1659317 light technical supporting documentreport no. 1659317 (doc013) revision 0 light technical...

January 2017

PRODIGY GOLD INC. MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

Light Technical Supporting Document

REPO

RT

Report Number: 1659317 (DOC013)

Revision 0

Submitted to: Prodigy Gold Inc. 9600 Prototype Ct. Reno, NV 89521 USA

LIGHT TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT MAGINO GOLD PROJECT REV. 0

Document Review Form

REPORT NAME: Light Technical Supporting Document

REPORT NUMBER: 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0

DISCIPLINE LEAD: Paul Niejadlik

Prepared by: Ryan Trinh Acoustic and Light Specialist Golder Associates Ltd.

Component Lead Prepared by: Paul Niejadlik Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Specialist Golder Associates Ltd.

Senior Technical Review by: Danny da Silva Principal / Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Engineer Golder Associates Ltd.

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0


Page left intentionally blank

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0


Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Proponent .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 Project Phases .................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Spatial Boundaries ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.5.1 Regional Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5.2 Local Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5.3 Project Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 2

1.8 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Project Proponent .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Project Locations ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Project Phases .................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 6

2.5 Project Components ........................................................................................................................................ 10

2.6 Spatial Boundaries .......................................................................................................................................... 11

3.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Project Phases (Temporal Boundaries) ........................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Study Areas (Spatial Boundaries) .................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Project Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2 Local Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.3 Regional Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators, and Measures ........................................................ 16

3.3.1 Introduction to Light ................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2 Rationale for Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators, and Measures ............................. 19

3.4 Existing (Baseline) Environment ...................................................................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Existing Data Sources ................................................................................................................................ 20

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0 i


3.4.2 Field Study Methods .................................................................................................................................. 20

3.5 Environmental Effects Assessment ................................................................................................................. 24

3.5.1 Project-environment Interactions ............................................................................................................... 24

3.5.2 Predict and Assess Environment Effects ................................................................................................... 24

3.5.3 Residual Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 25

3.5.4 Points of Reception .................................................................................................................................... 25

3.5.5 Light Emissions .......................................................................................................................................... 30

3.5.6 Environmental Effects Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................... 34

4.0 EXISTING (BASELINE) ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 38

4.1 Light Trespass ................................................................................................................................................. 38

4.2 Sky Glow ......................................................................................................................................................... 38

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 40

5.1 Project-environment Interactions ..................................................................................................................... 40

5.2 Prediction of Likely Effects ............................................................................................................................... 40

5.2.1 Light Emissions .......................................................................................................................................... 40

5.2.2 Light Model Predictions .............................................................................................................................. 41

5.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................... 46

5.3 Residual Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 46

5.4 Significance of Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 48

6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 50

7.0 MONITORING AND COMMITMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 50

7.1 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................ 50

7.2 Commitments .................................................................................................................................................. 50

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 52

9.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 56

10.0 ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY....................................................................................................................... 58

10.1 Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 58

10.2 Units ................................................................................................................................................................ 58

10.3 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................... 59

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0 ii


TABLES Table 3.3.1-1: Illumination Levels Associated with Common Sources ................................................................................. 17 Table 3.3.1-2: Commonly Seen Sky Quality and Equivalent Sky Glow in Percent above Natural Dark Sky Background

(Narisada & Schreuder, 2004) ...................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3.3.2-1: Light Valued Ecosystem Component, Indicators and Measures ................................................................... 19 Table 3.4.2-1: Sky Glow Measurement Locations ................................................................................................................ 20

Table 3.5.4-1: Location of the Identified(a) Points of Reception ............................................................................................ 26 Table 3.5.5-1: Environmental Lighting Zone (CIE, 1997 and 2003) ..................................................................................... 33 Table 3.5.5-2: Maximum Values of Vertical Illuminance at PORs (CIE, 2003) ..................................................................... 33 Table 3.5.5-3: Suggestions for the Limitation of Sky Glow ................................................................................................... 33 Table 3.5.5-4: Luminaire Selection for Astronomical Activities ............................................................................................. 34 Table 3.5.6-1: Effects Criteria and Levels for Determining Significance .............................................................................. 35

Table 3.5.6-2: Effects Magnitude Levels Rationale .............................................................................................................. 36 Table 4.2-1: Existing Sky Quality Levels at the Identified Measurement Locations .......................................................... 38 Table 5.2.1-1: Luminaire Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 5.2.2-1: Summary of Predicted Results for Light Trespass ........................................................................................ 41 Table 5.2.2-2: Summary of Predicted Results for Sky Glow ................................................................................................ 41 Table 5.2.2-3: Summary of Predicted Results for Sky Glow ................................................................................................ 42 Table 5.3-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Light Trespass ................................................................................................. 47

Table 5.3-2: Residual Adverse Effects on Sky Glow ......................................................................................................... 47 Table 5.4-1: Summary of Predicted Light Trespass Effects Criteria during Mining and Processing Phase....................... 48 Table 5.4-2: Summary of Predicted Sky Glow Effects Criteria during Mining and Processing Phase ............................... 48 Table 7.2-1: Light Commitments ....................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 8-1: Summary of Likely Effects, Mitigation Measures, Residual Adverse Effects, Significance and Follow-up .... 54 Table 10.1-1: List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 10.2-1: List of Units ................................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 10.3-1: Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................................... 59

FIGURES Figure 2-1: Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3.2.1-1: Study Areas .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 3.4.2-1: Measurement Locations ................................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 3.5.4-1: Points of Reception ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.5.5-1: Garstang Sky Brightness Model .................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3.5.6-1: Decision Process for Assigning Significance to Light Effects ........................................................................ 37

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0 iii


PHOTOS Photo 5.2.2 1: Photo of Existing Sky at POR1 ..................................................................................................................... 44

Photo 5.2.2 2: Photo of Predicted Sky at POR1 ................................................................................................................... 44

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0 iv


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Proponent

The Project proponent is Prodigy Gold Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Argonaut Gold Inc. (Prodigy). Argonaut Gold Inc. is a publicly-traded Canadian gold mining company engaged in exploration, mine development, and gold production.

In addition to the Magino Gold Project, Argonaut Gold Inc. currently operates two 100%-owned gold mines, an advanced exploration project, and multiple exploration projects in Mexico.

1.2 Project Location

The Project is located in Finan Township, approximately 40 km northeast of Wawa, Ontario. The Town of Dubreuilville, with a population of over 600, is the closest community. Dubreuilville is located on Highway 519, approximately 30 km east of the junction of the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 519. Mining and ore processing are currently being carried out in the vicinity of the Project. The Island Gold Mine (operated by Richmont Mines Inc.) is 1.5 km east of the property, the former Edwards Mine (Strike Minerals) approximately 8 km to the east, and the Eagle River Mine (Wesdome Gold Mines) is 80 km to the west. The Hemlo Operation (Barrick Gold Corp) is located approximately 150 km to the northwest.

The Project is located in the geological Wawa Subprovince of the Canadian Shield. It is centered at Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 689049E 5351422N (North American Datum [NAD] 83 Zone 16U). The Project location is shown on Figure 2-1.

1.3 Project Description

The Project will involve:

Open pit mining;

Construction, operation, and decommissioning (as appropriate) and/or closure of a rock crushing and ore process plant, various plant area facilities; crushed rock and low-grade ore stockpiles; overburden stockpiles, chemical, fuel and hazardous materials management and storage facilities; an explosives magazine; non-mining waste management facilities;

Construction, operation, and closure of mine waste management area components, including a Tailings Management Facility (TMF) and Mine Rock Management Facility (MRMF);

Construction, operation and decommissioning (as appropriate) of the enabling infrastructure for the Project, including: camp accommodation for workers, a landfill, Project roads (including a public by-pass road), electrical transmission lines and a substation, power generation equipment, potable water supply system, sewage treatment system, and site security features; and

Construction, operation and decommissioning (as appropriate) of environmental management infrastructure on-site, including: a variety of surface water and ground water controls designed to minimize the effects on the environment to the maximum extent practicable.

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC013) Revision 0 1


While most of the old mine infrastructure has been removed, a number of additional closure measures are required. These additional measures include closure of the existing tailings facilities and other activities that deal with the industrial sewage works, the landfill, power lines, refuse, and some buildings. It is anticipated that the closure objectives for the existing infrastructure will be met concurrently with the development of the Project.

1.4 Project Phases

The Project development schedule has been classified into five (5) distinct phases:

Phase 1: Environmental Assessment and Permitting (Current Phase)

Phase 2: Site Preparation;

Phase 3: Construction;

Phase 4: Operations – Mining and Processing; and

Phase 5: Closure and Rehabilitation.

Following the completion of Phase 1 (i.e., the receipt of the applicable EA approval and other authorizations and permits), the Project is expected to extend over an approximately 18-year period.

Together, the Site Preparation (Phase 2) and Construction Phase (Phase 3) are expected to be approximately 3 years in duration. Site preparation will involve site clearing, grubbing and pre-stripping. During the site preparation phase, a number of items with potentially lengthy lead times will be procured, detailed engineering plans will be finalized, and sourcing of personnel will begin. Construction activities will involve the following works and activities:

Closure of existing mine facilities;

Topsoil and overburden stripping and stockpiling;

Stream diversions, draining, and backfilling of on-site waterbodies;

Construction of:

Enabling infrastructure (i.e., camp accommodations, landfill, public by-pass road, mine haul roads and service roads, electrical transmission lines and substation, potable and process water infrastructure, sewage treatment system and non-mining waste management facilities);

Plant area components;

Chemical, fuel and hazardous materials management facilities;

Mining waste management area components (i.e., Mine Rock Management; Facility, Tailings Management Facility); and

Environmental Management Infrastructure.



