argonaut gold – magino gold project – vibration technical ...argonaut is a publicly -traded...

December 2016

ARGONAUT GOLD INC. MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

Vibration Technical Supporting Document

REPO

RT

Report Number: 1659317 (DOC012)

Revision 2

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

VIBRATION TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT MAGINO GOLD PROJECT REV. 2

Document Review Form

REPORT NAME: Vibration Technical Supporting Document

REPORT NUMBER: 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2

DISCIPLINE LEAD: Daniel Corkery

Prepared by: Daniel Corkery Associate / Senior Blasting & Vibration Consultant Golder Associates Ltd.

Component Lead Prepared by: Daniel Corkery Associate / Senior Blasting & Vibration Consultant Golder Associates Ltd.

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

Submitted for Client Review: Sean Capstick Principal Golder Associates Ltd.

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2


Page left intentionally blank

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2


Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.8 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Project Proponent .............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Project Phases .................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 Project Components ........................................................................................................................................ 12

2.6 Spatial Boundaries .......................................................................................................................................... 13

3.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Existing (Baseline) Environment ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Project Phases (Temporal Boundaries) ........................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Study Areas (Spatial Boundaries) .................................................................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Project Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2 Local Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.3 Points of Reception .................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4 Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components, Indicators and Measures ......................................................... 24

3.5 Environmental Effects Assessment ................................................................................................................. 25

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2 i


3.5.1 Project-environment Interactions ............................................................................................................... 25

3.5.2 Predict and Assess Environment Effects ................................................................................................... 25

3.5.3 Residual Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 30

3.5.4 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects .............................................................................. 35

4.0 EXISTING (BASELINE) ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 40

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 42

5.1 Project-environment Interactions ..................................................................................................................... 42

5.2 Prediction of Likely Effects .............................................................................................................................. 42

5.2.1 Blast Design Parameters ........................................................................................................................... 42

5.2.2 Vibration Points of Reception ..................................................................................................................... 43

5.2.3 Air Vibration Model Predictions .................................................................................................................. 44

5.2.4 Ground Vibration Model Predictions .......................................................................................................... 48

5.2.5 Vibration Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 52

5.2.6 Compliance with Ontario Blasting Guidelines ............................................................................................ 53

5.2.7 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects .............................................................................. 53

5.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 61

5.3.1 Mitigation for Ontario Blasting Guideline NPC 119 .................................................................................... 61

5.3.2 Mitigation for DFO - Blasting Guideline ...................................................................................................... 61

5.4 Residual Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 72

5.5 Significance of Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 72

6.0 MONITORING AND COMMITMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 74

6.1 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................ 74

6.2 Commitments .................................................................................................................................................. 75

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 76

8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 80

9.0 ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY....................................................................................................................... 82

9.1 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ 82

9.2 Units ................................................................................................................................................................ 83

9.3 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................... 84

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2 ii


TABLES Table 3.2-1: Phases of the Argonaut Magino Project ........................................................................................................ 14

Table 3.3.4-1: Location of the Identified(a) Points of Reception ............................................................................................ 20

Table 3.4-1: Vibration Valued Ecosystem Component, Indicators and Measures ............................................................. 24

Table 3.5.2-1: Thresholds for Determining Effects to be Carried Forward ........................................................................... 30

Table 3.5.3-1: Effects Criteria and Levels for Determining Significance ............................................................................... 32

Table 3.5.3-2: Effects Magnitude Levels Rationale .............................................................................................................. 33

Table 3.5.4-1: Typical Values for Substrate Density and Compression Wave Velocity(a) ..................................................... 37

Table 3.5.4-2: Properties Used to Assess Setback Distance for Instantaneous Overpressure(a) ......................................... 38

Table 5.2.1-1: Blast Design Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 42

Table 5.2.2-1: Description of Sensitive Points of Reception (POR) and Distance to Proposed Pit ...................................... 43

Table 5.2.3-1: Estimated Peak Air Vibration Levels at Points of Reception (POR) .............................................................. 45

Table 5.2.4-1: Estimated Peak Ground Vibration Levels at Points of Reception (POR) ....................................................... 49

Table 5.2.5-1: Adverse Effects for Air Vibration ................................................................................................................... 52

Table 5.2.5-2: Adverse Effects for Ground Vibration ............................................................................................................ 52

Table 5.2.7-1: Estimated Peak Particle Velocity at the Goudreau Lake Shoreline ............................................................... 53

Table 5.2.7-2: Estimated Instantaneous Underwater Overpressure at Goudreau Lake Shoreline ....................................... 57

Table 5.3.2-1: Alternative Blast Designs with Corresponding Standoff Distances................................................................ 62

Table 5.4-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Air and Ground Vibration Levels .................................................................... 72

Table 5.5-1: Summary of Predicted Air Vibration Effects Criteria during the Mining and Processing Phase ..................... 73

Table 5.5-2: Summary of Predicted Ground Vibration Effects Criteria during the Mining and Processing Phase ............. 73

Table 6.1-1: Vibration Monitoring During Operations Phase ............................................................................................. 74

Table 6.2-1 Vibration Commitments ................................................................................................................................. 75

Table 7-1: Summary of Likely Effects, Mitigation Measures, Residual Adverse Effects, Significance and Follow-up .... 78

Table 9.1-1: List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 82

Table 9.2-1: List of Units ................................................................................................................................................... 83

Table 9.3-1: Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................................... 84

FIGURES Figure 2-1: Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 3.3.1-1: Study Areas .................................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 3.3.4-1: Points of Reception ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3.5.2-1: Components of a Typical Blast Design ......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.5.2-2: Proposed Air Vibration Attenuation Model Showing Ontario Blasting Guidelines Limit ................................. 28

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2 iii


Figure 3.5.2-3: Proposed Ground Vibration Attenuation Model Showing the Ontario Blasting Guidelines Limit ................... 29

Figure 3.5.3-1: Decision Process for Assigning Significance to Vibration Effects.................................................................. 34

Figure 3.5.4-1: Ground Vibration Attenuation Model Showing the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Limit .................... 36

Figure 5.2.3-1: Estimated Maximum Air Vibration for the Proposed Blast Design at a Range of Distances .......................... 44

Figure 5.2.3-2: Contoured Estimates of Air Vibration Amplitudes .......................................................................................... 46

Figure 5.2.4-1: Estimated Maximum Ground Vibration for the Proposed Blast Design at a Range of Distances .................. 48

Figure 5.2.4-2: Contoured Estimates of Ground Vibration Amplitudes .................................................................................. 50

Figure 5.2.7-1: Ground Vibration Showing Goudreau Lake Area Estimated to Exceed Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 5.2.7-2: Charge Weight versus Setback Distance for Ground Vibrations ................................................................... 56

Figure 5.2.7-3: Water Overpressure Showing Goudreau Lake Area Estimated to Exceed Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 58

Figure 5.2.7-4: Charge Weight versus Setback Distance for Instantaneous Water Overpressure ........................................ 60

Figure 5.3.2-1: Estimated 13 mm/s Contours for Proposed Alternate Blast Designs ............................................................ 64

Figure 5.3.2-2: Estimated 100 kPa Contours for Proposed Alternate Blast Designs ............................................................. 66

Figure 5.3.2-3: Blast Areas of Pit Suggested for Alternate Designs to Meet Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Ground Vibration Limits ................................................................................................................................. 68

Figure 5.3.2-4: Blast Areas of Pit Suggested for Alternate Designs to Meet Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Water Overpressure Limits ........................................................................................................................... 70

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2 iv


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Proponent

The Project proponent is Prodigy Gold Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Argonaut Gold Inc. (Argonaut). 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.

December 2016 Report No. 1659317 (DOC012) Revision 2 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 120 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

Argonaut proposes to develop 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. Argonaut has submitted notification of intent to enter a stage of redevelopment to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM).

This Vibration 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 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, assess the potential vibrations effects from the Project and determine their significance, 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. Another purpose of this TSD is to provide a description of methods used for establishing existing conditions, data reporting and overall context setting, and provide the details of the impact assessment methods, assessment results, and conclusions.

The allowable air and ground vibrations produced at residential areas and quiet zones near to mines and quarries are subject to guidelines contained in Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) publication Noise Pollution Control (NPC) 119 “Blasting” of the Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, dated August 1978. In addition the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) provides guidelines for the maximum allowable predicted vibration levels at aquatic receptors (e.g., spawning beds).

