1659317 noise technical supporting document · january 2017 . prodigy gold inc. magino gold project...

January 2017

PRODIGY GOLD INC. MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

Noise Technical Supporting Document

REPO

RT

Report Number: 1659317 (DOC011) Revision 0

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

NOISE TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT MAGINO GOLD PROJECT REV. 0

Document Review Form

REPORT NAME: Noise Technical Supporting Document

REPORT NUMBER: 1659317 (DOC011) Revision 0

DISCIPLINE LEAD: Paul Niejadlik

Prepared by: Stefan Cicak Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Engineer 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 (DOC011) Revision 0


Page left intentionally blank

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC011) 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.8 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Project Proponent .............................................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Project Phases .................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Project Components ........................................................................................................................................ 15

2.6 Spatial Boundaries .......................................................................................................................................... 16

3.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Project Phases (Temporal Boundaries) ........................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Study Areas (Spatial Boundaries) .................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Project Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Local Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Regional Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 18

3.3 Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators and Measures ......................................................... 21

3.3.1 Introduction to Noise .................................................................................................................................. 21

3.3.2 Rationale for Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators, and Measures ............................. 22

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC011) Revision 0 i


3.4 Existing (Baseline) Environment ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.4.1 Existing Data Sources ................................................................................................................................ 23

3.4.2 Field Study Methods .................................................................................................................................. 23

3.5 Environmental Effects Assessment ................................................................................................................. 27

3.5.1 Project-environment Interactions ............................................................................................................... 27

3.5.2 Predict and Assess Environment Effects ................................................................................................... 28

3.5.3 Residual Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 28

3.5.4 Points of Reception .................................................................................................................................... 28

3.5.5 Noise Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 33

3.5.5.1 Noise Modelling ...................................................................................................................................... 33

3.5.5.2 Noise Effects .......................................................................................................................................... 36

3.5.5.3 Compliance with Ontario Noise Guidelines ............................................................................................ 36

3.5.6 Environmental Effects Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................... 37

3.5.6.1 Determination of Significance ................................................................................................................. 39

3.6 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects .................................................................................... 40

4.0 EXISTING (BASELINE) ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 41

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 43

5.1 Project-environment Interactions ..................................................................................................................... 43

5.2 Prediction of Likely Effects ............................................................................................................................... 43

5.2.1 Noise Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 43

5.2.2 Noise Model Predictions ............................................................................................................................ 50

5.2.3 Noise Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 53

5.2.3.1 Compliance with Ontario Noise Guidelines ............................................................................................ 53

5.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 53

5.4 Residual Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 54

5.5 Significance of Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 55

5.6 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects .................................................................................... 56

6.0 MONITORING AND COMMITMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 57

6.1 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................ 57

6.2 Commitments .................................................................................................................................................. 57

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC011) Revision 0 ii


7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 59

8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 61

9.0 ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY....................................................................................................................... 63

9.1 Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 63

9.2 Units ................................................................................................................................................................ 64

TABLES Table 3.3.2-1: Noise Valued Ecosystem Component, Indicators and Measures .............................................................. 22

Table 3.4.2-1: Noise Monitoring Locations ....................................................................................................................... 27

Table 3.5.4-1: Location of the identified Points of Reception(a) ......................................................................................... 29

Table 3.5.5-1: Reliability Summary for the CadnaA Noise Model ..................................................................................... 35

Table 3.5.5-2: Thresholds for Determining Effects to be Carried Forward ........................................................................ 36

Table 3.5.6-1: Effects Criteria and Levels for Determining Significance for Noise ............................................................ 37

Table 3.5.6-2: Effects Magnitude Levels Rationale for Noise ........................................................................................... 39

Table 4-1: Existing Noise Levels at the Identified Monitoring Locations ..................................................................... 41

Table 5.2.1-1: Equipment Sound Power Data Used in the Assessment of Noise ............................................................. 47

Table 5.2.1-2: Building Transmission Loss Performance ................................................................................................. 48

Table 5.2.1-3: Inherent Noise Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 49

Table 5.2.2-4: Summary of Predicted Results for Noise ................................................................................................... 50

Table 5.2.3-1: Effects for Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 53

Table 5.4-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 54

Table 5.5-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 55

Table 6.2-1: Noise Commitments .................................................................................................................................. 57

Table 7-1: Summary of Likely Effects, Mitigation Measures, Residual Adverse Effects, Significance and Follow-up for Noise .................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 9.1-1: List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 63

Table 9.2-1: List of Units ................................................................................................................................................ 64

Table 9.3-1: Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................................... 64

FIGURES Figure 2-1: Project Location ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3.2.1-1: Study Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3.4.2-1: Noise Monitoring Locations ....................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 3.5.4-1: Points of Reception ................................................................................................................................... 31

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC011) Revision 0 iii


Figure 3.5.6-1: Decision Process for Assigning Significance to Noise Effects ................................................................... 40

Figure 5.2.1-1: Noise Modelling Sources ........................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 5.2.2-1: Predicted Noise Levels .............................................................................................................................. 51

January 2017 Report No. 1659317 (DOC011) 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 is a publicly-traded Canadian gold mining company engaged in exploration, mine development, and gold production.

In addition to the Magino Gold Project, Argonaut 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 (DOC011) 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 Noise 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 and to assess the project effects on the environment 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 and data provided by Prodigy. The primary purpose of this TSD is to provide a description of methods used for establishing existing conditions, data reporting and overall context setting followed by details of the impact assessment methods, assessment results and conclusions.

In addition to complying with the EIS Guidelines, noise will be assessed in accordance with Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) noise guideline, Noise Pollution Control (NPC) 300 Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning (MOECC 2013) and is consistent with the requirements for obtaining an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from the MOECC.

