Vol1 - 2011 Regulation Review - Report

7/28/2019 Vol1 - 2011 Regulation Review - Report

1/144

LAKE MANITOBA

LAKE ST. MARTIN

REGULATION

REVIEW

Finding the

Right Balance:

A Report to

the Minister ofInfrastructure and

Transportation

Volume 1: Main Report

February 2013


2/144

LakeManitoba

LakeSt. Martin

Dauphin River

WaterhenRiver

LakeWinnipeg

Lake

Manitoba

WhitemudRiver

PortageDiversion

DeltaMarsh

AssiniboineRiver

FairfordControl

Structure

LakePineimuta

EmergencyChannel

BuffaloCreek

Lake ManitobaNarrows

Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin

Regulation Review Committee Members

HAROLD WESTDAL

Chair

RICK BOWERING

Retired Hydrological Engineer

CARON CLARKE

Rancher, Ashern andDirector, Manitoba Beef Producers

DR. GORDON GOLDSBOROUGH

Associate Professor, Dept. of Biological

Sciences, University of Manitoba

RANDY HELGASON

Councillor, RM of SiglunesLake Manitoba Fisherman

GARRY McLEAN

Lake Manitoba First Nation Member

GARY MORLOCK

Manitoba Wildlife Federation

ALFRED MORRISSEAU

Mayor, Crane River

CHERYL SMITH

St. Laurent resident and

President, Association ofLake Manitoba Stakeholders

EMERY STAGG

Former Chief, Dauphin River First Nation

TOM TEICHROEB

Rancher, Langruth andChair, Lake Manitoba Flood

Rehabilitation Committee

NORMAN TRAVERSE

Elder, Lake St. Martin First Nationand Commercial Fisherman

DON WALSH

Reeve, RM of Woodlands

Ebb andFlowLake

Dog Lake


3/144

Finding the Right Balance:

A Report to the Minister o

Inrastructure and Transportation

Volume 1: Main ReportJanuary 2013

REGULATION REVIEW


4/144

2- FInding the Right Balance

Table o Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

2 Terms o Reerence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 Public Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 Presentation o this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Control Structures History and Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1 Control Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

3.1.1 The Portage Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.2 The Fairord River Water Control Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.3 The Emergency Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1.4 Shellmouth Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 Comparing 2011 to Previous Floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.2.1 Conditions Leading Up to 2011 Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3 Flooding in Western Manitoba in 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

3.4 Lake Manitoba Water Levels and Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

3.4.1 Water Levels and Flows Prior to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.4.2 History o Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.4.3 The 2011 Flood Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

3.5 Lake St. Martin/Dauphin River - Water Levels and Flows . . . . . . . . . .29

3.5.1 Water Levels and Flows Prior to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.5.2 History o Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.6 The 2011 Flood Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353.6.1 Addressing Lake Levels Lake St. Martin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4 Treaties and Water Management in Manitoba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.1 History o Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

4.2 Mtis Infuence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

5 The Impact o Water Level Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1 Permanent and Seasonal Residents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

5.2 Wildlie & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

5.3 Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

5.4 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

5.5 Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

6 Future Impact o Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7 Public Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

7.1 What We Heard Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

7.1.1 Lake Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

7.1.2 The Need or Additional Water Control Works or Outlets. . . . . . . . . 78


5/144

A Report to the Minister o Inrastructure and Transportation - 3

7.1.3 Environmental and Social Impacts o Water Level Regulation. . . . . . 81

7.1.4 Land Use Policies and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

8 Interim and Potential Long-term Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878.1 Land Use Policies and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

8.1.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

8.1.2 Land Use Planning and Floods in Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

8.1.3 Planning Districts and Municipalities: Viewpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

8.1.4 First Nations: Viewpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

8.1.5 Role o the Federal Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

8.1.6 Existing Provincial Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

8.2 The Need or Additional Water Control Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

8.2.1 Establishing the Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

8.2.2 Design o Fairord Control Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058.2.3 Options or Additional Outlets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

9 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

9.1 Need or Additional Water Control Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

9.1.1 Lake St. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

9.1.2 Lake Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

9.2 Range o Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

9.2.1 Range o Regulation Lake Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

9.2.2 Range o Regulation Lake St. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

9.3 Land Use Policies and Zoning Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189.3.1 Designated Flood Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

9.3.2 Policy: Development Guidelines/Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

9.3.3 Planning Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

9.3.4 Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

9.3.5 Municipal Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

9.3.6 Planning with First Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9.3.7 Interprovincial and Cross-Border Co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9.4 Out o Scope Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9.4.1 On-Reserve Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9.4.2 Improved Capacity o the Assiniboine River belowPortage la Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9.4.3 Unrestricted Fish Passage Between Lake Manitoba

and Lake St. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

9.4.4 Planning or the Atermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

9.4.5 Stakeholder Input into Operation o the Portage Diversion . . . . . . 123


6/144


AppendicesAppendix A: Terms o Reerence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Appendix B: Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Appendix C: Previous Reviews, Recommendations and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

C1:The Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory Committee (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

C2:Lake Manitoba Stewardship Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Appendix D: Concurrent Studies and Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

D1:The 2011 Manitoba Flood Review Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

D2:Surace Water Management Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

D3:The Assiniboine Basin and Lake Manitoba Flood Mitigation Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

D4:Lake St. Martin Flood Mitigation Alternatives Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

D5:Land Use Planning Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Appendix E: Public Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

E1:Meetings and Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

E2:What We Heard Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

E3:Municipal Survey Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

E4:Online Feedback Form Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Appendix F: 1994 Red River Floodway Program o Operations/ Portage DiversionOperation Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

List o FiguresFigure 2.1: Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Regulatio nReview Workplan Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Fi gure 3 .1 : Annual Por tage D iver sio n Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 3.2: Impact o Portage Diversion on Lake Manitoba Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 3.3: Fair ord River Rating Cur ve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 3.4: Recorded Lake Levels on Lake Manitoba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 3.5: Lake Manitoba Recorded and Unregulated Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Fi gure 3.6: L ake Wi nnipegos is Annual Inow s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 3.7: Annual Peak Flows on the Assiniboine River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Fi gure 3 .8 : Flood Co mparison 1976 vs. 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 3.9: Assiniboine River April to July Flow Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3.10: Lake Manitoba Level s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Fi gure 3 .11: Fa ir ord R iver Recorded Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Fi gure 3.12: Lake Manito ba Levels 1951-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Fi gure 3 .13: Fair ord R iver Flow s 1951-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 3.14: Lake Manitoba 2011 Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.15: Lake St. Martin - Area Flooded Below 801 t.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Fi gure 3 .16: L ake St Mart in Reco rded Leve ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3.17: Lake St. Mar tin Lake Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.18: Lake St. Mar tin 2011 Level s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Fi gure 3 .19: Efectiveness o Emerg ency Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 5.1: Marsh renewal cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 5.2: W ind efec ts and wave ac tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 5.3: Wildlie Areas around Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 5.4: P or tage Creek Bay 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Figure 5.5: P or tage Creek Bay 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 5.6: Lake Manitoba Commercial Production rom 1970-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Figure 5.7: Lake St. Martin Commercial Production rom 1980-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Figure 5.8: The Correlation between Lake Level and Walleye Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1Fig ure 5.9: To ta l N itro gen and Water Leve l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Figure 5.10: Total Phosphorus and Water Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Figure 5.11: Lake Manitoba Total Phosphorus Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Figure 5.12: Lake Manitoba Total Nitrogen Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Figure 5.13: Lake Manitoba Levels o Chlorophyll a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Figure 5.14: Lake Manitoba Total Suspended Solids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Fig ure 5 .15: L ake M anito ba Co nd ucti vit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Fig ure 5.16: Lake Manito ba Di ssolved Oxyg en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Figure 5.17: 2011 Total Phosphorus Levels, various locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Figure 5.18: 2011 Turbidity, various locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Figure 5.19: 2011 Chlorophyll a, various locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Figure 6.1: Hydrological Processes in MIKE-SHE (DHI 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68Figure 7.1: Lake Manitoba Preerred Range o Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Figure 7.2: Distribution o LMFRC Survey Respondents In Favour orAgainst Additional Water Control Structures or Lake Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Figure 8.1: Portage Diversion - Volume Diverted 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Figure 8.2: Fairord Control Structure Target Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 8.3: Frequency Cur ve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Figure 8.4: Outlet Options or Lake Manitoba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109


7/144


1 Introduction

2011 saw a ood without precedent. In the all o 2010, orecasters were concerned about

the potential or ooding. The all was wet and western Manitoba went into reeze-up with

high levels o soil moisture. A record storm in October added to wet conditions. A heavy

snowpack, twice the average, covered the upper reaches o the Assiniboine River watershed.

