weeks. 8 It means that you need appropriate weather, not 9 inclement weather, not freezing weather where the 10 clay freezes in transit. It means moving fill and 11 compacting it in every area of the city. It means 12 trying to find borrow locations throughout the 13 city, they are listed, they are known. It is a 14 tremendous effort to go to that level. 15 It is night and day between the 1826 16 level and two feet above the 700 year level. One 17 of the reasons is that the 700 backwater affects 18 mostly the north half of the city and not the 19 south half. The primary dykes in the north half 20 of the city are actually further from the river 21 than the dykes in the rest of the river. Further 22 from the river generally means on higher ground, 23 which generally means that not all primary dykes 24 have to be raised for the 700 year plus two feet. 25 So the level of effort, and I 00591 1 indicated earlier approximately a week and much 2 less fill than was required in 1997, versus an 3 1826 scenario today, which would be at least four 4 weeks, much more fill than what was required in 5 q997, I would hazard a guess, 20 times as much as 6 what we need for the 700 year. And the bottom 7 line is, in an 1826 flood you probably don't know 8 until it is too late that that's the size of flood 9 that you are going to have to deal with. And that 10 was always the basis of the argument that 11 justified greater flood protection for Winnipeg in 12 some other means like floodway expansion. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 14 MR. STEFANIUK: Just one other comment 15 if I may, not a question. We were talking also 16 about the developments that are allowed to take 17 place south of the city, and whether that's 18 restricted. I can assure you, sir, that it is. 19 We belong to the Macdonald/Ritchot planning board, 20 and we have a development plan that's been 21 approved by the Minister of Intergovernmental 22 Affairs, about 2001, somewhere in there, and it 23 allows houses to be built at the owners expense to 24 the '97 plus two flood level protection. 25 Now every time we apply through the 00592 1 planning board for government approval through 2 Water Resources, they reject it. So I don't know 3 who is running the circus here, but it may be the 4 Crowns. Thank you. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Let me make 6 a couple of comments before we adjourn for supper. 7 This evening we have five groups that have 8 indicated they want to make presentations. They 9 have been instructed that their presentations are 10 to be no longer than 15 minutes, so that could 11 take an hour and a quarter or so. I would ask 12 that the floodway panel still be still available 13 because this is also an opportunity for the 14 general public who aren't able to come during the 15 day to ask questions of you. 16 So, I would also alert the participant 17 groups, those that are intending to cross-examine 18 the Floodway Authority, to be prepared to go 19 perhaps as early as 10:00 o'clock tomorrow 20 morning. 21 We will break now for supper. I ask 22 you to please be back here by 5 to 7:00 so we can 23 start at 7:00 sharp, as we only have two hours 24 scheduled for the evening. 25 00593 1 2 (Proceedings recessed at 5:10 p.m. 3 and reconvened at 7:00 p.m.) 4 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come to order, 6 please. The order of business tonight, at least 7 for the first hour or so, will be to hear 8 presentations from a handful of groups that had 9 requested to make presentations on the issue of 10 the floodway expansion. 11 To those who are making presentations 12 tonight, I would just like to say that first you 13 will be sworn in by the Commission secretary. You 14 will not be subject to any cross-examination other 15 than questions of clarification from members of 16 the panel. And also that your presentations are 17 limited to 15 minutes. 18 I'd like to ask each of you, when you 19 come up, to introduce yourself for the record and 20 then proceed with your presentation. You may 21 proceed. 22 MS. DZUS: Okay. Thank you. My name 23 is Rosemary Dzus. I'm the Executive Director of 24 the Manitoba Recreational Trails Association. And 25 I'll just give you a bit of a preview of what it 00594 1 is I'm going to talk about. 2 MS. JOHNSON: Excuse me one minute. I 3 have to swear you in. Okay. You had stated your 4 name. 5 6 (ROSEMARY DZUS: SWORN) 7 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Now you may proceed. 9 MS. DZUS: All right. First I'm going 10 to talk about interest in recreation along the 11 floodway. And then I'm going to talk about 12 general interest in fitness and link this interest 13 to healthy communities concept and then talk about 14 why developing recreational trails on the floodway 15 is a good idea and the idea of a master plan for 16 such recreational development is essential. 17 As I said, I'm the Executive Director 18 of Manitoba Recreational Trails Association or the 19 MRTA. We are the official trail council for the 20 Trans Canada Trail in Manitoba and also we 21 administer the Manitoba Millenium Trail 22 Development Fund. 23 In the year 2000, the Manitoba 24 Government through the Department of Culture, 25 Heritage and Tourism allocated $2.125 million to 00595 1 trails and trail development in Manitoba. And we 2 administer these funds. 3 This is our mission statement. We'll 4 give you a moment to read that. And the Manitoba 5 Recreational Trails Association is also now a 6 member of the Red River Trail Floodway Coalition. 7 In the year 2004, Rivers West 8 initiated a floodway trail opinion survey. There 9 were 50 surveys distributed. There was a 42 per 10 cent return indicative of a high level of interest 11 in recreational opportunities along the floodway. 12 It's important to remember that these 13 surveys were sent out to groups as well as 14 individuals. Or just in general, they were sent 15 out to groups so each survey could represent the 16 opinions of a few people or possibly 100 or more. 17 One of the important things in this 18 survey, even though it was a relatively low 19 distribution, 50 places or 50 groups who it was 20 distributed to, there was consensus on some key 21 issues. The first was pedestrian bridges. 100 22 per cent of the people who returned the surveys 23 indicated that pedestrian access is required on 24 the bridges across the floodway. The most 25 important crossings that were indicated in the 00596 1 survey included Fermor Avenue and both crossings 2 of Highway 59. 3 Nearly 70 per cent of the groups that 4 responded indicated that they were willing and/or 5 able to take on responsibility for maintenance 6 pertaining to the portions of the trails connected 7 to their activity. 8 Nearly 80 per cent of the groups 9 responded preferred a curving sloped trail with 10 bermed features to a straight line commuter type 11 of trail. Some other desired amenities included 12 parking and signage. 13 And current use of the floodway. 14 While about 50 per cent of the groups that 15 responded indicated that they did currently use 16 the floodway, groups that did not at this time 17 suggested that the most important reason why they 18 weren't using the floodway for recreation was that 19 the floodway, in its current incarnation, not 20 suitable for their activities. The primary 21 interests indicated in the survey were in order of 22 decreasing popularity, the following. 23 So let's move on to the reasons why 24 recreational trail development is a good idea 25 beyond the facts of the -- or the indications 00597 1 presented by the Rivers West survey. 2 This conclusion came from the results 3 of an environic study entitled "The 1998 National 4 Survey on Active Transportation." 5 There is a clear indication from the 6 Rivers West survey that individuals and community 7 or recreational groups are interested in 8 recreational development in the floodway. And 9 it's important that the community and government 10 also support the development of walking trails and 11 bike paths as well. 12 Further on to this. Walking has 13 consistently been the most popular physical 14 activity of Canadians. This is from a 1998 15 survey. And also in the survey, it was indicated 16 that 82 per cent of Canadians confirmed that they 17 would like to walk more often than they currently 18 do. 19 Cycling is one of the 10 most popular 20 activities and the most popular physical activity 21 among teenagers. So this is an important -- this 22 is an important idea when you start looking at the 23 rates of childhood obesity and the concern that's 24 been expressed about that. Certainly over the 25 past six months or so, it seems like it's not more 00598 1 than a day or two that goes by that somebody isn't 2 writing something in the paper, having something 3 on television about the concerns about childhood 4 inactivity and obesity and what can be done about 5 it. 6 Another thing that came out of some of 7 these studies is that almost two-thirds of 8 Canadians think that government should increase 9 tax spending to provide opportunities for physical 10 activity, and 90 per cent say that much more 11 should be spent in this area. Further to that, 12 there are only 37 per cent reported many safe 13 places to bicycle such as bicycle paths or lanes. 14 So to summarize the past few slides, I 15 can say that people want recreational activity. 16 It's important not only in the communities of 17 Winnipeg but also all across Canada. This is 18 recreational activity as to quality of life and 19 this is one of the things that Canadians think is 20 very important. 21 Moving on to the importance of 22 fitness. Physical inactivity contributes to these 23 series of health problems. It's one of the four 24 major risk factors for coronary heart disease, for 25 example. And physical activity also increases 00599 1 risks for osteoporosis, anxiety, stress, some 2 types of cancer, back pain and hypertension. 3 Let's take one of these problems, 4 coronary heart disease. Relative risk of the four 5 main risks for coronary heart disease which are 6 physical inactivity, elevated cholesterol, high 7 blood pressure and cigarette smoking were very 8 similar but the prevalence of those at risk for 9 the three latter factors were small, 10 to 18 per 10 cent compared with that of failing to perform 11 regular physical activity, 59 per cent. In other 12 words, more people were at higher risk for 13 coronary heart disease because of inactivity than 14 the other three factors. 15 Here is some interesting statistics. 16 And again, these are interesting numbers when it 17 comes to looking at health care and the benefits 18 of physical activity when it comes to possibly 19 reducing health care costs. 2.5 per cent of 20 health care costs are attributable to physical 21 inactivity. 1997, $1.8 billion was spent on 22 health care related to obesity. 2001, 23 approximately $2.8 billion was spent on direct 24 health care costs attributable to physical 25 inactivity. 00600 1 And this is an interesting kind of 2 map. Prevalence of obesity in Canada, 1985. As 3 you can see, there is no data available for the 4 territories but all of the provinces were at a 5 rate of less than 10 per cent. And we have a 6 pretty dramatic shift in 1998. So in every 7 province where data was available, province or 8 territory where data was available, the shift has 9 moved up. The prevalence of obesity has moved up. 10 It has risen at least five per cent in eight 11 provinces including Manitoba and at least 1 to 4.9 12 per cent in two provinces. And that's 1998, so I 13 don't think the rates have decreased since then. 14 Obesity is a complex issue and not 15 just an individual problem. This is a quote from 16 Stephen Samis, Director of Health Policy at the 17 Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada. From 18 removing trans fats from our food supply to daily 19 phys-ed in schools to communities designed to 20 support healthy living, we have to change our 21 environment to improve the health of Canadians. 22 Dr. Trevor Hancock, a public health 23 physician and consultant to the B.C. Ministry of 24 Health says encouraging activity in the workplace, 25 removing junk food from schools and bringing 00601 1 corporations and governments together to build 2 more walkable and bikeable communities are 3 examples of what needs to be done to support 4 individual efforts. 5 Dr. Lawrence Frank from the University 6 of British Columbia brings a unique background in 7 the interactions between land use, travel 8 behaviour, air quality and public health to the 9 discussion. His research into the impact of the 10 built-in environment on physical activity create a 11 better understanding of how community designs 12 affect activity levels. How we build communities 13 has a lasting influence on the activity levels of 14 the people who live in them. 15 In other words, what these people are 16 saying is that communities need places where 17 people can go to increase their physical activity 18 levels in a relatively convenient way. They are 19 more likely to use facilities that are available 20 to them than if they have to travel long distances 21 to get there. 