Full operations will commence immediately following the construction phase. Activities will include active mining from the open pit, ore stockpiling, processing of the ore, removal and placement of overburden and mine rock, equipment and facilities maintenance, various administrative activities and environmental monitoring. Mining is expected to be completed during the first 10 years of the operational phase. During this period approximately 105 to 150 Mt of ore and 400 to 445 Mt of mine rock will be mined. Approximately 45 Mt of the ore will be stockpiled for possible processing during the second half of the 12-year period of ore milling and processing.

Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken throughout the life of the mine and will start as soon as feasible. It is assumed to begin during the final year of construction and continue through to the end of the operations phase. The Closure and Rehabilitation Phase (Phase 5) is expected to be approximately 3 years in duration. Upon cessation of mining, which will occur after approximately 10 years of operations, the pit will be allowed to fill with water to form a lake.

1.5 Spatial Boundaries

Spatial boundaries define the geographical extents within which potential environmental changes may occur. Three scales are identified for the purposes of describing baseline conditions and assessing effects on the project environment: a Regional Study Area (RSA), a Local Study Area (LSA) and a Project Study Area (PSA) described in further detail below (Figure 2-1).

1.5.1 Regional Study Area

The RSA is defined by the subwatershed boundaries of the upper portion of the Dreany subwatershed, McVeigh Creek and drainage associated with the Herman-Otto Lakes basin, and a subwatershed of the Webb-Goudreau basin. This study area is approximately 11,120 ha (i.e., 110 km2) in size and extends both upstream and beyond the potential downstream influence of mine operations. The RSA is set within Ecoregion 3E, Lake Abitibi, and Site District 3E-5 Foleyet. It falls within Wildlife Management Unit 32, includes portions of Bear Management Units WA-32-044, WA-32-010 and WA-32-002, and Baitfish Harvest Area WA00071.

The RSA includes representative diversity of lake size and depth and connecting watercourses within the region supporting fish species preferring cold, cool, and warm water temperatures, multiple trophic levels, and feeding guilds. The RSA also represents the landscape context into which the Project is placed, and includes diverse elements and large scale factors such as extensive ranges for big game mammals. This study area exhibits diversity both in terms of natural features and functions and socio-economic features (e.g., hunt camps, former and existing mines, and forestry operations), for the assessment of cumulative effects.

1.5.2 Local Study Area

The LSA is nested within the RSA, and is focused on the area in which direct and indirect effects of mine construction and operation may be expressed. This study area includes the subwatersheds associated with the Herman-Otto, Spring-Lovell, and Webb-Goudreau, drainage. The LSA is approximately 3,623 ha (i.e., 36 km2) in size and includes representative vegetation communities and wildlife habitat also present in the RSA. The northeast to southwest alignment of landforms defines the drainage basins and associated wetlands, and aligns vegetation, wildlife habitat, and natural linkages. The size of the LSA is intended to capture potential



effects of the drainage from the mine project and terrestrial effects that may extend beyond the active mining operation such as blasting impacts, noise and vibration, light, odours, and changes in traffic and their transportation corridors. Most of the long term MMER monitoring will occur within the LSA to document the effectiveness of techniques and measures designed to mitigate the effects of mining construction, operations, and closure phases.

1.5.3 Project Study Area

The PSA for this assessment is approximately 1,802 ha (i.e., 18 km2) in size and includes the pit area, the tailings area, and the mine rock management facility area.

1.6 Background

Prodigy proposes to develop the Magino Gold Project (the Project), which is situated at a past-producing underground mine, on a brownfield site. The past-producing mine is considered “temporarily suspended” under the Ontario Mining Act, Regulation 240/00, and the associated Mine Rehabilitation Code of Ontario. Prodigy has submitted notification of intent to enter a stage of redevelopment to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM).

This Light Technical Supporting Document (TSD) has been prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) as one in a series of reports intended to support the environmental assessment (EA) processes being undertaken in accordance with relevant Federal and Provincial EA legislation.

The full series of TSDs that are being prepared in support of these EA processes include the following:

Geotechnical and Geohydrologic Investigation

Geochemical Assessment

Surface Water Hydrology

Hydrogeological Study and Groundwater Modelling

Schedule 2 Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Management

TMF Conceptual Design Document

Site Water Balance and Quality

Visual Analysis

Meteorology and Air Quality

Climate Change

Noise

Vibration

Light

Human Health Risk

Fish and Fish Habitat Baseline

Surface Water and Sediment Quality

Terrestrial Ecology

Archaeology Report

Closure Plan

Environmental Management Systems



1.7 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this TSD is to describe the existing or baseline environmental conditions in fulfillment of the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) as outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (EIS Guidelines) (CEAA, 2013) prepared for the Project by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency). It is also intended to fulfill the requirements of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ (MNR) Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (the Class EA) (MNR, 2003). A summary of the information provided in this TSD will form part of the main EA documents (i.e., the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Study Report (ESR)) to be prepared in relation to these two EA processes.

This TSD includes a description of existing environmental conditions in the context of three study areas: the Regional, Local and Project Study Areas, where relevant. Emphasis has been placed on one or more study areas depending on the environmental components under consideration. This TSD is based on Golder’s most current (summarized herein) information. The purpose of this TSD is to provide a description of methods used for establishing existing conditions, data reporting and overall context setting. It also provides details of impact assessment methods, assessment results and conclusions. .

Currently in the Province of Ontario, there are no specific guidelines addressing light emissions into the environment, therefore, the light assessment has followed the recommended methods of the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).

1.8 Report Organization

The methods used in the environmental effects assessment include the following steps:

Describe the Project: The description of the Project is provided in Section 2.0 for which the components are described as a number of works and activities that could affect the surrounding environment. A more detailed description is provided in the Project Description TSD. The Property description also outlines the location of the Project and the different mining phases that it will progress through. These are described in terms of purpose and expected duration.

Identify Temporal and Spatial Boundaries: The temporal boundaries (i.e., Project phases) of the light assessment are defined by the Project phases; site preparation, construction, mining and processing, closure and reclamation. Spatial boundaries define the geographical extents within which potential environmental effects may occur. The boundaries are identified in general terms in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 and more specifically for light in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.

Identify Valued Ecosystem Components: While all components of the environment are important, it is neither practicable nor necessary to assess every potential effect of the Project on every component of the environment. Consequently, this EA focuses on the components that have the greatest relevance in terms of value and sensitivity, and which are likely to be affected by the Project. To achieve this focus, specific Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs), which are elements of the environment considered to be important for cultural or scientific reasons, are identified for consideration during the environmental effects assessment. The VECs are defined and described in detail in Section 3.3.



Describe the Existing (Baseline) Environment: The existing (baseline) environment reflects the cumulative effects of past and existing projects on the environment. The existing (baseline) environment is characterized using available information and field studies, as described in Sections 3.4 and 4.0.

Ontario Permitting Compliance: There are currently no specific guidelines addressing light emissions into the environment in Ontario.

Environmental Effects Assessment: A general description of the environmental effects is provided in Section 3.5. The environmental impact assessment is divided into the following subsections.

Identify Project-environment Interactions: The assessment will focus on the elements of the environment that are likely to be affected by the Project. Prior to predicting and assessing effects, the potential for all works and activities of the Project to interact with VECs is determined and likely interactions identified, as described in Sections 3.5.1 and 5.1.

Predict and Assess Environmental Effects: The likely environmental effects that are anticipated to occur due to the Project will be considered for all physical works and activities during Project pre-construction, construction, mining and processing, and closure and reclamation. Where there is likely to be a Project-environment interaction, the effects are predicted and assessed. If effects are predicted, mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the effect are proposed, and residual adverse effects, if any, are identified.

Identify Mitigation (or Impact Management) Measures: Following the identification of potential effects (positive or negative) associated with the Project during its life cycle, applicable mitigation measures (including design modifications, alternatives, and/or operational modifications, for example) are identified in Section 5.2 to avoid or minimize any identified environmental effects.

Determine Residual Adverse (or Net) Effects: Once the implementation of mitigation measures has been taken into account, the effects are re-evaluated to identify any residual adverse (or net) effects. All residual adverse effects are carried forward for an assessment of significance (Section 5.3).

Determine Significance of Effects: All residual adverse effects are assessed in Section 5.4 to determine whether the effect is significant or not, taking into account the magnitude, geographic extent, timing and duration, frequency, reversibility, and the ecological and social context of the effect.

Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects: Light emission predictions are not considered for other environmental effects.

Propose a Follow-up and Monitoring Program: Follow-up monitoring is proposed and commitments are identified to confirm that mitigation measures are effective and the effects are as predicted. Monitoring activities are described in Section 7.1.

The assessment is completed within the framework of defined temporal and spatial boundaries, and takes into account sustainable development, and precautionary approach, where available. Methods used in the assessment satisfy the requirements in Section 6.1.1 of the EIS Guidelines and are further described in Section 3.0. The assessment of Cumulative Effects is considered in the main EIS/EA Report.



2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Project Overview is provided in Chapter 1 of the EIS/EA Report.