This was ollowed by spring precipitation two to three times the norm. Every watershed in

southern Manitoba was at ood stage. The resulting crisis mobilized a huge workorce o

volunteers, contractors and the army.

Thousands o acres o armland went underwater and went

unseeded throughout the southern part o the province.

The most signifcant ood damage, however, was in the

vicinity o Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. While a

ew homes in western Manitoba were lost to the risingwater, in the vicinity o Lake Manitoba and Lake St.

Martin, hundreds o people lost their homes and cottages,

lost their business, lost income, suered long-term damage

to their arms, and were, or continue to be, displaced. It

was rather remarkable that, given all these adverse and

dangerous conditions, there was not a single loss o lie and

not one person went overnight without ood or shelter.

While the people on the shores o Lake Manitoba, Lake

St. Martin and Dauphin River were all subject to thesame ood waters, there are divergent experiences and

interests in this region defned in part by the hydraulic

relationship between these bodies o water. Lake Manitoba is a large lake compared with Lake

St. Martin. Small changes to water levels on Lake Manitoba can result in much larger changes

downstream on Lake St. Martin and the Dauphin River. Finding a water management

approach acceptable to all locations and interests will involve concessions by most parties and

likely deerence to downstream locations.

People who reside around Lake Manitoba have a very clear idea o what they would like to

see in terms o lake levels and control structures. In particular, there is a strong demand oran additional outlet to deal with inows rom the Portage Diversion. The people on Lake St.

Martin, however, have had an unortunate and much longer history o ooding, being on the

receiving end o altered ows rom Lake Manitoba since the Fairord River Water Control

Structure began operating in 1961. The ood o 2011 compounded an already bad situation.

The post ood response o the Province

to the 2011 ood has been a number o

initiatives:

The 2011 Flood Review Task

Force, which is evaluating oodmanagement on a province-wide

basis;

development o a surace water

management strategy;

a number o technical studies;

and

this work, the Lake Manitoba/

Lake St. Martin Regulation

Review, which is considering

issues with respect to Lake

Manitoba and Lake St. Martin.


8/144


The Fairord River Water Control Structure, which regulates outows rom Lake Manitoba, was

built principally or the beneft o Lake Manitoba. Over the last ew years, excluding the ood o

2011, Lake Manitoba would have been 1.5 to 2 eet higher on several occasions and would have

ooded extensive areas were it not or the control structure. The structure, however, has oten

resulted in adverse conditions on Lake St. Martin, alternately causing ooding and occasionally

very trying low water conditions.

The utures o the people o Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin are now tied more closely together.

Not just by their common interest in water but by the current reality that any solution or Lake

Manitoba eectively and practically requires the agreement o people downstream.

The 2011 ood also raises the issue as to whether it is practical to try to protect everyone rom all

ooding at any time. Is there common ground between the potential or another major ood on the

scale o 2011 and economic and environmental constraints? It is a challenge or all Manitobans to

consider and o particular relevance or those who live and make a living near Lake Manitoba and

Lake St. Martin.

One early response specifc to the Lake Manitoba ood has been revised (interim) development

guidelines rom the Province that recommend higher minimum building elevations. The

implications o the interim new development guidelines on land use have concerned municipal

governments who see new land use policies as potential constraints on development and involving

an uncomortable and uncertain period o adjustment. Land use policies themselves, however, are

tied to what the water regime might be in the uture.

To achieve practical solutions or Lake Manitoba, the Committee is o the opinion that it is frst

necessary to address and resolve issues on Lake St. Martin. Only when satisactory solutions are

ound or Lake St. Martin will it be possible to consider additional works or Lake Manitoba.

In this report, the Committee makes recommendations on the range o regulation or each o the

lakes, the need or a new outlet rom Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin, and recommendations

with respect to land use planning and zoning. While there are many divergent interests, we

conclude that there is, in act, a common interest to fnding practical solutions and are optimistic

that agreement can be reached among all o the parties.


9/144


2 Terms o ReerenceThe Government o Manitoba appointed each o the members o the 2012 Lake Manitoba/Lake St.

Martin Regulation Review and prepared Terms o Reerence. A copy o the Terms o Reerence is

provided in Appendix A.

While there are fve items listed in the Terms o Reerence, the core aspects o the work o the

Committee are to consider and provide recommendations on:

1. The need or additional water control works;

2. The most acceptable and practicable range o regulation within which the levels o Lake

Manitoba and Lake St. Martin might be controlled; and

3. Land use policies and zoning criteria relative to areas around the water bodies that are

vulnerable to ooding.

2.1 ApproachFigure 2.1 sets out the approach to the tasks o the Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Regulation

Review. There were three broad streams o work:

Hydrology inormation, reports and studies;

Public engagement; and

Other studies and research.

These were brought together to address the Terms o Reerence.

Figure 2.1: Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Regulation Review Workplan Approach

Lake Manitoba/Lake St. MartinRegulation Review

Hydrology Public

Engagement

Other Studies and

Research

Review o water controlstructures and lake levels:

pre 2011 2011 ood

emergency outlet

Need or additional watercontrol works

meetings with aectedparties, First Nationsand municipalities

site tours

public open houses

Web site

Land use policies andzoning

Other research

Presentations by subject matter specialistsand associations

agriculture sheries wildlie water quality protected places conservation districts property owners


10/144


A review o the need or additional water control works was undertaken without the beneft o

conceptual designs or new works or detailed cost estimates. The Committees recommendations

are based on opinions and comments made at public meetings, comments made via the web site and

open houses, and hydrologic analysis o the circumstances required to achieve conditions acceptable

to people in the vicinity o each lake.

Expertise and experience o committee members, hydraulic inormation, technical reports,

presentations, and studies were brought together with public opinion to rame the Committees

recommendations.

2.2 Public EngagementThe Terms o Reerence require signifcant engagement and dialogue with the public. Engaging

the public and client groups in a meaningul way was essential to the ulflling o the Committees

obligations. A comprehensive summary o activities is ound in Appendix E.

The ollowing components outline the approach to public engagement:

Meetings with Interested Parties

The Committee held multi-purpose meetings: regular committee meetings plus specialist

presentations combined, where possible, with meetings with client groups and site visits. For

example, a Manitoba Conservation presentation on fsheries was combined with meeting fshers and

an appropriate site visit.

Attendees at a committee meeting


11/144


Site Visits

Committee members toured most areas around Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin aected by

ood damage. These tours included agricultural lands, residential and cottage developments, tourist

acilities, and First Nations. The site visits were combined as much as possible with committee

meetings and other actions.

Public Open Houses

The Committee held seven open houses in various venues around the lakes.