22 The concerns about physical activity 23 have increased to such an extent that in February 24 2003, federal, provincial and territorial 25 ministers responsible for physical activity and 00602 1 recreation and sport set a new national target to 2 increase physical activity by 10 per cent in each 3 province and territory by 2010 in addition to 4 setting directions aimed at improving the health 5 of Canadians through regular physical activity. 6 So what we have in Manitoba right now 7 with the expansion of a floodway is a development 8 opportunity. There's 48 kilometres of potential 9 recreational development. There are at least 40 10 groups within or near Winnipeg with an existing or 11 potential interest in trail use. There's an 12 opportunity for recreational development as part 13 of the floodway expansion process. 14 There is a need to develop a 15 recreation master plan so that resources are used 16 in places and ways that will bring the most 17 benefit. The issues of trail design and 18 accessibility, as outlined in the Rivers West 19 survey, need to be addressed. As well, if there 20 are going to be 40 or more groups using the 21 floodway for recreation, there certainly needs to 22 be coordination. And that's where a master plan 23 would come in. There would be issues like staging 24 areas and amenities and what groups would be most 25 likely to use the floodway and what places. And 00603 1 those kinds of things would be addressed in the 2 master plan. 3 In conclusion, there is clearly a high 4 level of public interest, based on the Rivers West 5 survey, and also based on the information from 6 various surveys conducted for all of Canada. 7 There are potential health benefits 8 that I have talked about, increased physical 9 activity leading to reduced risk for many 10 diseases. 11 There are potential economic benefits 12 of a more physically active population which would 13 include reduced medical care and sick-leave costs, 14 reduced absenteeism in the workplace, reduced 15 health insurance claims and maintaining 16 independence into the senior years. 17 And it could create the floodway or 18 develop the floodway into a recreation destination 19 so it becomes more than a very large ditch or 20 possibly a place where people go and dump their 21 old mattresses. 22 And here is a few images that I've 23 taken off from various places showing trails 24 along, not along rivers, these are all trails that 25 are along canals. I apologize for the -- 00604 1 sometimes these images aren't of the best quality 2 but you get the idea. 3 This one in particular is interesting. 4 I took a few pictures off the Internet of the 5 Welland Canal Trail. And you'll see in some of 6 these images that the way the trail is set up and 7 the look of the canal bears some similarity to the 8 floodway, especially this one I think. You can 9 see that there's been revegetation or tree 10 planting in some areas. 11 Thank you very much. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Dzus. 13 Any questions or clarification? Mr. Webster. 14 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you for your 15 presentation. You weren't completely clear in 16 your presentation as to whether you expected 17 financial support from the Floodway Authority in 18 the plans that you are talking about. 19 MS. DZUS: That would be the ideal 20 situation, yes. 21 MR. WEBSTER: Do you believe that some 22 of the ideas could go forward in the absence of a 23 Floodway Authority support. 24 MS. DZUS: I think that it's very -- 25 it's difficult to address financial issues without 00605 1 having a plan in place so you know what kinds of 2 things would be useful and what would be the best 3 things to build and what sorts of infrastructure. 4 I really can't answer that. I think that probably 5 the development would be of such a magnitude that 6 it would be necessary for the recreational 7 development to be part of the budget. That's my 8 opinion. 9 MR. WEBSTER: And I was wondering what 10 kind of interaction you had with the Floodway 11 Authority about the development of these trails. 12 MS. DZUS: Well, as a member of the 13 Red River Coalition, we have been at meetings 14 where members of the Manitoba Floodway Authority 15 have been present. And so there has been 16 discussions about how a recreation could fit into 17 the plans. There hasn't really been any I'd say 18 definite specific movement on that at this point 19 but we have been having meetings with the Floodway 20 Authority, yes. 21 MR. WEBSTER: And have you felt 22 there's been general support from the Floodway 23 Authority in terms of developing these trails? 24 MS. DZUS: I think that there is the 25 idea of recreational trails is supported as far as 00606 1 the specifics go. I mean importance of having 2 recreational elements as part of the -- as part of 3 the beginning of the planning process or 4 integrated into the expansion project, I don't 5 think that's fully understood, the importance of 6 that. 7 MR. WEBSTER: So you've got a way to 8 go yet? 9 MS. DZUS: Yes, I think so. 10 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you very much. 11 MS. DZUS: Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for 13 your presentation. 14 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, if we can 15 add the presentation in as Exhibit number 43. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17 18 (EXHIBIT 43: Presentation by Rosemary 19 Dzus, Manitoba Recreational Trails 20 Association) 21 22 Ms. Johnson will swear you in and then we'll turn 23 to your presentation. 24 MS. JOHNSON: Could you please state 25 your name for the record. 00607 1 MR. GOUSSEAU: Norm Gousseau. 2 MS. LUKES: Janice Lukes. 3 4 (NORM GOUSSEAU: SWORN) 5 (JANICE LUKES: SWORN) 6 7 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 8 MS. LUKES: Thank you. My name is 9 Janice Lukes. I'm a resident of St. Norbert and 10 I'm the community liaison for the St. Norbert 11 Heritage Trails and I'm also an executive member 12 of Group Action St. Norbert. 13 MR. GOUSSEAU: I'm Norm Gousseau, a 14 past resident of St. Norbert for 20 years and 15 Director of Economic Development with Enterprise 16 Riel. 17 This submission is being made on 18 behalf of Group Action St. Norbert, St. Norbert 19 Heritage Trails and Enterprise Riel. Enterprise 20 Riel has a mandate to undertake and foster 21 francophone economic and community development 22 initiatives in the City of Winnipeg's Riel 23 district which is St. Boniface, St. Vital and St. 24 Norbert. This includes being a leader and 25 coordinator for the various organizations and 00608 1 merchants that contribute to economic development 2 in the district. We are also a leader in tourism 3 marketing and tourism product development. 4 In order to fulfil this mandate, we 5 create partnerships with many groups and 6 organizations. In the case of St. Norbert, we 7 helped to establish a grassroots organization that 8 could serve as a partner in this community. 9 Group Action St. Norbert. Group 10 Action St. Norbert is a-not-for-profit bilingual 11 corporation whose mandate is to promote the 12 economic, social, cultural, historical and 13 environmental interests of greater St. Norbert. 14 Its members are not-for-profit community 15 organizations in the greater St. Norbert area who 16 have compatible objectives. 17 MS. LUKES: Development of the St. 18 Norbert Heritage Trails is one of Group Action's 19 top priorities. As part of the Trans Canada 20 Trail, the St. Norbert Heritage Trails cover 21 approximately 25 kilometres and highlight the rich 22 cultural heritage and exceptional surroundings of 23 the Community of St. Norbert. 24 This spring, completion of a 2 and a 25 half kilometre trail alongside Cloutier Drive will 00609 1 complete a total of 16 kilometres of Trans Canada 2 trail starting at Pembina Highway and Bishop 3 Grandin following directly through to the Red 4 River gates. This 16 kilometres of safe 5 accessible trail in the south end of Winnipeg will 6 ensure pedestrian access to the gates. The St. 7 Norbert Heritage Trails also meets the Crow Wing 8 Trail, part of the Trans Canada Trail, in the lip 9 of the floodway. We see an enormous opportunity 10 to link into a greenway trail system on the 11 floodway itself. 12 So we'll be giving you an overview of 13 the Community of St. Norbert, the opportunities 14 for floodway expansion that it presents to St. 15 Norbert and our recommendations. 16 St. Norbert is a unique community with 17 a storied past. Birthplace of the Province of 18 Manitoba and once the starting point for annual 19 buffalo hunts, this picturesque community still 20 reflects its Metis and French heritage making it 21 culturally distinct among Winnipeg neighbourhoods. 22 Projecting a true small town country atmosphere, 23 St. Norbert lies inside the floodway, alongside 24 Pembina Highway, Winnipeg's primary road link to 25 the United States. St. Norbert is the front door 00610 1 to the thousands of U.S. and Eastern Canadian 2 travellers and tourists and is home to the Red 3 River floodway gates. 4 With two provincial parks, La Barriere 5 Park, the Red and LaSalle Rivers and numerous 6 national and provincial heritage sites, St. 7 Norbert is a gem in Manitoba's Crown. 8 MR. GOUSSEAU: We see this expansion 9 impacting St. Norbert in three major areas, flood 10 mitigation of course, recreation and tourism. In 11 flood protection, we fully understand and we 12 appreciate that the primary role of the Floodway 13 Authority is flood protection. We also understand 14 that in today's world, major infrastructure 15 initiatives should always have a very public 16 legacy component that responds to the needs of the 17 community it serves. 18 St. Norbert, like all communities, has 19 adapted to its environment. They had adapted to 20 dealing with floods prior to the construction of 21 the floodway. The residents have used the rivers 22 for transportation, for sustenance and a source of 23 recreation. 24 Since 1962 however, St. Norbert has 25 served as a front line of flood protection and its 00611 1 residents have re-adapted to the existence of the 2 floodway. It has become part of the culture of 3 the community. Fishing, boating, tobogganing, 4 cross-country sports have all become the norm. 5 What will be the legacy of this major 6 infrastructure project to the residents of St. 7 Norbert and Winnipeg and their visitors? 8 MS. LUKES: From St. Norbert to 9 Selkirk, there has always been a tremendous 10 interest in the recreation of some kind on the 11 floodway. From ice fishing to sledding to 12 snowmobiling, the floodway, the Red and LaSalle 13 Rivers are always a hive of activity in St. 14 Norbert. 15 With over hundreds of hectares of land 16 sitting idol, this expansion offers the potential 17 of a unique recreational opportunity. The 18 Floodway Expansion Authority has indicated that 19 recreation would be an integral part of this 20 expansion. Group Action St. Norbert, St. Norbert 21 Heritage Trails and Enterprise Riel have helped to 22 form and are part of the Red River Floodway Trails 23 Coalition, a coalition of over 40 diverse 24 recreational organizations who are in support of 25 the inclusion of recreational development as an 00612 1 integral part of the floodway expansion. 2 We are on the steering committee of 3 this coalition and wish to work as one voice 4 together with the MFEA to build a recreational 5 component into this expansion. 6 In February of 2004, Group Action St. 7 Norbert in partnership with Enterprise Riel 8 conducted a bilingual survey of the recreational 9 use of the Red River Floodway lands. This survey 10 was mailed to the greater St. Norbert area 11 including postal codes to the northeast, east and 12 south of the floodway gates. Respondents were 13 required to complete the survey and mail it back. 14 And considering the average unsolicited survey 15 response rate and the effort involved in 16 responding to this survey, we are very pleased 17 with the results. 18 Working with a survey consultant, we 19 developed the survey around four main questions 20 with multiple options and a check box ranking 21 format. The questions focused on non-motorized 22 vehicle use, motorized vehicle use, interpretive 23 centre and other conveniences. The survey in its 24 entirety can be found on the St. Norbert page of 25 the Manitoba Recreational Trails Association 00613 1 website. 2 The overall top five 3 strongly-supported responses focused on walking 4 trails, cycling paths, a toboggan hill, an 5 enclosed building with displays and possibly 6 computer-simulated tours of the workings of the 7 floodway and washrooms. 