The general approach used for assessing vibrations from the Project supports the philosophy of the EA as a planning and decision-making process and conforms to the general methodology presented in the approved EIS guidelines (CEAA document). The vibrations study characterized and assessed the potential air and ground vibrations from the proposed undertaking in a thorough, traceable, step-wise manner.

The general approach is outlined as follows:

Describe the temporal and spatial boundaries within which vibrations from the Project will be evaluated.

Identify parameters used to characterize vibrations associated with the Project.

Characterize the existing environment and identify sensitive locations for vibrations.

Evaluation of vibration levels due to the Project including the following:

estimate the vibration levels at sensitive Point(s) of Reception (POR(s)) associated with blasting;

conduct a significance analysis on the predicted vibration levels at sensitive POR(s); and

compare the predicted vibration levels at aquatic locations with DFO guidelines in order to develop an adaptive management plan for blasting during the Operations Phase of the Project.

Prepare monitoring and mitigation strategies that reflect the nature of the Project, the area where the Project is situated and the predicted change in vibrations due to the Project.



1.8 Report Organization

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

Describe the Project: The Project description has been summarized in Section 2.3 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.

Describe the Existing (Baseline) Environment: As there are currently no blasting activities at the Project location, no field investigations were carried out to characterize the existing vibration conditions (see Section 4.0). Instead, general site attenuation models, used to predict vibrational impacts of open pit mining projects when there is a lack of baseline data, were used in the analysis.

Identify Temporal and Spatial Boundaries: The temporal boundaries (i.e., Project phases) of the vibration assessment are defined by the Project phases; site preparation, construction, mining and processing, closure and reclamation. Spatial boundaries define the geographical extents within which potential environmental effects may occur. These are identified in general terms in Section 2.6 and more specifically for vibrations in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

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 VEC, identified is vibrations, as defined and described in detail in Section 3.4.

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 (i.e., MOECC) and federal limits (i.e., DFO) for vibrations. Both air and ground vibration effects from mining operations in Ontario are subject to guidelines contained in NPC 119 of the Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, dated August, 1978, published by the MOECC. The MOECC guidelines are described in Section 3.4.

Environmental Effects Assessment: A general description of the environmental effects is provided in Section 3.5. The following is the 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 site preparation, 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: The DFO restricts any ground vibrations near any active spawning beds and instantaneous underwater overpressure at the nearest fisheries habitat. The modelling and results are described in Section 5.2.7.

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 Sections 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 6.2.3 of the EIS Guidelines and are further described in the following sections. The assessment of Cumulative Effects is considered in the main EIS/EA Report.



This page left intentionally blank



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 Argonaut Gold Inc. 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.

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 Operation (Barrick Gold Corp.) is 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 20-year period.



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

Closure of existing mine facilities;

Topsoil and overburden stripping and stockpiling;

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

Construction of:

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

Plant area components,

Chemical, fuel and hazardous materials management facilities.

Mining waste management area components (i.e., Waste 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 waste 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 Waste Rock Management Facility (WRMF);

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 100 to 150 Mt of ore and approximately 400 to 430 Mt of waste rock and low grade ore from the open pit. Project facility components include:

Open Pit;

A primary ore crusher;

A conveyor;

A crushed rock stockpile;

A process plant to extract the gold;

A low-grade ore stockpile;

A WRMF;

A TMF;

Explosives magazines;

Camp accommodation;

Administration offices;

Laboratory facilities;

Non-mining waste facilities;

Maintenance and constructing facilities; and

Warehouses.

The components of infrastructure development will include:

Relocating an existing local public road;

Routing power line;

Internal haul and access roads;

A power line and substation;

Step-down transformers;

Water supply; and

Sewage treatment systems.



2.6 Spatial Boundaries

Spatial boundaries define the geographical extents within which potential environmental effects may occur. As such, the spatial boundaries become the TSD study areas, including a Project Study Area (PSA), a Local Study Area (LSA) and a Regional Study Area (RSA). The study areas selected specifically for the vibration environmental effects assessment are described in Section 3.3.



3.0 METHODS

The following sections identify the approach used to assess the Project in terms of vibration.

3.1 Existing (Baseline) Environment

For the purposes of characterizing the existing conditions, the existing vibration levels (i.e., air and ground) are assumed to be unaffected by human activity. Operations and ongoing exploration activity at the nearby Island Gold Mine (operated by Richmont Mines Inc.) located approximately 1.5 km east of the Magino property are largely underground drilling operations but may require blasting on occasion. Since no blasting activities are currently occurring at the Project Site, no field investigations were carried out to characterize the existing vibration conditions.

3.2 Project Phases (Temporal Boundaries)

The temporal boundaries for the EA establish the timeframes for which the direct, indirect and cumulative effects are assessed. Project phases 2 through 5, as outlined in Section 2.3, and their relation to the vibration assessment, are summarized in Table 3.2-1.

Table 3.2-1: Phases of the Argonaut Magino Project

Phase Description Duration Included in Vibration Assessment?

Site Preparation The completion of closure of the existing mine facilities will be addressed during this phase.

~ 3 years No – blasting will not occur during this phase. Therefore, emissions are bounded by the mining and processing phase.

Construction Early construction activity of facilities or infrastructure needed to support the construction phase of the Project, including site preparation; also includes pre-development of the mining facility, such as stripping of overburden from the first open pit. Construction of the mine infrastructure and facilities leading to the first production of gold. Minor small-scale bedrock blasting may be required for materials, such as crushed rock.

No – this phase may involve blasting but much less active. Therefore, emissions are bounded by the mining and processing phase and are not assessed.



Table 3.2-1: Phases of the Argonaut Magino Project

Phase Description Duration Included in Vibration Assessment?

Mining and Processing

The ongoing operation of the mine and associated facilities to produce gold through to the end of the mine life. Mining will be carried out using conventional drilling and blasting techniques for approximately 10 years. Processing of stockpiled ore will continue during the last two years of the approximately 12-year operating period.

~ 12 years Yes – during the mining operation, which occurs for the first 10 years. Therefore, emissions are bounded by the mining and processing phase, when blasting is active. During the last 2 years of processing (i.e., post-mining) it is expected there would be little blasting on-site.

Closure and Reclamation

The post-operations period when gold is no longer being produced and the mine and associated infrastructure are being decommissioned, demolished, removed and reclamation is underway to return the site to a physically and chemically stable condition.

~ 3 years No – blasting will not occur during this phase. Therefore, emissions are bounded by the mining and processing phase and are not assessed.

These timeframes are intended to be sufficiently flexible to capture the effects of the Project. The vibration assessment focuses on the mining and processing phase of the Project (i.e., pit excavation) as blasting activities are not expected to occur during the site preparation, construction, and closure and reclamation phases of the Project.

3.3 Study Areas (Spatial Boundaries)

Spatial boundaries define the geographical extents within which environmental effects are considered. Therefore, these boundaries become the study areas adopted for the EA.

The Project EIS Guidelines require the study areas encompass the environment as can reasonably be expected to be affected by the Project, or relevant to the assessment of cumulative effects. Specific study areas are defined by boundaries to encompass all relevant components of the environment including the people, land, water, air and other aspects of the natural environment.

Three study areas were selected for the assessment of the vibration environment: the PSA, the LSA, and RSA.



3.3.1 Project Study Area

The PSA (Figure 3.3.1-1) 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), Waste Rock Management Facility (WRMF) and all supporting and/or ancillary facilities (e.g., service and support buildings).

3.3.2 Local Study Area

The LSA (Figure 3.3.1-1) generally corresponds to the area in the immediate vicinity of the Project where air and ground vibrations can be predicted or measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The LSA is a subset of the RSA and is enclosed within the RSA and is subject to a more focussed assessment of the effects associated with the Project. The LSA covers an area approximately 15 by 15 km. Regional Study Area

The RSA (Figure 3.3.1-1) encompasses the modelling domain used in the assessment, it is not expected that the effects of the Project would be measurable beyond the RSA.


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-

0002

.mxd

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

1:85,000


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

PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLESTUDY AREAS

1659317 0007 2 3.3.1-1

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?

POR8POR7

POR2

POR11

POR1

POR3

POR4

POR9

POR6

POR5

POR10

Manitowik Lake

0 2.5 5

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODY

!? POINT OF RECEPTIONMINE ROADPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINESTOCKPILE AREACRUSHER LOW GRADE ORE STOCKPILETAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYMINE ROCK MANAGEMENT FACILITYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROJECT STUDY AREALOCAL STUDY AREA

KILOMETERS


3.3.3 Points of Reception

Although the assessment of vibration has been done in the context of the study areas, the prediction of effects are done at specific locations, called Point(s) of Reception (POR(s)). Eight identified sensitive PORs located in the LSA were identified by Argonaut and are therefore considered in the vibration assessment. The description and coordinates of each POR are summarized in Table 3.3.4-1 and illustrated on Figure 3.3.4-1.