Survey

An online survey was developed to obtain opinion rom municipal governments and First Nations.

Web Site

A web site (http://www.lakemanitobalakestmartinregulationreview.ca/) was developed as a place

or the public to obtain copies o each presentation made to the Committee and to fnd details about

public open houses and other events. Another primary purpose was to acilitate and encourage

public input by way o a eedback orm, essentially an online survey that allowed or wide ranging

comments.

2.3 Presentation o this ReportThe intended audience or this report is the general public, and more particularly, those who reside

around each o the lakes. Wherever possible, descriptions o land and resource uses around the lakes

have been broadened to put a human ace to activities. This includes historical reerences to give

some depth to the analysis and to provide insight to sometimes competing uses.

Scattered throughout the report are Perspectives. These are observations made by the Committee

about the issues and complexities related to trying to manage natural systems in a way that both

protects natural values and serves divergent interests.


12/144


Lake Manitoba - Lake St. Martin and the Dauphin River

LakeManitoba

LakeSt. Martin

DauphinRiver

WaterhenRiver

LakeWinnipeg

Lake

Manitoba

WhitemudRiver

PortageDiversion

DeltaMarsh

AssiniboineRiver

FairfordControl

Structure

LakePineimuta

Emergency

Channel

BuffaloCreek

Lake ManitobaNarrows

Dog Lake

Ebb and Flow

Lake


13/144


3 Control Structures History and Operations

3.1 Control StructuresAn overview o relevant water control structures and their operations is presented here to provide

context to the report. Water control structures include the:

Portage Diversion

Fairord River Water Control Structure

Emergency Channel

Shellmouth Dam

Over the years, structures have been built in Manitoba to reduce the impact o ooding. Ater

the 1950 Red River ood, the Red River Floodway, Portage Diversion and Shellmouth Dam were

constructed, primarily to reduce ooding in Winnipeg. However, the Portage Diversion and the

Shellmouth Dam also provide ood control benefts along the Assiniboine River. Ater the high

levels on Lake Manitoba in the mid-1950s, the Fairord River Water Control Structure was built

to control ooding on Lake Manitoba. Each o these structures has been eective in meeting their

original objectives. However, their operation has not been without controversy. During the 2011

ood, an emergency channel was constructed to convey additional waters rom Lake St. Martin.

3.1.1 The Portage DiversionThe Portage Diversion is a water control structure on the Assiniboine River immediately upstream

o Portage la Prairie. The project, completed in 1970, was part o a larger attempt to prevent ooding

in the Red River Valley. The Portage Diversion consists o two separate control structures that

divert some o the ow o water in the Assiniboine River to a 29 kilometre long diversion channel

that empties into Lake Manitoba near Delta Beach. The Diversion was originally designed to carry a

maximum volume o 25,000 cubic eet per second (cs).

During the spring o 2011, water ows in the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie were

measured at over 53,400 cs. The Assiniboine River downstream, however, had an estimated

capacity o only some 19,000 cs. To prevent the Assiniboine River dikes rom breaching, the ows

in the Diversion were increased to a peak o 34,700 cs. This is similar to typical summer ows on

the Winnipeg River. The ows in the Diversion averaged about 25,000 cs over 15 weeks. While

peak ows on the Diversion have received a lot o attention, the real impact was caused by the

unprecedented length o time the Diversion continued in operation.


14/144


History o the Portage Diversion

Construction o the Portage Diversion was one o the ood control projects recommended in the

1958 report o the Royal Commission on Flood Cost Beneft. Its primary purpose was to control

ooding in Winnipeg by reducing the inows rom the Assiniboine River when Red River levels

are high in the city. It also was designed to reduce overbank ooding along the Assiniboine River

between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg. The Diversion cost $20.5 million dollars to constructwhen it was completed in 1970.

The Portage Diversion consists o two control structures: a 29 kilometre diversion channel rom

the Assiniboine River to Lake Manitoba, and a 1600 acre reservoir on the Assiniboine River just

west o Portage la Prairie.

The channels capacity is 25,000 cs or most o the channel length. However, there is a ailsae

section on the west side o the channel at the northern end that will breach at 15,000 cs. Although

the operating rules, discussed below, state that the ow in the Diversion shall not be allowed to

exceed 25,000 cs, during the 2011 ood, the channel was surcharged to a maximum o 34,700 csor almost 40 percent beyond its design capacity.

The dam on the Assiniboine River is 35 eet high and 1,400 eet long. The structure has two

bascule gates that control the amount o water owing eastward towards Winnipeg. The control

structure at the entrance to the diversion channel controls the amount o ow diverted northward

to Lake Manitoba.

The Diversion has been

operated in 36 o the 43 years

between 1970 and 2012 (see

Figure 3.1). In nine o those

years only small volumes were

diverted to support irrigation

along the diversion route,

but in the other 27 years

the Diversion was operated

or ood control purposes.

Operation has proved very

benefcial or reducing

ooding in Winnipeg andalong the Assiniboine River

east o Portage la Prairie.

However, the operation has

had a negative impact on Lake Manitoba, both in terms o lake regulation and water quality.

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

AnnualVolume(acrefeet)

AnnualPortageDiversionFLowVolume

Figure 3.1: Annual Portage Diversion Flows


15/144


Figure 3.2 shows the impact

that diversion o ows rom

the Assiniboine River has had

on annual peak levels on Lake

Manitoba. These peak lake

level changes are computedby subtracting the Portage

Diversion ows rom the total

inows to Lake Manitoba

and routing the daily inows

through the Fairord River

Water Control Structure. The

computed peak level is then

compared to the recorded peak

level or each year o operation.

This lake level dierence is not

the same as simply dividing

the annual volume by the

surace area o the lake. That

calculation ignores the act

that outows through the Fairord River Water Control Structure increase as lake levels increase, so

some o the diverted volume would continue down the Fairord River.

The highest impact was 1.7 eet in 2011. It is interesting to note that the second highest impact was

1.0 eet in 2012, a year when the Portage Diversion was not used. This is because the lake levels in

2012 are still being impacted by the 2011 ood.

Operating rules

The operating rules or the Portage Diversion were contained in the 1994 Red River Floodway

Program o Operation (see Appendix F). The rules set out the ollowing operating objectives:

1. To provide maximum benefts to the City o Winnipeg and areas along the Assiniboine

River downstream o Portage la Prairie.

2. To minimize ice jams orming along the Assiniboine River.

3. Not to increase the water level in Lake Manitoba beyond the maximum regulated level o

812.87 eet (247.76 m), i possible.

4. Prevent overtopping o the ailsae section in the Portage Diversion i possible.

Figure 3.2: Impact o Portage Diversion on Lake Manitoba Levels


16/144


The eight rules contained in the Program o Operation are:

1. Except as provided or under Rule 8, the Portage Diversion shall be utilized to its maximum

capability to keep water levels in Winnipeg below 17.0 eet, City Datum.

2. The ow in the Diversion shall not be allowed to exceed 25,000 cs.

3. I ow orecasts indicate that the peak inow into the reservoir to be 20,000 cs or more, the

Diversion will be put into use as soon as possible to ush out snow blockages and in situ ice.4. During the period that there is ice on the reservoir, the water level o the reservoir will not

be allowed to exceed 865.0 eet to provide room or releases rom breaching o upstream ice

jams.

5. The conduits o the Spillway Structure shall be closed while there is water going over the

bascule gates.