8 The survey results were submitted to 9 the Manitoba Floodway Expansion Authority and its 10 call for expressions of interest regarding 11 recreational and economic opportunities. The 12 authorities cited use of and referred to St. 13 Norbert survey in the recreational and economic 14 development opportunities report. 15 Although the Community of St. Norbert 16 at that time did not make a specific suggestion, 17 we wanted to ensure the Floodway Expansion 18 Authority was aware of what our community desired 19 in the way of recreational and interpretive use of 20 the surrounding floodway lands. 21 MR. GOUSSEAU: An outstanding 22 engineering achievement on a grand scale, the Red 23 River Floodway has protected Winnipeg from several 24 potential devastating floods. It has become an 25 inspirational symbol to Canadians in the ongoing 00614 1 struggle to control the powerful forces of nature. 2 Enterprise Riel is a tourism division 3 that operates two tourist information centres, one 4 in St. Boniface and the other in St. Norbert at 5 the heritage park. We serviced over 5,000 on-site 6 queries in St. Norbert in 2004 and we distributed 7 over 73,000 marketing pieces. 8 Acknowledging that we already received 9 a number of inquiries about the floodway, we are 10 convinced that the symbol of outstanding 11 engineering, if properly marketed interpreted, 12 would be an important tourist attraction. In the 13 context of this survey of the greater St. Norbert 14 area, we also tested the interesting tourism 15 product development. 16 In this survey, we asked questions 17 surrounding an interpretive centre. While the 18 questions were specific and designed to test the 19 interests of the local market, the results 20 demonstrate an evident appetite for this type of 21 attraction. 71 per cent noted that they would 22 prefer an enclosed building with displays and 23 possibly computer-simulated tours of the workings 24 of the floodway. 56 per cent wanted a self-guided 25 trail with a number of interpretive panels in the 00615 1 area of the floodway gates and the floodway 2 channel inlet. 23 per cent, a semi-enclosed 3 structure with explanatory panels and photographs. 4 With the unique nature of the 5 floodway, it's simple yet complex and effective 6 design, the sheer magnitude of the undertaking 7 both in the sixties and what we are about to 8 undertake will believe that a well-developed 9 interpretive project could significantly impact 10 St. Norbert and help solidify its role as a 11 tourism leader. 12 The floods of 1950 and 1997 were 13 subjects of international news. The construction 14 of the floodway and its ability to protect 15 Winnipeg were wildly known throughout the country. 16 The floodway is one of two structures visible from 17 outer space, the other of course being The Great 18 Wall of China. This is demonstration that there 19 is some interest, real people interest out there. 20 We have an opportunity to capitalize on a major 21 infrastructure project to ensure a legacy by 22 telling a story. 23 The ditch in concrete structure is a 24 Canadian engineering marvel and in 2000, the 25 floodway was declared a national heritage site. 00616 1 Views have changed dramatically since 2 1962 when the original floodway was being built 3 solely for flood protection. This 4 international-recognized system of dykes and 5 ditches has protected the City of Winnipeg from 6 potential devastation and saved billions of 7 dollars. Commonly mistaken as a viewing area, 8 these control tower access points that we see here 9 in the photograph are used every spring by people 10 curious to see the power of the gates and the 11 flood waters. People naturally gravitate here 12 every time water rises or the gates operate. Of 13 course, off season we call it lover's lane. 14 MS. LUKES: We see this floodway 15 expansion as a second chance, a second chance to 16 improve on a major infrastructure undertaking. It 17 is very rare to have the opportunity to go back to 18 a project of this magnitude and improve on it 19 further. 20 Let's have some creative thinking 21 outside the ditch and incorporate a healthy living 22 tourism and recreational component to this 23 national signature project. With some ingenious 24 thinking and an expenditure of money, we can use 25 the results of this expansion as an international 00617 1 showcase and model for community involvement. St. 2 Norbert is a gateway to the community of the City 3 of Winnipeg. 4 The organizations represented in this 5 presentation have already invested time and 6 resources into developing St. Norbert over the 7 years and see this expansion providing yet another 8 opportunity to build on an already strong 9 foundation. We believe there is a tremendous 10 potential for economic development by the 11 incorporation of recreation and tourism. 12 MR. GOUSSEAU: With that, we recommend 13 that the Commission include a recreational and 14 tourism component as a requirement of a licence. 15 We would like to see incorporated a statement 16 committing to recreation and tourism development 17 and to incorporate a financial commitment towards 18 recreation and tourism. 19 We thank you for your time. 20 MS. LUKES: And if there's anyone 21 that's interested, we do have these presentation 22 copies to hand out and the presentation on disk. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 24 Mr. Webster. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. You have 00618 1 made a very interesting case for linking of your 2 recreational trail ideas with the floodway. Have 3 you had any indication that there is financial 4 support for this through the floodway itself? 5 MS. LUKES: For trails interpretation 6 on the floodway? 7 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, um-hum. 8 MR. GOUSSEAU: I guess we've had 9 probably mixed messages coming from the Authority. 10 Originally, we understood that the federal funds 11 allocated to this project, there was some 12 commitment originally that some of those funds 13 were to be used towards recreation and tourism and 14 product development. And then it seems to have 15 wavered throughout our discussion. So at this 16 point, what we are I guess representing today is 17 the fact that we believe that when governments 18 take on a significant project, infrastructure 19 project like this, there should be a legacy for 20 the community. It goes beyond its very practical 21 use. We have an opportunity here and we only have 22 it once. 23 MR. WEBSTER: I noticed reference in 24 your last slide here to recreation and tourism 25 which brings to mind possibly that there may be 00619 1 other departments of government that might be 2 interested in supporting this kind of thing. Have 3 you investigated that at all? 4 MR. GOUSSEAU: No, we haven't. 5 MS. LUKES: Not as of yet. 6 MR. WEBSTER: You haven't investigated 7 that? 8 MS. LUKES: No. 9 MR. GOUSSEAU: That is a possibility. 10 But again seeing as we understood originally that 11 the funds allocated towards this project did have 12 that component built in, that was our first avenue 13 I guess. 14 MR. WEBSTER: And have you, as a 15 bilingual community, explored any sources of 16 funding that are available uniquely to bilingual 17 communities? 18 MR. GOUSSEAU: We haven't explored 19 anything other than MFEA. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you. 21 MS. LUKES: This is where we're 22 starting. 23 MR. MOTHERAL: I believe Barry's 24 question pretty well answers my concerns. My 25 question was have you pursued this in the 00620 1 political sense because I do believe that would be 2 the first move that should be made. 3 Just as a past semi-political position 4 I used to have, that would be the venue to take 5 right now because certainly it's been a fantastic 6 presentation and I would certainly continue to 7 pursue it. 8 MS. LUKES: And we will be doing that 9 but we do feel that because initially we stated 10 that recreation will be a component of the 11 floodway and because of the rapid pace this 12 expansion will undertake once it gets going, we 13 really feel the importance of acting now on this 14 opportunity and then of course leveraging other 15 opportunities going forward. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. And we will 17 keep that in mind because we brought recreational 18 opportunities up once today to the floodway and 19 the Floodway Authority and this will continue to 20 be the case. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you both very 22 much. 23 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, could we 24 add the recreational use of Red River Floodway 25 Land as Exhibit number 44. 00621 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 2 3 (EXHIBIT 44: Recreational Use of Red 4 River Floodway Land, presentation by 5 Janice Lukes and Norman Gousseau) 6 7 MS. BUGERA: Hi, my name is Muriel 8 Bugera and I'm speaking for Crow Wing Trail 9 Association. 10 11 (MURIEL BUGERA: SWORN) 12 13 MS. BUGERA: My name is Muriel Bugera, 14 I'm the president of the Crow Wing Trail 15 Association, Chemin St. Paul. I'm also an 16 economic development officer for the Chaboyer 17 Community Development Corporation. I am speaking 18 on behalf of a trail that is directly linked to 19 the floodway, and along the St. Norbert trail, 20 it's the only trails that do touch the floodway. 21 The Crow Wing Trail is a historic 22 trade route, was a historic trade route used by 23 early traders to bring goods from St. Paul, 24 Minnesota to what is now Fort Garry. The written 25 history of the Crow Wing Trail is well documented 00622 1 and dates back to the early 1800s. 2 Some of the publications Crow Wing 3 Trail is reflected in belong to the Historical and 4 Scientific Society of Manitoba, and the Minnesota 5 Historical Society. 6 The first newspaper plant arrived via 7 the Crow Wing Trail in an ox cart in 1859 for the 8 Nor'Wester Newspaper. The paper ink and much of 9 the plant had been purchased in St. Paul, 10 Minnesota and the journey by ox cart took more 11 than a month. The Nor'Wester paper was housed in 12 the small shack not very far from Portage and 13 Main. 14 The first paddle wheeler to cross the 15 international boundary, a dismantled Mississippi 16 steamboat transported overland on the Crow Wing 17 Trail in 1858-59. The steamboat originally called 18 the North Star, once assembled in Manitoba, it was 19 renamed the Anson Northup. 20 The historical importance of the Crow 21 Wing Trail declined with the opening of the 22 Northern Pacific Rail line in 1872. This rail 23 line is now the Canadian Pacific Rail line that 24 continues to operate today. 25 With the coming of the rail line, the 00623 1 trails continued to be used locally and in a few 2 places the public right-of-way was maintained and 3 eventually developed into a country road. The 4 prime example of this is St. Mary's Road from St. 5 Adolphe to Winnipeg. For the most part, farmers 6 incorporated the rutted trails into their 7 farmland, with notable difficulty where years of 8 use had packed the ground. 9 The Renaissance of the Crow Wing Trail 10 is following the original route where possible. 11 The present day Crow Wing Trail is 12 part of the Trans Canada Trail that stretches 153 13 kilometres from the St. Norbert Heritage Park, 14 north of the flood gates to just west of Emerson, 15 Manitoba. 16 The Crow Wing Trail is the second 17 largest section of the Trans Canada Trail in 18 Manitoba. As an association, it unites six 19 municipalities and one First Nations, working 20 together towards a common goal. This is a 21 regional initiative and connects urban and rural 22 communities, as well as encouraging economic 23 development. 24 Modern day links via the Crow Wing 25 Trail. A recent article in the Winnipeg Free 00624 1 Press quotes the Mayor of Grand Forks as 2 emphasizing the fact that Winnipeg has been a 3 trade route with Grand Forks for many decades. 4 The Greenway Concept is complimented 5 by the Crow Wing Trail which offers the 6 opportunity of a continuous route for hiking, 7 biking, skiing, snowmobiling and horseback riding. 8 The Crow Wing State Park is a park 9 rich in cultural history. In this area, a 10 frontier town emerged to serve the needs of 11 travellers and traders. The town died when the 12 railroad chose to cross the river at Brainerd. 13 Discussion of an informal nature have now taken 14 place between the Crow Wing State Park located 15 near St. Paul, Minnesota, and the Crow Wing Trail 16 Association to reconnect. 17 The Crow Wing Trail was also the route 18 used for the Red River Metis journey held in 19 conjunction with the North American Indigenous 20 Games in 2002. 21 Modern day links, therefore, as 22 mentioned, the Crow Wing Trail is one of only two 23 trails of the Trans Canada Trail that traverses 24 the floodway. 25 As you can see, the Crow Wing Trail 00625 1 comes into the floodway from the south, crosses 2 the spoil pile, and travels west along the top of 3 the main channel. The trail goes under the bridge 4 at St. Mary's Road and crosses the lip to 5 Courchaine Bridge and connects to the Winnipeg 6 Trans Canada Trail system at the St. Norbert 7 Heritage Park. 8 Permission to use the floodway as part 9 of the route of the Crow Wing Trail was provided 10 Water Resources and these lands in the Province 11 have been added to the Crow Wing Trail 12 Association's insurance policy. 