1.8 Report Organization

The methods used to assess the Project, and documented in this TSD, support the philosophy of EA as a planning tool and decision-making process. The environmental effects assessment characterizes and assesses the effects of the Project in a thorough, traceable manner. The methods used in the environmental effects assessment include the following steps:

Describe the Project: The Project description has been summarized 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 noise 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 changes may occur. These are identified in general terms in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 and more specifically for noise in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.



Identify Valued Ecosystem Components: While all components of the environment are important, it is neither practical 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: In addition to assessing the effects of the Project using the above steps, this TSD demonstrates the Project’s ability to meet the provincial noise guidelines. Noise levels for industrial operations in Ontario are subject to guidelines contained in NPC 300 Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning (MOECC 2013). The MOECC guidelines are described in Section 3.5.5.3.

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

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 Section 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 as to whether or not they are negligible or to be carried forward in the assessment, as described in Section 5.2. If an effect is predicted (i.e., non-negligible), 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 5.3 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 likely adverse effects are re-evaluated to identify any residual adverse (or net) effects. All residual adverse effects are carried forward for an assessment of significance (see Section 5.4).

Determine Significance of Effects: All residual adverse effects are assessed in Section 5.5 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: In addition to assessing the effects of the Project on noise, this TSD documents predictions that will be used for assessing the effects of changes in noise on aspects of the receiving environment (e.g., Human Health). Calculations at identified human health receptors were passed onto the Human Health discipline.

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 6.1.

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 the following sections.



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

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

2.2 Project Location

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 2-1. 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 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, 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 150 million tonnes (Mt) of ore and approximately 430 Mt of mine rock from an open pit in the same location as the past-producing underground mine. Project facility components include:

A primary ore crusher

A conveyor

A crushed rock stockpile

A process plant to extract the gold

A low-grade ore stockpile

A mine rock management facility (MRMF)

A tailings management facility (TMF)

Explosives magazines

Administration offices

Laboratory facilities

Non-mining waste facilities

Maintenance and constructing facilities

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

Sewage treatment systems



2.6 Spatial Boundaries

Spatial boundaries define the areas within which existing environmental conditions are described in this TSD and the geographic extents within which potential environmental effects are expected to occur. The study areas selected specifically for the Noise environmental effects assessment are described in Section 3.2.



3.0 METHODS

The following sections identify the approach used to assess the Project in terms of noise as described in Section 1.2.

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 noise 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 noise emissions. Therefore, the mining and processing phase will bound the noise effects from the Project 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 noise: the Project Study Area (PSA), Local Study Area (LSA), and Regional Study Area (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 (WRMF) and all supporting and/or ancillary facilities (e.g., service and support buildings) including the onsite Accommodation Camp.

3.2.2 Local Study Area

The LSA extends beyond the PSA and includes an area around the Project where effects are likely to occur. Noise effects associated with the operation of a Project are typically experienced by those living in close proximity to the site. However, due to the remote nature of the Project, noise effects may be experienced at large distances from the Project. Therefore, an LSA has been selected as 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.

3.2.3 Regional Study Area

The Project RSA was not explicitly defined for noise effects. It extends beyond the LSA and PSA, and encompasses the modelling domain used for evaluating the effects of the Project on noise 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 noise assessment, the effects of the Project are not expected to extend beyond the LSA.


S:\Cl

ients\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0003

_Nois

e\165

9317

-0003

-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 NOISE 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 PROJECTNOISE TSDTITLESTUDY AREAS

1659317 0002 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).

Noise is 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 noise, 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 Noise

Acoustic values can be described in terms of noise or sound. While noise is defined as unwanted sound, the terms noise and sound are often used interchangeably. An introduction to key concepts used in the assessment of outdoor acoustics is provided below:

“Noise” or “noise levels” refers to the levels that can be heard or measured at a receptor.

A noise “receptor” is a location where measurements or predictions of noise levels are made.

The “level” of a noise is expressed on a logarithmic scale, in units called decibels (dB). Since the scale is logarithmic, a noise source that emits twice the noise energy as another source will only be three decibels (3 dB) higher.

Noise emissions and noise levels have an associated frequency. The human ear does not respond to all frequencies in the same way. Mid-range frequencies are most readily detected by the human ear, while low and high frequencies are harder to hear. Environmental noise levels used in this TSD are presented as “A-weighted decibels” (or dBA), which incorporates the frequency response of the human ear.

The “percentile noise level”, designated Ln, is the noise level exceeded “n” percent of a specified time period and is measured in dBA. The L90, for instance, is the noise level exceeded 90% of the time. It is a noise level index that commonly refers to the baseline noise level and is most often referenced in a rural setting.

Outdoor noise is usually expressed as an “equivalent noise level” (Leq, T), which is a logarithmic average (i.e., energy average) of the measured or predicted noise levels over a given period of time (T). An equivalent noise level measured or predicted over the nighttime period would be referred to as Leq, night.

Noise effects are often tied to the existing noise levels that can vary throughout the day. As defined among various noise guidance documents, both locally, nationally and internationally. The “Daytime” is generally defined as the period between 07:00 to 23:00 and is not tied to daylight. The “Nighttime” is limited to 23:00 to 07:00.



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 noise VEC, the indicators, and measures used in the assessment are described in Table 3.3.2-1.

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

Valued Ecosystem Component

Rationale for Selection Indicator Measure

Noise Noise is selected as a VEC since it has been identified as being important to regulators and stakeholders. In addition, Project activities have the potential to affect existing noise levels.

The effect of Project noise sources will be evaluated using the nighttime(a) equivalent noise levels (Leq, night).