6. While there is ice on the Assiniboine River downstream o Portage la Prairie it is desirable

to limit ows to approximately 5,000 cs in the River i possible. Flows o this magnitude

appear to be optimum ows required to assist in ushing the ice down river without

causing major ice jams or ooding to adjacent arm lands through local drainage inlets. This

procedure provides additional capacity, i required, on the River downstream o Portage la

Prairie when the second peak arrives. The level o Lake Manitoba should not be taken into

account while there is ice on the Assiniboine River, as the period during which there is ice

on the River during the spring runo is only a ew days, and diverted ows or this short a

period o time have a negligible eect on the level o Lake Manitoba.

7. Ater the ice has gone rom the Assiniboine River downstream o Portage 1a Prairie, it is

desirable to maintain ows less than 10,000 cs in the River i possible. Flows greater than

10,000 cs are above the natural bank stage o the River, and backup o local streams which

outlet into the Assiniboine may occur at this level. There also may be seepage problems

through the dyke, leakage under the dyke through gated culverts and ooding o cultivatedland between the dykes.

8. For ows o up to 30,000 cs under open water conditions, the ailsae section o the west

dyke o the Portage Diversion should not be breached i the peak stage in Winnipeg will not

exceed 18.0 eet.

3.1.2 The Fairord River Water Control StructureThe Fairord River ows out o Lake Manitoba at the northeast corner o the lake. It ows through

Pineimuta Lake and into Lake St. Martin. The Fairord River Water Control Structure was built or

two primary purposes:

1. To reduce ooding on Lake Manitoba by allowing additional water to ow down the

Fairord River into Lake Pinemuta and Lake St. Martin and eventually into Lake Winnipeg

via the Dauphin River; and

2. To maintain lake levels during periods o low inow by reducing outow into the Fairord

River.


17/144


Since it began operation in 1961, the Fairord River Water Control Structure has had adverse eects

on Lake St. Martin, which the Province has been working to resolve over an extended period o

time. Since the mid-1970s, the structure has been operated to consider the eects o operation on

both Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin.

History o the Fairord River Water Control StructureFor over 100 years, attempts have been made both to reduce ooding on Lake Manitoba and

alternatively to maintain water levels by controlling outow into the Fairord River. Early

attempts were ailures and had unintended consequences on Lake St. Martin and the surrounding

communities.

Between 1899 and 1901, severe ooding around Lake Manitoba led to the excavation o an

improved outlet channel. In 1933, ollowing dry years in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the

Province constructed a concrete control dam across the Fairord River immediately downstream o

the channel. The current structure was completed and put into operation in 1961.

An historical account o water levels noted that in 1901:

All the lakes were ooded at that time and settlements along Lake Manitoba and Lake

Winnipegosis almost devastated... I had to row in among the trees and land at his door.

All the low lying land was ooded.

In 1901 the lake was exceptionally

high. The entire countryside was

under water and there were muskrats

[houses] everywhere.1

Operating Rules

The control structure is composed o

11 bays. Each bay has stop logs that can

be used to control outows rom Lake

Manitoba into the Fairord River. One bay

contains a fshway. A highway bridge is

incorporated into the top o the structure.

Figure 3.3 shows the rating curve or the

Fairord River Water Control Structure,which is the rate o ow that can be

passed by the structure at various Lake

Manitoba levels when all o the stop logs

are removed.

1 Einarsson, Helgi. Helgi Einarsson: A Manitoba Fisherman. (G. Hauser, Trans.). Queenston House: Winnipeg, 1982. Print.

Figure 3.3: Fairord River Rating Curve


18/144


In practise, during periods o high ow, a couple o logs are let in each bay because they are difcult

to remove and experience has shown that at high lake levels they have no eect on the ow capacity

o the structure.

Also shown on Figure 3.3 is the rating curve or the natural channel. This curve gives the ow

capacity o the unimproved channel or a variety o Lake Manitoba levels.

As an example o how to read these curves, the horizontal arrows denote a lake level o 812.5 eet.

With the natural channel, the Fairord River would have conveyed 2,300 cs with the lake at this

level. With the expanded channel that was constructed in 1961, the structure could pass up to 7,300

cs or more than triple the natural capacity.

The operators o the Fairord River Water Control Structure use the Fairord rating curve to

determine how to set the logs in the control structure. As a practical example, assume the current

level o Lake Manitoba is 812.5 eet and orecasters predict that inows plus precipitation minus

evaporation will average 2,000 cs over the coming month. To maintain a lake level o 812.5 eet,

the outow would have to equal the inow. Thereore, to maintain an outow o 2,000 cs the logs

would have to be set to (2,000/7,300) = 27 percent o ull capacity.

As another example, over the period 2007 to 2010, Lake Manitoba averaged 812.05 eet and the recorded

Fairord River ows averaged 5,500 cs. The rating curve or the current structure shows that the

structure would have had to remain wide open during this period to pass that much ow. The natural

curve shows that the lake would have had to be 814 eet or two eet higher to pass that much ow.

The initial operating rules or the structure were ocused on maintaining a stable lake level o

812.17 eet. The minimum outow was 50 cs. Operation o the Fairord River Water Control

Structure according to these rules was very eective in stabilizing the lake levels on Lake Manitoba.However, ater a ew years o operation it became clear that the operation was having a negative

impact on Lake St. Martin.

The current operating rules or the Fairord River Water Control Structure were recommended by

the Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory Committee in their 2003 report (see Appendix C)

to the Province, which adopted these rules. In summary the rules are:

Lake Manitoba should be operated in a more natural ashion based on the Minimum Log Change

Model developed or the Committee. The Committee recommended:

a) When water levels on Lake Manitoba are between 810.5 eet and 812.5 eet and levels onLake St. Martin are between 797 eet and 800 eet permit the lakes to uctuate naturally

without stop log changes.

b) Any variances in the lake levels outside o the range shall be shared between Lake Manitoba

and Lake St. Martin insoar as this may be reasonably possible.

c) The minimum ow on the Fairord River should be 800 cs with a desirable ow o 1,000 cs

as oten as possible.


19/144


Figure 3.4 shows recorded lake levels rom 1924 to the summer o 2012.

Figure 3.4: Recorded Lake Levels on Lake Manitoba

The plot shows the dramatic change

in lake level patterns associated with

the operation o the Fairord River

Water Control Structure. Beore 1961,

the lake uctuated through a range

o our eet over multi-year cycles.

Ater, regulation uctuations were

small, usually less than one oot.

The plot shows that the structure

was successul in preventing the

occurrence o ood levels on Lake

Manitoba until 2011.

3.1.3 The Emergency ChannelBy mid-summer 2011, Lake Manitoba

and Lake St. Martin were at record

high levels. It was recognized that i

no action was taken, the level o Lake

Manitoba was expected to remain wellabove the upper range o regulation

throughout 2012 leaving communities,

homes, cottages and arms at high risk

o urther damage rom ooding, wind

and waves. Lake St. Martin was

806

808

810

812

814

816

818

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

LakeL

evel(feet)

Lake Manitoba

Levels Controlled by

Fairford Control StructureAverage 1924-1960

= 812.17 ft.

PERSPECTIVE

The operation o the Fairord River Water Control Structure ollows the

recommendations o the Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory

Committee as made in 2003. Those recommendations provide or a

water level management regime that would:

Permit Lake Manitoba to uctuate between 810.5 and 812.5 eet

above sea level (t. asl), insoar as this may be reasonably possible,

with the expectation that water levels on the lake may rise to 813.0

t. asl in some years and drop to 810 t. asl in others.