13 Number 1, the floodgates are an 14 interpretive area. Number 2, it's a potential for 15 viewing platform. At this point one can look 16 north and see the city skyline -- something that 17 is not a normal site when travelling from the 18 south, and then turn around and look south and see 19 the agrarian lifestyle, country living right next 20 door. A platform at this location would also 21 provide a view of the river lot settlement 22 pattern, an important part of Manitoba's history. 23 Number 3 and 4 are municipal 24 boundaries between the City of Winnipeg and RM of 25 Ritchot. 00626 1 So why are we here? Well, an 2 important socio-economic benefit of the floodway 3 expansion project would be to incorporate 4 recreational facilities into the project at the 5 planning stage. As trail builders, the Crow Wing 6 Trail Association understands the value of 7 planning and building trails. Socio-economic and 8 cultural benefits of incorporating a trail into 9 the Red River Floodway Expansion Project include 10 the year round recreational traffic, historical 11 education, the floodway as a national historic 12 site, providing environmental education, providing 13 multicultural education, support revenue 14 generating enterprises, attract visitors, 15 stimulate economic growth, encourage land 16 stewardship, establish a new link to connect and 17 promote communities, municipalities and the 18 region, and encourage recreational use for health 19 benefits. 20 Living south of Winnipeg, members or 21 residents cross the floodway on a weekly if not 22 daily basis. What does one see? Vast amount of 23 wasteland with pockets of activity near bridges 24 which are the current access points into the 25 floodway. One can imagine what uses this land 00627 1 could have besides being just a flood protection 2 measure. The existing floodway is an expensive 3 resource which should be maximized by providing 4 more than one occasional use. There is a 5 tremendous potential to use this land as a 6 recreational resource. From the trail builder's 7 perspective, it is a dream to have such a stretch 8 of public land available to build a trail on with 9 no impediments or ownership issues. If the 10 expanded floodway project does not undertake to 11 incorporate and develop the trail systems for the 12 floodway, it would be a lost opportunity. 13 The time is right to pursue this now. 14 There is a demand for recreational trails and 15 outdoor activities, and with the development of 16 the Red River Floodway Trail Coalition, there is a 17 public interest to develop this as a recreational 18 resource. 19 The benefit of incorporating and 20 building a trail along with the Red River Floodway 21 Expansion Project will enhance the quality of life 22 for Manitobans, and therefore contribute to the 23 CEC's mandate regarding the socio-economic and 24 cultural effects of the project. 25 Incorporating trails to the project is 00628 1 adding value. And with the incorporation of a 2 trail system into the Floodway Expansion Project 3 comes a potential to create new partnerships with 4 existing trail groups with a regional and national 5 approach. 6 From wasteland to wonderland, don't 7 lose an opportunity, Manitobans and Canadians 8 deserve to have value added to the project. 9 Merci. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 11 Mr. Webster. 12 MR. WEBSTER: I'll ask you the same 13 question I asked before of the other groups and 14 that is, does your plan call for funding from the 15 Floodway Authority to realize your goals? 16 MS. BUGERA: Well, I think it's 17 important to have the cooperation of the owner of 18 the property. And we have had a lot of experience 19 with the same type of initiatives where we have 20 developed trail already, where we have developed 21 trails in conjunction with Manitoba Highway, for 22 example, if you don't have the cooperation, if 23 you're not involved together in the planning 24 initially, it is very difficult to do it 25 afterwards. So I guess my answer is, if there is 00629 1 the planning initially, that makes a very big 2 difference in making sure that it's going to go 3 ahead or not. 4 MR. WEBSTER: And have you had success 5 in talking with the Floodway Authority? 6 MS. BUGERA: I think that it's the 7 same answer as the other groups. 8 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you very 9 much. 10 MS. BUGERA: Okay. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Bugera. 12 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, if we can 13 add the Crow Wing Trail Association Chemin 14 Saint-Paul Inc. presentation as exhibit number 45. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 16 17 (EXHIBIT 45: Crow Wing Trail 18 Association Chemin Saint-Paul Inc. 19 presentation) 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have somebody 22 from the Forks/North Portage Partnership? I'll 23 have Ms. Johnson swear you in. 24 MS. JOHNSON: Could you please state 25 your name for the record? 00630 1 THE WITNESS: My name is Paul Jordan. 2 (PAUL JORDAN: SWORN) 3 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, 4 Mr. Jordan. 5 MR. JORDAN: My name is Paul Jordan 6 I'm the chief operating officer for the 7 Forks/North Portage Partnership, and I'm speaking 8 here on behalf of the Forks site. I started at 9 the Forks in 1990, and really what's been 10 accomplished there over the last 15 years is quite 11 remarkable. When you think it was a brown field 12 in the late '80s, the CN dumping ground, and in 15 13 years it's become a 56-acre classic mixed use 14 waterfront development site. It's quite an 15 achievement. 16 We have a public market at Johnson 17 Terminal that houses 80 mom and pop retailers. We 18 have eight restaurants, a theatre, a museum, a 19 hotel, a television station, a festival park, a 20 winter park, a national park, sometimes no place 21 to park. We also have two rivers. 22 The economic impact of the Forks is 23 also quite remarkable. When you think that the 24 Forks Market alone generates 13 to $15 million a 25 year in sales, when you think of the PST, the GST, 00631 1 the income taxes, the property taxes that we're 2 paying, the initial investment by the three 3 shareholders has long since been returned. 4 The tourism impact at the Forks is 5 also extraordinary. We are the biggest thing 6 between Toronto and Vancouver. We're doing 4 7 million to 5 million people through the Forks 8 Market annually alone. Winnipeggers, it's their 9 number one choice when they are bringing visitors 10 to experience Winnipeg life. It's really a 11 remarkable achievement and I'm sure the initial 12 visionaries are surprised at how well it's gone. 13 So you can imagine in 1997 when the 14 flood hit, and we were six stairs away from going 15 under, how delighted we were that the floodway 16 held. We were even more delighted when we found 17 out that an expansion was being looked at and an 18 expansion was to be undertaken, to protect this 19 very, very crucial investment for Winnipeggers. 20 But we are here today, I'm here today 21 to ask the floodway expansion authority to not 22 only expand the floodway, but to expand the 23 thinking about the floodway and the mandate of the 24 floodway. And what we're asking is, will they 25 look at using the floodway to control summer water 00632 1 levels? 2 The floodway will protect the physical 3 structures, and for that we're extremely grateful, 4 it allows us to do the things we need to do. But 5 we need to also protect that future investment. 6 We need to protect that future investment in 7 tourism, in recreation, and the quality of life. 8 We need to be able to build on this great success 9 story which is the Forks, we need to be able to 10 have an operating environment where we can plan 11 and invest and build on our tourism product, on 12 our recreational product, and on the quality of 13 life for Winnipeggers. 14 So, simply, what we're asking is while 15 we're going through this, while we're looking at 16 this floodway and what it can do to protect people 17 and their physical assets, can we protect some of 18 those things that are so important for quality of 19 life, which are tourism, recreation, and just that 20 tremendous pride and confidence in being able to 21 take something on and turn it into something that 22 has world renown. Thank you 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jordan. 24 Mr. Webster. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Tell me, Mr. Jordan, 00633 1 what level do you want the river to be maintained 2 at to help you with your quest? 3 MR. JORDAN: 7.5 to 8-foot James. 4 MR. WEBSTER: We have heard from the 5 Floodway Authority that they are aiming for James 6 9 to protect people's basements. 7 MR. JORDAN: That would put the river 8 walk and all the water bus docks a foot to a foot 9 and a half underwater. 10 MR. WEBSTER: So you're looking for a 11 foot to a foot and a half more? 12 MR. JORDAN: Either that, or we issue 13 hip waders to every tourist who comes down to the 14 Forks to walk down the river walk. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any 17 further questions. Thank you very much. 18 MR. JORDAN: Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson, Manitoba 20 Alpine Ski Division. 21 MS. JOHNSON: Could you please state 22 your name for the record? 23 MR. WILSON: Brian Wilson. 24 (BRIAN WILSON: SWORN) 25 MR. WILSON: I am Brian Wilson and I 00634 1 am past president of the Manitoba Alpine Ski 2 Division. I'd like to start off with telling you 3 who we are. We are a provincial sports 4 organization. We do receive funding from the 5 Province of Manitoba, very graciously through 6 Sport Manitoba. We represent a number of ski 7 clubs in Manitoba, three of them are Winnipeg 8 based, that is the Summit Ski Club, the Winnipeg 9 Alpine Racers, and the Manitoba Masters Alpine 10 Race Club that makes Springhill ski area their 11 home. 12 We also have other member clubs 13 throughout Manitoba including, La Riviere, 14 Asessippi, Minnedosa, and Bottineau, North Dakota. 15 Very simply, we are users of the floodway. The 16 members of our association use the Springhill ski 17 area located on the banks of the Winnipeg floodway 18 and our members ski into the floodway. 19 What we do is we learn, we teach and 20 we coach, and we enjoy the winter in Manitoba, and 21 it is often short for us. We are racers, we 22 carve. 23 Our current use of the floodway, this 24 is 2005, it's current, our masters ski racers, 25 there's 44 of them, and masters are 18 and over, 00635 1 it's a sport that you get old quite quickly, so 2 masters are 18 and over, and it's up to 70 as 3 well. Our Winnipeg Alpine Race Club has a hundred 4 members and Summit Ski Club is 95. 5 We also share Springhill with other 6 sports that are going downhill. We share the 7 Springhill facility with the snowborders, and we 8 also share it with freestyle, those who like 9 jumping as opposed to going fast. 10 A run at Springhill is a hundred 11 vertical feet, and this is one of our members 12 doing a training course. 13 Springhill has some lodge facilities, 14 which is very gracious infrastructure that we are 15 able to use. A picture at the top of Springhill 16 with the quad chair that is located in there. 17 We hold events at Springhill, each of 18 our clubs have formal scheduled training sessions 19 and competitions. We host events at Springhill 20 winter park where groups come into Winnipeg to 21 compete and participate. 22 Some of the other events that happen 23 at the Springhill area include the Canadian ski 24 instructors alliance, where they regularly conduct 25 annual workshops, our ski coaches federations 00636 1 conduct entry level courses. At Springhill, the 2 Manitoba Masters hold usually six races throughout 3 the winter where they have 55 athletes, and we 4 hold a Nancy Green race for ages 6 to 12 athletes 5 with over 110 athletes competing. 6 Why is Springhill important to our 7 sport? This is where our future athletes and our 8 ski racers start skiing. Often they are 9 introduced to the sport through school trips, 10 which are very important to introducing skiers in 11 this province to the great sport of downhill 12 skiing. And many of our provincial team members 13 learn to ski a Springhill. A lot of the people 14 that have represented Manitoba at Canada Games 15 started at Springhill. And we do have Manitoba 16 athletes who have been on the podium at national 17 level events. 18 We think the floodway expansion is a 19 great opportunity for our sport, and we hope that 20 the earth moved from the floodway can be used to 21 expand and enhance Springhill. This is our 22 vision, and I don't know if we'll quite get there. 