2.1 Project Proponent

The Project proponent is Prodigy. Prodigy is a publicly traded Canadian gold mining company engaged in exploration, mine development and gold production.

In addition to the Magino Gold Project, Prodigy currently operates two 100% owned gold mines, an advanced exploration project and multiple exploration projects in Mexico.

2.2 Project Locations

The Project is located in Finan Township, approximately 40 km northeast of Wawa, Ontario. The town of Dubreuilville, population of over 600, is the closest community. Dubreuilville is located on Highway 519, approximately 30 km east of the junction of the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 519. Mining and ore processing are currently being carried out in the vicinity of the Project. The Island Gold Mine (operated by Richmont Mines Inc.) is 1.5 km east of the property, and the Eagle River Mine (Wesdome Gold Mines) is 80 km to the west. The Hemlo Operations (Barrick Gold Corp.) are located approximately 150 km to the northwest.

The Project location is shown on Figure 2.2-1. It is centered at Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 689049E, 5351422N (North American Datum [NAD] 83 Zone 16U).

2.3 Project Phases

The Project development schedule has been classified into five (5) distinct phases:

Phase 1: Environmental Assessment and Permitting (Current Phase);

Phase 2: Site Preparation;

Phase 3: Construction;

Phase 4: Operations – Mining and Processing; and

Phase 5: Closure and Rehabilitation.

Following the completion of Phase 1 (i.e., the receipt of the applicable EA approval and other authorizations and permits), the Project is expected to extend over an approximately 20-year period.



Together, the Site Preparation (Phase 2) and Construction Phase (Phase 3) are expected to be approximately 3 years in duration. Site preparation will involve site clearing, grubbing and pre-stripping. During the site preparation phase, a number of items with potentially lengthy lead times will be procured, detailed engineering plans will be finalized, and sourcing of personnel will begin. Construction activities will involve the following works and activities:

Closure of existing mine facilities;

Topsoil and overburden stripping and stockpiling;

Stream diversions, draining and backfilling of on-site waterbodies;

Construction of:

Enabling infrastructure (i.e., camp accommodations, public by-pass road, mine haul roads and service roads, electrical transmission lines and substation, potable and process water infrastructure, sewage treatment system and non-mining waste management facilities)

Plant area components,

Chemical, fuel and hazardous materials management facilities.

Mining waste management area components (i.e., Mine Rock Management Facility, Tailings Management Facility)

Environmental Management Infrastructure

Full operations will commence immediately following the construction phase. Activities will include active mining from the open pit, ore stockpiling, processing of the ore, removal and placement of overburden and mine rock, equipment and facilities maintenance, various administrative activities and environmental monitoring. Mining is expected to be completed during the first ten years of the operational phase and milling will take place over the first twelve years.

Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken throughout the life of the mine and will start as soon as feasible, assumed to be during the final year of construction and continue through to the end of the operations phase. The Closure and Rehabilitation Phase is expected to be approximately 3 years in duration. The post-closure period extends for decades thereafter. Post-closure monitoring is schedule to be 5 years in duration. Upon cessation of mining, which will occur after approximately twelve years of operations, the pit will be allowed to form a lake. Depending upon the duration of the pit filling period, the post-closure period can extend approximately 100 years after cessation of mining.



2.4 Project Description

The Project will involve:

Open pit mining;

Construction, operation and decommissioning (as appropriate) and/or closure of a rock crushing and ore process plant, various plant area facilities; crushed rock and low-grade ore stockpiles; overburden stockpiles, chemical, fuel and hazardous materials management and storage facilities; an explosives magazine; non-mining waste management facilities;

Construction, operation and closure of mine waste management area components, including a Tailings Management Facility (TMF) and Mine Rock Management Facility (MRMF);

Construction, operation and decommissioning (as appropriate) of the enabling infrastructure for the Project, including: camp accommodation for workers, Project roads (including a public by-pass road), electrical transmission lines and a substation, power generation equipment, the potable water supply system, sewage treatment system, and site security features;

Construction, operation and decommissioning (as appropriate) of environmental management infrastructure on-site, including: a variety of surface water and ground water controls designed to minimize the effects on the environment to the maximum extent practicable.

While most of the old mine infrastructure has been removed, a number of additional closure measures are required. These additional measures include closure of the existing tailings facilities and other activities that deal with the industrial sewage works, power lines, the landfill, refuse, and some buildings. It is anticipated that the closure objectives for the existing infrastructure will be met concurrently with the development of the Project.


S:\Cl

ients\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0007

_Vibr

ation

s\165

9317

-0007

-CM-

0003

.mxd

KEY MAP

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

1:250,000

CLIENTARGONAUT GOLD INC.

REFERENCE(S)1. BASEDATA MNRF 20162. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTMZONE 16N

PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEPROJECT LOCATION

1659317 0007 2 2-1

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

_̂

0 10 20

LEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARY

Lake Superior

KILOMETERS

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT LOCATION


2.5 Project Components

The Project involves the mining of up to approximately 105 to 150 Mt of ore and approximately 400 to 445 Mt of mine rock and low grade ore from the open pit. Project facility components include:

Open Pit;

A primary ore crusher;

A conveyor;

A crushed rock stockpile;

A process plant to extract the gold;

A low-grade ore stockpile;

A MRMF;

A TMF;

Explosives magazines;

Camp accommodation;

Administration offices;

Laboratory facilities;

Non-mining waste facilities;

Maintenance and constructing facilities; and

Warehouses.

The components of infrastructure development will include:

Relocating an existing local public road;

Routing power line;

Internal haul and access roads;

A power line and substation;

Step-down transformers;

Water supply; and

Sewage treatment systems.



2.6 Spatial Boundaries

Spatial boundaries define the geographical extents within which potential environmental effects may occur. As such, the spatial boundaries become the TSD study areas, including a PSA LSA and a RSA. The study areas selected specifically for the light environmental effects assessment are described in Section 3.2.



3.0 METHODS

The following sections identify the approach used to assess the Project on the light environment.

3.1 Project Phases (Temporal Boundaries)

Temporal boundaries (i.e., Project phases) establish the timeframe during which Project effects are assessed. For the purpose of the Project, Project phases and temporal boundaries are referred to collectively as “Project phases.” Four Project phases were identified:

Site preparation phase: includes all activities associated with the closure of the existing mine facilities such as the removal of the landfill waste, the sewage treatment plant, some of the buildings and power lines, the industrial waste, the communications tower, and either capping or re-processing the existing tailings, and clean closure of the facility.

Construction phase: includes site preparation and all activities associated with the construction of the Project, up until operation commences with the extraction and processing of gold ore concentrate. This phase includes installing the necessary supporting infrastructure to facilitate the Project operations. The construction phase is expected to last approximately three years.

Mining and processing phase: includes all activities associated with mining, ore processing and extraction at the Project site. Where possible, progressive rehabilitation activities will be completed during the mining and processing phase. The mining and processing phase is expected to last approximately 15 years, which is the projected life of the mine for EA purposes.

Closure and reclamation phase: begins immediately after the mining and processing phase. It includes all activities required to close, decommission and rehabilitate disturbed land within the Project and at the associated facilities and/or infrastructure. Initial closure of infrastructure and rehabilitation of disturbed lands is expected to last approximately two to three years, depending on the level of effort required. Closure activities also include all follow-up monitoring activities intended to verify effects predictions and to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

These above timeframes are intended to be sufficiently flexible to capture the effects of the Project. In assessing the potential light effects from the Project, the works and activities associated with each Project phase were reviewed to determine which phase would result in the greatest effects. Although the types of equipment involved during each phase are similar (e.g., heavy machinery and earth moving equipment), the mining and processing phase was determined to include the greatest amount of equipment with the highest light emissions. Therefore, the mining and processing phase will bound the light effects from the mine when compared to other phases of the Project (i.e., construction, and closure and reclamation).



3.2 Study Areas (Spatial Boundaries)

The study areas adopted for the Project define the spatial boundaries within which the environmental effects of the Project are considered. For the purpose of the Project, study areas and spatial boundaries are referred to collectively as study areas.

The EIS Guidelines require that the study areas defined therein, and described below, encompass the physical works and activities of the Project where effects are expected or likely to occur, and where effects will be studied.

Three Project study areas of increasing size were selected to assess the environmental effects of the Project on light levels: the PSA, LSA, and RSA. These three areas are described in the following sections, and arranged from smallest to largest.

3.2.1 Project Study Area

The PSA (Figure 3.2.1-1) corresponds to the area covered by surface mining claims associated with the Project. The PSA includes the geographic area that encompasses all physical works and activities within the site boundary and beyond, that is, the area where footprint effects are expected to occur related to development of the Project within the approximately 1,802 ha claim block lands. This area contains the deposit, the Pit, the Primary Crusher and Ore Stockpiles, Processing Plant, Tailings Management Facility (TMF), Mine Rock Management Facility (MRMF) and all supporting and/or ancillary facilities (e.g., service and support buildings).

3.2.2 Local Study Area

Light effects associated with the operation of a mine site are typically experienced by those living in close proximity to the site. However, due to the remote nature of the Project, light effects may be experienced at large distances from the site. Therefore, an LSA has been selected that is an area bounded by a rectangle with all edges of the rectangle being at least 10 km from the PSA boundary as shown on Figure 3.2.1-1. This area is defined as the area encompassing the town of Dubreuilville, Goudreau community and Herman Lake cottages.