Change in Leq, night Project-related

Leq, night

a) Operations are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with all process/equipment operating continuously. The nighttime equivalent noise level (Leq, night) is used in this noise assessment as there is no difference between daytime, evening and nighttime operations. The nighttime is typically the most sensitive period during the day as the background noise levels are expected to be the lowest.

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 noise 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 to depict environmental conditions in the study areas, modelling methods and equations are described. The description of the existing environment as it related to noise 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 remote location, there are no existing data sources for summarizing the current noise levels in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, field studies were carried out to collect the requisite data where appropriate, to characterize the Project baseline conditions.

3.4.2 Field Study Methods

The existing noise levels were characterized using a focused noise field investigation, conducted between June 7, 2013 and June 11, 2013. Continuous noise monitoring was carried out at various off-site locations to collect the existing noise levels for daytime and nighttime periods at two locations in the vicinity of the Project. These locations are shown on Figure 3.4.2-1 and summarized in Table 3.4.2-1.


S:\Cli

ents\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0003

_Nois

e\165

9317

-0003

-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 PROJECTNOISE TSDTITLENOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS

1659317 0003 2 3.4.2-1

2016-12-12SOSOPNAB

CONSULTANT



MINE ROCKMANAGEMENT

FACILITY(MRMF)

MAIN PIT

CRUSHERLOW GRADEORE STOCKPILE

TAILINGS MANGEMENTFACILITY (TMF)

PROCESSINGFACILITY

NM2

NM1

0 1 2

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODYNOISE MONITORING LOCATIONSMINE 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


Table 3.4.2-1: Noise Monitoring Locations

Location Description UTM Coordinates

Study Area Easting (m)

Northing (m)

M1 Goudreau Community 683601 5348128 LSA M2 Herman Lake Cottage 683855 5351940 LSA

In keeping with MOECC guidelines, all continuous existing sound level measurements were carried out in accordance with MOECC publications NPC 103 Procedures and NPC 102 Instrumentation (MOECC 1978) out using Larson-Davis Model 831 sound level meters. The sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis acoustic calibrator set to generate a 114 dB tone at 1,000 Hz. The monitoring periods lasted a minimum of 48 hours at each of the 2 locations and samples were acquired once every 5 minutes for the duration of the monitoring period. Monitoring data was then converted to hourly Leq.

The noise measurements were carried out with the sound level meters set on the “A” weighting scale (denoted as dBA). The recorded data included the following acoustical indices:

Leq – Equivalent energy sound level;

L90 – Sound level exceeded 90% of the time;

L50 – Sound level exceeded 50% of the time; and

L10 – Sound level exceeded 10% of the time.

3.5 Environmental Effects Assessment

The environmental effects assessment predicts and describes the likely environmental effects, mitigation measures and residual adverse effects on noise 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 noise 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 noise 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 a VEC is affected by a Project component and/or activity. A direct interaction occurs when the VEC is affected by a Project component and/or activity. An indirect interaction occurs when a 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 (or mitigation) measures included in the Project design, along with Prodigy’s expected Project 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 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 likely 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 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 likely effects are re-evaluated to identify any residual effects.

3.5.4 Points of Reception

The assessment of noise focuses on effects at specific locations. In keeping with an approach that addresses the EIS Guidelines and MOECC noise guidelines, the specific locations at which noise 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.

A community, a cemetery, two cottages, and a trapper cabin 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, and trapper cabin represent current and future PORs that could be affected by the Project noise 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.

Although the assessment of noise has been done in the context of the study areas, the prediction of effects are done at specific PORs. The five sensitive PORs identified by Prodigy were considered in the noise 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 Points of Reception(a)

POR ID Location Easting (m)

Northing (m)

POR1 Goudreau Community 683601 5348128 POR2 Cemetery 685071 5348873

POR3 Herman Lake (Cottage) 683855 5351940

POR4 Herman Lake (Cottage) 683522 5352712

POR5 Trapper Cabin B 684837 5355701

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


S:\Cl

ients\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0003

_Nois

e\165

9317

-0003

-RN-

0003

.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

1:40,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTNOISE TSDTITLEPOINTS OF RECEPTION

1659317 0002 2 3.5.4-1

2016-12-12SOSOPNAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

MINE ROCKMANAGEMENT

FACILITY(MRMF)

MAIN PIT



PROCESSINGFACILITY

POR5

POR4

POR3

POR2

POR1

0 1 2

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODY

!? POINT 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


SOLID WASTE LANDFILL


3.5.5 Noise Emissions

In determining the noise emissions associated with the Project, consideration was given to those mitigation measures that were considered to be integral to the design and operation of the works and activities. These mitigation measures were incorporated into the emission estimates presented in Section 5.2.1 of this TSD, and, therefore, were incorporated in the effects predictions presented in Section 5.2.2. Finally, the modelling results were compared to the existing Leq, night and established MOECC noise guidelines.

3.5.5.1 Noise Modelling The likely effects of the Project on noise levels were evaluated with the aid of the Computer Aided Noise Attenuation (CadnaA) noise modelling software, which uses the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613-2 noise prediction algorithms. This model allows for the incorporation of the following environmental factors that can result in noticeable changes in noise levels:

attenuation because of the distance between the noise source and POR;

absorption of acoustic energy by the atmosphere;

loss of acoustic energy as it travels around or over hills, or intervening buildings; and

loss of acoustic energy as it passes over the ground (i.e., ground impedance).

In addition to the attenuation factors listed above, constructed features can be used to reduce the noise levels further, including: buildings, weather/acoustic enclosures, noise barriers, silencers and exhaust mufflers.