To achieve this guideline, active intervention in lake levels happens at

812.5 to stem urther increases and at 810.5 to stem urther reductions,

with the expectation that lake levels would either rise above or all

below the reerence points, as the case may be, creating an eective

normal range o 810 to 813 eet. What the public has seen, however,

are charts that reer to the normal range, top o operating range,

and regulation range all within the context o 810.5 to 812.5 eet. In

the publics mind, this is a two-oot range o regulation. Many people

believe that the lake is regulated to prevent it rom exceeding 812.5,

whereas in actuality it is regulated with an expectation that it may rise

to 813 eet under normal conditions. This has complicated the discussion

as to a preerred range.


20/144


expected to be above ood stage into the all o 2012, with a summer peak 2.5 eet higher than the

historic peak o 1955. Additionally, winter ows into Lake St. Martin could be as high as 15,000 cs,

ar above the 5,000 cs limit required to prevent razil ice development on the Dauphin River.

The Province commissioned an urgent study to explore options to bring the levels o Lake St. Martin

and Lake Manitoba down to the desirable range on an emergency basis as soon as possible. The

Province requested a broad review o any potential options to achieve this objective in a timely and

cost-eective manner while also minimizing potential impacts on other areas o the province.

The recommended option was construction o an emergency channel rom Lake St. Martin to Lake

Winnipeg. It was estimated that the channel would lower Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin by 2 to

3 eet. This channel would provide direct beneft to Lake St. Martin through accelerated drawdown

o the ood levels. It would also beneft Lake Manitoba in that it would avoid the need to reduce

winter outows to 5,000 cs.

2011 Operation

The initial target was to construct a 5,000 cs capacity

channel by November 1, 2011. However, because o

the remoteness o the project site and the difculties

associated with doing major earthwork in a marsh

environment, it became clear that the ull project

could not be completed by November 1. Thereore, the

channel, designed as three reaches, was scaled back to

3,500 cs capacity.

Reach 1 extends eight kilometres rom the northeast

corner o Lake St. Martin to Big Bualo Lake. This

section was operational by November 1, 2011. Reach

2 ollows Bualo Creek or a urther nine kilometres

and did not require any construction. Reach 3 would

divert the ow rom Bualo Creek in a north-easterly

direction to Lake Winnipeg and would eliminate

additional ow rom entering the Dauphin River.

In the absence o Reach 3, the ows continue down

Bualo Creek re-entering the Dauphin River 3.5 km

above the mouth. However, a major concern withallowing the diverted ows to re-enter the Dauphin

River was the possibility that razil ice on the river

would become trapped under the ice sheet on Lake

Winnipeg and create a large accumulation called a hanging dam. A ully developed hanging dam

would block the rivers ow causing extensive ooding o Dauphin River First Nation. Blockage o

the river would eventually have an impact on Lake St. Martin levels as well.

PERSPECTIVE

Was the Fairord Control Structure designed to

handle Portage Diversion fows?

The Fairord Control Structure was put into operation on

June 1, 1960. The Portage Diversion was not completed

until 1970. There is an assumption, thereore, that

the Fairord structure was not designed to convey the

additional inows rom the Portage Diversion.

In act, the Fairord Control Structure was designed

to control Lake Manitoba between 811 and 813 eet,

including the simulated inows rom the Portage

Diversion based on the recorded Assiniboine ows over

the period rom 1914 to 1955. However as discussed

in Section 8.2.2 the ows in the Assiniboine River have

been higher since 1970 than they were during the

period used in the Fairord design. Thereore, although

the Fairord Control Structure was designed to handle

anticipated Portage Diversion ows, the actual operation

since 1970 has resulted in larger and more requentPortage Diversion operation than had been anticipated.


21/144


Reach 3 was designed to divert the emergency ows rom

Bualo Creek to Lake Winnipeg so there would be less

chance o razil ice problems developing. However, the

warm winter o 2011/12 the warmest in many years

slowed razil ice development such that when Reach 3 was

completed in late winter it was no longer required and

never put into operation. Since the Emergency Channel

was constructed on an emergency basis without any

environmental reviews it was closed once the emergency is

over. It was closed in the all o 2012.

The beneft to Lake Manitoba o keeping the Fairord River

Water Control Structure wide open all winter was to lower

the lake levels by an additional oot over the 2011/12 winter.

The beneft to Lake St. Martin was to lower spring 2012

levels by more than three eet.

3.1.4 Shellmouth DamAlthough the Shellmouth Dam is an important component o ood control or the Assiniboine

River and or Winnipeg, its operation had limited impact on Lake Manitoba in 2011. Shellmouth

operation began to reduce Assiniboine River ows at Portage la Prairie in mid-April and by early

May the reduction was 10,000 cs. Without Shellmouth operation the peak ow west o Portage

la Prairie would have been over 60,000 cs but with almost 35,000 cs already in the Portage

Diversion, the additional ows would have overowed at the Hoop and Holler breach adding to

overland ooding east o Portage la Prairie rather than owing down the Portage Diversion to Lake

Manitoba.

The ability to lower Lake Manitoba

through the winter is restricted by the

high potential o the risk o razil ice

jamming and associated ooding at

reeze-up downstream o Lake St. Martin.

This is a particular problem or Dauphin

River First Nation and concern about this

led to creation o substantial dikes in the

community in 2011. Frazil ice ormation

turned out not to be a problem due to

the warm winter o 2011/12 and thedikes have proven to be a major problem

or the community. During late summer

2012 the dikes were in the process o

being removed or lowered.

Fairord River Control Structure


22/144


3.2 Comparing 2011 to Previous FloodsTo put the ood o 2011 into context it is necessary to compare it to past oods, both on the

Assiniboine River and on Lake Manitoba. Lake levels and outows have been recorded on Lake

Manitoba since the 1920s. Figure 3.5 shows the recorded levels on Lake Manitoba rom 1924 to

2011. The blue line shows recorded lake levels.

Since 1961, the Fairord River Water Control Structure has been used to control the levels on Lake

Manitoba. Also, since 1970, the Portage Diversion has been used to reduce ooding on the lower

Assiniboine River and in Winnipeg by diverting excess ows rom the Assiniboine River to Lake

Manitoba. These two structures have changed the lake level patterns.

A simulation model was developed to estimate the levels that would have occurred i these twostructures were not in place. The simulated unregulated lake levels are shown in red. They reect

the pattern o extended dry and wet periods that were evident in the pre-regulation period beore

1961. They also show that, in the absence o the Portage Diversion and the Fairord River Water

Control Structure, the 2011 ood on Lake Manitoba would still have been the worst ood since

water levels were recorded.

Record High Infows rom Lake Winnipegosis

Over the long term, the major source o river inow to Lake Manitoba has been the Waterhen River.

It drains an area o western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan rom the north slopes o the Riding

Mountain to just south o The Pas. The Waterhen River ows rom Lake Winnipegosis to LakeManitoba. Lake Winnipegosis has a relatively small outlet relative to its drainage area. Thereore,

the lake responds slowly to changing inows. This is one reason or the long lake level uctuation

cycles on Lake Manitoba evident in Figure 3.5. When the levels o Lake Winnipegosis are high

as a result o prolonged heavy runo, it takes months and even years or the lake to recede to its

normal level. During this period, the outows through the Waterhen River remain high, resulting in

prolonged above normal inows to Lake Manitoba.

Figure 3.5: Lake Manitoba Recorded and Unregulated Levels

806

808

810

812

814

816

818

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

LakeL

evel(fee

t)

Lake Manitoba

Recorded Daily Level

Lake Manitoba - Unregulated

Levels Controlled by

Fairford Control Structure


23/144


Figure 3.6 shows the annual inows to Lake Winnipegosis rom 1951 to the present.