3.2.3 Regional Study Area

The Project RSA was not explicitly defined for light effects. It extends beyond the LSA and PSA, and encompasses the modelling domain used for evaluating the effects of the Project on light levels. The RSA represents the largest of the three study areas. It is recognized development and/or operation of the Project could have far reaching effects from an environmental and/or socio economic perspective. For the light assessment, the effects of the Project would be restricted primarily to the Project area, or those areas of the LSA nearest to the Project.


S:\Cl

ients\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0004

_Ligh

t\165

9317

-0004

-RN-

0001

.mxd

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES N

OT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS S

HOWN

, THE

SHEE

T SIZE

HAS

BEE

N MO

DIFIE

D FR

OM:

25mm

0

1:275,000


NOTE(S)

REFERENCE(S)

1. THE LIGHT REGIONAL STUDY AREA IS THE AREA OUTSIDE THE LOCAL STUDY AREA.

1. BASEDATA MNRF 20162. HILLSHADE PROVIDED BY ARGONAUT GOLD NOVEMBER 20133. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTMZONE 16N

PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTLIGHT TSDTITLESTUDY AREAS

1659317 0004 2 3.2.1-1

2016-11-18SOSOPNAB

CONSULTANT



Manitowik Lake

Whitefish Lake

Kabenung Lake

Wawa Lake (lac Wawa)

Black Trout Lake

Catfish Lake

Wawa

Goudreau

Dubreuilville

0 10 20

LEGENDROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODYPROJECT STUDY AREA(PROPERTY BOUNDARY)LOCAL STUDY AREA

KILOMETERS


3.3 Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators, and Measures

VECs were identified using the expertise of technical specialists, with input from regulators, members of the public, and Aboriginal communities. Technical specialists based their selection of VECs on previous EA experience, literature, knowledge of the potentially affected area, field studies, and from lists of generally accepted VECs among technical experts (i.e., VECs known to be good indicators of change).

Light was identified as a VEC in assessing the effects of the Project. This VEC was identified as important based on feedback received from consultation and engagement (see Consultation and Engagement TSD), and the experience of the Project Team, as the VECs are susceptible to effects within the spatial context of the Project.

As part of the EA process, indicators and measures were identified to guide the assessment for each VEC. In order to understand the indicators and measures used for assessing the effects of the Project on light levels, it is necessary to introduce specific terminology used in describing the VEC, which is provided in the following sub-section.

3.3.1 Introduction to Light

Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which ranges from radio waves to gamma rays. Visible light is not inherently different from the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum with the exception that it can be detected by the human eye. The following provides a brief introduction to important concepts related to light:

“Light Trespass” can be described as the effects of light or illuminance that strays from its intended purpose and is measured in units of lux. In order to put illuminance levels from the Project into context, illuminance levels associated with common well known sources are provided in Table 3.3.1-1.



Table 3.3.1-1: Illumination Levels Associated with Common Sources

Common Illuminance Source Illuminance Level

(lux) Moonless overcast night sky(a) 0.0001 Moonless clear night sky with airglow(a) 0.002 Full moon on a clear night(a)(b) 0.27-1.0 Moonlight at high altitude at tropical latitudes(b) 1 Family living room(c) 50 Hallway(d) 80 Office lighting(e) 320-500 Overcast day(a) 1,000 Full daylight (not direct sun)(a) 10,000-25,000

Source: a) Schlyter (2009).b) Bunning and Moser (1969).c) Australian Greenhouse Office (1998).d) Australian Greenhouse Office (2005).e) US Department of Labour (2010).

“Sky Glow” is the result of stray light being scattered in the atmosphere brightening the natural sky background light level. Sky glow is typically described as percentage change in sky quality.

“Sky Quality” is a relative measure of the brightness of the sky in magnitude per square arc second (mag/arcsec²). The natural background is 21.6 mag/arcsec². Stars or celestial objects have lower numbers, and the ability to see them in the night sky is a function of the sky quality. The higher the sky quality, the brighter the stars look in the night sky. Increased anthropogenic light reduces the sky quality number making it more difficult to see objects in the night sky. Table 3.3.1-2 provides a list of common sky quality and equivalent sky glow levels for reference.



Table 3.3.1-2: Commonly Seen Sky Quality and Equivalent Sky Glow in Percent above Natural Dark Sky Background (Narisada & Schreuder, 2004)

Example Sky Quality(a) (Mag/arcsec2)

Sky Glow(b) (%) Delta-mag(c)

Standard natural background (zero sky glow) 21.6 0 0.0 Limit for astronomical site of international standing 21.5 10 0.1 Limit for dark sky site for most astronomers 21.2 40 0.4 Full moon night sky 18 3,000 3.6 Common densely populated area in North America 17 7,000 4.6 Clear sky 30 minutes after sunset 15 43,000 6.6 Heavily overcast sky 8 2.7 × 107 13.6 Clear daytime sky 3 2.7 × 109 18.6

a) Sky quality is a measure of sky brightness – this field measurement is converted into units of luminance, from which sky glow is obtained. Luminance for 21.6 mag/arcsec2 set as 0% sky glow; luminance for 21.5 mag/arcsec2 is 10% greater and yields 10% sky glow, etc.

b) Sky glow measured as percent brightness above natural dark sky background. c) Delta-mag: decrease in magnitude of “limit stars” resulting from light pollution relative to natural background sky quality of

21.6 mag/arcsec2.

A “luminaire” is a lighting fixture.

“Luminance” is the perceived brightness of an object which has been illuminated by a source. The luminance of an object depends on its material characteristics and reflectance and is measured in candelas per square metre (cd/m2).

“Illuminance” or “illumination level” is the total luminous flux incident on a surface (i.e., lumens per square metre [lm/m2]). It is a measure of the intensity of the incident light, wavelength-weighted by the luminosity function to correlate with human brightness perception and is the standard metric for lighting levels, measured in lux.



3.3.2 Rationale for Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators, and Measures

A VEC is considered to be the receptor for both Project-specific effects and cumulative effects. A VEC can be represented by a number of indicators. Indicators are features of the VEC that may be affected by the Project, with each indicator requiring specific ‘measures’ that can be quantified and assessed. The rationale for selection of the light VEC, the indicators and measures used in the assessment are described in Table 3.3.2-1.

Table 3.3.2-1: Light Valued Ecosystem Component, Indicators and Measures

Valued Ecosystem Component Rationale for Selection Indicator Measure

Light Light was selected as a VEC since it was identified as being important to regulators and stakeholders. In addition, Project activities have the potential to affect existing light levels.

The effect of Project light sources on light trespass.

The effect of Project light sources on sky glow.

Change in illuminance (lux)

Change in sky quality (mag/arcsec²)

3.4 Existing (Baseline) Environment

For the purposes of this TSD, “existing conditions” are defined as those conditions generally present at the Project and its surrounding environment and may reflect on-going and previous activities within the noted study areas. The description of the existing environment focuses on those components of the environment that may be affected by the Project. The nature and sensitivity of areas is described and geographical areas of particular concern are identified. These serve as the baseline against which predicted effects associated with the Project on light are assessed. Therefore, they contain sufficient detail to permit the identification, assessment and determination of significance of, and follow-up monitoring for, potential Project effects.

Where available, the existing environment is described using existing sources of information and the results of the field surveys conducted as part of the EA. If the background data are extrapolated or otherwise manipulated to depict environmental conditions in the study areas, modelling methods and equations are described. The description of the existing environment includes:

a compilation and review of existing data sources; and

documentation of details and results of the field programs undertaken to update existing information and to fill data gaps.



3.4.1 Existing Data Sources

Given its location, there are no existing data sources for summarizing the current light levels in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, a field study was carried out to collect the requisite data where appropriate, to characterize the Project baseline conditions.

3.4.2 Field Study Methods

Light Trespass Field observations were carried out in the vicinity of the Project and in the town of Dubreuilville to identify the presence of light sources. There were no existing light sources in the vicinity of the Project. There were light sources in the nearby town of Dubreuilville; however, several planes of windows facing the mine site had very little light trespass.

Sky Glow Two methods were used for gathering information on existing sky glow. The first approach used a Unihedron Sky Quality Meter (SQM), which provides sky quality measurements in mag/arcsec2. The measurements were taken in a direction facing away from local sources of light to minimize their influence on the measurement readings. To account for any variability in the measurements, four readings were taken, and averaged to obtain a more representative sky quality measurement.

The second approach for describing existing sky glow was to record high resolution digital images of the night sky. In this regard, photographs were taken using a Nikon D700 dSLR (D700) with a Sigma 24 mm F1.8 wide-angle lens. This configuration provides high resolution images with low digital noise. At each location, photographs were taken at 45° from the zenith in the direction of the centre of the Project.

To reduce digital noise and improve the image quality, nine images were taken at each location. The pictures were aligned and blended into a single image. The number of stars captured in the resulting image far exceeds those visible to the naked eye. The images can be adjusted to obtain an accurate representation of what an average observer would see. The sky quality measurement from the SQM is used to determine the faintest star that could be seen by an average naked-eye observer (i.e., the limiting magnitude stars) from a particular location. The image is then compared to a star chart showing all the stars fainter than the limiting magnitude at that particular location, time, and date, and then adjusted to remove those stars too faint to be seen. Table 3.4.2-1 summarizes the existing sky glow measurement locations. Sky quality measurements and night pictures were taken at each of the locations. These locations are also shown on Figure 3.4.2-1.