To accurately account for these factors and features, the noise assessment relied on numeric models. The selection of appropriate models to support the noise assessment ensures that the results of the assessment are credible and indicative of the conditions likely to occur should the Project proceed. The selection of this model considered the following:

incorporation of site specific terrain data;

evaluation of the various source types associated with the Project;

a technical basis that is scientifically sound, and is in keeping with the current understanding of the propagation of sound in the outdoors;

application of a prediction program that has undergone scrutiny for correct implementation of established ISO methods;

makes predictions that are consistent with observations; and

recognition by federal, provincial and international regulators as one suitable for use.

The EIS Guidelines highlight the need to provide information regarding the model verification and scientific defensibility, model calibration, model validation, as well as the uncertainty and sensitivity of the model. Table 3.5.5-1 provides a summary of this information for the model used in the noise assessment.



CadnaA Noise Modelling Software The CadnaA prediction model (version 4.6.155), developed by DataKustik GmbH is widely accepted for evaluating noise from industrial projects, including mining projects world-wide. The model algorithms are based on ISO 9613 Acoustics: Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors (ISO 1993 and 1996). In addition, this model has been independently validated for its implementation of the ISO standard.

The model has the ability to simulate emission sources including roads, vessels and industrial facilities. Noise sources are characterized by entering the sound power and/or sound pressure octave band spectrum associated with each source. Other parameters including building dimensions, frequency of use, hours of operation, and enclosure attenuation ratings also define the nature of sound emissions. The ISO 9613 prediction method is conservative as it assumes that all PORs are downwind from the noise source or that a moderate ground based temperature inversion exists. In addition, ground cover and physical barriers, either natural (terrain-based) or constructed and atmospheric absorption are included as they relate specifically to the Project.



Table 3.5.5-1: Reliability Summary for the CadnaA Noise Model

Model Name/ Developer Use in Assessment Verification Calibration Validation Uncertainty and

Sensitivity

CadnaA/ DataKustik GmbH

Predicting noise levels associated with on-site activities, equipment and operations

CadnaA implements the ISO standards for noise propagation outdoors

ISO 9613 Drew et al., 2005.

CadnaA predictions have been calibrated on numerous projects and are continually reviewed by responsible authorities and peer reviewers

CadnaA predictions are continuously validated

Drew et al., 2005

ISO 9613 is based on known theory and proven to reliably produce repeatable results

CadnaA predictions of sound energy are sensitive to inputs (i.e., doubling sources will result in a doubling of acoustic energy at PORs)

Uncertainty associated with emissions is managed by making conservative assumptions (i.e., all mining and processing equipment for certain mining and processing works and activities operating concurrently)



3.5.5.2 Noise Effects Noise effects were considered to be carried forward (i.e., non-negligible) if the predicted noise levels resulted in a change from existing conditions that would be just perceptible to humans. Therefore, an effect was carried forward if the predicted noise levels resulted in an increase of 3 dB in the existing average nighttime Leq noise levels, as shown in Table 3.5.5-2.

Table 3.5.5-2: Thresholds for Determining Effects to be Carried Forward

Indicator Negligible Carried Forward as a Residual Adverse Effect

Change in Nighttime Leq ≤ 3 dB >3 dB

3.5.5.3 Compliance with Ontario Noise Guidelines The noise assessment methodology used to assess compliance in this study is based on MOECC publication NPC 300 Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning (MOECC 2013). The noise assessment was carried out at the PORs which were identified within the vicinity of the Project. All PORs identified in this study are best described as being located in a Class 3 area. A Class 3 area can best be described as rural with the existing noise environment dominated by sounds of nature with little or no road traffic. MOECC Daytime, MOECC Evening and MOECC Nighttime hours for a Class 3 area as per NPC 300 are defined as follows:

MOECC Daytime – 07:00 to 19:00;

MOECC Evening – 19:00 to 23:00; and

MOECC Nighttime – 23:00 to 07:00.

The sound level limits for the PORs in a Class 3 area are described as follows;

The energy averaged sound level (Leq) produced by a source at a receptor location in any one-hour period should not exceed the greater of: the minimum background sound level that occurs or is likely to occur in the same hour period, or 45 dBA in the [MOECC] daytime period, or 40 dBA in the [MOECC] evening and nighttime periods.

The MOECC Nighttime period above is analogous with the Nighttime period defined for this TSD (Section 3.3.2).

Parameters to Assess Compliance with Ontario Noise Guidelines The noise from the mining and processing of the Project was evaluated using the one-hour equivalent noise level (Leq) during the predictable worst-case hour operation. The one-hour Leq is the energy equivalent continuous sound level, which has the same energy as the time varying signal over a one-hour period at the same location.



3.5.6 Environmental Effects Assessment Criteria

The anticipated residual effects of the Project on noise 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;

Ecological and Social Context: resilience of the VEC to the potential adverse 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 noise effects are shown in Table 3.5.6-1.

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

Effects Criteria(a) Definition

Effects Level Definition

Low Medium High

Magnitude(b)(c) Size or degree of the effect

Project related change in nighttime average noise level is >3 dB and ≤6 dB; and

Project related noise levels do not exceed MOECC nighttime noise level limit

Project related change in nighttime average noise level is >6 dB and ≤ 10 dB; and

Project related noise levels do not exceed MOECC nighttime noise level limit

Project related change in nighttime average noise level is >10 dB; or

Project related noise levels exceed MOECC nighttime noise level limit

Geographic Extent(b)

Spatial scale of the effect

Effect is within the PSA Effect extends into the LSA

Effect extends beyond the LSA

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 for Noise

Effects Criteria(a) Definition

Effects Level Definition

Low Medium High

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 adverse effects of the Project

Not applicable to noise

Social Context(e)

Value to people

Not applicable to noise

a) The assumptions and limits of the effects criteria will be described as part of the effects assessment. b) Criteria relate to the effect. 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 criteria used to evaluate magnitude are specific to each of the VECs under consideration. The rationale for the development of the above mentioned criteria is summarized in Table 3.5.6-2.