23 But bottom line is, we want runs that have more 24 vertical and more length, and that is what we are 25 striving to achieve. And what that will do, a 00637 1 bigger and better Springhill is going to take our 2 programs to the next level in the development of 3 snow sports, more Winnipeg skiers and riders on 4 snow locally. We want a real training centre, 5 something like the Calgary Olympic Park located in 6 Calgary, we'd like to see that in Winnipeg. 7 We know an expansion of Springhill 8 will support other snow sports, skiers, 9 snowborders, and it's going to increase in numbers 10 and it is going to enhance the economic benefits 11 to Manitoba. 12 This could lead to the development of 13 a future Olympian. There are direct and indirect 14 economic spin-offs from the ski industry. We know 15 that there will be increased numbers of 16 competitors in racing, freestyle, snowboarder. 17 Increased vertical would give us more opportunity 18 to host other events. It could be the future site 19 of Manitoba Games, or even potentially Canada 20 Games. 21 So our support is we support the 22 efforts of the Winnipeg Floodway Authority, the 23 Province of Manitoba, and the owners and operators 24 of Springhill to use the earth from the floodway 25 expansion to a better and bigger hill. 00638 1 That's it. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson, what would 3 you like to see, how much more vertical? I mean, 4 realistically, how much more vertical and how much 5 more length? 6 MR. WILSON: Realistically, if we have 7 a look at the other hills that we have in 8 Manitoba, we have hills that are up to 400 9 vertical feet, and we know that that is a lot. We 10 certainly have some very successful hills 11 somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 to 250. If 12 we did have the opportunity realistically to 13 double Springhill from the hundred vertical feet 14 that is now to 200, it would certainly be a big 15 step in the right direction. 16 We recognize that there is a lot of 17 engineering that would have to go into that, and 18 design. 19 And probably the other thing that is 20 different for us we're using a commercial 21 facility. Springhill is a private business, and 22 we know that there is definitely investment and 23 business things that have to be looked up by the 24 owners, but we just know that whatever more we 25 have is going to make a better hill and it is 00639 1 going to attract economic development. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you worked with or 3 talked with the owner of Springhill? 4 MR. WILSON: Yes, we definitely have 5 been in contact with the owner of Springhill, and 6 we've also had discussions with the Floodway 7 Authority talking about what we would like to see. 8 It makes it different for us, we use a commercial 9 facility, and it's really the owner of Springhill 10 that has to make the decision to attract the 11 investment capital and the support of government, 12 but we would certainly support whatever avenues of 13 public funding are available to support the growth 14 of that business opportunity. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I hate to 16 steal all your thunder, Mr. Webster, but I have a 17 vested interest, I'm a downhill skier of sorts. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. WEBSTER: Let me ask you 20 specifically, what do you see as the major 21 impediments to your plan? 22 MR. WILSON: The major impediment is 23 capital, it's the dollars it takes to invest in 24 the ski industry. 25 Springhill has a number of the things 00640 1 you need to run a successful ski area. You need 2 water for snow making, you can't run a ski hill in 3 the Prairies without snow making, that is one of 4 the reasons there, you need water for snow making. 5 But the ski industry has a relatively short season 6 and it takes capital when you start doing things 7 in the ski business. 8 MR. WEBSTER: We noted today that the 9 Floodway Authority is planning to widen the 10 floodway in the vicinity of the Springhill ski 11 hill by not digging out the bottom of the bottom 12 ski hill, but by enlarging the channel on the 13 other side. 14 MR. WILSON: Right, that's our 15 understanding. 16 MR. WEBSTER: So I realize again that 17 it's not your business, but it's your business 18 because you use it, but it's not your business to 19 run, but I was wondering if you were aware of any 20 other impediments? 21 MR. WILSON: We've had discussions as 22 an association of a number of things. Number one 23 is, I guess the first thing is the status quo if 24 it remains there, and I think that was the 25 original plan to widen it, which basically moves 00641 1 the activity on the floodway to the other side. 2 So that would leave it as status quo -- or an 3 expansion of the existing area, and we understand 4 that there are just some limitations to the 5 property, just to how far they can move back 6 while they are still on their property. 7 As an association we would certainly 8 also, if there is an opportunity to move it to a 9 new location and provide higher vertical, that's 10 the other option that we as an association would 11 like to see. If there ends up being another site 12 that has more opportunity, we'd certainly welcome 13 going somewhere else. 14 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for 16 your presentation, Mr. Wilson. 17 MR. WILSON: Thank you. 18 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, could we 19 add Mr. Wilson's presentation as exhibit number 20 46. 21 22 (EXHIBIT 46: Presentation by Alpine 23 Ski Division) 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We've had 25 an indication that there are two other people who 00642 1 wish to make verbal presentations tonight. Before 2 they come up, I would just like to speak to the 3 general public and say that if anybody wishes, 4 there will be an opportunity following the oral 5 presentations, there will be an opportunity for 6 general public to ask questions of the Floodway 7 Authority. If any of you would like to do that, I 8 would ask that you please indicate or say so to 9 the administrative secretary who is sitting at the 10 desk by the back door. 11 If nobody is interested in asking 12 questions of the Floodway Authority, I'm not going 13 to ask them to move all of their equipment up to 14 the front and settle in. 15 We have Mr. Bruce McKee who has 16 expressed an interest in making a presentation. 17 Please come up to the front, Mr. McKee. 18 MS. JOHNSON: Could you please state 19 your name for the record. 20 MR. McKEE: My name is Bruce McKee. 21 22 (BRUCE MCKEE: SWORN) 23 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, 24 Mr. McKee. 25 MR. McKEE: My name, of course, is 00643 1 Bruce McKee. I am a resident of Ritchot. I live 2 south of the floodway gates, approximately 4 to 5 3 kilometres, and I grew up in this same property 4 and have lived most of my life there. So, I have 5 experienced a few of the floods that have went 6 through that area, and my father and grandfather 7 have experienced floods through that area, so we 8 know somewhat of what it means to go through a 9 flood south of the floodway gates now. 10 Actually I was 7 years old when they 11 started building the floodway. I used to watch it 12 on the way to school each day from the school bus 13 window. So, it used to be something quite 14 interesting to me. 15 Needless to say, we went through the 16 1997 flood. It was a big surprise to us. It was 17 something that we didn't expect. We thought we 18 were flood proofed to the required levels, and it 19 took everyone by surprise, as it did the people in 20 Winnipeg and south of Winnipeg, but we have also 21 suffered through that flood and after that flood 22 as a family. 23 I have four children along with my 24 wife, and it took three years out of our lives to 25 get back on our feet and get things straightened 00644 1 around. And we lost those three years being with 2 our children. They had to do a lot of stuff 3 without mom and dad because mom and dad were busy 4 filling out forms and trying to jump through all 5 the legal loopholes and make sure everything was 6 proper so we didn't miss anything, so we could be 7 restored back to what we had prior. 8 So we also have some concerns about 9 the new floodway rules, operation, design. Some 10 of those concerns I have listed here. 11 Number 1, I have got the rules are not 12 clearly defined, at least not to me. Some of the 13 things differentiating between artificial and 14 natural flooding, what does that mean? Does that 15 mean if natural flooding comes 2 feet up on my 16 wall and artificial the next foot, that I get 17 compensated at one rate for the top foot and 18 another rate for the bottom 2 feet? Needless to 19 say that's going to take a lot of time, a lot of, 20 you know, figuring out exactly what is what. 21 We don't want to spend that time again 22 doing that kind of stuff. We want it up-front, 23 clear, you know, we want to be treated like 24 everybody wants to be treated, fairly and honestly 25 and with as little interruption in our lives as 00645 1 possible. 2 The second question I have, and I hope 3 I'm not stepping on any toes here tonight, I have 4 great respect for the people that had their 5 presentations earlier. But I was one of those 6 people that received one of those questionnaires 7 on using some of the money to build trails and 8 recreation areas, and I think that's a great idea. 9 But I think our first priority has to be, number 10 1, to save Winnipeg, number 2, to look after the 11 people that will be flooded. That's where the 12 money should be earmarked for. And I think that's 13 our first initiative, and then if there's money 14 left over, hey, great, let's put it to good use, 15 you know, putting recreational areas in. 16 Number 3, I have great concern with 17 the summer operation of the floodway, being that 18 every time they use the gates to protect Winnipeg, 19 needless to say my property is flooded. We were 20 given, or received a questionnaire from Water 21 Resources saying that, you know, our property was 22 one that they felt that may have been affected, so 23 we were to encouraged to write down and send in 24 any things that would possibly have been damaged. 25 They gave a list of guidelines. So I went over to 00646 1 the property after the water had went down and 2 looked at the things that did affect us during 3 that time. And some of the things that I had seen 4 was that there was some riverbank erosion caused 5 by the time that the water was there, and that 6 quite a few of the mature trees that we have, have 7 increasingly been sinking or dropping, leaning 8 over. As it sits in water, needless to say, they 9 increase in the angle that they are, and it's 10 basically ruining the tree area. I recognize that 11 during a large flood or during the springtime, 12 quite a number of these trees are in that area, 13 but the longer they sit in water, the shorter the 14 life they are going to have. 15 I also recognize that when those trees 16 are gone, my riverbank and my creek banks will 17 erode more quickly, and it's not going to be as 18 pretty. I use the trails down by the river for 19 walking, for biking. We use them in the winter 20 time for snowmobiling through them, horseback 21 riding through them. They are nice to have. We 22 try to keep them clear when we can, but the 23 increased water levels and flooding that we've had 24 recently, it has become almost a no man's land in 25 those areas. Whereas, yeah, the Forks are kept 00647 1 dry, our trails aren't. So that was one of the 2 things I put down. 3 The weeds tend to grow up more quickly 4 and we don't have access to clean them in those 5 areas when it's being flooded, and there is a lot 6 of mud left over, so it takes a lot more work for 7 me to clean that area out. 8 The other concern I have is in the 9 future it sounds like the Floodway Authority and 10 certain groups are encouraging them to do this on 11 a regular basis through the summers, and my fear 12 is that my property value is going to be 13 devaluated due to this, to the fact that any 14 potential buyer for that property in the future, 15 if I so choose to sell, would see that as a 16 negative and would take that into consideration on 17 the purchase price, and whether they would even 18 want to live there. 19 Some of the other things that I also 20 noted that I think is reasonable is that I believe 21 there would be increased mosquito population due 22 to the pockets of water that are left after the 23 water goes down, or in certain areas where it is 24 just keeping the grass damp enough that mosquitoes 25 are living there. I have a creek closely adjacent 00648 1 to my home, and those areas are the ones I'm most 2 concerned of the mosquitoes breeding in. And we 3 all know about West Nile virus, so we don't want 4 our children or ourselves exposed to that. 5 So these are some of the things that I 6 have become increasingly concerned of, if this is 7 going to be a regular thing, and not just a one in 8 ten years or one in 20 years happening. 