Table 3.4.2-1: Sky Glow Measurement Locations

Measurement Location ID Study Area Description Easting

(m) Northing

(m)

SG1 LSA Goudreau community 683765 5348348 SG2 LSA Dubreuilville 681369 5357438


S:\Cli

ents\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0004

_Ligh

t\165

9317

-0004

-RN-

0002

.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SHO

WN, T

HE SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

1:40,000


REFERENCE(S)1. BASEDATA MNRF 20162. SITE LAYOUT PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT NOVEMBER 20163. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTMZONE 16N

PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTLIGHT TSDTITLEMEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

1659317 0004 2 3.4.2-1

2016-12-12SOSOPNAB

CONSULTANT



MINE ROCKMANAGEMENT

FACILITY(MRMF)

MAIN PIT

CRUSHERLOW GRADEORE STOCKPILE

TAILINGS MANGEMENTFACILITY (TMF)

PROCESSINGFACILITY

SG2

SG1

0 1 2

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODYMESUREMENT LOCATIONMINE ROADPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINECRUSHER LOW GRADE ORE STOCKPILEMINE ROCK MANAGEMENT FACILITYTAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYTAILINGS SUPERNATANT POOLSTOCKPILE AREAPROPERTY BOUNDARY

KILOMETERS

NORTHWESTFILL AREA

OVERBURDENAND SOIL

STOCKPILE

SOUTHWESTFILL AREAOVERBURDENAND SOILSTOCKPILE

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL


3.5 Environmental Effects Assessment

The environmental effects assessment predicts and describes the likely environmental effects, mitigation measures and residual adverse effects on light levels that could reasonably be expected as a result of the Project. This approach supports the philosophy of an EA as a planning tool and decision-making process, and characterizes the effects in a thorough and traceable manner.

3.5.1 Project-environment Interactions

Prior to predicting and assessing the effects of the Project, the potential for all works and activities to interact with the environment (specifically, identified light VEC) are determined. Potential interactions (effects pathways) are identified based on the description of the existing environment, which focuses the EA on potential interactions between the Project and the light VEC. Identification of Project-environment interactions is based on the experience of technical specialists supported by existing information and data collected from field studies. Project-environment interactions may vary between Project phases. It is noted that effects of the Project on the environment may occur either directly or indirectly. A direct interaction occurs when the VEC is affected by a Project component and/or activity. An indirect interaction occurs when the VEC is affected by a change in another VEC including VECs selected by other disciplines and documented in their respective TSDs. Only direct interactions are carried forward through this assessment.

3.5.2 Predict and Assess Environment Effects

If, following the evaluation of Project-environment interactions, there are no potential interactions between the VEC and Project work and/or activity or other VECs, the VEC may not be considered further. Where a Project-environment interaction is identified, the interaction is passed forward to the assessment of likely effects. Where there is likely to be a change to a VEC, the effects on the VEC are predicted and assessed to determine the direction of the effects (i.e., positive, neutral or negative). The predicted extent and duration of the effect are also described. Effects are predicted taking into consideration applicable modifications and impact management measures included in the Project design, along with Prodigy’s policies and practices.

Any identified effects on VECs are advanced for consideration of possible mitigation measures. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), mitigation is defined as the measures for the elimination, reduction or control of adverse environmental effects of a project, and includes compensation for any damage to the environment caused by those effects. Once the implementation of mitigation measures has been taken into account, the effects are re-evaluated to identify any residual adverse effects. All residual adverse effects are described in terms of their assessment criteria to determine their significance as described in Section 3.5.6.



3.5.3 Residual Effects Analysis

Any identified effects on VECs are advanced for consideration of possible mitigation measures. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), mitigation is defined as the measures for the elimination, reduction or control of adverse environmental effects of a project, and includes compensation for any damage to the environment caused by those effects. Once the implementation of mitigation measures has been taken into account, the effects are re-evaluated to identify any residual adverse effects. This analysis will only be completed for the Points of Reception (PORs) listed in Section 3.5.4. Any change in illuminance or delta-mag at PORs will be carried through to determination of significance (i.e., Project related illuminance > 0 lux, and Project related delta-mag >0).

3.5.4 Points of Reception

The assessment of light focuses on effects at specific locations. In keeping with an approach that addresses the EIS Guidelines, the specific locations at which light levels are assessed are referred to as Points of Reception (PORs). Typically, a POR would be considered as permanent or seasonal residences, hotels/motels, nursing/retirement homes, rental residences, hospitals, camp grounds and buildings such as schools and places of worship. In assessing the effects of the Project on light levels, this TSD has expanded on the typical definition of a POR to include specific locations near the Project where effects may be possible in the future.

A community, a cemetery, two cottages, a trapper cabin, and a town that could potentially be affected by the Project activities were assessed based on the presence of human activity in the LSA. The locations of the community, cemetery, cottages, trapper cabin and a location at the edge of the town closest to the Project represent current and future PORs that could be affected by the Project light emissions. These areas are described as follows:

Goudreau Community – located in the LSA, corresponds to POR1: This community is located southwest of the Project area and consists of several cottages and cabins.

Cemetery – located in the LSA, corresponds to POR2: The cemetery is located south of the Project area.

Herman Lake Cottage – located in the LSA, corresponds to POR3: This cottage is located west of the Project area.

Herman Lake Island Cottage – located in the LSA, corresponds to POR4: This cottage is located west of the Project area.

Trapper Cabin B – located in the LSA, corresponds to POR5: This cabin is located north of the Project area.

Dubreuilville – located in the LSA, corresponds to POR6: This is a town, approximately 14.5 km northwest of the Project site by road.

Although the assessment of light has been done in the context of the study areas, the prediction of effects are done at specific POR locations. The six sensitive PORs located in the LSA were identified by Prodigy and are therefore considered in the light assessment and are summarized in Table 3.5.4-1 and illustrated on Figure 3.5.4-1.



Table 3.5.4-1: Location of the Identified(a) Points of Reception

POR ID Location Easting

(m) Northing

(m)

POR1 Goudreau community (cottages and cabins) (monitoring location SG1 provide the existing baseline conditions)

683601 5348128

POR2 Cemetery (monitoring location SG1 provide the existing baseline conditions) 685071 5348873

POR3 Herman Lake cottage (monitoring location SG1 provide the existing baseline conditions) 683855 5351940

POR4 Herman Lake cottage (on island) (monitoring location SG1 provide the existing baseline conditions) 683522 5352712

POR5 Trapper cabin B (monitoring location SG1 provide the existing baseline conditions) 684837 5355701

POR6 Dubreuilville (monitoring location SG1 provide the existing baseline conditions) 681369 5357438

a) Other locations were identified in the vicinity of the PSA. They were not included in the environmental light assessment, as Prodigy has made the commitment to remove these locations prior to the commencement of site preparation and construction operations.


S:\Cli

ents\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0004

_Ligh

t\165

9317

-0004

-RN-

0003

.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SHO

WN, T

HE SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

1:40,000


REFERENCE(S)1. BASEDATA MNRF 20162. SITE LAYOUT PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT NOVEMBER 20163. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTMZONE 16N

PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTLIGHT TSDTITLEPOINTS OF RECEPTION

1659317 0004 2 3.5.4-1

2017-01-05SOSO/JRPNAB

CONSULTANT



MINE ROCKMANAGEMENT

FACILITY(MRMF)

MAIN PIT

CRUSHERLOW GRADEORE STOCKPILE

TAILINGS MANGEMENTFACILITY (TMF)

PROCESSINGFACILITY

POR5

POR4

POR3

POR2

POR6

POR1

0 1 2

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODYPOINT OF RECEPTIONMINE ROADPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINECRUSHER LOW GRADE ORE STOCKPILEMINE ROCK MANAGEMENT FACILITYTAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYTAILINGS SUPERNATANT POOLSTOCKPILE AREAPROPERTY BOUNDARY

KILOMETERS

NORTHWESTFILL AREA

OVERBURDENAND SOIL

STOCKPILE

SOUTHWESTFILL AREAOVERBURDENAND SOILSTOCKPILE

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL


3.5.5 Light Emissions

When calculating the light emissions from the Project light fixtures, the following design and operating considerations for controlling light were considered:

where possible, lighting fixtures should be fully shielded (i.e., full cut-off) to minimize uplight to the atmosphere;

lighting for the Project will be designed to achieve the required light levels to ensure worker health and safety on sight while minimizing luminous flux, within the guidelines outlined by the engineering team; and

where possible, on-site structures will be dark in colour in order to absorb most of the incident light.

The above light control practices are considered to be integral to the operation of the Project and have been evaluated as such.

3.5.5.1 Light Modelling A number of factors can affect light levels in the environment. The most important of these is the distance between the source and the POR. As distance increases, light levels decrease with the square of the distance. This is particularly important for light trespass. Other environmental factors that can result in noticeable changes to the light levels, in particular for sky glow, include the following:

aerosols in the atmosphere absorb and scatter light;

humidity; and

cloud cover.

In addition to the list above, man-made features can be used to reduce the light levels further including buildings and light fixture shielding. The following is a brief discussion on the prediction of light trespass and sky glow.