Table 3.3.4-1: Location of the Identified(a) Points of Reception

POR ID Location Easting (m)

Northing (m)

POR1 Goudreau community 683,601 5,348,128 POR2 Historic Goudreau Cemetery 685,071 5,348,873 POR3 Herman Lake cottage 683,855 5,351,940 POR4 Herman Lake cottage (on island) 683,522 5,352,712 POR5 Trapper Cabin B 684,837 5,355,701 POR6 Dubreuilville 689982 5,351,634 POR9 Administrative building on Richmont mine 690,345 5,353,709 POR10 Administrative building on Richmont mine 690,106 5,351,114

Other locations were identified in the vicinity of the PSA. They were not included in the vibration assessment, as Argonaut has made the commitment to remove these locations as PORs prior to the commencement of site preparation and construction operations.

In addition, Goudreau Lake was selected as the potential location for the DFO assessment.


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

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

1:40,000


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 PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEPOINTS OF RECEPTION

1659317 0007 2 3.3.4-1

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

POR8POR7

POR3

POR4

POR9

POR2

POR11

POR10

POR1

POR6

POR5

0 1 2

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADRAILWAYWATERCOURSEWATERBODY

!? POINT OF RECEPTIONMINE ROADPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINESTOCKPILE AREACRUSHER LOW GRADE ORE STOCKPILEMINE ROCK MANAGEMENT FACILITYPROPERTY BOUNDARY

KILOMETERS

MINE ROCKMANAGEMENT

FACILITY(MRMF)

MAIN PIT

CRUSHERLOW GRADEORE STOCKPILE

TAILINGS MANGEMENTFACILITY (TMF)

PROCESSINGFACILITY

NORTHWESTFILL AREA

OVERBURDENAND SOIL

STOCKPILE

SOUTHWESTFILL AREAOVERBURDENAND SOILSTOCKPILE

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL


3.4 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).

The VEC of vibration was identified and used in assessing the effects of the Project on air vibrations, ground vibrations. Based on the experience of the Project Team, the VEC is susceptible to effects within the spatial context of the Project.

Vibration was selected as a VEC as there is a potential for the Project activities to affect the existing vibration levels. In addition, vibration was specifically identified in the EIS Guidelines, and moreover is regulated in the Province of Ontario. The allowable air and ground vibrations produced at PORs are subject to guidelines contained in MOECC publication NPC 119 “Blasting” of the Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, dated August 1978. At operations where the vibrations are routinely monitored, the NPC 119 provides the following limits:

Maximum air vibration, as Peak Air Pressure Level (PAPL), is 128 dBL; and

Maximum ground vibration, as Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), is 12.5 mm/s.

As part of the EA process, indicators and measures were identified, quantified and assessed for each VEC to determine the predicted effects to the VEC. The effects of the Project on vibration are to be evaluated using PAPL and PPV. The rationale, indicators and measures used for assessing the effect on the vibration, are set out in Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1: Vibration Valued Ecosystem Component, Indicators and Measures Valued

Ecosystem Component

Rationale for Selection Indicator Measure

Vibration Air vibration is selected as a VEC since it was identified as being important to regulators and stakeholders. In addition, Project blasting activities have the potential to cause vibration.

The effect of blasting on air vibration will be evaluated using PAPL in dBL.

Project-related air vibration levels.

Ground vibration is selected as a VEC since it was identified as being important to regulators and stakeholders. In addition, Project blasting activities have the potential to cause vibration.

The effect of blasting on ground vibration will be evaluated using PPV in mm/s.

Project-related ground vibration levels.



3.5 Environmental Effects Assessment

The environmental effects assessment predicts and describes the likely environmental effects, mitigation measures, and residual adverse effects on vibration that could reasonably be expected as a result of the Project.

3.5.1 Project-environment Interactions

The assessment of vibration effects involved using models to predict vibration levels at various PORs within the LSA. In assessing the potential vibration 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. The greatest level of blasting activities for the Project will occur during the mining and processing phase. However, no blasting will take place during years 11 and 12 of the processing phase. Therefore, the first ten years of the mining and processing phase represent the bounding case for vibration effects due to the Project.

3.5.2 Predict and Assess Environment Effects

The rate at which air and ground vibrations attenuate from a source is site-specific. Predictive modelling to determine the attenuation characteristics of air and ground vibration levels from blasting operations at individual PORs would typically involve monitoring a number of site blasts at specific locations. As there have been no blasting operations to date at the Project, predictive modelling of both air and ground vibrations from the proposed blasting operations was carried out using assumed open pit blasting parameters described in Section 5.2.1 and generalized attenuation equations available in the published literature. In order to provide a conservative estimate of the potential vibration effects, the assessment was based on a worst case scenario, assuming maximum explosive weights per delay period and minimum distances between the blast source and PORs.

3.5.2.1 Blast Design Parameters During the mining and processing phase, the proposed open pit will be excavated in multiple 10 m benches. Figure 3.5.2-1 illustrates the components of a typical blasthole design and layout.



Figure 3.5.2-1: Components of a Typical Blast Design



3.5.2.2 Air Vibration Modelling Blasting for the open pit mining operations will result in air vibrations. This section describes the attenuation (i.e., reduction in intensity) of air vibrations from blasting.

Air vibrations attenuate from a blast site at a slower rate than ground vibrations. The distribution of air vibration energy from a blast is strongly influenced by the prevailing weather conditions during the blast. For example, wind can increase downwind levels by 10 to 15 dBL above what would otherwise be measured (Dowding 1985). Low cloud ceilings and temperature inversions also contribute to air vibrations propagating further than would typically be the case. Other factors influencing air vibration distribution from a blast include the local topography and vegetation, length of collar and type of stemming material, differences in explosive types and variations in burden distance.

The rate air vibrations decay or attenuate from a blast site can be expressed by the Scaled Distance, which is defined as:

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷) = �𝐷𝐷√𝑊𝑊3 �

where D is the distance (m) between the blast and POR

W maximum weight of explosive (kg) detonated per delay period.

Depending on the degree of confinement of the explosive, predicted maximum air vibrations would fall within the bounds of the following two equations (ISEE, 1998):

𝑃𝑃 = 20 log10(2.522 ∗ 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷)−1.1 + 170.75 (based on an average burial of explosives)

𝑃𝑃 = 20 log10(0.252 ∗ 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷)−1.1 + 170.75 (based on explosive burial designed for air vibration suppression)

where P = Peak Air Pressure (dBL)

SD = Scaled Distance (m/kg0.33).

The location of the Project falls within a heavily wooded area with many objects that may reduce the overpressure. Typically, a 5 dBL reduction in noise can be expected for a noise barrier (from dense vegetation) that breaks the line of sight of the emission source (Hustrulid 1999). The dense vegetation will act as suppressor and was taken into account when determining the overpressure expected at the various POR.

The described model is plotted on Figure 3.5.2-2, along with the 5 dBL supressed model, which takes into account the 5 dBL reductions.



Figure 3.5.2-2: Proposed Air Vibration Attenuation Model Showing Ontario Blasting Guidelines Limit

3.5.2.3 Ground Vibration Modelling Blasting during the Project will also result in ground vibrations. This section describes the attenuation of ground vibrations from blasting.

The rate ground vibrations attenuate from a blast site is dependent on a number of variables. These include the characteristics of the blast (delay timing, type of explosive, etc.), topography of the site, as well as the characteristics of the bedrock and/or soil materials. In the absence of ground vibration monitoring data from the Project, predicting the magnitude of blast vibrations from the surface quarries at the neighbouring properties was carried out using published attenuation characteristics (ISEE 1998). The intensity of ground vibrations from blasting operations is primarily a function of the maximum explosive weight detonated per delay period, and the distance between the blast and the POR. The rate ground vibrations decay or attenuate from a blast site can be expressed by the Scaled Distance, which is defined as:

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷) = �𝐷𝐷√𝑊𝑊

�

where D = the distance (m) between the blast and POR

W = the maximum weight of explosive (kg) detonated per delay period

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

1 10 100 1000

Airb

last

Ove

rpre

ssur

e (d

BL)

SD (m/kg1/3)

Average Burial

Average Burial Suppressed by Vegetation

Overpressure Limit (128 dBL)



Prediction of maximum ground vibrations can be calculated based on the following model according to the Australian Standards for Open Pit mining when blasting towards a free face in average conditions (Scott 1996), which is an applicable model given the lack of vibration data:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 1140(𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷)−1.60

where PPV = Peak Particle Velocity (mm/sec)

SD = Scaled Distance (m/kg1/2) as defined above

The model is plotted on Figure 3.5.2-3.