9 In that letter, when I sent those 10 things into Water Resources, or prior to it, when 11 we first got it, it said that all the claimants 12 would have a person come out and look over the 13 damage that I submitted and talk with me about it. 14 That didn't happen. I received a letter back 15 saying that all my concerns were not valid and 16 that all the damage was done prior to the spring 17 flooding or the spring and summer use of the 18 control structure, so that there would be no 19 compensation and that no one would be out to see 20 me. And I didn't feel that that was necessarily 21 fair, up-front, you know, could come and go 22 between ourselves, the residents south of floodway 23 and the government. 24 And just, again, the increased time 25 that it takes away from our family to look after 00649 1 all these things, even to be at this meeting 2 tonight, I'm not with my children right now. I 3 have my son with me, but I've got three girls at 4 home, they are younger than him and they miss dad 5 when he is away. 6 The other concern I have, and I stated 7 this at previous commissions, and I know that it's 8 been decided that this is what the engineers and 9 the government have decided to be the best project 10 for Winnipeg, for saving Winnipeg, but we know 11 that there are several concerns that some of the 12 municipalities have north and south of Winnipeg, 13 one being contaminated water supplies from around 14 the new bridge piers that they are going to put 15 in, other things like would the dykes be high 16 enough in St. Adolphe and in Grande Pointe and 17 other areas in the magnitude of say a one in 700 18 year flood. 19 The other concern I have is that the 20 control structure and the new dyking provisions, 21 although they have been upgraded and enhanced to 22 engineering standards, whether they would actually 23 stand up to a one in 700 year flood if we had 24 extra rain and wind and wave action and things 25 like that. And if it wouldn't again be a wise 00650 1 thing to look into what I would see as the three 2 most important things in a dyking project. 3 And number 1 would be how fast you can 4 get it done, what's the best time line? We want 5 the most protection the soonest that we can get it 6 for Winnipeg because we have to save Winnipeg at 7 all costs. What gives us the best protection for 8 our dollar? So that if the gates or something 9 failed, or something failed on the existing 10 floodway, what would be our backup plan? 11 And the other thing is the cost, of 12 course, what is going to be the cheapest, because 13 I guess some of this money is some of my own money 14 that I pay in taxes along with your money that you 15 pay in taxes. 16 And again I know we have looked at the 17 Ste. Agathe dyke. I know that the residents south 18 of there don't want it, as I didn't want the 19 floodway in front of me either, but I still 20 believe that that is a thing that we should 21 consider. It's something that affords us the best 22 protection for Winnipeg against a one in 700 year 23 flood. It's the cheaper of the two proposals, and 24 it can be done sooner. It leaves money left over 25 to compensate those south of that area in the 00651 1 event that that would ever need to be used. 2 I understand that I am protected to 3 '97 level now, and I quite expect to be flooded to 4 that level, but I am protected to that level. So 5 I know that it will never go over that level if I 6 had that structure south of me. And then in the 7 rare event that that structure would ever be 8 needed to be used, we know it's there and then the 9 people south of there should be fairly 10 compensated. 11 And I think this is something we still 12 need to look at, although I'm not sure if it will 13 be. I hope it is. 14 Again, I appreciate the time that the 15 Commission has to hear from somebody like myself 16 and for the patience of each one here. And I just 17 ask that when you are making the decisions that we 18 stick to the best rule there is, and that's the 19 golden rule. And that rule states that we do unto 20 others as we would have them do unto us. So, I'd 21 just like to put it in each of your court that 22 you'd put yourselves as if you were living where I 23 am, in my situation, and the other residents 24 around me, and say what's the best, the fairest, 25 and how would I would want to be treated in these 00652 1 situations so that I feel that I have done my 2 neighbour the right way. 3 Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 5 Mr. McKee. Questions? Thank you very much. 6 Is there a Myron that wishes to make a 7 presentation? I guess not. Is there anyone that 8 wishes to -- we have a couple of people who have 9 indicated they wish to direct some questions to 10 the Floodway Authority. 11 Mr. McNeil, perhaps you and a few -- I 12 don't know whether you need all of your folks up 13 at the front -- could go up. I don't know whether 14 you need all of your documentation, but we can 15 entertain the questions. 16 Ms. Lukes, you wish to ask a question. 17 Please state your name for the record and then 18 direct your questions. 19 MS. LUKES: My name is Janice Lukes. 20 So, the question that I have is where are you 21 planning to house the virtual model that you have 22 indicated that you are building on how the flood 23 protection works? 24 MR. MCNEIL: The virtual reality model 25 is a computer model and it can sit on anybody's 00653 1 laptop. And eventually what we'd like to be able 2 to do, if technically feasible, is to have it on 3 our website, or portions of it. 4 MS. LUKES: So not accessible to the 5 general public or tourists, other than being on a 6 website? 7 MR. MCNEIL: We could explore other 8 options, but at this point in time that's the only 9 thing we've been thinking about. 10 MS. LUKES: Okay. And what are your 11 plans for pedestrian access across the floodway 12 gates on Courchene Road? It's not pedestrian 13 accessible right now. 14 MR. MCNEIL: We haven't made any 15 definite plans for any additional access across 16 that inlet control structure, and we would expect 17 that as we move forward with the next steps 18 working with the recreation and economic 19 opportunity proponents, that some of those things 20 be explored, but we don't have any definite plans. 21 And I would suggest that your group and others can 22 bring that up once the working group is formed. 23 MS. LUKES: Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Lukes. 25 Is there another person that wished to ask -- 00654 1 MS. COURCELLES: Cheryl Kennedy 2 Courcelles. I guess going back to this morning, 3 the question of the baseline, I am a little 4 concerned about the fluctuations, I guess. From 5 this particular graph, the baseline is constantly 6 just a steady thing that's there, it doesn't seem 7 to have any -- we all know that the Red River 8 isn't a steady body of water, that it does go up 9 and down, it does fluctuate, and so I guess, you 10 know, those of us living south are perhaps 11 wondering how you even come up with this model and 12 these numbers based on the fact that the river 13 isn't this straight line. 14 MR. C. OSLER: I was the one 15 responsible for the graph, so let me just explain 16 it, and then we'll pass to some other people to 17 talk about reality. The graph is just meant to be 18 an example to help people get the idea straight 19 what we were talking about, because we were having 20 some trouble getting our words clear. So which 21 one of the pages were you looking at particularly 22 and I'll get someone to help explain what the 23 reality is. The last one, for example? 24 MS. COURCELLES: Yes. 25 MR. C. OSLER: Okay. So this was 00655 1 downstream, and this is not purporting to reflect 2 anything precise like numbers or how they might 3 change over time, but maybe either Mr. McNeil or 4 Dave Morgan could help people understand, looking 5 both upstream and downstream, the last two graphs, 6 how does this -- how would you describe the real 7 situation that people are looking at in terms of 8 these graphic concepts? I think you should 9 explain, first of all, what we mean by operation 10 active, because this is a technical word we are 11 using, and how it may vary depending on what type 12 of flood we're talking about, and how constant the 13 level would be over time. It would probably vary 14 with different times of floods and all that type 15 of thing. 16 MR. MORGAN: In terms of the baseline, 17 as I said, that's illustrative and it was trying 18 to simplify some points about the difference 19 between natural and baseline. And in reality, 20 obviously any flood varies throughout -- 21 throughout each point, throughout each day. And 22 that's the true baseline. We were trying to 23 simplify it to not show a detailed hydrograph with 24 everything changing, but we do consider variation 25 as part of the baseline. And it's the difference 00656 1 between the variation of with the project and 2 without is what we look for. So variation is 3 considered in our assessments. 4 MR. C. OSLER: Just explain what types 5 of floods we're talking about here, because the 6 person may not have sat through everything. Like, 7 we're talking about major floods that lead to 8 operation of the floodway, for example, and how 9 they may vary too from different type of time 10 periods, and the gap between natural and baseline 11 may change depending on the nature of the flood, 12 without trying to get to every number. 13 MR. MORGAN: Well, we look at the full 14 range of floods from small ones to large ones. 15 The ones we showed in our presentation on Tuesday 16 varied from one in 90 year floods, which is 17 slightly smaller than the 1997. We showed an 18 example of a flood larger than 1997, 120 year 19 flood. And then some very large floods, a 225 20 year flood and a 700 year flood. In each case we 21 showed a variation, what the difference between 22 the baseline, that is the condition with the 23 existing floodway, and the effect of the project, 24 which is the water levels with the expanded 25 floodway, and we showed that upstream within 00657 1 Winnipeg and downstream, what the differences are. 2 MS. COURCELLES: Are you able to give 3 the RM of Ritchot a baseline factor to live on? 4 MR. MORGAN: I don't understand. You 5 have to repeat the question? 6 MS. COURCELLES: Well, I guess if 7 you're going to operate the gate based on your 8 baseline -- 9 MR. MORGAN: I guess the gate is 10 operated based on rules. 11 MS. COURCELLES: Right, and the rules 12 go back to the baseline. 13 MR. MORGAN: The water level which 14 occurs in each of the rules under the existing 15 situation is the baseline. That's the point we 16 were trying to make. And then what we do is 17 compare what would be the water levels with the 18 expanded floodway for the same location, for the 19 same flood. 20 MR. MCNEIL: Are you interested in 21 more south of the city or north of the city? 22 Because I'd like to give you some specific 23 examples. 24 MS. COURCELLES: South. 25 MR. MCNEIL: So, I have, in the 00658 1 supplementary filing in section 8 there are 2 several diagrams that indicate what the flood 3 level would be for various floods, the '97 flood, 4 the 120 year flood, the 225 year flood and the 700 5 year flood for the existing floodway, which is the 6 base case and the expansion project. So, as an 7 example, for the 1997 flood at St. Adolphe, with 8 the existing floodway, that flood would have an 9 elevation of 773.2 feet. And with the expanded 10 floodway, it would have an elevation of 772.1 feet 11 at the peak. 12 And we show for the 120 year flood 13 again that with the expanded floodway, there is a 14 drop of a foot, for the 120 year flood with the 15 expanded floodway in comparison with the existing 16 floodway. For the 225 year flood, there is a drop 17 of 2 and a half feet with the expanded floodway 18 over the existing floodway. And then with the 700 19 year flood there is no difference of water levels 20 between the existing and the expanded. 21 And actually, this is a specific 22 example of one of the other pages that was handed 23 out early this afternoon, on page 5 of the handout 24 with respect to cumulative effects assessment. 25 Does that help? 00659 1 MS. COURCELLES: It helps to explain 2 it a tad more. I guess we're still not really 3 quite clear what the baseline really means to us 4 in the RM of Ritchot and how we are to live our 5 lives, and our livestock, et cetera, et cetera, I 6 suppose based on that. Perhaps, though, I will 7 leave that with the commissioners. 