Light Trespass Light trespass from the Project on the identified PORs was modelled using the Genesys III lighting software, which uses well established light propagation algorithms. This model allows for the incorporation of the following environmental factors that can result in noticeable changes in light levels:

attenuation due to distance between the source and PORs; and

reflections off of building surfaces and ground.

Using the inverse square law, the Genesys III lighting software was used to calculate the aggregate illuminance from all significant light sources at the PORs identified in Table 3.5.4-1. This illuminance was used to establish the level of light trespass at these locations. The inverse square law is described as follows:



𝐸𝐸 = 𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷2

(cos𝜃𝜃)

Where:

E = illuminance at the point of interest (lm/m² = lux);

I = luminous intensity (cd);

D = distance to POR (m); and

Θ = angle between the light ray and the normal to the surface of interest (°).

The inverse square law was used to determine the night-time light levels generated by the Project activities for the mining and processing phase. The PORs were assumed to be vertical walls facing in the direction of the majority of lights on the site, representative of windows on structures facing the Project. This is the IESNA and CIE recommended approach, as per IESNA Publication TM 11-2000 and CIE Publication 150:2003. The precise orientation of each POR was varied to determine the highest light trespass.

Sky Glow

Modelling for sky glow was carried out using a computer program based on a model developed by Garstang (1986) that predicts the night-sky brightness caused by a city or large industrial facility at an observer location inside or outside the city for various zenith distances. The model accounts for the molecular scattering, aerosol scattering, reflectivity of the ground, distance, and the fraction of light radiated above the horizontal. The model is based on an observer located at position O at a distance D from an illuminated area centered at C with radius R presented on Figure 3.5.5-1 (obtained from Garstang 1986).

Figure 3.5.5-1: Garstang Sky Brightness Model



The model predicts sky brightness using the following equation:

[ ] }{ )(11.11)exp()16/()cos1(3)exp(

)()()()/()exp(

2

2

0

2

φθπφθ

πσπ

+−+++−

××−= −∞

∫∫ ∫Kfahch

DSEFEFsIduRdxdycHNb QOXQupRm

Where:

b = the sky brightness

Nm = the particle density of the atmosphere at sea level

σR = 4.6 x 10-27 cm2

c = 0.104 km-1

H = elevation of facility above sea level (m)

Iup =luminous intensity in the direction of ѱ

(EF)QO and (EF)XQ = extinction factor (the fractional reduction of light intensity with distance) from Q to O and from X to Q, respectively

DS = the double scattering correction

K = air clarity parameter (ratio of aerosol to molecular Nσ at ground level)

ƒ(θ+Φ) = scattering function

The total lumens present on-site were obtained from the light trespass model and applied to the sky glow model. Measurements of the sky quality in mag/arcsec2 were taken at locations listed in Table 3.4.2-2. The techniques for measuring the background sky glow are discussed in Section 3.4.2.

The sky quality measurement provides a basis with which to compare the estimated Project effects to existing conditions. In order to provide a visual representation of sky glow before and after the Project mining and processing phase, high resolution and low digital noise photographs of the night sky were taken at several representative locations in the direction of the Project. High quality photographs showing the estimated change in visible stars before and after the Project commissioning were created. Details on this procedure are found in Section 3.4.2.



3.5.5.2 Light Criteria The criteria used to evaluate magnitude are specific to each of the VECs under consideration. Changes to light trespass and sky glow are based on the CIE environmental lighting zones (CIE, 1997 and 2003), as described in Table 3.5.5-1.

Table 3.5.5-1: Environmental Lighting Zone (CIE, 1997 and 2003) Zone Surrounding Lighting Environment Examples

E1 Natural Intrinsically dark National parks or protected sites E2 Rural Low district brightness Industrial or residential rural areas E3 Suburban Medium district brightness Industrial or residential suburbs E4 Urban High district brightness Town centres and commercial areas

The limitations of illumination on surrounding PORs are listed in Table 3.5.5-2.

Table 3.5.5-2: Maximum Values of Vertical Illuminance at PORs (CIE, 2003)

Environmental Zones Recommended Light Trespass Limits

(lux) E1 0 E2 1 E3 2 E4 5

Similar to the maximum limits for light trespass, limits have been established for changes to sky quality (delta-mag), which can then be converted to sky glow. The changes to sky quality limits are based on recommendations in the literature (Narisada and Schreuder, 2004). The change in sky quality limit for each environmental lighting zone is defined in Table 3.5.5-3.

Table 3.5.5-3: Suggestions for the Limitation of Sky Glow Environmental Zones Delta-mag(a) Limit

E1 0.2 E2 0.7 E3 2 E4 4

a) Sky Glow Classification Limits (adapted from Narisada and Schreuder, 2004, Table 7.3.3).



With regards to lighting fixtures, the CIE has specified limits on the Upward Light Ratio (or ULR, the percentage of light rising above 90° nadir) allowed for each luminaire to maintain a dark sky in the environmental lighting zones described in Table 3.5.5-4 for various astronomical activities and are found in CIE, 1997.

Table 3.5.5-4: Luminaire Selection for Astronomical Activities

Environmental Zones Upward Light Ratio

(ULR) Zone Rating

E1 0 Observatories of international standing E2 0 to 5 Postgraduate and academic studies E3 0 to 15 Undergraduate studies, amateur observations E4 0 to 25 Casual sky viewing

These guidelines should generally be used for selection of the luminaires. Full-cutoff luminaires as described by the IESNA meet the ULR guidelines for Zone E1.

3.5.6 Environmental Effects Assessment Criteria

The anticipated residual effects of the Project on light levels were assessed by considering the following seven criteria:

Magnitude: size or degree of the effect1;

Geographic Extent: spatial scale of the effect;

Duration: temporal scale of the cause of the effect;

Frequency: rate at which the effect occurs;

Degree of Reversibility: ability to return to pre-Project conditions; and

Ecological and Social Context: resilience of the VEC to the potential effects of the Project and its value to people.

The significance assessment contains sufficient information to allow readers to understand and evaluate the reasoning behind the significance conclusions. The criteria used for evaluating and describing the significance of effects are shown in Table 3.5.6-1.

1 The EIS Guidelines also requires likely effects to be described in terms of the existence of environmental standards, guidelines or objectives. Typically, existing environmental standards, guidelines or objectives are used to define the effects level definitions for magnitude (i.e., low, medium, high).



Table 3.5.6-1: Effects Criteria and Levels for Determining Significance

Effects Criteria(a) Definition

Effects Level Definition Low Medium High

Magnitude(b)(c) – Light: Trespass

Size or degree of the effect

Project related illuminance ≤ 1 lux

Project related illuminance >1 but ≤ 2 lux

Project related illuminance > 2 lux

Magnitude(b)(c) – Light: Sky Glow

Size or degree of the effect

Delta-mag ≤ 0.7 Delta-mag > 0.7 but ≤ 2 Delta-mag > 2

Geographic Extent(b)

Spatial scale of the effect

Effect is within the site study area

Effect extends into the local study area

Effect extends beyond the local study area

Duration(d) Temporal scale of the effect

Conditions causing the effect are evident in the short-term (i.e., during the construction phase, or closure and reclamation phase)

Conditions causing the medium-term effect are evident in the mining and processing phase

Conditions causing the effect extends for the long-term (beyond any one phase)

Frequency(b) Rate at which the effect occurs

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect to occur infrequently (i.e., several times per year)

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect to occur at regular, although infrequent intervals (i.e., several times per month)

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect to occur at regular and frequent intervals (i.e., daily or continuously)

Degree of Irreversibility(b)

Ability to return to pre-Project conditions

Effect is readily (i.e., immediately) reversible

Effect is reversible with time

Effect is not reversible (i.e., permanent)

Ecological Context(e)

Resilience of the VEC to the potential effects of the Project

Not applicable to Light

Social Context(E)

Value to people Not applicable to Light

a) The assumptions and limits of the effects criteria will be described as part of the effects assessment. b) Criteria relate to the effect – based on the observations at the POR locations, the area in the vicinity of the Project is zoned as E2. c) Where available, existing environmental standards, guidelines or objectives will be used to define the effects level definitions. d) Criteria relate to the conditions causing the effect. e) The ecological and social context will be assessed as part of the EIS/EA document



The rationale for the development of these criteria is summarized in Table 3.5.6-2

Table 3.5.6-2: Effects Magnitude Levels Rationale

VEC Effects Level Rationale

Low Medium High

Light: Trespass

Light emissions from the Project result in illuminance at POR that is below the recommended light trespass limit for Zone E2.

Light emissions from the Project result in illuminance at POR that is above the recommended light trespass limit for the existing Zone E2 but below the limit for Zone E3 (one level above the Project area classification).

Light emissions from the Project result in illuminance at POR that is above the recommended light trespass limit for Zone E3.

Light: Sky Glow

Light emissions from the Project result in sky glow at POR that is below the recommended delta-mag limit for Zone E2.

Light emissions from the Project result in sky glow at POR that is above the recommended delta-mag limit for the existing Zone E2 but below the limit for Zone E3 (one level above the Project area classification).

Light emissions from the Project result in sky glow at POR that is above the recommended delta-mag limit for Zone E3.

The level of significance is assigned using a decision tree model. This model is a visual representation of possible combinations of effects criteria leading to an overall significance conclusion of the residual adverse effects for all identified VECs. The decision tree model for light effects is shown on Figure 3.5.6-1. Using the decision tree model, the residual adverse effects can be determined to be one of the following:

not significant; or

significant.