Table 3.5.6-2: Effects Magnitude Levels Rationale for Noise


Effects Level Rationale

Low Medium High

Noise Noticeable change in noise level.

Clearly noticeable change in noise level and perceived as twice as loud.

Perceived as more than twice as loud.

Exceeds applicable noise level limit (i.e., specified in NPC 300).

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 noise 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 the noise effects and their likely impacts on the human environment. To focus the decision process for noise consideration was given to the following:

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

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

Noise 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.

Social and ecological importance of noise is considered to be of high value to the natural environment and people for all study areas so these effects criteria do not differentiate between effects. Therefore, ecological and social context were not considered when assigning significance.

Figure 3.5.6-1 shows the decision process for assigning significance for noise effects. Residual effects are considered in the EA.



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

3.6 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects

In addition to assessing the effects of the Project on noise, this TSD documents predictions that will be used for assessing the effects of changes in noise on aspects of the receiving environment (e.g., Human Health). Calculations at identified human health receptors were passed on to the Human Health.



4.0 EXISTING (BASELINE) ENVIRONMENT

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

Existing noise data were acquired at two locations around the Project. Data were logged every 5 minutes for a minimum of 48 hours at each location. The noise levels at these locations were dominated by sounds of the nature and human activity related to mining activities (i.e., adjacent mining site) in the area. Table 4-1 summarizes the existing noise levels measured during daytime and nighttime hours (i.e., as defined in Section 3.3) at the two monitoring locations.

Table 4-1: Existing Noise Levels at the Identified Monitoring Locations

Monitoring Location

Minimum Hourly Leq (dBA)

Maximum Hourly Leq (dBA)

Average Hourly Leq (dBA)

Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime M1 27.4 25.4 41.1 43.0 34.7 36.4 M2 22.3 18.5 41.3 37.4 34.1 29.3

Shading represents the value used to represent existing noise levels.

For the purposes of this assessment, the lowest average nighttime Leq value shaded in Table 4-1 is used to represent the existing noise levels at all PORs. This approach ensures that a conservative assessment of noise was carried out.



5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

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

5.1 Project-environment Interactions

The assessment of noise effects involved determining the noise emissions from Project activities, and using models to predict noise levels at various PORs within the study areas. In assessing the potential noise 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 emissions. Specifically, noise emissions will be highest during the mining and processing phase. Therefore, the mining and processing phase represents the bounding case for the noise effects due to the Project.

5.2 Prediction of Likely Effects

5.2.1 Noise Emissions

The overall sound power data for each noise source associated with the Project are summarized in Table 5.2.1-1. The locations of the noise sources are shown on Figure 5.2.1-1. Only the noise sources associated with the mining and processing phase of the Project are presented as this was determined to be the phase of the Project with the greatest number of sources and highest noise emissions. The table also summarizes the quantity of each piece of equipment used in the modelling.

For the purposes of the EA, the list of equipment summarized in Table 5.2.1-1 was developed by the Prodigy engineering team and used to generate noise emissions for use in the noise assessment. The list of equipment is considered to be representative of the types of equipment and associated activities for the Project. As part of the permitting process for the Project, the final list of equipment will be available as required by the MOECC to support an application for an ECA. However, it is not anticipated that the final overall emissions from the Project will be markedly different from those presented in this TSD.


S:\Cli

ents\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0003

_Nois

e\165

9317

-0003

-RN-

0004

.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


PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTNOISE TSDTITLENOISE MODELLING SOURCES

1659317 0003 2 5.2.1-1

2017-01-06SOSO/JRPNAB

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. PHASE REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDPREPAREDDESIGNREVIEWAPPROVED

REFERENCES1. BASEDATA MNRF 20162. SITE LAYOUT PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT NOVEMBER 20163. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 16N

FL002TD005

TD004

TD003

TD001

DR005DR004

DR003

DR002

PLT004

PLT003

HTW001

COM001

PC005

TD002

PC004

PC003PC002

PC001

FL002FL001

DR001

DC004DC003

DC002

DC001

AF003

AF002AF001

TWD001

TOD002TOD001

PLT005

PLT002

PLT001

HTO001

METRES

500 1,0000

VF008

VF007

VF005VF004

VF003

VF002VF001

ST001

PC005

DG003DG002DG001

DC008

DC006

DC005

CT001

CIP007

STP001

CIP006

CIP005

CIP004 CIP003

CIP002

DC007

CIP001

1:25,000

PROJECT OVERVIEW PLANT SITE

50 500

1:2,000 METRES

LEGENDEXISTING ROADMINE ROADCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALWATERCOURSEWATERBODY

PROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINECRUSHER LOW GRADE ORE STOCKPILEMINE ROCK MANAGEMENT FACILITYTAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYTAILINGS SUPERNATANT POOLSTOCKPILE AREAPROPERTY BOUNDARY

NOISE MODELLING SOURCESPOINT SOURCEVERTICAL AREA SOURCELINE SOURCEAREA SOURCE

MINE ROCKMANAGEMENT

FACILITY(MRMF)



MAINPIT

PLANT SITENORTHWEST

FILL AREAOVERBURDEN

AND SOILSTOCKPILE



Table 5.2.1-1: Equipment Sound Power Data Used in the Assessment of Noise

Source ID Source Description Quantity Sound Power Level

per Source (dBA)