8 Another question that the 9 commissioners had brought up this afternoon, which 10 I suppose I wasn't quite clear that I understood 11 your response to it, and that was what has changed 12 for artificial flooding? And the commissioner had 13 asked that question. And as a resident of the RM 14 of Ritchot, we see that -- and I could be off by 15 the numbers by a little bit -- but we see 32 16 ditches, drainage, water things going into the RM 17 of Ritchot alone, 32 drainage things. So what has 18 changed since the 1997 flood is the amount of 19 water that is coming down that Red River to 20 Winnipeg. And so that answers the gentleman's 21 question about the summertime operation of the 22 Forks, which again it isn't just the typical melt 23 down of the ice in the rivers and all the rest of 24 it, it is -- I guess I am concerned have you 25 really looked at how much water is coming from the 00660 1 countryside, never mind Devil's Lake, nobody has 2 even brought that up yet, to answer the question 3 of why are you going to artificially flood us, and 4 what has changed? Perhaps I'm saying, well, those 5 32 outlets in the RM of Ritchot alone sending more 6 water into the Red River, into Winnipeg, and have 7 you studied the environmental impact of that? 8 MR. MCNEIL: Are you suggesting that 9 there's 32 new drainage channels that drain 10 farmland and go to the Red River or are they 11 enhanced? 12 MS. COURCELLES: Enhanced and/or it 13 isn't just drainage channels. It would be water 14 sources period. It could be creeks, it could be 15 rivers, but in the RM of Ritchot alone. 16 MR. MCNEIL: Well, certainly over 17 time, and for so long as mankind has inhabited the 18 valley, there have been improvements to rural run 19 off drainage. And so it's all part of the 20 existing environment. And that will probably 21 continue to the future, but that all forms part of 22 the baseline. 23 In terms of there are probably bigger 24 environmental factors with respect to the wet 25 cycle that we are in that creates more frequent 00661 1 floods and which will create an 1826 flood. 2 One of the things about the 1826 flood 3 was it was 40 per cent bigger than 1997 before the 4 influence of improved drainage in the entire 5 valley. And, in fact, Minnesota Department of 6 Natural Resources has prepared aerial maps of how 7 they believe, Minnesota, especially the northwest 8 corner, looked like in the early 1800s when the 9 1826 flood occurred. And it was full of wetlands. 10 So, presumably you would think in a big event that 11 those wetlands would have an effective storage. 12 And yet we still have a huge flood occur. 13 And keep in mind almost 80 per cent of 14 the water comes from the United States, and of 15 that two thirds comes from Minnesota. And yet 16 with those wetlands in existence, no manmade or 17 human made drainage at that time, and yet we still 18 experienced or the landscape experienced a huge 19 flood. 20 So there will be changes to the 21 landscape and, yes, it may or may not contribute 22 to the frequency of events. 23 What our project does is that if those 24 floods should occur is it lessens the frequency 25 and intensity of those floods over and above what 00662 1 the existing condition is. And that's what we 2 assessed. 3 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. 4 MR. C. OSLER: Just before you go to 5 your next thought, I should say one thing from the 6 diagram. What we were trying to say in the 7 diagram, in case it isn't clear, is that the word 8 baseline means the world without the project, the 9 valley without the project, Ritchot without the 10 project. 11 MS. COURCELLES: Ritchot without the 12 project wouldn't flood. 13 MR. C. OSLER: What we mean by the 14 project is the expansion project. 15 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. 16 MR. C. OSLER: What we're trying to do 17 is get the language straight. And your concerns 18 that you are expressing relate to the word 19 artificial flooding, which we're calling part of 20 the baseline, because it would continue, it would 21 exist with the current floodway and the rules of 22 its operation, as you well know. And what we are 23 showing when we gave you the diagram to look at 24 that Mr. McNeil is referring to, it was showing 25 the extent to which that artificial flooding would 00663 1 be reduced slightly if this expanded floodway goes 2 ahead. But there still would be in each one of 3 those examples, I think, I wasn't looking at the 4 diagram when you were doing it, but in each one of 5 those examples there still would be artificial 6 flooding, wouldn't there? 7 MR. MCNEIL: Except for '97. 8 MR. C. OSLER: Except for '97 in the 9 future, the year '97, as a result of the expanded 10 floodway you would not have had extra flooding 11 over and above what would have occurred 12 "naturally". But in other years there would still 13 be some artificial flooding. The point of what 14 they showed you was it would be slightly less that 15 what would occur if this project didn't go forward 16 as currently proposed. So, again the diagram's 17 purpose was to try and help us all get to 18 understand the way we are using the words, and the 19 word baseline means the way the world would be 20 without the expansion project that this Commission 21 has been asked to review. 22 MS. COURCELLES: Expansion being the 23 keyword, not the existing floodway? 24 MR. C. OSLER: Yes. 25 MS. COURCELLES: I was wondering if 00664 1 there had been a cost effective study done on the 2 effects of the one in 900 year floodway and taking 3 the water, diverting it from Rosenort and taking 4 it all the way to the lake, versus one in 700 5 years. 6 MR. CARSON: Yes, Rick Carson here. 7 We were involved in a study, in a precursor study 8 to this study that has been reported today in 9 looking at various options for development like 10 that. And although it's not documented in that 11 report, we sort of informally reviewed options 12 like that and the benefit cost ratio was very 13 dismal, about .02 for an extension of the floodway 14 to the lake, and it was rejected without any 15 further study. 16 Benefit cost ratio is the -- it's the 17 benefits of the project as measured by the 18 reduction in flood damages, divided by the cost of 19 the project, in very simple terms. So what you 20 want is a project that has a benefit cost ratio of 21 1.0 or greater. And when I said .02, that is 22 quite a long ways off the mark that would be a 23 desirable objective for a government to invest 24 money in. 25 MS. COURCELLES: Can I ask you then on 00665 1 a BC ratio then, what dollar value do you put on 2 people's hearts and lives and stress? Like, the 3 gentleman we just heard before, and like the three 4 Reeves are trying to stand on. Like, where do we 5 fit in the dollar value? 6 MR. CARSON: Well, you asked about the 7 cost effectiveness, and I would have to admit that 8 there is no way of quantifying stress and anxiety 9 like that in an economic analysis. 10 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. 11 MR. MCNEIL: Let me just add something 12 to that. The community ring dykes in the 13 valley -- 14 MS. COURCELLES: I am not in a 15 community ring dyke. 16 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. None of them had a 17 positive benefit cost ratio in the standard way of 18 calculating the benefits, and the benefits are 19 avoided costs. And the avoided costs are damages 20 that would occur from flooding. So the cost to 21 the project was more than the benefits, slightly 22 more. But government decided to ahead with those 23 projects in any event to try to account for some 24 of the intangibles like human suffering and 25 anxiety and whatnot, because it was the right 00666 1 thing to do. In other words, the government took 2 a standard based approach. They said we will 3 protect our people to a certain level, and that 4 level will be 97 plus 2 feet. And more or less 5 ignored the benefit cost ratio approach of those 6 projects. 7 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. A question of 8 the summertime operation. Living on the Red River 9 south St. Adolphe, directly on the river on ten 10 acres, as a resident perhaps last year when they 11 did operate it in the summertime, the mental 12 effects of seeing the water rise from 10 to 13 13 feet overnight, when you are not pre-warned 14 like in 97 that a flood is coming, on the RM of 15 Ritchot, quite honestly nobody is here today 16 because the people just can't deal with it. It is 17 beyond their scope. They are sick about it. And 18 then to -- based on a walkway in Winnipeg for 19 tourism, then to have the rest of us deal with 20 that based on a walkway, and I am not talking 21 about the businesses in the Forks, just the 22 walkway and one boating operation, I guess that's 23 where it goes back to that baseline again. You 24 know, we just really need to know for our own 25 peace of mind when you are going to play with the 00667 1 gate and that we need advance warning. You can't 2 do it overnight to us. It's just too much. It's 3 too hard. You are killing every nest, every den 4 out there. In one year already we've seen the 5 negative effects of the environment on that. 6 There is no more foxes on the riverbank, and 7 that's just one example. 8 And I realize, of course, Winnipeg has 9 to be protected, but I think to mother nature and 10 to the people that are living in the RM of Ritchot 11 that it would only be fair and just that you give 12 us more advance warning as to what's happening, 13 never mind the actually erosion that you're doing 14 by playing with the gate and having the water go 15 up and down. 16 MR. MCNEIL: I'd like to make a 17 comment to that because I don't believe that you 18 were at my presentation yesterday morning. 19 MS. COURCELLES: Actually I wasn't. 20 MR. MCNEIL: There are two parts to 21 summer operation. There is some future planned 22 action to operate the gates in the summertime to 23 keep the walkways dry. It's not part of this 24 project. There are studies and adaptive 25 management approach to issues like the river 00668 1 banks, fish passage, et cetera, wildlife, that 2 have to be studied over the next few years. 3 However, having said that, though, the two 4 operations in 2002 and 2004 were for emergency 5 operation to reduce or prevent sewer backup and, 6 therefore, risk of public health and damage to 7 property in basements in Winnipeg. 8 That operation was formalized in a 9 rule by the provincial government in November in 10 2004. And that information is included in the EIS 11 supplementary filing, annex I, I believe, of 12 section 8. 13 The rule indicates that the Province 14 will give advance warning of that operation if it 15 should occur for an emergency. The rule also 16 contemplates that the province will call together 17 the Red River Floodway Operation Advisory Board, 18 which includes representation from the RM's of 19 McDonald, Morris, Ritchot and north. And part of 20 that is to get comments from those 21 representatives, it's also to disseminate 22 information back to the municipalities about that 23 potential operation. So those actions are being 24 taken. 25 MS. COURCELLES: Were taken. 00669 1 MR. MCNEIL: Were taken, yeah. And 2 the bottom line is that the target for that 3 operation in the city is just above the walkway. 4 The walkway will not be dry for that operation, 5 just to prove to people that it's for an emergency 6 purpose related to basement flooding. 7 MS. COURCELLES: Thank you for that. 8 On the cumulative effects, I'm wondering if 9 studies over time, and I guess looking at a 10 further scope, if the cumulative effects linking 11 the floodway with the Portage La Prairie diversion 12 and the shell dam, if there has been a cumulative 13 effect study done on the environment? 14 MR. MCNEIL: Both Shellmouth dam and 15 reservoir and Portage diversion are part of the 16 existing operation and there's no change to those 17 facilities. So they form part of the base case. 18 MS. COURCELLES: Yes, but has the 19 positive or negative cumulative effects been 20 looked at? 21 MR. MCNEIL: I guess the other issue 22 is that the operating rules that involve the 23 floodway, but also the floodway is operated in 24 conjunction with those other two facilities. None 25 of that is changing as part of the Floodway 00670 1 Expansion Project. 2 MS. COURCELLES: Right. But in my 3 mind it would give us data as to what the 4 cumulative effects down the road are going to be 5 to your proposed project, and a little, sorry -- 6 MR. REMPEL: I was just going to 7 mention that those projects were built before 8 there was a legislative requirement for the formal 9 assessments that are done today, and they were 10 built and got government approvals, Federal and 11 Manitoba approvals as required under the rules of 12 that day. But there has not been a formal 13 assessment as part of this project. 14 MS. COURCELLES: So, in other words, 15 no studies have been done to the ecological 16 effects of those water drainage systems? 17 MR. REMPEL: No, I'm saying that the 18 studies that were done were probably not of the 19 same standard that we are being asked to do these 20 days. 21 MS. COURCELLES: Right. 22 MR. REMPEL: The studies that were 23 done were consistent with the requirements of that 24 day. But I don't think you could say that those 25 projects were studied in a full comprehensive 00671 1 environmental impact assessment. 