3.5.6.1 Determination of Significance Once the effects associated with the Project were evaluated using the assessment criteria introduced in Section 3.5.6, and set out in Table 3.5.6-1, they were combined to assign an overall significance. The overall significance was assigned by applying a decision hierarchy, which reflected the nature of light effects and their likely impacts on the human and ecological environment. To focus the decision process for light consideration was given to the following:

Light effects associated with the Project were determined to be immediately reversible according to the assessment criteria described in Table 3.5.6-1. Therefore, irreversibility was not considered when assigning significance.

Light effects were considered to have a “High” frequency according to the assessment criteria described in Table 3.5.6-1.

The duration of the light effects were determined to be medium-term, according to the assessment criteria described in Table 3.5.6-1.

Figure 3.5.6-1 shows the decision process for assigning significance for light effects.

Figure 3.5.6-1: Decision Process for Assigning Significance to Light Effects



4.0 EXISTING (BASELINE) ENVIRONMENT

The existing environmental conditions of the Project for the light VEC, identified in Section 3.4, are described in this section. The existing (baseline) description as presented herein is based on existing data sources and the results of field studies.

4.1 Light Trespass Based on observations at the POR locations, the area in the vicinity of the Project is consistent with the CIE classification Zone E2.

4.2 Sky Glow

The measured average sky quality levels at the two identified measurement locations facing the Project at 45° from the zenith are summarized in Table 4.2-1. To ensure the results of the light assessment are conservative (i.e., result in the highest light effects), sky quality measurements were taken during clear, cloudless and moonless nights (when the night sky is the darkest).

Table 4.2-1: Existing Sky Quality Levels at the Identified Measurement Locations

Measurement ID

Measured Sky Quality

(mag/arcsec2) Existing

Delta-mag

Existing Sky Glow (% Brightness above

Natural Dark Sky)

CIE Zone Classification for

Sky Glow(a)

SG1 21.0 0.6 75 E2 SG2 20.1 1.5 284 E3

(a) The classification is based on the delta-mag limits in Table 3.5.5-3.

The sky quality measurements at SG2 were contaminated by a nearby light pole and resulted in a level that is not consistent with a rural environment. Therefore, the average sky quality of 21.0 mag/arcsec2 measured at SG1 is representative of the existing sky quality level at the PORs in the vicinity of the Project. Zone classification of E2 based on the measurements at SG1 is in agreement with the zone classification based on observations at the PORs.



5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This section identifies the Project-environment interactions associated with the Project and the light regime. These interactions were then used to predict the effects of the Project. If an effect is expected, mitigation (or impact management) measures were proposed and the effort re-evaluated to confirm if a residual adverse effect remains. Any residual adverse effects were then assessed for significance.

5.1 Project-environment Interactions

The assessment of light effects involved determining the light emissions from the Project, and using models to predict light levels at various PORs for light trespass and sky glow within the study areas. In assessing the potential light effects from the Project, the works and activities associated with each Project phase were reviewed to determine which phase would result in the greatest effects. Although each phase of the Project will include light fixtures, the mining and processing phase was determined to include the greatest number of light fixtures with the highest emissions.

Therefore, the mining and processing phase represents the bounding case for the light effects due to the Project.

5.2 Prediction of Likely Effects

5.2.1 Light Emissions

The light emission data for each light fixture assessed for the mining and processing phase of the Project are summarized in Table 5.2.1-1. An inventory of the required luminaires and associated photometric properties (e.g., spectral distribution, candle power, ray traces or light intensity distribution) was used to carry out the light assessment for the mining and processing phase for the Project.

Table 5.2.1-1: Luminaire Summary

Type ID Brand Model Description Lumens

per Lamp

A GE Lighting WMTS17M 175 W clear, metal halide 11,700 B Keene AKS250C 250W clear, high pressure sodium 27,500 C Keene STSS-250-3H 250W clear, high pressure sodium horizontal 30,000

1000W Philips Gardco HPV23-3XVF-1000PSMH

1000 W, clear, flat glass lens, each luminaire is tilted at 30° 115,000

The ULR of the luminaires listed above is about 4%, which is below the 5% limit for an E2 zone as described in Table 3.5.5-4. In the light assessment, light loss factors were not considered (i.e., the lights were considered to be ‘new’, with perfect ballasts, clean, and perfect input voltage). Older lights with varying input voltage, dirt and ballasts can reduce lumen output.



5.2.2 Light Model Predictions

Light Trespass Light trespass predictions for the Project during the mining and processing phase are summarized in Table 5.2.2-1. The predictions were performed at PORs identified in Table 3.5.4-1. The results in the table indicate the predicted levels of light trespass will be of a low magnitude at each of the PORs.

Table 5.2.2-1: Summary of Predicted Results for Light Trespass

Point of Reception

CIE Environmental Zone

Predicted Light Trespass due to the

Project (lux) Predicted CIE

Environmental Zone

Change in Environmental

Zone

POR1 E2 0.01 E2 No change POR2 E2 0.01 E2 No change POR3 E2 0.01 E2 No change POR4 E2 0.01 E2 No change POR5 E2 0.01 E2 No change POR6 E2 0.00 E2 No change

Sky Glow Sky glow results, predicted from the PORs in the direction of the Project at 45° from the zenith during the mining and processing phase of the Project, are summarized in Table 5.2.2-2.

Table 5.2.2-2: Summary of Predicted Results for Sky Glow

Point of Reception Existing

Delta-mag Predicted Delta-mag Change in Environmental Zone

POR1 0.6 0.7 No change POR2 0.6 0.8 Increase by one level (from E2 to E3) POR3 0.6 0.9 Increase by one level (from E2 to E3) POR4 0.6 0.8 Increase by one level (from E2 to E3) POR5 0.6 0.8 Increase by one level (from E2 to E3) POR6 0.6 0.7 No change



The existing and predicted sky glow levels are listed in Table 5.2.2-3.

Table 5.2.2-3: Summary of Predicted Results for Sky Glow

Point of Reception

Existing Sky Glow (% Brightness above

Natural Dark Sky)

Predicted Sky Glow (% Brightness above

Natural Dark Sky)

POR1 75 99 POR2 75 113 POR3 75 120 POR4 75 114 POR5 75 114 POR6 75 87

The potential effects related to sky glow are presented in Photo 5.2.2-1 and Photo 5.2.2-2 for POR1. Photo 5.2.2-1 shows the existing sky glow and Photo 5.2.2-2 is a photo of the future sky glow, which includes the Project effects.



This page left intentionally blank




Photo 5.2.2-1: Photo of Existing Sky at POR1

Photo 5.2.2-2: Photo of Predicted Sky at POR1


5.2.3 Mitigation Measures

In-design mitigation measures considered to be integral to the design and implementation of the Project have been considered in the assessment of light levels. Design and operating considerations for controlling light will include:

where possible, lighting fixtures should be fully shielded (i.e., full cut-off) to minimize uplight to the atmosphere;

lighting for the Project will be designed to achieve the required light levels to ensure worker health and safety on sight while minimizing luminous flux, within the guidelines outlined by the engineering team;

where possible, on-site structures will be dark in colour in order to absorb most of the incident light; and

Procurement of lighting fixtures with a specified limit of less than 5% on Upward Light Ratio (ULR – the percentage of light rising above 90° nadir).

Therefore, based on the results presented in Table 5.2.2-1 and Table 5.2.2-2, no additional mitigation measures were considered in the assessment of changes in light levels as a result of the Project.

5.3 Residual Effects

The identified mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible were incorporated as an integral component of the Project design and implementation for the purposes of assessing the changes in light levels attributable to the Project. Residual adverse effects of the Project on light levels are identified as those effects that remain after the implementation of mitigation measures. Due to the nature of the light assessment and the fact that the mitigation measures inherent to the Project design outlined in Section 5.2 are already incorporated into the assessment, all of the effects predicted by the modelling assessment were considered residual effects, except for POR6 – Light Trespass (i.e., the Project is not contributing to light trespass levels at this location). Each of the residual effects was assessed for significance in the next section.

Light Trespass Table 5.3-1 provides a summary of the identified effects of the Project on light trespass, along with an identification of whether residual adverse effects will remain after the implementation of mitigation measures. The significance of the residual adverse effects of the Project on light trespass is assessed in Section 5.4.



Table 5.3-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Light Trespass

Adverse Effect Mitigation Measures Residual

Adverse Effect?

Predicted Light Trespass at POR1 >0.00 lux Considered integral to the Project as presented in Section 3.5.5

Included in predictions No additional mitigation

measures have been considered

Yes

Predicted Light Trespass at POR2 >0.00 lux Yes




Predicted Light Trespass at POR6 = 0.00 No

Sky Glow Table 5.3-2 provides a summary of the identified adverse effects of the Project on sky glow, along with an identification of whether residual adverse effects will remain after the implementation of mitigation measures. The significance of the residual adverse effects of the Project on sky glow is assessed in Section 5.4.

Table 5.3-2: Residual Adverse Effects on Sky Glow

Adverse Effect Mitigation Measures Residual

Adverse Effect?

Project related change in delta-mag at POR1 >0 Considered integral to the Project as presented in Section 3.5.5.