Figure 3.5.2-3: Proposed Ground Vibration Attenuation Model Showing the Ontario Blasting Guidelines Limit



3.5.2.4 Vibration Effects For air vibration levels, determining if an effect is to be carried forward (i.e., non-negligible) was based on whether the predicted air vibration levels were perceptible to humans. Therefore, the effect was carried forward if the predicted air vibration level was greater than 90 dBL, as shown in Table 3.5.2-1. Similarly for ground vibration levels, determining if an effect is to be carried forward was based on whether the predicted ground vibration levels were perceptible to humans. Therefore, the effect was carried forward if the predicted ground vibration level was greater than 0.3 mm/s as shown in Table 3.5.2-1. If a predicted air or ground vibration level was lower than the level perceptible to humans it was considered negligible.

Table 3.5.2-1: Thresholds for Determining Effects to be Carried Forward

Indicator Negligible Carried Forward as a Residual Adverse Effect

Peak Air Pressure Level (PAPL) ≤ 90 dBL >90 dBL Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) ≤ 0.3 mm/s >0.3 mm/s

3.5.2.5 Compliance with Ontario Blasting Guidelines The allowable air and ground vibrations produced at PORs near to mines and quarries are subject to guidelines contained in MOECC publication NPC 119 “Blasting” of the Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, dated August 1978.

Where ground vibration monitoring is not routinely carried out, the vibration limits at the nearest sensitive receptor to the mine property will be:

Peak Air Pressure Level for air vibrations – 120 dBL; and

PPV for ground vibrations – 10.0 mm/s.

Under conditions where monitoring of the blasting operations will be routinely carried out, as they are expected to be at the Project, the vibration limits at the nearest sensitive receptor to the mine property will be:

Peak Air Pressure Level for air vibrations – 128 dBL; and

PPV for ground vibrations – 12.5 mm/s.

3.5.3 Residual Effects Analysis

Any identified effects on VECs are advanced for consideration of the need for possible mitigation measures. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), mitigation is defined as the measures for the elimination, reduction or control of adverse environmental effects of a project, and includes compensation for any damage to the environment caused by those effects. Once the implementation of mitigation measures has been taken into account, the likely effects are re-evaluated to identify any residual adverse effects. This analysis will only be completed for the air and ground vibrations at the eleven PORs.



3.5.3.1 Environmental Effects Assessment Criteria The anticipated residual adverse effects of the Project on vibration 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 the effect occurs;

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

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

The significance assessment contains sufficient information to allow readers to understand and evaluate the reasoning behind the significance conclusions. The criteria used for evaluating and describing the significance of effects are shown in Table 3.5.3-1.

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



Table 3.5.3-1: Effects Criteria and Levels for Determining Significance

Effects Criteria(a) Definition Effects Level Definition

Low Medium High

Magnitude(b)(c) – Air vibration

Size or degree of the effect

Project-related air vibration levels >90 dBL and ≤ 120 dBL

Project-related air vibration levels >120 dBL and ≤ 128 dBL

Project-related air vibration levels >128 dBL

Magnitude(b)(c) – Ground vibration

Size or degree of the effect

Project-related ground vibration levels >0.3 mm/s and ≤ 0.5 mm/s

Project-related ground vibration levels >0.5 mm/s and ≤ 12.5 mm/s

Project-related ground vibration levels >12.5 mm/s

Geographic Extent(b)

Spatial scale of the effect

Effect is within the PSA

Effect extends into the LSA

Effect extends beyond the LSA

Duration(d) Temporal scale of the cause 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 conditions or phenomena causing the effect occurs

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

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

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect 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 Resilience of the VEC to the potential effects of the Project

Not applicable to Vibrations

Social Context Value to people Not applicable to Vibrations a) The assumptions and limits of the effects criteria will be described as part of the environmental 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.



The criteria used to evaluate magnitude are specific to each of the VECs under consideration. Vibration amplitudes are measured against the magnitude criteria identified in Table 3.5.3-2. The rationale for the development of these criteria is summarized in Table 3.5.3-2.

Table 3.5.3-2: Effects Magnitude Levels Rationale

VEC Effects Level Rationale

Low Medium High

Vibration

Air pressure changes may be perceptible to humans.

Air pressure changes are perceptible to humans but do not result in damage to structures.

Exceeds the air vibration limit specified in NPC 119.

Vibration levels become perceptible to humans.

Perceptible vibration to humans and may be annoying, but are below levels that would cause damage to structures.

Exceeds the ground vibration limit specified in NPC 119.

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 vibration is shown on Figure 3.5.3-1. Using the decision tree model, the residual adverse effects can be determined to be one of the following:

not significant; or

significant.



Figure 3.5.3-1: Decision Process for Assigning Significance to Vibration Effects



3.5.3.2 Determination of Significance Once the effects associated with the Project were evaluated using the assessment criteria introduced in Section 3.5.3, and set out in Table 3.5.3-1, they were combined to assign an overall significance. The overall significance was assigned by applying a decision hierarchy, which reflected the nature of the vibration effects and their likely impacts on the human environment. To focus the decision process for the impact of vibrations, ratings were given to the following effects criteria:

Vibration effects associated with the Project were determined to be immediately reversible according to the assessment criteria described in Table 3.5.3-1. Therefore, irreversibility was not considered when assigning significance.

Vibration effects were considered to have a “High” frequency according to the assessment criteria described in Table 3.5.3-1.

The duration of the vibration effects were determined to be medium-term, according to the assessment criteria described in Table 3.5.3-1.

Figure 3.5.3-1 shows the decision process for assigning significance for vibration effects.

3.5.4 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects

In addition to assessing the effects of the Project on vibration, this TSD documents predictions to be used for assessing the effects of vibration amplitude on aspects of the receiving environment (e.g., Aquatic Environment).

3.5.4.1 Compliance with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Guidelines DFO has established a set of guidelines for the use of explosives in or near Canadian fisheries waters (Wright and Hopky 1998). The DFO guidelines set out that: “No explosive may be used that produces or is likely to produce, a PPV greater than 13 mm/s in a spawning bed during egg incubation.”

Under conditions where these guidelines cannot be met, the proponent is required to prepare a mitigation plan outlining additional procedures for protecting fish and their habitat. It is worth noting this guideline limit only applies during spawning season and only at spawning beds. The DFO guidelines also set out an underwater overpressure limit of 100 kPa at fish habitat. The underwater overpressure limit only tends to become a measurable indicator when blasting or explosives are used within the water body itself. No blasting is planned to occur in any body of water during operations of the Project.

Based on information provided by Argonaut on the location(s) of the closest spawning beds or actual local fisheries and proposed blasting operations, it has been assumed the Goudreau Lake shoreline will represent the only location for both spawning beds and fisheries habitats.



3.5.4.2 Ground Vibration Modelling – Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Predicting ground vibrations related to DFO regulations for spawning beds is calculated using the same attenuation model and methodology as regular ground vibrations. Figure 3.5.4-1 illustrates the same attenuation model instead using the DFO vibration limit of 13 mm/s.

Figure 3.5.4-1: Ground Vibration Attenuation Model Showing the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Limit

1

10

100

1 10 100

Peak

Par

ticle

Vel

ocity

(mm

/s)

Scaled Distance (m/kg0.5)

Estimated PPV (DFO)

DFO Limit (13 mm/s)

DFO Estimated AttenuationPPV = 1140*SD-1.60



3.5.4.3 Predicting Instantaneous Water Pressure The underwater overpressure limit only tends to become a measurable indicator when blasting or explosives are used within the water body itself. No blasting is planned to occur in Goudreau Lake. However, the methodology to estimate the required setback distance for confined explosives to achieve the 100 kPa guidelines provided by Wright and Hopky (1998) is reviewed below.