AF001 to AF003 Apron feeder stockpile #1 to 3 3 116 CIP001 to CIP007 Carbon in Pulp Tank exhaust #1 to 7 7 94 COM001 Compactor TMF 1 108 CT001 Kiln Cooling Tower 1 102 DC001 Crusher dust collector exhaust 1 116 DC002 Crusher dust collector baghouse 1 104 DC003 Stockpile dust collector exhaust 1 116 DC004 Stockpile dust collector baghouse 1 104 DC005 Pebble crusher area dust collector exhaust 1 116 DC006 Pebble crusher area dust collector baghouse 1 104 DC007 Refinery dust collector exhaust 1 116 DC008 Refinery dust collector baghouse 1 104 DG001 to DG003 Diesel Generator #1 to 3 3 108 DR001 to DR006 Drill Rig #1 to 5 5 120 FL001, FL002 Frontend loader #1 and 2 2 109 HTO001 Haul truck ore loading 1 115 HTW001 Haul truck mine rock loading 1 115 PC001 Primary crusher - rock crusher 1 123 PC002 Primary crusher - jaw crusher 1 124 PC003 Primary crusher screener 1 112 PC004 Primary crusher - appron feeder 1 116 PC005 Pebble crusher 1 124 PLT001 to PLT005 Portable light tower #1 to 5 4 100 ST001 Elec. Substation 1 89 STP001 Sewage Treatment Plant 1 116 TD001 to TD005 Track Dozer #1 to 5 5 119 TOD001 Truck ore dump 1 106 TOD002 Truck ore dump Ore stockpile 1 106 TWD001 Truck waste dump 1 111 VF001 Acid wash tank ventilation fan 1 77 VF002 Elution circuit ventilation fan 1 77 VF003 Reactivation kiln exhaust fan 1 101 VF004 Electrowinning ventilation fan 1 85 VF005 Drying oven fan 1 85 VF007 Cyanide exhaust fan 1 94 VF008 SMBS system exhaust fan 1 94



Table 5.2.1-1: Equipment Sound Power Data Used in the Assessment of Noise

Source ID Source Description Quantity Sound Power Level

per Source (dBA)

PITUPR Haul Truck - In Pit Roadway 67 passes/hour 121 UPR1 Haul Truck - Pit to Crusher 14 passes/hour 121 UPR2 Haul Truck - Pit to Ore 4 passes/hour 121 UPR3 Haul Truck - Pit to NAG 29 passes/hour 121 UPR4 Transport Truck - Access Road 1 passes/hour 114 UPR5 Haul Truck - Pit to TMF Crusher 26 passes/hour 121 LS011 Conveyor material transfer – crusher to

stockpile Continuous 104

LS012 Conveyor material transfer – stockpile to mill Continuous 104 LS013 to LS015 Excavator at the Pit 3 120 LS016 to LS017 Wheel Dozer Pit 2 120

Source ID used for purposes of noise modelling in CadnaA. The number of mine trucks used in the modelling is based on the number of truck trips used to haul ore and mine rock. The sound power levels presented in the table are for individual sources.

In addition to equipment noise sources identified in Table 5.2.1-1, noise sources (SA001 and SA002, SV001 and SV002) associated with indoor noise sources located within various buildings (e.g., processing equipment) were included in the assessment. Therefore, in predicting the noise emissions from these sources (i.e., building components), the construction of the buildings, in terms of Transmission Loss (TL) was included as the noise energy associated with these sources would be radiated into the environment via the building structure. The TL performance of the building components is an acoustical property that controls the amount of noise energy that passes through the building envelope construction. The higher the TL performance is in each octave band, the less noise that will be transmitted into the external environment. Table 5.2.1-2 summarizes the assumed TL performance of the building roof and facades.

Table 5.2.1-2: Building Transmission Loss Performance

Building Component

Octave Band Transmission Loss Performance (dB)

63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz

Wall 6.4 9.8 11 13.4 18.2 23.3 28.5 33.6 Roof 6.4 9.8 11 13.4 18.2 23.3 28.5 33.6



The mitigation measures that are directly related to source noise emissions and were included in the assessment of noise have been summarized in Table 5.2.1-3.

Table 5.2.1-3: Inherent Noise Mitigation

Noise Source Description of Mitigation

Process Plant (Grinding and Ore Concentrator Operations)

Located inside building Indoor noise levels less than 85 dBA

All other Process Equipment (e.g., baghouses, cooling tower, exhaust stacks, exhaust fans, pumps)

Building dimensions, layout and orientation provide shielding for noise sources such as the baghouses

If located indoors, indoor noise levels less than 85 dBA

On-site Equipment On-site vehicles and equipment will be equipped with original noise control measures (e.g., mufflers) and maintained in good working order

Noise emissions from the mining and processing phase of the Project are used as inputs for the noise model, which provided estimates of off-site noise levels due to Project related emissions. In order to allow Golder to estimate the noise emissions related to the Project, key assumptions about the mining and processing phase of the Project were made by the engineering team. The assumptions were developed to evolve the assessment and to document the scenario that produced the worst case emissions for the Project. Only the worst case scenario was carried through the assessment since all other scenarios would result in lower noise emissions.

The following outlines the key assumptions that were made and used for the assessment to establish the worst case scenario:

The noise model reflects a time period that incorporates the most surface and pit equipment, relative to other years.

The pit depth has only considered the removal of overburden (i.e., shallow pit depth).

The ore concentrator maximum ore processing rate of 35,000 t/d was used in the noise assessment.

All wall and roofing systems assumed to meet the TL performance requirement listed in Table 5.2.1-2.

All onsite buildings assumed to have interior noise levels at any location at or below 85 dBA.

By-pass road that travels through the Project property is not part of operations and was not included in the noise assessment.

Processing operations assumed to continuously operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

Not all of these assumptions may be true at any one given time (i.e., shallow pit depths with maximum productions rates); therefore, this scenario is not likely to underestimate the emissions at any stage of the Project.