Included in predictions No additional mitigation

measures have been considered

Yes

Project related change in delta-mag at POR2 >0 Yes







5.4 Significance of Effects

The significance assessment focuses on evaluating potential Project effects on VECs, as well as the consideration of feasible mitigation measures that can be incorporated to control, reduce, or eliminate effects. The assessment recognizes the widest reasonable range of potential effects without specific regard for their respective probability of occurrence. In this context, the probability of occurrence of an effect is not considered an assessment criterion.

The level of significance of an effect is assigned by using a decision tree. The effects criteria (i.e., magnitude, geographic extent, timing and duration, frequency, and degree of irreversibility) are combined to identify the level of significance.

Table 3.5.6-1 summarizes the criteria used to assign the effects magnitude for changes in light trespass and sky glow. Changes classified as having a low, medium or high magnitude remaining after the application of mitigation measures are considered to be residual adverse effects and advanced for an evaluation of significance in accordance with the decision tree shown on Figure 3.5.6-1.

Table 5.4-1 provides a listing of the effects criteria at PORs where a residual adverse effect was predicted during the Mining and Processing Phase. In order to determine significance, the values in each column of the table are used to step through the decision tree illustrated on Figure 3.5.6-1.

Table 5.4-1: Summary of Predicted Light Trespass Effects Criteria during Mining and Processing Phase

POR Magnitude Geographic Extent Timing / Duration Frequency Significance

POR1 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR2 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR3 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR4 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR5 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant

Table 5.4-2 provides a listing of the effects criteria at PORs where a residual adverse effect was predicted during the Mining and Processing Phase. In order to determine significance, the values in each column of the table are used to step through the decision tree illustrated on Figure 3.5.6-1.

Table 5.4-2: Summary of Predicted Sky Glow Effects Criteria during Mining and Processing Phase POR Magnitude Geographic Extent Timing / Duration Frequency Significance

POR1 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR2 Medium Medium Medium High Not Significant POR3 Medium Medium Medium High Not Significant POR4 Medium Medium Medium High Not Significant POR5 Medium Medium Medium High Not Significant POR6 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant



6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The original Light assessment was completed in 2013, based on information provided to Golder at that time. This assessment conservatively assumed a zero light loss factor. The light loss factor is a multiplier used to simulate a reduction in lumen output due to factors such as dirt depreciation, lumen depreciation over time, ballast factor and others. The factors are multiplied together to achieve the total light loss factor. In its simplest form, the light loss factor is composed of many components, which will vary with any given project.

As a result, even with the proposed changes to the Project provided in 2016, and based on this conservative approach and the distance from the Project to the PORs, no further quantitative assessment has been carried out. The light effects are expected to remain not significant.

7.0 MONITORING AND COMMITMENTS

7.1 Monitoring

Based on the results presented in Table 5.2.2-1 and Table 5.2.2-2, no follow-up light monitoring is required, as the predicted light trespass and sky glow levels are not considered to be a substantive change from existing levels.

7.2 Commitments

As noted previously, Prodigy has incorporated a number of mitigation measures (including best management practices) into the design of the Project infrastructure, facilities, and operation. Collectively, these measures, along with Prodigy’s management policies and practices, and comprehensive monitoring program, comprise Prodigy’s commitment to responsible environmental management of the Project, and approach to avoid or minimize potential effects on light.

Table 7.2-1 identifies the commitments made by Prodigy for the light VEC at the Project.

Table 7.2-1: Light Commitments Commitment Section of TSD Commitment

In-design mitigation will be implemented as identified in this TSD 5.2 Immediately at the onset of the

mining and processing phase. Light emissions will not exceed the emissions used in the light modelling for trespass and sky glow 5.2.1 Immediately at the onset of the

mining and processing phase.



8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This TSD evaluates the potential effect of the Project on light levels. The evaluation conclusions are highlighted below. Measurable changes to light levels are identified. Changes to light levels are evaluated to determine adverse effects. The residual adverse effects are evaluated and it is concluded that they will not result in significant adverse effects, as below:

Increases in light levels (i.e., trespass and sky glow) were predicted during the mining and processing phase. These effects were assessed to be not significant.

Follow-up monitoring is not recommended. A summary of likely effects, mitigation measures, residual adverse effects, significance and follow-up is provided in Table 8-1.




Table 8-1: Summary of Likely Effects, Mitigation Measures, Residual Adverse Effects, Significance and Follow-up

Valued Ecosystem Component

Likely Environmental Effect

Phase Likely Environmental Effect Occurs In

Mitigation Measures

Residual Adverse Effects Significance Follow-up Monitoring

In-design Mitigation Measures (incorporated into Project design)

Additional Mitigation Measures (identified through the EA process)

Light Trespass Yes Mining and processing phase Yes No Yes Not Significant No

Sky Glow Yes Mining and processing phase Yes No Yes Not Significant No


9.0 REFERENCES

Boyce, P.R. 2003. Human Factors In Lighting. CRC Press. http://www.crcpress.com/

Clanton & Associates. May 2008. Cherry Springs State Park Light Pollution Analysis and Recommendations. Document url: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/info/wind/documents/cherry-springs-state-park-light-pollution-analysis-05-29-08.pdf. Clanton & Associates: http://www.clantonassociates.com/

Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. 2003. Technical Report: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light From Outdoor Installations. CIE 150:2003, ISBN 9788 3 901906 19 0. Vienna, Austria

Garstang, R. H. 1989. Night-Sky Brightness at Observatories and Sites. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 101:306-329.

Garstang, R.H. 1986, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 98, 364-375.

IESNA, Obtrusive Light Subcommittee, TM-11-2000, Light Trespass: Research, Results, And Recommendations. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 2000

International Dark-Sky Association. 2000. Outdoor Lighting Code Handbook. Version 1.14. http://www.darksky.org.

Narisada, K., Schreuder, D. 2004. Light Pollution Handbook. Springer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Rae, Mark S., ed. The IESNA Lighting Handbook, Reference & Application, 9th edition, New York, NY, IESNA 2000.

Schaefer. 1990. Telescopic Limiting Magnitudes. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 102:212-229

Skiff, B., 2001. How Dark Can the Night Sky Get, http://www.astropix.com/html/l_story/skybrite.htm.



10.0 ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY

10.1 Acronyms

Acronyms used in the Light TSD are shown in Table 10.1-1

Table 10.1-1: List of Acronyms Acronym Definition

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

CIE International Commission on Illumination (Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage)

DS double scattering EA Environmental Assessment EF extinction factor EIS Environmental Impact Statement IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America LSA Local Study Area MRMF Mine Rock Management Facility NAD North American Datum PAG Potentially Acid Generating POR Point of Reception PSA Project Study Area RSA Regional Study Area SQM Sky Quality Meter TMF Tailings Management Facility TSD Technical Supporting Document ULR Upward Light Ratio UTM Universal Transverse Mercator (coordinate system) VEC Valued Ecosystem Component

10.2 Units

Units used in the Light TSD are shown in Table 10.2-1.

Table 10.2-1: List of Units Unit Abbreviation

% Percent °C degrees Celsius cm Centimetres



Table 10.2-1: List of Units Unit Abbreviation

ha Hectare km Kilometres lux lumens per metre squared m Metre mag/arcsec2 Magnitude per square arc second mlux millilux (measured in one thousandth of a lumen per metre squared) mm Millimetres Mt million tonnes t Tonnes t/d tonnes per day t/y tonnes per year W Watt

10.3 Glossary

Glossary of terms used in the Light TSD is shown in Table 10.3-1.

Table 10.3-1: Glossary of Terms Acronym Definition

Candela The luminous intensity of a lighting source and is measured in candelas (cd = lm/steradian)

Dubreuilville This is a town, approximately 14.5 km northwest of the Project site by road. Goudreau community This community is located southwest of the Project; it consists of several

cottages and cabins. Herman lake This lake is located west of the Project area within the Project footprint. Illuminance / Illumination level

The total luminous flux incident on a surface, per unit area (i.e., lumens per m2). It is a measure of the intensity of the incident light, wavelength-weighted by the luminosity function to correlate with human brightness perception and is the standard metric for lighting levels, measured in lux

Indicators Specific characteristics of the environment that can be measured, qualified or determined in some way.

Limiting Magnitude The brightness in mag/arcsec2 of the weakest star visible as seen with some viewing device, such as a telescope, binoculars, or the naked eye. Here wherever the term is used, it refers to the naked eye limiting magnitude. This value depends on many factors, including the viewer's age and observation experience

Lumen The unit of luminous flux produced by a source



Table 10.3-1: Glossary of Terms Acronym Definition

Luminaire A lighting fixture Luminance The perceived brightness of an object which has been illuminated by a source.

The luminance of an object depends on its material characteristics and reflectance and is measured in cd/m2

Magnitude per square arc second

A relative measure of the brightness of the sky. The natural background is 21.9, and the smaller the number the brighter the sky or celestial object. One magnitude level of difference corresponds to a factor of 2.5 change in brightness

Point of Reception A location where measurements and/or predictions of light levels are made Project (the) The activities associated with the preparation for, development of and closure

of the Magino gold mine as described in the project description Wawa This is a town, approximately 69.5 km southeast of the Project site by road Zenith An imaginary point directly "above" a particular location, on the imaginary

celestial sphere. "above" means in the vertical direction opposite to the apparent gravitational force at that location


Golder Associates Ltd. 6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100 Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 7K2 Canada T: +1 (905) 567 4444

1659317 light technical supporting documentreport no. 1659317 (doc013) revision 0 light technical...

Documents