The relationship between acoustic impedance and the density and velocity of the medium through which the compression wave travels is given by:

𝑍𝑍𝑤𝑤𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟

=𝐷𝐷𝑤𝑤 × 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 × 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟

where: Dw = density of water = 1 g/cm3;

Dr = density of the substrate, g/cm3;

Cw = compression wave velocity in water = 146,300 cm/s;

Cr = compression wave velocity in substrate, cm/s;

Zw = acoustic impedance of water; and

Zr = acoustic impedance of substrate.

Typical values used for Dr and Cr for various substrates are shown in Table 3.5.4-1.

Table 3.5.4-1: Typical Values for Substrate Density and Compression Wave Velocity(a)

Substrate Dr (g/cm3) Cr (cm/s)

Rock 2.64 457,200 Frozen Soil 1.92 304,800 Ice 0.98 304,800 Saturated Soil 2.08 146,300 Unsaturated Soil 1.92 45,700

a) Wright and Hopky (1998).

The transfer of shock pressure from the substrate to the water can be estimated from:

𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤 =�2 × �𝑍𝑍𝑤𝑤 𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟� � × 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟�

�1 + �𝑍𝑍𝑤𝑤 𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟� ��

where: Pw = pressure (kPa) in water;

Pr = pressure (kPa) in substrate;

Zw = acoustic impedance of water; and

Zr = acoustic impedance of substrate.



The equation can be re-written to solve for the pressure in the substrate (Pr), as:

𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟 =𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤 × �1 + �𝑍𝑍𝑤𝑤 𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟� ��

�2 × �𝑍𝑍𝑤𝑤 𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟� ��

The equation is solved by setting the value of Pw to the 100 kPa guideline to determine the pressure in the substrate, Pr, which is required to produce this detonation overpressure in the water. The resulting value for Pr is used to determine the PPV (cm/s) in the rock for the given conditions based on the following:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =2 × 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟

(𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 × 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟)

The relationship between PPV, charge weight, and distance is given by:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝐾𝐾 �𝑅𝑅√𝑊𝑊

�−𝑒𝑒

where R = the distance (m) between the blast and nearest fishery;

W = the maximum weight of explosive (kg) detonated per delay period; and

K & e = site-specific constants (1140 and 1.6 respectively).

Equating the two equations for PPV, and solving for distance, R, for a given charge weight, W, gives the minimum setback distance from fish habitat required so as not to exceed the 100 kPa overpressure guideline. The properties shown in Table 3.5.4-2 are used in the later analysis to predict the minimum setback distance.

Table 3.5.4-2: Properties Used to Assess Setback Distance for Instantaneous Overpressure(a)

Medium Density (g/cm3)

Compressional Wave Velocity (cm/s)

Water 1.0 146,300(a) Rock 2.75 457,200(a)

a) Wright and Hopky (1998).



4.0 EXISTING (BASELINE) ENVIRONMENT

For the purposes of characterizing the existing (i.e., baseline) conditions, the existing vibration levels (i.e., air and ground) in the LSA are assumed to be unaffected by human activity. Since no blasting activities are currently occurring at the Project, no baseline study was carried out.



5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This section identifies the Project-environment interactions associated with the Project and blast-induced vibrations. If an adverse effect was identified, mitigation (or impact management) measures were proposed and the effort re-evaluated to confirm if a residual adverse effect remains. Any residual adverse effects were then assessed for significance.

5.1 Project-environment Interactions

The assessment of vibration effects involved using models to predict vibration levels at various PORs within the study areas. In assessing the potential vibration 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. The greatest level of blasting activities for the Project will occur during the mining and processing phase. Therefore, the mining and processing phase represents the bounding case for vibration effects due to the Project.

5.2 Prediction of Likely Effects

5.2.1 Blast Design Parameters

Based on information from Argonaut, Golder developed blast design parameters using published literature, industry “rules of thumb” and our experience on similar sites. The blast design parameters considered for the open pit and used in the prediction of the likely effects are summarized in Table 5.2.1-1.

Table 5.2.1-1: Blast Design Parameters Parameter Values

Hole Diameter (mm) 311 Bench Height (m) 10.0 Hole Inclination (o) 90 Sub-drill (m) 2.5 Hole Depth (m) 12.5 Stemming Height (m) 6.0 Stemming Material Crushed Stone Rock Density (g/cc) 2.7 Explosive Column (m) 6.5

Explosive Type Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO)(a) Emulsion - ANFO Blend(b)

Explosive Density (g/cc) ANFO 0.86 Emulsion 1.20

Explosive Mass (kg/hole) ANFO 424 Emulsion 592

Holes/Delay 1



Table 5.2.1-1: Blast Design Parameters Parameter Values

Maximum Explosive Weight/Delay (kg) 424 a) – 592 b) Burden (m) 8.0 Spacing (m) 10.0 Pattern Type Equilateral Powder Factor (kg/m3) 0.53 a) – 0.74 b) Powder Factor (kg/tonne) 0.20 a) – 0.27 b) Detonator Type Non-Electric

a) ANFO to be used in dry holes. b) Emulsion to be used in wet areas.

The proposed blasting will utilize non-electric detonators for directing rock movement, optimizing rock fragmentation and controlling vibration effects.

5.2.2 Vibration Points of Reception

The eleven identified PORs were initially discussed in Section 3.3.4 and are displayed on Figure 3.3.4-1. All of the identified sensitive PORs were considered in the vibration assessment and are subject to the NPC 119 guidelines. Table 5.2.2-1 provides a summary description of the identified sensitive PORs.

Table 5.2.2-1: Description of Sensitive Points of Reception (POR) and Distance to Proposed Pit POR Description Approximate

Distance (m) ID Name Type

POR1 Goudreau community Community 5,200 POR2 Historic Goudreau Cemetery Cemetery 3,540 POR3 Herman Lake Cottage 4,350 POR4 Herman Lake Cottage 4,930 POR5 Trapper Cabin B Cabin 5,700 POR6 Dubreuilville Village 9,300 POR9 Administrative building on Richmont mine Office Building 1,070

POR10 Administrative building on Richmont mine Office Building 2,200



5.2.3 Air Vibration Model Predictions

The prediction of peak air pressure levels is carried out at differing distances from a blast based on an expected maximum explosive weight per delay period. The air vibration levels from the Project are expected to be below the limits for blasts with an average burial of explosives. Figure 5.2.3-1 shows the estimated air vibration amplitudes for the proposed design at a range of distances from the blast. For simplicity and conservative estimates, the explosive charge weight for wet holes was considered. The suggested minimum standoff distance from blast to the POR is 172 m. Negligible effects are expected at distances beyond 9,200 m.

Figure 5.2.3-1: Estimated Maximum Air Vibration for the Proposed Blast Design at a Range of Distances

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

Ove

rpre

ssur

e (d

BL)

Distance from Blast to Monitor (m)

Estimated Airblast Overpressure for Wet Holes

Estimated Airblast Overpressure for Dry Holes

Overpressure Limit (128 dBL)

Threshold for Neglible Effect (90 dBL)



Table 5.2.3-1 shows the estimated air vibration levels at the PORs using the proposed blast design parameters. Figure 5.2.3-2 shows a contoured estimate of the maximum blast-induced air vibration levels around the Project.

Table 5.2.3-1: Estimated Peak Air Vibration Levels at Points of Reception (POR)

Point of Reception Name Maximum Air Vibration Overpressure

(dBL)

POR1 Goudreau community 95 POR2 Historic Goudreau Cemetery 99

POR3 Herman Lake (Cottage) 97

POR4 Herman Lake (Cottage) 96 POR5 Trapper Cabin B 95 POR6 Dubreuilville 90 POR9 Administrative building on Richmont mine 111 POR10 Administrative building on Richmont mine 104


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-

0004

.mxd

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

1:85,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLECONTOURED ESTIMATES OFAIR VIBRATION AMPLITUDES

1659317 0007 2 5.2.3-2

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?

POR8POR7

POR2

POR11

POR1

POR3

POR4

POR9

POR6

POR5

POR10

Manitowik Lake

0 2.5 5

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

DISTANCE AIR VIBRATIONS140 dBL (50 m)128 dBL (172 m)120 dBL (400 m)110 dBL (1100 m)100 dBL (3000 m)90 dBL (9200 m)

Lake Superior

KILOMETERS


5.2.4 Ground Vibration Model Predictions

The prediction of peak ground vibration levels is carried out at differing distances from a blast based on an expected maximum explosive weight per delay period. The ground vibration levels from the Project are expected to be below the limits for blasts with an average burial of explosives. Figure 5.2.4-1 shows the estimated ground vibration amplitudes for the proposed design at a range of distances from the blast. As with the air vibrations, the explosive charge weight for wet holes was considered in order to provide conservative estimates. The suggested minimum standoff distance from blast to POR is 408 m. Negligible effects are expected at distances beyond 4,200 m.