Noise emissions were established using the Project design details, Golder’s database of similar noise sources, manufacturer’s specifications and publicly available information. The emissions also relied on details regarding the proposed equipment and planned operating modes associated with the Project. Elements incorporated into the Project design, as well as operating practices that could avoid or reduce noise emissions were also considered.



5.2.2 Noise Model Predictions

Using the sound power levels for the sources identified in Table 5.2.1-1, the CadnaA software was used to assess sound pressure levels at the POR locations shown on Figure 3.5.4-1.

Noise prediction results for the Project during the mining and processing phase are summarized in Table 5.2.2-4 and provided on Figure 5.2.2-1. It is understood that Project operation does not vary from daytime to nighttime and therefore predicted noise levels will be the same for both time periods.

Table 5.2.2-4: Summary of Predicted Results for Noise

Point of Reception Overall Sound Pressure Level (dBA)

POR1 33.7 POR2 38.3 POR3 36.6 POR4 36.4 POR5 33.0


S:\Cli

ents\

Argo

naut_

Gold\

Magin

o\99_

PROJ

\1659

317_

EA_U

pdate

\40_P

ROD\

0003

_Nois

e\165

9317

-0003

-RN-

0005

.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

1:35,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTNOISE TSDTITLEPREDICTED NOISE LEVELS MINING AND PROCESSING PHASE

1659317 0003 2 5.2.2-1

2017-01-06SOSO/JRPNAB

CONSULTANT



Goudreau

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

8590

40

65

75

65

80

80

40

45

70

6060

70

40

75

75

40

70

70

70

75

75

40

40

40

45

45

65

65

40

75

85

40

75

85

80

75

45

5060

40

45

6565

65

70

40

70

55

75

40

75

65

40

70

40

40

40

50

65

40

80

70

40

80

60

65

70

40

75

45

40

40

75

40

70

40

4545

55

40

75

45

40

55

40

50

40

40

75

70

70

45

65

75

60

50

40

70

50

40

40

45

65

70

40

65

40

50

75

70

40

POR5

POR4

POR3

POR2

POR1

0 1 2

LEGENDEXISTING ROADRAILWAYPOINT OF RECEPTIONMINE ROADINFRASTRUCTUREPROPERTY BOUNDARY

PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AT 1.5M (dBA)40 - 4545 - 5050 - 5555 - 6060 - 6565 - 7070 - 7575 - 8080 - 8585 - 9090 - 9595 - 100

KILOMETERS


5.2.3 Noise Effects

As described in Section 3.5.5.2, only increases in noise levels of more than 3 dB in the nighttime Leq are carried forward in the assessment. Table 5.2.3-1 provides a comparison of the predicted mining and processing phase noise levels along with the corresponding existing noise levels. This indicates that the noise effects are to be carried forward for all five PORs.

Table 5.2.3-1: Effects for Noise

Point of Reception

Project Related Noise Levels

(dBA)

Existing Nighttime Leq

(dBA)(a)

Predicted Project + Existing Nighttime

Leq (dBA)

Change in Nighttime Leq

(dB) Carried

forward?

POR1 33.7 29.3 35.0 5.7 Yes POR2 38.3 29.3 38.8 9.5 Yes POR3 36.6 29.3 37.3 8.0 Yes POR4 36.4 29.3 37.2 7.9 Yes POR5 33.0 29.3 34.5 5.2 Yes

a) The lowest average nighttime Leq from the monitoring locations has been used.

5.2.3.1 Compliance with Ontario Noise Guidelines

The predicted noise levels associated with the Project will meet the MOECC noise level limit (i.e., 40 dBA) at all identified PORs. Therefore, the Project activities are expected to be in compliance with MOECC guidelines specified in NPC 300 at all identified PORs.

5.3 Mitigation Measures

As discussed in Section 3.5.2 and 5.2.1, in-design mitigation measures considered to be integral to the design and implementation of the Project (i.e., mitigation inherent to the Project design) have been considered in the noise assessment. These inherent mitigation measures are important in Prodigy’s commitment to mitigating adverse effects of the Project and were considered in the identification of Project-environment interactions and predicted likely effects. Therefore, based on the results presented in Table 5.2.2-4, no additional mitigation measures were considered in the assessment of noise as a result of the Project.



5.4 Residual Effects

The identified mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible, as identified in Section 5.2.1, were incorporated as an integral component of the Project design for the purposes of assessing the changes in noise levels attributable to the Project. Residual adverse effects of the Project on noise levels are identified as those when the predicted noise levels resulted in an increase of 3 dB in the existing average nighttime Leq noise levels (Section 3.5.5).

Table 5.4-1 provides a summary of the identified effects of the Project on noise levels, 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 noise levels are assessed in Section 5.5. It should be noted that the identification of a residual adverse effect does not imply that the effect is significant. The assessment of significance requires additional criteria such as magnitude, frequency, geographic extent and duration, to establish the overall level of significance of the effect. Therefore, if an effect is considered to be a residual adverse effect, it is carried forward for an assessment of significance.

Table 5.4-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Noise Levels

Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Adverse Effect?