Figure 3.6: Lake Winnipegosis Annual Inows

It is interesting to note that in 1961 and 1962 the total inow or the year was negative. In these

years, evaporation rom the lake surace exceeded the total inow rom the surrounding watershed

plus precipitation.

The average inow over the period rom 1950 to the present was just over two million acre-eet per

year. The two highest years on record were 2010 ollowed by 2011. The inow volumes in both 2010

and 2011 were more than three times the average inow. Furthermore, in six o the last eight years,

inows to Lake Winnipegosis were above average. As a result, by the summer o 2011, levels on Lake

Winnipegosis were the highest recorded since records began in 1913. In turn, this resulted in the

highest sustained inows to Lake Manitoba via the Waterhen River in a century.

Record Flow Volumes on the Assiniboine River

The Assiniboine River rises in eastern Saskatchewan north o Yorkton. It is joined by theQuAppelle River at St. Lazare and the Souris River east o Brandon. The Assiniboine River and

each o these tributaries experienced record ooding in 2011. The result was record peak ows at

Portage la Prairie and a ood volume that ar surpassed any previously recorded ood.

-1,000,000

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

AnnualInflow(

acrefeet)

Lake Winnipegosis Annual Inflows

Long Term Average Volume


24/144


Figure 3.7 shows the annual peak ows recorded on the Assiniboine River since 1913.

Figure 3.7: Annual Peak Flows on the Assiniboine River

The peak ow o 53,400 cs in 2011 surpassed

the previous peak ow recorded in 1976. Yetthe 2011 ood had a much larger impact on

Lake Manitoba than 1976 due to the duration

o the ood.

Figure 3.8 shows the daily recorded ows on

the Assiniboine River at Holland or 1976 and

2011. The peak ows are similar, but the 1976

ood only exceeded 20,000 cs or 36 days. The

2011 ood exceeded 20,000 cs or 106 days or

or more than three months.

Figure 3.9 shows the annual spring ow

volumes on the Assiniboine River at Portage

la Prairie. The plot shows the annual volume o water in the river or each year or the period o

April to July. In terms o volume, 2011 was not only the largest ood on record, but the volume

more than doubled the previous record volume observed in 1976.

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1913

1918

1923

1928

1933

1938

1943

1948

1953

1958

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

2008

2004

2009

PeakFlow(

acs)

Annual Peak Flows West of Portage la Prairie

2011 Peak Flow53,400 cfs

1976 Peak Flow51,600 cfs

Average Peak Flow

10,800 cfs

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Flow(

cfs)

AssiniboineRiverLargeFloods

1976

2011

Figure 3.8: Flood Comparison 1976 vs. 2011


25/144


Figure 3.9: Assiniboine River April to July Flow Volumes

3.2.1 Conditions Leading Up to 2011 FloodIn the Canadian prairies, spring ooding is dependent on our primary actors:

1. Fall soil moisture with high all soil moisture, less o the melting snow will soak into the

ground. This will increase runo into the rivers and streams.

2. Snowall the more snow that alls over the winter increases the volume o water held in

the snowpack. This water will be released once the melt begins.

3. Spring temperatures a slow thaw ollowed by a period o low temperatures releases the

snow water slowly, providing time or infltration into the soil. A rapid melt releases all o

the water stored in the snowpack at once, reducing the time or infltration.

4. Rain on snow rain during snowmelt not only increases the volume o runo, but the

latent heat in the raindrops also increases the rate o snowmelt.

In the spring o 2011, all o these actors combined to cause exceptionally high runo both in the

Lake Manitoba watershed and the Assiniboine River watershed.

Precipitation during the all o 2010 was heavy and well above normal in most o Manitoba, central

and southern Saskatchewan, and North Dakota. Cold temperatures in November resulted in

signifcant soil-rost penetration in most areas and widespread heavy snow occurred rom late

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

1913

1918

1923

1928

1933

1938

1943

1948

1953

1958

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

2008

TotalAnnualVolume(acrefeet)

Annual Flood Volume West of Portage la Prairie

2011 Flood Volume

8,340,000 ac. ft.

1976 Flood Volume

4,070,000 ac. ft.

Average Spring Volume

1,040,000 ac. ft.


26/144


November through early February over the entire basin. In addition, spring storms exacerbated the

ooding conditions along the Assiniboine River.

As a consequence, the Assiniboine River at Russell experienced a 1-in-67 year ood; the QuAppelle

River at Welby a 1-in-140 year ood; the Assiniboine River at Brandon a 1-in-250 year ood; and

the Assiniboine River at Portage la Prairie a 1-in-220 year ood.

The spring peak ow on the Waterhen River was the highest ever recorded. This was a result o

high spring inows and compounded by a series o consecutive high ow years leading up to 2011,

which resulted in record high late winter levels on Lake Winnipegosis beore the spring runo

began.

3.3 Flooding in Western Manitoba in 2011In 2011, the Assiniboine River experienced unprecedented ooding at all locations downstream o

the Shellmouth Reservoir or most o April, May, June, July and August. The frst major settlement

to experience the oodwater was St. Lazare, near the conuence o the Assiniboine River and

QuAppelle River. Dikes were built up to protect against the rising oodwater, but unortunately

some residences were not spared as their protective dikes were overwhelmed. The ood continued

downstream, spilling over its banks. Brandon, Manitobas second largest city, prepared well in

advance o the anticipated ood, building up both earthen dikes and sandbag dikes. Ater a heavy

snowall on April 29 and 30 over much o the Assiniboine River watershed, the crest orecast or

Brandon was revised upward, well above the ood o 1976. The river peaked around 37,100 cs 60

percent higher than the previous highest recorded peak o 23,000 cs in 1923.

Shortly thereater, a state o emergency was declared in Brandon as well as other municipalities

across Manitoba. Premier Greg Selinger requested rom Prime Minister Stephen Harper troops rom

the Canadian military to help with the ood fghting eorts. The last time the military was called in

to help fght a ood in Manitoba was the Red River ood in 1997.

On the Souris River, most o the early spring runo came rom the United States portion o the

watershed. Consequently, Melita was the most aected, with a peak level only one oot lower than

the 1976 peak. Later, in mid-June, rainstorms over the Manitoba portion o the watershed (up to

35 mm) caused peak stages higher than those recorded in both Souris and Wawanesa earlier that

spring. Pipestone Creek ows were already very high during May and contributed to record levels

or Oak Lake and Plum Lake, and induced unprecedented ows in Plum Creek downstream towards

the town o Souris.

Between May 27 and June 1, an unstable weather system moved across Manitoba bringing signifcant

rain to southwestern portions o the province. Cumulative rainall rom this storm was highest in

Souris (110 mm), Hamiota (100 mm) and Brandon (92 mm), with most rain occurring on May 31.

Local estimates or the Souris area reported 63 mm o rainall on May 31 alone.


27/144


In addition to this signifcant rainall, on May 31, gale orce winds caused extensive damage

to cottages and homes on Lake Manitoba. Waves as high as 7 eet were reported against dikes

and buildings. Areas around the lake that were hardest hit include the rural municipalities o

St. Laurent, Woodlands, Alonsa, Portage La Prairie, and the First Nation communities o Lake

Manitoba and Sandy Bay.

The storm o June 22, 2011, over the upper Saskatchewan portion o the Souris River watershed,

which saw rains o up to 150 mm, caused an incredible ood impact. The extensive runo and

river ow were devastating to Minot, North Dakota. When the surge crest reached the towns o

Melita and Souris on July 4 and 5 respectively, it broke the existing 1976 peak ood levels by

1.64 t. and 0.38 t.