Figure 5.2.4-1: Estimated Maximum Ground Vibration for the Proposed Blast Design at a Range of Distances

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Peak

Par

ticle

Vel

ocity

(mm

/s)


Estimated PPV for Wet Holes and Emulsion

Estimated PPV for Dry Holes and ANFO

Vibration Limt (12.5 mm/s)

Threshhold for Negligible Effect (0.3 mm/s)



Table 5.2.4-1 shows the estimated ground vibration levels at PORs using the proposed blast design parameters. Figure 5.2.4-2 shows a contoured estimate of the maximum blast-induced ground vibration levels around the Project.

Table 5.2.4-1: Estimated Peak Ground Vibration Levels at Points of Reception (POR)

Point of Reception Name Maximum Ground Vibration

(mm/s)

POR1 Goudreau community 0.21 POR2 Historic Goudreau Cemetery 0.39 POR3 Herman Lake (Cottage) 0.28 POR4 Herman Lake (Cottage) 0.23 POR5 Trapper Cabin B 0.18 POR6 Dubreuilville 0.08 POR9 Administrative building on Richmont mine 2.68 POR10 Administrative building on Richmont mine 0.85


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-

0005

.mxd

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

1:45,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLECONTOURED ESTIMATES OFGROUND VIBRATION AMPLITUDES

1659317 0007 2 5.2.4-2

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

POR8POR7

POR3

POR4

POR9

POR2

POR11

POR10

POR1

POR5

0 1 2

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

DISTANCE GROUND VIBRATIONS50 mm/s 25 mm/s 12.5 mm/s 5.0 mm/s 1.0 mm/s 0.3 mm/s

KILOMETERS


5.2.5 Vibration Effects

As described in Section 3.5.2, only air vibration levels of more than 90 dBL were carried forward in the assessment. Table 5.2.5-1 provides a comparison of the predicted mining and processing phase air vibration levels to the threshold for carrying an effect forward. This indicates the blast-induced air vibrations are unlikely to be perceptible by humans at one of the PORs (i.e., negligible). It also indicates the blast-induced air vibrations effects are to be carried forward for the remaining PORs.

Table 5.2.5-1: Adverse Effects for Air Vibration

Point of Reception Project-related Air Vibration (dBL)

Air Vibration Threshold for carrying an effect

forward (dBL) Carried forward?

POR1 95

>90

Yes POR2 99 Yes POR3 97 Yes POR4 96 Yes POR5 95 Yes POR6 90 No POR9 111 Yes POR10 104 Yes

Similarly, only ground vibration levels greater than 0.3 mm/s are to be carried forward in the assessment. Table 5.2.5-2 provides a comparison of the predicted mining and processing phase ground vibration levels for carrying an effect forward. This indicates the blast-induced ground vibrations are unlikely to be perceptible by humans at five of the PORs (i.e., negligible). It also indicates that the blast-induced ground vibrations effects are to be carried forward for the remaining six PORs.

Table 5.2.5-2: Adverse Effects for Ground Vibration

Point of Reception Project-related Ground Vibration (mm/s)

Ground Vibration Threshold for carrying

an effect forward (mm/s)

Carried forward?

POR1 0.21

>0.3

No POR2 0.39 Yes POR3 0.28 No POR4 0.23 No POR5 0.18 No POR6 0.08 No POR9 2.68 Yes POR10 0.85 Yes



5.2.6 Compliance with Ontario Blasting Guidelines

Estimates shown in Table 5.2.3-1 suggest blast-induced air and ground vibration levels should be below the 128 dBL and 12.5 mm/s limits, respectively, at the closest identified PORs using the blast design parameters shown in Table 5.2.1-1.

5.2.7 Modelling Predictions for Other Environmental Effects

5.2.7.1 Modelling Results for DFO – Ground Vibration The Goudreau Lake shoreline is considered as the nearest location to the mine blasting operations for both the active spawning beds and fisheries. The estimated maximum explosive charge weight allowable to comply with the DFO limits (i.e., 13 mm/s) on ground vibration measured at the nearest active spawning bed is shown in Table 5.2.7-1.

Table 5.2.7-1: Estimated Peak Particle Velocity at the Goudreau Lake Shoreline

Blast Location Distance (m)

Maximum Explosive Weight / Delay (kg)

Pit centre 400 595 Pit crest 90 30

The estimates suggest blast-induced PPV levels are likely to exceed the 13 mm/s limit for blasts implementing 311 mm diameter holes at distances less than 399 m from the nearest active spawning bed. The areas of the lake within this standoff distance are outlined on Figure 5.2.7-1. The PPV amplitudes are likely to change resulting from modifications to the mine plan, pit optimization, blast design optimization, and calibration of the vibration attenuation model. Monitoring of the PPV from test blasts is recommended to provide site-specific data. Ongoing blast monitoring will provide guidance as to when, if at all, blast designs should be altered to accommodate vibration levels at the nearest active spawning beds. It is important to note this limit applies to the nearest active spawning beds, which has been conservatively assumed as the Goudreau Lake shoreline. Knowledge of both the actual locations and times when these are active may provide important information regarding means to mitigate potential effects of blast-induced vibrations.


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-

0004

.mxd

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

1:6,500



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEGROUND VIBRATION SHOWING GOUDREAULAKE AREA ESTIMATED TO EXCEED DFO GUIDELINES

1659317 0007 2 5.2.7-1

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?POR7

0 250 500

LEGENDCONTOUR - 10 m INTERVALEXISTING ROADWATERCOURSEWATERBODY

!? POINT OF RECEPTIONPREVIOUS WEBB PIT OUTLINEPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINEGROUND VIBRATION - DFO GUIDELINES(NO MITIGATION) 13 MM/S (399 M)

METRES

Webb Lake

Goudreau Lake


The relationship between charge weight per delay and minimum setback distance to achieve both the 13 mm/s guidelines for underwater ground vibrations is shown on Figure 5.2.7-2. The suggested minimum standoff distance from blast to an active spawning bed is 399 m for wet holes and 337 m for dry holes. The graph can be used as a guide for the development of alternative blast designs in areas that may be affected by underwater ground vibrations greater than 13 mm/s.

Figure 5.2.7-2: Charge Weight versus Setback Distance for Ground Vibrations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Expl

osiv

e Ch

arge

Wei

ght p

er D

elay

(kg)


DFO 13 mm/s Limit

Max. Weight/Delay (Wet Holes 592 kg)

Max. Weight/Delay (Dry Holes 424 kg)



5.2.7.2 Modelling Results for DFO – Instantaneous Underwater Overpressure Based on the instantaneous underwater overpressure properties and the proposed blast design parameters, the estimated instantaneous overpressure at the Goudreau Lake shoreline is shown in Table 5.2.7-2. The table also shows the estimated maximum explosive charge weight allowable to comply with the DFO limits for instantaneous water overpressure at the nearest fisheries water.

Table 5.2.7-2: Estimated Instantaneous Underwater Overpressure at Goudreau Lake Shoreline Blast

Location Distance

(m) Est. Maximum

Overpressure (kPa)(a) Maximum Explosive Weight / Delay (kg)(b)

Pit center 400 17 5,100 Pit crest 90 194 260

a) Assuming a blasthole diameter of 311 mm and a maximum explosive charge weight of 592 kg. b) Maximum explosive charge weight per delay period to comply with the DFO water overpressure limit.

Analysis estimates suggest blast-induced underwater overpressure levels are likely to exceed the 100 kPa limit for blasts using 311 mm diameter holes (and 592 kg/delay for wet holes) at distances less than 136 m from the nearest fish bearing waterbody (assumed to be Goudreau Lake). The areas of the lake within this standoff distance are outlined on Figure 5.2.7-3.


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-

0004

.mxd

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

1:6,500



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEWATER OVERPRESSURE SHOWING GOUDREAULAKE AREA ESTIMATED TO EXCEED DFO GUIDELINES

1659317 0007 2 5.2.7-3

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?POR7

0 250 500


!? POINT OF RECEPTIONPREVIOUS WEBB PIT OUTLINEPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYWATER OVERPRESSURE - DFO GUIDELINES(NO MITIGATION) 100 KPA (132 M)

Webb Lake

METRES

Goudreau Lake


The relationship between charge weight per delay and minimum setback distance to achieve both the 100 kPa guidelines for instantaneous overpressure is shown on Figure 5.2.7-4. This graph can be used as a guide for the development of alternative blast designs in areas that may be affected by instantaneous overpressures greater than 100 kPa. However, monitoring of the instantaneous overpressure from test blasts is recommended to provide site-specific data.