Increase in nighttime Leq by 5.7 dB at POR1

Considered integral to the Project as presented in Tables 5.2.1-1, 5.2.1-2 and 5.2.1-3

Included in predictions No additional mitigation measures

have been considered

Yes

Increase in nighttime Leq by 9.5 dB at POR2 Yes






5.5 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 (Figure 3.5.6-1). 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 significance of effects in relation to changes in noise levels. These criteria are based on how humans respond to noise and established provincial limits, as described in Section 3.5. Specifically, changes in Project noise levels during nighttime hours that are less than or equal to 3 dB are considered to be negligible. A noticeable change in the nighttime Leq (i.e., greater than 3 dB, but less than or equal to 6 dB change) is classified as having a low magnitude, provided that Project related noise levels do not exceed 40 dBA. Clearly noticeable changes in the Leq during nighttime hours (i.e., greater than 6 dB, but less than or equal to 10 dB) are considered to be of medium magnitude provided that Project related noise levels do not exceed 40 dBA. Disturbing changes in the noise levels during nighttime hours (i.e., greater than 10 dB) or when Project-related noise levels exceed 40 dBA are classified as having a high magnitude. 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 5.5-1 provides a listing of the effects criteria at each POR where a residual adverse effect was predicted during the mining and processing phase on tree illustrated on Figure 3.5.6-1.

Table 5.5-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Noise Levels

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 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant

Therefore, based on the results presented in Table 5.5-1, the identified noise effects have been determined to be “Not Significant.” In addition, it should be noted the predicted noise levels at all PORs, identified in accordance with MOECC accepted practices, are expected to be in compliance with MOECC noise guidelines.



5.6 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects

Calculations at identified human health receptors were passed on to the Human Health Assessment.



6.0 MONITORING AND COMMITMENTS

The potential effects of the Project on noise were identified and assessed in Section 5.0. This section describes the commitments that Prodigy will implement throughout the life of the Project.

6.1 Monitoring

Based on the results presented in Table 5.2.2-4, no follow-up noise monitoring is proposed as the predicted noise levels are below the MOECC noise level limits for rural (Class 3) areas.

6.2 Commitments

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

Table 6.2-1 identifies the commitments made by Prodigy for the noise VEC for the Project.

Table 6.2-1: Noise Commitments

Commitment Section of TSD Project Phase and Timing

All equipment will be kept in good working order. 5.2.1 All Project phases beginning at the onset of the site preparation phase.

Inherent mitigation will be implemented as identified in this TSD.

5.2.1 All Project phases beginning at the onset of the site preparation phase.

Noise source emissions will not exceed the emissions used in the noise modelling.

5.2.1 All Project phases beginning at the onset of the site preparation phase.

Project will maintain compliance with applicable provincial noise guidelines (NPC 300) which could include a requirement to implement a complaint investigation protocol.

5.2.3.1 Immediately at the onset of the mining and processing phase.



7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

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

Increases in noise levels were predicted as a result of the Project. These effects were assessed to be not significant.



Table 7-1: Summary of Likely Effects, Mitigation Measures, Residual Adverse Effects, Significance and Follow-up for Noise


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)

Noise Yes All Yes No Yes Not Significant No



8.0 REFERENCES

Datakustic. 1999. Specification Road Traffic Noise. Calculation with CadnaA.

Drew, Da Silva, and Decock. 2005. Commercial Noise Models – Do They Work? A Case Study. Presented at the Spring Noise Conference, Banff, AB.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1993. International Standard ISO 9613-1 and 9613-2: Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Parts 1 and 2.

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). 2013. Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning. Publication NPC 300.



9.0 ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY

9.1 Acronyms

Acronyms used in the Noise TSD are shown in Table 9-1.

Table 9.1-1: List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

BMP Best Management Practice(s)

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

EA Environmental Assessment

EAA Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

ECA Environmental Compliance Approval

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMP Environmental Management Plan

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LSA Local Study Area

MOECC Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

MRMF Mine Rock Management Facility

NAD North American Datum

NAG Non-acid Generating

PAG Potentially Acid Generating

POR Point(s) of Reception

PSA Project Study Area

RSA Regional Study Area

TL Transmission Loss

TMF Tailings Management Facility

TSD Technical Support Document

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator (coordinate system)

VEC Valued Ecosystem Component



9.2 Units

Units used in the Noise TSD are shown in Table 9-2.

Table 9.2-1: List of Units

Abbreviation Unit

% Percent

cm Centimetres

dB Decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

Hz Hertz

km Kilometres

Mt million tonnes

t Tonnes

t/d tonnes per day

9.3 Glossary

Glossary of terms used in the Noise TSD is shown in Table 9.3-1.

Table 9.3-1: Glossary of Terms

Acronym Definition

Daytime Period from 07:00 to 23:00.

Dubreuilville This is a town, approximately 14.5 km northwest of the Project site by road.

Equivalent Noise Level A logarithmic average (i.e., energy average) of the measured or predicted noise levels over a given period of time (T). An equivalent noise level measured or predicted over the nighttime period would be referred to as Leq, night.

Frequency Rate at which the effect occurs

Geographic Extent Spatial scale of the effect

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.

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



Table 9.3-1: Glossary of Terms

Acronym Definition

Level of Noise Expressed on a logarithmic scale, in units called decibels (dB). Since the scale is logarithmic, a noise that emits twice the noise energy as another will only be three decibels (3 dB) higher.

Nighttime Period from 23:00 to 07:00.

Noise or Noise Levels Refers to the levels that can be heard or measured at a point of reception.

Percentile Noise Level, Designated Ln

The noise level exceeded “n” percent of a specified time period and is measured in dBA. The L90, for instance, is the noise level exceeded 90% of the time. It is a noise level index that commonly refers to the baseline noise level and is most often referenced in a rural setting.

Point of Reception A location where measurements and/or predictions of noise 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.

Receptor Also known as POR. A location where measurements or predictions of noise levels are made

Wawa This is a town, approximately 69.5 km southeast of the Project site by road.


Golder Associates Ltd. 6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100 Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 7K2 Canada T: +1 (905) 567 4,444

1659317 noise technical supporting document · january 2017 . prodigy gold inc. magino gold project...

Documents