magino fisheries offset plan (oct.25.2018) ver 2 · box 309, 3 dree road, dubreuilville, ontario,...

Prepared for:

Prodigy Gold Inc.

Box 309, 3 Dree Road, Dubreuilville, Ontario, P0S 1B0 October 2018

Magino Gold Project, 2nd Draft - MDMER Schedule 2 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan and Fisheries Act Paragraph 35(2)(b) Authorization Offset Plan Dubreuilville, Ontario TC180502 Prodigy Gold Inc.

Box 209, 3 Dree Road, Dubreuilville ON, Canada P0S 1B0 Tel: (705) 884-2991

October 25, 2018 Ms. Laura Phalen Fisheries Protection Biologist, Fisheries Protection Program Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 RE Magino Project – 2nd Draft - MDMER Schedule 2 Compensation Plan and Fisheries Act,

Paragraph 35(2)9b) Authorization Offset Plan Dear Ms. Phalen, Prodigy is pleased to present the attached 2nd draft MDMER Schedule 2 Compensation Plan and Fisheries Act, Paragraph 35(2)9b) Authorization Offset Plan which incorporates initial comments from DFO and ECCC on the August 3 2018 version. We appreciate the advice and direction provided by the DFO to help us advance this plan proceeding into next steps of the project permitting.

Sincerely,

DRAFT Kyle Stanfield Director, Environment & Community Relations Prodigy Gold, a subsidiary of Argonaut Gold 807-621-6152

TC180502

Magino Gold Project, 2nd Draft - MDMER Schedule 2 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan and Fisheries Act Paragraph 35(2)(b) Authorization Offset Plan Dubreuilville, Ontario TC180502 Prodigy Gold Inc.

Prepared for:

Prodigy Gold Inc. Box 309, 3 Dree Road, Dubreuilville, Ontario, P0S 1B0

Prepared by:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions a Division of Wood Canada Limited 160 Traders Blvd. E., Suite 110 Mississauga, Ontario, L4Z 3K7 T: (905) 568-2929 October 29, 2018

Copyright and non-disclosure notice

The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions a Division of Wood Canada Limited) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-party disclaimer

Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

2nd Draft – MDMER Schedule 2 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan and Fisheries Act Paragraph 35 (2)(b) Authorization Offset Plan

Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018 Page ii

Table of Contents Page

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement ............................................................................................ 2 1.3 Background and Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... 2

1.3.1 Lovell Lake ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 McVeigh Creek- Downstream from Spring Lake ................................................................... 3 1.3.3 McVeigh Creek Tributaries ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3.4 Polishing Pond ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.5 Waterbody 7 ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.6 Webb Lake and Waterbody 10 ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3.7 Waterbodies 1 through 5 ................................................................................................................ 4 1.3.8 Fisheries Productivity ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 Project Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 9 3.0 Location of Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ 10 4.0 Description of Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 14 5.0 Description of the Types of Proposed Works Likely to Result in Loss or Impacts to Fish Frequented Waterbodies ............................................................................................................... 16 6.0 Measures and Standards to Avoid or Mitigate Impacts to Fish Frequented Waters .............. 19 7.0 Residual Impacts to Waterbodies Frequented by Fish ............................................................... 22 8.0 Schedule - Period During Which the Work Undertaking or Activity will be Completed ....... 26

8.1 Seasonal Construction Constraints ............................................................................................................26 8.2 Construction Schedule ....................................................................................................................................26

9.0 Scale and Description of Offsetting Measures ............................................................................ 28 9.1 Measure 1a – McVeigh Creek Diversion Channel between Spring Lake and McVeigh Creek Downstream of the TMF ....................................................................................................................28 9.2 Measure 1b – Diversion Channel from Waterbody 10 to Goudreau Lake .................................29 9.3 Measure 2 – Creation of New Lake / Pond Basins ...............................................................................29 9.4 Measure 3 – Impound New Lake Basin or Pond at Waterbody 9 ..................................................29 9.5 Monitoring the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Compensation and Offset Measures ..............................................................................................................................................................30

10.0 Conditions that Relate to Monitoring and Reporting of Implementation of Offsetting Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 38 11.0 Cost - Letter of Credits ................................................................................................................... 40 12.0 Fisheries Offset Accounting and Balancing ................................................................................. 41 13.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 44