Figure 5.2.7-4: Charge Weight versus Setback Distance for Instantaneous Water Overpressure

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Max

. Exp

losi

ve C

harg

e Pe

r Del

ay (k

g)

Setback Distance (m)

DFO 100 kPa Limit

Max. Weight per Delay (Wet Holes 592 kg)

Max. Weight per Delay (Dry Holes 424 kg)



5.3 Mitigation Measures

5.3.1 Mitigation for Ontario Blasting Guideline NPC 119

Based on the results presented in Tables 5.2.3-1 and 5.2.4-1, blast-induced air and ground vibration levels are predicted to be well within the NPC 119 guidelines. No additional mitigation measures were considered in the assessment of vibration levels as a result of the Project.

5.3.2 Mitigation for DFO - Blasting Guideline The vibration assessment indicates the following:

Blast-induced PPV levels are likely to exceed the 13 mm/s limit for blasts using 311 mm diameter holes and wet holes at distances less than 399 m from the nearest active spawning bed. Therefore, the proposed blasting at the east half of the pit as excavation approaches the southern pit perimeter may exceed the DFO guidelines.

Based on DFO suggested methodology and assumptions, the minimum setback distance below which the 100 kPa overpressure guideline will not be exceeded, is 132 m.

The intensity of blast vibrations is primarily influenced by the maximum explosive weight detonated per delay period within a blast and the distance between the blast and the POR. Thus, two primary means of reducing the effects on the spawning beds and active fisheries could be:

a) increasing the distance to these locations, or

b) reducing the weight of explosive charge detonated per delay period.

The distance between the pit perimeter and the nearest active spawning bed will depend on both the actual locations and times when the beds are active.

It is anticipated a reduction in the maximum explosive weight detonated per delay period within the blast would be required to comply with the DFO limits. This will be dependent on the bench height and the monitoring results. Any one, or combination, of the following in-design mitigation measures would reduce the maximum charge weight per delay:

1) Using blasthole liners with ANFO in wet holes.

2) Reducing the borehole diameter with a corresponding reduction in the drill pattern.

3) Introducing decked charges within each borehole.

4) Reducing the borehole length (depth) by reducing the bench height.

For example, the use of blasthole liners and ANFO instead of Emulsion in wet holes would reduce the explosive weight by 28%. A reduction in the borehole diameter from 270 mm to 251 mm would reduce the explosive weight per hole by approximately 25%. Decking of the explosive column, could further reduce the maximum explosive weight per hole by an additional amount. The amount of reduction is dependent on the decking configuration.



Additional decking, or reductions in the bench height, as identified above, could achieve further reductions in maximum explosive weights per hole.

Nine alternate blast designs are proposed in in Table 5.3.2-1, which will result in reduced ground vibrations and water overpressures. Table 5.3.2-1 also shows the minimum standoff distance to the Goudreau Lake shoreline required to meet the DFO guideline limits. These may be used at different portions of the pit depending on their proximity to Goudreau Lake shoreline. These designs are based on common drill hole diameters and demonstrate the type of changes in blast design that may be required to comply with the DFO guidelines. The proposed designs represent examples with the actual design requiring input from mine operations and consideration of economic ramifications.

Table 5.3.2-1: Alternative Blast Designs with Corresponding Standoff Distances

Alternate Blast

Design

Bench Height

(m)

Hole Diameter

(mm) Explosive

Type (a) Charge/ Delay (kg)

Minimum Standoff Distance (m)

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)

Limit(b) Overpressure

Limit(c)

1 10 331 ANFO 424 337 112 2 10 270 Emulsion 446 346 114 3 10 270 ANFO 320 293 99 4 10 229 Emulsion 331 298 99 5 8 200 Emulsion 209 232 77 6 10 165 Emulsion 200 237 78 7 8 165 Emulsion 152 202 67 8 7 127 Emulsion 81 147 49 9 5 102 Emulsion 25 90 29

a) Use of ANFO in wet holes assumes the use of blasthole liners b) Allowable Standoff Distance (m) while maintaining a PPV less than 13 mm/s. c) Allowable Standoff Distance (m) while maintaining a water overpressure less than 100 kPa.

Figure 5.3.2-1 and Figure 5.3.2-2 illustrate the varying standoff distances for each of the proposed alternate blast designs to comply with DFO ground vibration and underwater overpressure limits, respectively. Figure 5.3.2-3 and Figure 5.3.2-4 illustrate the areas of the pit where the proposed design and the alternate designs may be implemented to maintain the DFO limits for ground vibration and underwater overpressure, respectively. In addition to reducing the blast design other mitigation measures can be employed such as timing the blasts in the affected areas during seasons when the spawning activity has ceased or using devices to discourage the fish habitats in the portions of the lake closest to the pit such as bubble curtains.

The designs proposed above as mitigation measures should not be considered as mitigations committed to by Argonaut but rather as an analysis which demonstrates compliance with the DFO limits is achievable through modifications to the blasting plan. It is understood that Argonaut plans to implement a review process of site specific vibration data during blasting operations and adjust the blasting plan as necessary to meet regulatory requirements.


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-

0008

.mxd

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

1:8,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEESTIMATED 13 MM/S CONTOURS FORPROPOSED ALTERNATE BLAST DESIGNS

1659317 0007 2 5.3.2-1

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

POR7

POR11

0 250 500


!? POINT OF RECEPTIONPREVIOUS WEBB PIT OUTLINEPROPOSED WEBB PIT OUTLINEPROPERTY BOUNDARY

Alternative Blast Designs (13 mm/s Contours)1 (331 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 424 kg/DELAY)2 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 446 kg/DELAY) 3 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 320 kg/DELAY) 4 (229 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 331 kg/DELAY) 5 (200 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 209 kg/DELAY) 6 (165 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 200 kg/DELAY) 7 (165 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 152 kg/DELAY) 8 (127 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 81 kg/DELAY) 9 (102 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 28 kg/DELAY)

Webb Lake METRES

Goudreau Lake

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-

0009

.mxd

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

1:8,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEESTIMATED 100 KPA CONTOURS FORPROPOSED ALTERNATE BLAST DESIGNS

1659317 0007 2 5.3.2-2

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

POR7

POR11

0 250 500



Alternative Blast Designs (13 mm/s Contours)1 (331 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 424 kg/DELAY)2 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 446 kg/DELAY)3 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 320 kg/DELAY)4 (229 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 331 kg/DELAY)5 (200 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 209 kg/DELAY)6 (165 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 200 kg/DELAY)7 (165 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 152 kg/DELAY)8 (127 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 81 kg/DELAY)9 (102 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 28 kg/DELAY)

Webb Lake METRES

Goudreau Lake

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-

0010

.mxd

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

1:8,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEBLAST AREA OF PIT SUGGESTED FOR ALTERNATEDESIGNS TO MEET DFO GROUND VIBRATION LIMITS

1659317 0007 2 5.3.2-3

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

POR7

POR11

0 250 500



ALTERNATIVE BLAST DESIGN1 (331 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 424 kg/DELAY)2 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 446 kg/DELAY)3 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 320 kg/DELAY)4 (229 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 331 kg/DELAY)5 (200 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 209 kg/DELAY)6 (165 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 200 kg/DELAY)7 (165 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 152 kg/DELAY)8 (127 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 81 kg/DELAY)9 (102 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 28 kg/DELAY)

Webb Lake METRES

Goudreau Lake

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-

0009

.mxd

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

1:8,000



PROJECTMAGINO GOLD PROJECTVIBRATION TSDTITLEBLAST AREAS OF PIT SUGGESTED FOR ALTERNATEDESIGNS TO MEET DFO WATER OVERPRESSURE LIMITS

1659317 0007 2 5.3.2-4

2016-12-13SOSODCAB

CONSULTANT



!?

!?