3.4 Lake Manitoba Water Levels and Flows

3.4.1 Water Levels and Flows Prior to 2011Levels on Lake Manitoba were close to average through most o the decade leading up to 2011.

Figure 3.10: Lake Manitoba Levels

However, outows (see Figure 3.11) were well above average, particularly in 2001 and rom 2005 to

2010, indicating that the frst decade o the 21st century was considerably wetter than normal in the

Lake Manitoba basin.

810

811

812

813

814

815

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

DailyLakeLevel(feet)

Lake Manitoba at Steep Rock

Average Level

1924 - 2010 =

812.0 feet


28/144


Figure 3.11: Fairord River Recorded Flows

3.4.2 History o FloodingLevels have been recorded systematically on Lake Manitoba since 1924. As discussed previously,

levels on Lake Manitoba uctuated on a multi-year cycle beore 1961 when the Fairord River

Water Control Structure was put into operation. The only major ood recorded prior to 2011 took

place in the 1950s. Figure 3.12 shows the levels on Lake Manitoba during this decade. Figure 3.13

shows the ows on the Fairord River.

Figure 3.12: Lake Manitoba Levels 1951-1960

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

DailyFlow(

cfs)

Fairford Flows

Average Flow

1924 - 2010 =

2460 cfs

811

812

813

814

815

816

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

DailyLakeLevel(feet)

Lake Manitoba at Steep Rock

Average Level

1924 - 2010 =

812.0 feet


29/144


30/144


Figure 3.14: Lake Manitoba 2011 Levels

In early April, levels began to rise quickly as ows on the Waterhen River increased and the Portage

Diversion was put into operation. By the end o May, the lake level was approaching 816 eet,

almost as high as the record peak level in June 1955. On May 31, gale orce winds on Lake Manitoba

caused the lake levels in the south basin to rise even urther. Waves as high as 7 eet causedextensive damage to cottages and homes.

The lake peaked at just over 817 eet in late July and started a slow decline. Because o the operation

o the Emergency Channel, the winter ow reduction at Fairord to 5,000 cs was not required.

By the end o December 2011, the lake had receded to 814.3 eet and ows through the Fairord

River Water Control Structure were at 14,000 cs. These were by ar the highest winter ows ever

recorded in the Fairord River.

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

LakeL

evel(feet)

Lake Manitoba 2011 Levels

May 31 Storm


31/144


3.5 Lake St. Martin/Dauphin River - Water Levels and Flows

3.5.1 Water Levels and Flows Prior to 2011Flows on the Fairord River were generally above average rom 2001 to 2010, resulting in above

average levels on Lake St. Martin (see Figure 3.16). Between the summer o 2006 and the end o

2011, the lake was above 800 eet most o the time. Lake levels above 800 eet start to ood haylands along the edge o the lake.

PERSPECTIVE

The perspective o First Nations bordering Lake St. Martin cannot be appreciated without a careul review o the history o ooding sincethe construction o the Fairord River Water Control Structure in 1961.

The Fairord River Water Control Structure was

built or the benet o Lake Manitoba without

much analysis o downstream eects. There

was no intent to cause damage; it was simply a

lack o consideration. And in that period there

was no dened duty to consult First Nations

about potential eects. As it turned out, the

downstream eects were signicant, adverse

and long-lived. It displaced people rom their

homes, destroyed native pastures that First

Nations had enjoyed or generations, placed large

demands on First Nation administrative resources,

created a deep seated mistrust o government

intentions, and spawned lawsuits that have yet to

be resolved. There are people living in Winnipeg

today who still consider themselves as being

displaced by the ood events o the 1960s and1970s. While a growing recognition o this problem has led to a much more balanced use o the control structure and attempts to resolve

outstanding claims, there is a pervasive memory o past injustice.


32/144


Figure 3.15: Lake St. Martin - Area on Reserve Lands Flooded Below 801 t.

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Dai

lyLakeLevel(feet)

Lake St. Martin at Hilbre

Average Level

1961 - 2010 =

798.4 feet

Figure 3.15 shows the area on reserve lands

on Lake St. Martin that is ooded at 801 eet.

Figure 3.16: Lake St Martin Recorded Levels


33/144


3.5.2 History o FloodingLake St. Martin has a long history o ooding. Much o the land around the lake is at and prone

to ooding. In addition, the groundwater in this portion o the Interlake is very close to the surace

and the pressure in the confned aquier underground water that is contained above and below

by layers o rock or soil is artesian when released, meaning the pressure could naturally push

the water to the surace. When conditions around Lake St. Martin are wet, it can be difcult todistinguish between wetness caused by high lake levels and wetness caused by the high water table

and poor drainage.

Figure 3.17: Lake St. Martin Lake Levels

Figure 3.17 shows recorded levels on Lake St. Martin. Levels have been recorded since 1961.

Levels back to 1924 were simulated based on Fairord River ows through the lake during thoseyears. Levels, beore and ater regulation, are generally within the same range although the low

levels during the 1960s and the high levels during the 1970s were more extreme. The most obvious

dierence is the rapid uctuations in lake levels since the Fairord River Water Control Structure

was put into operation. Some o the uctuations are wind eects but others are a direct result o

sudden changes in inow to Lake St. Martin when the log settings in the Fairord structure are

changed.

As a result o the ood experience ollowing completion o the Fairord River Water Control

Structure, the Province purchased most or all o the privately held land around Lake St Martin and

Pineimuta Lake in the mid-1970s. As a result o these purchases, most o the land in the vicinity o

the lakes, with the exception o First Nation lands, is now Crown land.

While there are other interests in the lakes, such as sports fshing and tourism, First Nations hold

the core interest in the levels o Lake St. Martin and Pineimuta Lake and ows on the Dauphin

River.

794

796

798

800

802

804

806

808

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

LakeL

eve

l(feet)

Lake St. Martin

Levels Affected by

Fairford Control Structure

Average 1961-2010

= 798.4 ft.


34/144


There are our First Nations bordering Lake St Martin and Dauphin River: 2

Pinaymootang First Nation with a registered on-reserve population o 1,320

Little Saskatchewan First Nation, with a registered on-reserve population o 642

Lake St. Martin First Nation with a registered on-reserve population o 1,417

Dauphin River First Nation with a registered on-reserve population o 209

Dauphin River First Nation is in a dierent hydrological regime than the other three communities.

While it receives all the water coming into Lake St. Martin, it does not border Lake St. Martin. It

lies in a river environment on the shores o Lake Winnipeg. While ooding o the river and debris

washing into Lake Winnipeg is an issue, the greatest eect on Dauphin River is the propensity or

the ormation o razil ice at the mouth o the river (where the ice sheet orms on Lake Winnipeg)

and at the big bend on the river. Frazil ice orms at night with a drop in temperature. Historically,

it has caused the river to back up and resulted in ooding PTH 513 near the big bend and in the

community.

The potential or a ood o this kind was perceived to be such a threat in the all o 2011 thatextensive dikes were built on both banks o the community. Due to an unseasonably warm 2011/12

winter, however, the razil ice did not materialize. Meanwhile, the dikes have seriously disrupted

the community, including closing the commercial fshery. As o the summer o 2012, a solution to

the dike problem was being developed jointly by Dauphin River First Nation and the Province.

2 Aboriginal Aairs and Northern Development Canada, First Naon Proles, Registered Populaon, June 2012.

The construction o the Fairord

Dam has had a negative impact

downstream. The First Nation

communities have been aected

along with recreation, wildlie,

sheries, and agriculture. The

Government o Manitoba has

taken steps in compensating

or the loss o hay land, but

this is not comparable to the

destruction the dam has caused

rom increased fuctuations o

water levels.- Myrle Traverse,Analyzing theEects o the Fairord Dam onLake St. Martin First Nation, 1999.