2 MS. COURCELLES: Back then. 3 MR. REMPEL: No. 4 MS. COURCELLES: Which I'm not saying 5 that, I'm just saying I think that there might be 6 a vital link in the fact that those two operations 7 are already linked to the existing structure 8 that -- 9 MR. REMPEL: This project that is 10 being proposed, the expansion of the floodway, 11 will not change anything to do with those 12 facilities physically or in the way that they are 13 operated. So that exists as part of the baseline. 14 As Mr. Osler has said, without the project, that 15 is the baseline. And we look at the effects of 16 this proposed project on that baseline. And the 17 Shellmouth and Portage La Prairie facilities are 18 part of that existing baseline without the 19 project, the project being the expansion in this 20 case. 21 MS. COURCELLES: Yes. But I guess to 22 me, it would be that there would be information 23 that perhaps there that is overlooked, that would 24 teach us the history of what we need to know for 25 this expansion, and that being specifically the 00672 1 effects that this -- what is your number -- 2 140,000 cubic metres of water that's going to be, 3 you know, rushing into the Red River based on 4 this. I guess what I am saying is, the other lake 5 is going to be affected by those diversions, and 6 by the murky, yucky water that is being sent from 7 the drainage systems from this, et cetera. So I 8 think it's naive for us Manitobans to not have a 9 whole look at the whole picture. And if we're 10 talking cumulative effects, I know you're trying 11 to deal with this baseline and not take a look at 12 what anybody did in the past. I just don't know 13 if that is responsible behaviour on behalf of 14 Manitobans and Canadians. 15 And personally, my father and brother 16 have been commercial fishermen on the other lake 17 for 35 years, and this particular January there is 18 no fish. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: But that has nothing to 20 do with the issue before us. 21 MS. COURCELLES: Other than the 22 cumulative effects, that's what I'm saying. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think there are 24 any effects from the floodway or the Portage 25 diversion that are affecting Lake Manitoba 00673 1 fishing. And even if -- 2 MS. COURCELLES: The quality of 3 water -- 4 THE CHAIRMAN: -- even if they are, 5 it's beyond the scope of our review, so we can't 6 answer your questions in that regard. 7 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. Other than -- 8 okay, fine, thank you. Thank you very much then, 9 that will be it. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We've had 11 an indication, I think, that there were one or two 12 more that wish to ask some questions. 13 MS. SADIQ: Okay. My name is Sonia 14 Sadiq, and I'm a third year Environmental Science 15 student, and I am pretty much here because I'm 16 very interested in the assessment process. 17 Okay. My first question to the 18 Floodway Authority would be that your original 19 proposal, as I understand it, included recreation 20 considerations, but later these were removed and 21 I'm just wondering why? 22 MR. MCNEIL: Our original project 23 description that was submitted as part of the 24 environmental application in August of 2003 did 25 list recreational opportunities as one of the 00674 1 aspects of this project. However, in the past few 2 months going through the review of what those 3 opportunities may entail, it was decided to take 4 them off the table, that they are out of scope on 5 this project because there will be a future 6 planned action, and any proponents of those 7 activities would then be responsible for acquiring 8 any licences or what have you, funding, et cetera, 9 separate from this project. 10 And the recreation activities are not 11 specifically defined at this time, they are very 12 much in a conceptual stage as well. 13 MS. SADIQ: Okay, so that brings me to 14 my second question. What exactly would you like 15 to see in the proposals made by these recreation, 16 like trades people, or whoever, what exactly would 17 you like them to tell you about -- like what would 18 make you include recreation in the scope of your 19 project? Would it be funding, like the 20 construction details, or your legal liabilities? 21 MR. MCNEIL: I really couldn't get 22 into any details at this point in time. We went 23 through a process of asking people to submit 24 ideas, firstly, to find out if there was going to 25 be any impact on the primary purpose of this 00675 1 project, which was flood protection; and secondly, 2 to find out if it would affect the design of the 3 flood protection project. 4 At the end of the day, because of the 5 three general ideas that were put forward after we 6 sent out the request for expressions of interest, 7 we determined that none of those ideas really had 8 any kind of impact on the project as a flood 9 protection project. 10 Okay. I'm just referring now to the 11 EIS section 150.2, page 10-2, or sorry 12 supplementary filing, and I'll just read out one 13 of the paragraphs to help assist my answer. 14 "The call for expression of interest 15 clearly identified all of the 16 objectives and guidelines for the 17 submissions, compatibility with the 18 primary purpose of floodway expansion, 19 minimal ongoing maintenance costs to 20 taxpayers, stakeholder participation 21 and community support, maximize 22 benefits to rural and Aboriginal 23 communities, complement existing Red 24 River facilities and initiatives and 25 environmental stewardship." 00676 1 So that's what we were looking for in the ideas. 2 Now as we move forward it's necessary 3 for the Manitoba Floodway Authority and the 4 proponents of these ideas, and other government 5 departments and stakeholders to form a working 6 group to help these concepts move forward. 7 MS. SADIQ: Okay. So for these groups 8 you would want them to include in their proposal 9 all these aspects that you just listed? 10 MR. MCNEIL: Well, they were partly 11 screened out based on these criteria. We had over 12 40 submissions, and some of the ideas were advised 13 that -- they weren't conducive to meeting those 14 criteria. 15 MS. SADIQ: Yes, but most of the 16 recommendations that were made today did not 17 actually involve the funding aspects. I am just 18 wondering how you were able to screen it out at 19 that early stage? 20 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, could you rephrase 21 that question in a different way? 22 MS. SADIQ: Like most of the 23 suggestions that were made today did not have the 24 funding aspect in them, like most of the people 25 suggested that they did not actually get the 00677 1 chance to sit down with you and plan and decide on 2 a budget. So I'm just wondering how at the early 3 stage you were able to screen them out based on, 4 for instance, funding? 5 MR. MCNEIL: We haven't screened any 6 of the ideas that you heard this evening from some 7 of the presenters -- we haven't screened those 8 people out. In fact, I believe all of those 9 presenters are actively involved in the Floodway 10 Trail Coalition that is actively meeting with the 11 Floodway Authority. 12 MS. SADIQ: Okay. Great. Thank you. 13 MR. MCNEIL: Except for that 14 mountainous ski hill. 15 MS. SADIQ: Great, thank you so much. 16 MR. DUFORT: My name is Phillip 17 Dufort, I live at 45 Campeau Street in St. 18 Norbert. 19 Has there been consideration given to 20 some type of structure at the very mouth of the 21 floodway that would control water levels in the 22 summer without having to use the gates per se? It 23 seems to me that would alleviate a lot of problems 24 both upstream and downstream. 25 MR. MCNEIL: First I'll answer in a 00678 1 very general way, and then I'm going to turn it 2 over to Mr. Carson of KGS Group. 3 It has been looked at. It was 4 actually first considered in 1993 when there was 5 elevated summer river levels and significant rain 6 storms, and the province at that time didn't want 7 to operate the floodway gates. And if you will 8 recall, a councillor at that time for the City of 9 Winnipeg, Councillor Golden, had requested that 10 that option be looked at. It was looked at and it 11 was determined that the cost was much too high for 12 the benefit. 13 And now I'll turn it over to Rick to 14 maybe explain it in a little bit more detail about 15 that option. 16 MR. CARSON: Yes. I guess to clarify 17 how a structure could be used at the floodway 18 inlet, it really would not alleviate the problem 19 because the bottom of the floodway at the upstream 20 end, the very bottom elevation is 743 feet above 21 sea level, and the normal river level, Red River 22 level is about 735 at the inlet. So even to get 23 one trickle of water into the floodway, if you had 24 a structure to allow it in, you'd have to raise 25 the water level at least 8 feet above the normal 00679 1 level to pass it in. 2 On top of that there's a lip, as has 3 been explained earlier in the presentation, that 4 is actually 7 feet above that. So the structure 5 would have to replace that lip and be capable of 6 keeping ice out of the channel in the spring, and 7 it becomes a very costly undertaking. And it was 8 looked at, it has been looked at several times in 9 the last 10 to 15 years, and it was found to be 10 just not economically attractive. 11 MR. DUFORT: Next question. What are 12 the chances that work is likely to begin on the 13 expansion, it's been 8 years now, this summer? 14 MR. MCNEIL: As a representative of 15 the Manitoba Floodway Authority, I'm very 16 confident that we'll get through these hearings 17 and all the subsequent environmental approvals and 18 be in the ground in July of 2005. 19 MR. DUFORT: Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We are at the end of 21 our evening session. Is there anybody else? Do 22 you have a short question, sir? 23 MR. ROLLA: I actually have a 24 multitude of questions but I'm not going to get 25 involved in those, there will be other venues for 00680 1 that. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Please introduce 3 yourself. 4 MR. ROLLA: My name is Merv Rolla, 5 R-O-L-L-A, and I live north of Winnipeg, and I 6 have met you gentlemen in Selkirk many times. But 7 I have a question. You gentlemen talked about the 8 virtual reality. I saw this on TV, I was quite 9 impressed with that. Do you have any intentions 10 of expanding that based on the expanded floodway 11 and the increased volume that will be heading 12 north, and how that will impact north of Lockport 13 and right to the lake head? 14 MR. MCNEIL: Are you asking if we're 15 going to enhance that video to show what's going 16 on north of the city? 17 MR. ROLLA: Exactly, and that would be 18 enhanced based on a 700 year flood with the 19 expanded floodway. 20 MR. MCNEIL: I don't know if we are 21 considering that as of yet, but in the meantime, I 22 hope to be able to satisfy you, there are, there 23 is an illustration in the EIS, a supplementary 24 filing, section 8 -- I'm just trying to find it -- 25 that does show the maximum flooded area north of 00681 1 the city. 2 Brian, do you know the number offhand 3 or where it is? 4 Anyway, if you look in section 8 of 5 the EIS supplementary filing, and all the 6 documentation is on the province's website, that 7 would show the extent of flooding between Winnipeg 8 and Lake Winnipeg. 9 MR. ROLLA: Okay. I will take a look 10 at that, because I was very impressed with what 11 you showed in Winnipeg, you know, what natural 12 issues would be, and with the expanded version of 13 a volume that would be coming down there, I was 14 quite impressed with that. But living in the 15 north, I am very concerned about a lot of issues. 16 And I live on that peninsula between that river 17 and that floodway, and I know what flooding is all 18 about, let me tell you. 19 MR. MCNEIL: Well, I can tell you 20 this, after you look at the map, it's not as 21 impressive a video, because for the most part the 22 water -- the river is contained within the channel 23 until you get down into the delta area. Certainly 24 it gets pretty darn close to bank flow capacity, 25 it will flood some low lying flood plain lands, it 00682 1 will back up into some of the creeks and drainage 2 systems and whatnot, but for the most part the 700 3 year flood is contained within the high banks of 4 the Red River north of the city. 5 MR. ROLLA: Okay, that satisfies my 6 question. Thanks very much. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay. I 8 think that brings us to a conclusion for this 9 evening. We'll be back here again in just under 10 12 hours, so 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Good 11 night all. 12 (ADJOURNED AT 9:04 P.M.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00683 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 8 correct transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken 9 by me at 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