POR7

POR11

0 250 500



ALTERNATIVE BLAST DESIGN1 (331 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 424 kg/DELAY)2 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 446 kg/DELAY)3 (270 mm DIAMETER HOLES, ANFO, 320 kg/DELAY)4 (229 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 331 kg/DELAY)5 (200 mm DIAMETER HOLES, EMULSION, 209 kg/DELAY)

Webb Lake METRES

Goudreau Lake


5.4 Residual Effects

The identified mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible, as identified in Section 5.3.1, were incorporated as an integral component of the Project design for the purposes of assessing vibration levels attributable to the Project. Residual adverse effects of the Project on vibration levels are identified as those effects carried forward in the assessments that remain after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Table 5.4-1 provide summaries of the identified effects of the Project on air and ground vibration levels along with an identification of whether residual adverse effects will remain after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Table 5.4-1: Residual Adverse Effects on Air and Ground Vibration Levels

Adverse Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Adverse Effect?

Air vibration levels >90 dBL at POR1 – POR5 and POR9 – POR10

Considered integral to the Project Included in predictions No additional mitigation measures

have been considered

Yes

Ground vibration levels >0.3 mm/s for POR2, POR9 and POR10

Considered integral to the Project Included in predictions No additional mitigation measures

have been considered

Yes

It should be noted the identification of a residual adverse effect does not imply 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.

The significance of the residual adverse effects of the Project on air and ground vibration levels are assessed in Section 5.5.

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. 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 3.5.3-2 summarizes the criteria used to assign the effects magnitude for changes in air and ground vibration levels. 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 3.5.3-1. Table 5.5-1 Table 5.5-2 provide a listing of the effects criteria at each POR where a residual adverse effect was predicted during the mining and processing phase for air and ground vibrations, respectively. In order to determine significance, the values in each row of the table are used to step through the decision tree illustrated on Figure 3.5.3-1.

Table 5.5-1: Summary of Predicted Air Vibration Effects Criteria during the Mining and Processing Phase

POR Magnitude Geographic Extent

Timing/ Duration Frequency Significance

POR1 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR2 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR3 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR4 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR5 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR9 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant

POR10 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant

Table 5.5-1 indicates residual vibration effects of the Project on the identified PORs will not be significant.

Table 5.5-2: Summary of Predicted Ground Vibration Effects Criteria during the Mining and Processing Phase

POR Magnitude Geographic Extent

Timing/ Duration Frequency Significance

POR2 Low Medium Medium High Not Significant POR9 Medium Medium Medium High Not Significant

POR10 Medium Medium Medium High Not Significant

Table 5.5-1 and Table 5.5-2 indicate residual vibration effects of the Project on the identified PORs will not be significant.

Ground vibrations and water overpressure levels from the Project at the Goudreau Lake location were provided for a discussion on significance in the Aquatics TSD.



6.0 MONITORING AND COMMITMENTS

6.1 Monitoring

Table 6.1-1 summarizes the vibration monitoring proposed to support the Project and confirm the findings presented in the EA. The table describes what is to be monitored, the method for completing the monitoring and the frequency proposed for the monitoring.

Table 6.1-1: Vibration Monitoring During Operations Phase Parameter Method Frequency

Air and ground vibration level monitoring from blasting operations to develop site-specific vibration attenuation

Establishing a series of seismographs at varying distances from blasts and keeping a detailed record of the loading parameters

Monitoring campaign; from a minimum 12 blasts at 6 sites during each blast, set up at distances varying from about 300 m to 2,000 m from the blast

Blast air and ground vibrations at nearest POR

Establishing instrumentation at nearest POR

Instrumentation to record air and ground vibration intensities on a continuous basis

Data would be compared to known blast times to assess peak air and ground vibration intensities produced

Blast-induced water overpressure and ground vibration levels at nearest active fishery

Establishing instrumentation at nearest active fishery location

This will include a hydrophone, vibration transducer and data acquisition unit

Instrumentation to record water overpressure and ground vibration intensities during the initial blasts

Based on the data recorded: 1) develop site-specific

attenuation parameters, and 2) a decision will be made on

subsequent monitoring

Periodic monitoring should be carried out as the blasts approach the nearest fishery



6.2 Commitments

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

Table 6.2-1 identifies the commitments made by Argonaut for the vibration VEC at the Project.

Table 6.2-1 Vibration Commitments Commitment Section of TSD Project Phase and Timing

Develop a blast design using site specific parameters and ensuring effects consistent with those presented in this TSD

3.5.2 Immediately at the onset of the mining and processing phase

Blast monitoring will be carried out to establish decay parameters and confirm predictions

6.1 Immediately at the onset of the mining and processing phase

Address the mitigation recommendations for compliance with DFO Guideline Limits or otherwise satisfy the DFO regarding the potential impact on fish habitat

5.3.2 Immediately at the onset of the mining and processing phase



7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This part of the TSD evaluated the potential effect of the Project on vibration. The evaluation conclusions are highlighted below. Project blasting activities have the potential to cause vibration. 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:

Vibration levels (i.e., air and ground) were predicted during the mining and processing phase. These effects were assessed to be not significant. No mitigation is required for compliance with the Ontario MOECC guidelines NPC 119.

With the mitigative measures outlined in Section 5.3.2, the blasting operations may remain compliant with the DFO guidelines for ground vibrations and water overpressure. The potential impact on the fisheries will be addressed in the Aquatic TSD.

Follow-up monitoring is recommended for the mining and processing phase to confirm the following:

to verify the predicted air and ground vibration levels; and

to verify that the mitigation and adaptive management measures (i.e., blast design) considered integral to the Project are being incorporated as planned, and are effective.

The results of the environmental effects assessment for vibration of the Project are summarized in Table 7-1.



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

Valued Ecosystem Component

Likely Environmental Effect Phase Likely

Environmental Effect Occurs In

Mitigation Measures

Residual Adverse Effects Significance Follow-up Monitoring In-design Mitigation Measures (incorporated into

Project design)

Additional Mitigation Measures (identified through

the EA process)

Vibration

Yes – air vibration will likely be perceptible to humans at each POR with the exception of the community of Dubreuilville (POR6).

Mining and processing Initial blast design to limit effects None required

Will likely be perceptible to humans at each POR with the exception of the community of Dubreuilville (POR6).

Not significant Instrumentation to record air and ground vibration intensities on a continuous basis

Data would be compared to known blast times to assess peak air and ground vibration intensities produced Yes – ground vibration will likely

be perceptible at POR2, POR9 and POR10.

Mining and processing Initial blast design to limit effects None required Will likely be perceptible to humans at

POR2, POR9 and POR10. Not significant



8.0 REFERENCES

Dowding C.H. 1985. Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control (2nd Edition). ISBN-10 0964431300. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dowding C.H. 1996. Construction Vibrations (1st Edition). ISBN-10 013299108X. Prentice Hall.

Hustrulid, W. 1999. Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining: General Design Concepts – Volume 1. Taylor and Francis Group. Boca Raton, FL., _pp.

ISEE (International Society of Explosives Engineers). 1998. Blaster’s Handbook. 17th Edition, 744 pp.

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 1978. Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law. Final Report.

Scott, A., Cocker A., Higgins M., Rosa D. L., Sarma K.S. and Wedmaier R. 1996. Open Pit Blast Design: Analysis and Optimisation. JKMRC, 298 pp.

Wright, D. G. and Hopky, G. E. 1998. Guidelines for the Use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2107: iv + 34 pp, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.



9.0 ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY

9.1 Acronyms

Acronyms used in the Vibration TSD are shown in Table 9.1-1.

Table 9.1-1: List of Acronyms Acronym Definition

ANFO Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement LSA Local Study Area MOECC Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change NAD North American Datum NPC Noise Pollution Control PAG Potentially Acid Generating PAPL Peak Air Pressure Level POR Point of Reception PPV Peak Particle Velocity PSA Project Study Area RSA Regional Study Area TMF Tailings Management Facility TSD Technical Supporting Document UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VEC Valued Ecosystem Component WRMF Waste Rock Management Facility



9.2 Units

Units used in the Vibration TSD are shown in Table 9.2-1.

Table 9.2-1: List of Units Unit Abbreviation

% percent cm centimetres d day dBL decibel linear g grams kg kilograms km kilometres kPa kilopascals m metres M million mm millimetres MW megawatt s second t tonnes Wt weight



9.3 Glossary

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

Table 9.3-1: Glossary of Terms Acronym Definition

Frequency Rate at which the effect occurs

Geographic Extent Spatial scale of the effect

Goudreau Campsite The proposed resettlement site.

Herman Lake This lake is located west of the Project area within the Project footprint.

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

Point of Reception (POR) A location where measurements and/or predictions of vibration 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 vibration predictions are made

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



This page left intentionally blank


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

argonaut gold – magino gold project – vibration technical ...argonaut is a publicly -traded...

Documents