35/144


Prior Reports and Recommendations

Lawsuits and concerns about the operation o the Fairord River Water Control Structure led to a

number o technical studies starting in the early 1970s.

The Manitoba Water Commission (1978) noted that the regulation o Lake Manitoba reduced the

requency o higher water levels but the eect was to increase the requency o higher levels ondownstream lakes Lake St. Martin and Pineimuta Lake. The eect downstream was such that

when Lake Manitoba is at a low level, the outow rom Lake Manitoba decreases and Lake St.

Martin and Pineimuta Lake have lower levels with greater requency.

Lake ice

HangingIce DamFrazil Ice

Denitions:

FRAZIL ICE: Frazil ice is a collection o loose, randomly oriented needle-shaped icecrystals in water. It resembles slush and has the appearance o being slightly oily when seen on the surace o water. It sporadically orms inopen, turbulent, supercooled water, which means that it usually orms in rivers, lakes and oceans, on clear nights when the weather is colder,and air temperature reaches 6C or lower.

HAngIng DAms: At high velocities, the razil is transported downstream under the ice cover where it adheres to the undersurace in alow velocity area. As the supply o razil continues, the ice accumulation under the cover grows in size orming a hanging dam. A hangingdam can cause extensive blockage o the fow area resulting in increased upstreamwater levels and potential fooding. Frazil ice jams alsooccur at upstream locations on the Dauphin River requently fooding Highway 513.

Frazil ice at Dauphin River First Nation


36/144


The 2003 report o the Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory Committee noted that:

Since 1960, there have been numerous annual peak ows on Lake St. Martin that exceeded elevation

800.0 t. asl, the approximate level when fooding occurs(emphasis added). Many o these events

exceeded this level by more than one oot and a ew by approximately three eet. Under calculated

natural conditions, only a ew events would have exceeded 800.0 t. asl. 3

The Committee recommended that:

The level o Lake St. Martin should be maintained within a more natural range o 797.0 t. to

800 t. asl insoar as this may be reasonably possible, in order to reduce ooding, to provide better

access or commercial fshing and recreational interests, to enhance the commercial and sports

fsheries, to maintain marshlands in a natural state, to restore the natural aesthetics o the region

and to provide hayland or local ranchers.4

Figure 3.17 shows that water levels on Lake St. Martin have exceeded the 800 t ood level every

year since 2005. In act, since the recommendation o 2003, the recommended levels or Lake St.

Martin have been achieved inrequently.

Legal Actions

Agreements were negotiated in the 1970s with each o the three aected First Nations

(Pinaymootang, Little Saskatchewan and Lake St. Martin) on the basis that the Fairord River

Water Control Structure had caused artifcial ooding. The agreements provided or the transer o

land rom Manitoba to Canada to be set apart as reserve lands in compensation or those lands now

subject to more requent ooding. Aected non-First Nation land owners were compensated in the

orm o cash settlements.

Under the terms o these agreements, Manitoba was to be indemnifed or ood damage resulting

rom the operation o the Fairord River Water Control Structure. However, the agreement with

Pinaymootang was not fnalized because Canada did not approve the agreement. The land transer

part o the agreement was ulflled to the extent that lands have either been available or the beneft

o the First Nations or transerred to Canada and set aside as reserve lands. In total, some 9,100

acres have been either transerred or made available to First Nations as compensation.

The lingering problem is that the operation o the Fairord River Water Control Structure continues

to ood First Nation lands without any agreement with the aected First Nations. Manitoba is

presently engaged in tri-partite talks with Canada and each o the aected First Nations, working

towards ull and air settlement agreements that would include ood easements and compensation

or past ood damages.

3 The Lake Manitoba Regulaon Review Advisory Commiee, Regulaon of Water Levels on Lake Manitoba and along the Fairford River, Pineimuta Lake,

Lake St. Marn and Dauphin River and Related Issues: A report to the Manitoba Minister of Conservaon, July 2003. Web. 5 Oct. 2012.

4 Ibid.


37/144


When and i the ood easements are in place, the levels o Lake St. Martin and Pineimuta Lake

can rise to the levels specifed in the agreements without any uture legal action. However, the

Committees task to identiy preerred lake levels is not necessarily satisfed by these arrangements.

Preerred lake levels may be quite dierent to lake levels that may be contained in the easements.

The signatory First Nations may agree to easement levels, but it does not mean they are the

preerred levels.

3.6 The 2011 Flood EventAs shown in Figure 3.18, Lake St. Martin levels were at 800.8 eet at the start o 2011. Levels

dropped o a little in early April as the Dauphin River cleared o ice, but with increasing Fairord

River ows the levels started to rise rapidly. Levels peaked at 805.6 eet in late July, more than

two eet higher than the previous recorded maximum level. The high levels ooded shoreline and

backshore areas around the lake and orced the evacuation o community residents.

Figure 3.18: Lake St. Martin 2011 Levels

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

La

keL

evel(feet)

Lake St. Martin 2011 Levels


38/144


The ood o 2011 prompted a hurried but signifcant program o dike construction on each o the

First Nations bordering Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. The dikes met with varying success.

On at least one o the First Nations, the program let a legacy o well-constructed inrastructure

that serves as a high quality road within the reserve and more or less permanent protection or

a majority o homes. For Lake St. Martin First Nation, however, the dikes ailed to protect the

community resulting in extensive damage to some 180 homes and leaving over 1,100 people livingin temporary accommodation.

Discussions are continuing with each First Nation that received clay dikes (all but one) about

making them permanent and upgrades to make them more useul to each community. This could

include increasing the width to local road standards, sloping the sides, placing culverts, and grading

driveways.

When and i these dikes become permanent

eatures, the housing portions o most reserve

lands on Lake St. Martin will be protected to

about 805 eet asl. This does not solve the issue

o artifcial ooding o reserve lands, but does

lessen the potential impact o uture damage

to housing and other inrastructure. The lack

o internal drainage on many First Nations is

an additional concern that requires the same

degree o attention as the permanent dikes.

As described in more detail in Section 3.1.3, anemergency channel was constructed rom Lake

St. Martin in the summer and all o 2011. Without the channel, the level o Lake Manitoba was

expected to remain well above the upper range o regulation throughout 2012. Lake St. Martin was

expected to be above ood stage into the all o 2012, with a summer peak 2.5 eet higher than the

historic peak o 1955.

PERSPECTIVE

People naturally ocus on their own concerns. It is hard

or people to have empathy or others who they dont

know and who are dealing with issues that they have not

experienced themselves. For people l iving in Winnipeg, the

ood o 2011 was experienced largely through the media.

Lake Manitoba people eel their problems were not ully

appreciated by the broader public. People bordering Lake

St. Martin eel that not even those on Lake Manitoba ully

appreciate their problems.


39/144


Figure 3.19: Eectiveness o Emergency Channel

Figure 3.19 shows simulations o Lake St. Martin levels with and without the Emergency Channel.

The blue line shows that Lake St. Martin recorded levels continued to drop over the all and winter

o 2011/12. The light green line shows the lake levels that would have occurred i the Emergency

Channel had been in place a year earlier. The peak 2011 level would have been almost two eet

lower than what actually occurred.

The red line shows the levels that would have occurred i the Emergency Channel had not been

constructed. The Fairord ows would have been reduced to 5,000 cs over the winter period, as

they had been in 2010/11 to prevent razil ice development on the Dauphin River. This would have

resulted in a drop in Lake St. Martin levels

Documents

Vol1 - 2011 Regulation Review - Report