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018 Page iii

List of Tables Page

Table 1-1: Fish Species of Local Waterbodies Affected by Project ........................................................................... 6 Table 1-2: Fish Productivity Measures (CPUE) for Local Waterbodies Affected by Project ............................. 7 Table 3-1: Coordinates of Waterbodies Affected by Project .................................................................................... 11 Table 6-1: List of Measures and Standards, Success Criteria and Contingency Measures ........................... 21 Table 7-1a: Fish Community Coefficient Summary ........................................................................................................ 23 Table 7-1b: Summary of Impacts Requiring Fisheries Act Authorization or MDMER Schedule 2 Listing . 24 Table 8-1: Tentative Timeline of Project Undertaking or Activities ....................................................................... 27 Table 9-1a: Ranking Scale Legend for Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives ................................ 31 Table 9-1b: Definition of Categories for Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives ............................. 32 Table 9-1c: Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives Matrix ....................................................................... 33 Table 9-2: Criteria to Assess Compensation / Offsetting Measures Implementation and Effectiveness

Success ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 10-1: Monitoring Criteria and Reporting Schedule of Offsetting Measures ............................................ 39 Table 12-1: Compensation / Offset Area Accounting and Balance Summary ..................................................... 43

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Project Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3-1: Fisheries Impact and Compensation Locations ........................................................................................ 12 Figure 3-2: Flow Reduction of McVeigh Creek ................................................................................................................ 13

List of Attachments 1 Draft Design Drawings:

1a Measure 1 Draft Channel Diversion Design Drawings 1b Measure 2 Draft Lake Basin Excavation Design Drawings 1c Measure 3 Draft Lake Basin Impoundment Design Drawings


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018 Page iv

List of Acronyms

CPEU Catch per Unit Effort DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans EA Environmental Assessment ECCC Environment Canada and Climate Change EIS Environmental Impacts Assessment FAA Fisheries Act Authorization ha Hectare LOM Life of Mine LSWBM Lake and Stream Water Balance Model Magino Magino Gold Project MDMER Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations MNRF Ministry or Natural Resources and Forestry Mt Million tonnes MRMF Mine Rock Management Facility OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Prodigy Prodigy Gold Incorporated TMF Tailings Management Facility tpd Tonnes per Day UTM Universal Transverse Mercator WQCP Water Quality Control Pond


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018 Page 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

Prodigy Gold, Inc., a Subsidiary of Argonaut Gold (Prodigy) is in the process of developing the Magino Project (the Project) located approximately 40 kilometres (km) northeast of Wawa, Ontario, in Finan Township, Algoma District. The site is accessed via Goudreau Road from Dubreuilville. Prodigy proposes the Project to include the construction, operation and closure of an approximately 150 million tonnes (Mt) of ore and approximately 430 Mt of mine rock open pit gold mine and associated infrastructure. The proposed open pit will be situated in the same location as a past-producing underground mine, and as such the Project is considered a brownfield site.

The Magino Project will include an open pit, milling and processing complex, roads and pipelines, ore processing plant, a tailings management facility (TMF) and mine rock management facility, and stockpiles for the storage of overburden and waste rock.

To facilitate development of the Project as described above, there will be a need to overprint or otherwise impact waterbodies (lakes, streams and wetlands) that contain fish and/or provide fish habitat; consequently necessitating the provision of compensatory offsetting measures to replace the impacted fisheries values associated with the water features. The purpose of this draft fisheries offset and compensation plan is to describe the impacts and currently proposed measures associated with fish bearing waters to demonstrate that appropriate avoidance, mitigation and offsetting of fisheries values has been provided for by the Project.

Waterbodies frequented by fish located within the footprint of the Project are also under consideration by Environment Canada and Climate Change (ECCC) for the purpose of amending Schedule 2 of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER). Part of the process associated with adding a waterbody to Schedule 2 is the development of a fish habitat compensation plan as per Section 27.1 of the MDMER, to compensate for the loss resulting from the deposition of mine waste into naturally occurring fish bearing waters. Additional fisheries values impacted by the Project due to works, undertakings or activities (e.g., dewatering, open pit development, plant site, creek diversion) other than mine waste deposition, have been identified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to likely result in Serious Harm to Fish as per Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, and as such will also require offsetting measures through implementation of a fisheries offset plan. Discussions with ECCC and DFO have confirmed that Prodigy will work in cooperation with DFO to develop an acceptable combined Fisheries Offset Plan that will include compensation fish habitat required for Schedule 2 waterbody impacts, and fisheries offset measures for the Section 35 impacts. The terms “compensation and offset” both refer to the provision of replacement fish habitat values or fish bearing waters and are frequently used interchangeably; but “compensation plan” specifically refers to the Schedule 2 documentation (Sections 27.1 of the MDMER) whereas “offset plan” specifically refers to the documentation associated with the Fisheries Act Section 35 authorization.

This document is a draft plan, which presents the fisheries impacts and offset measures consistent with the proposed site plan and design details. Subsequent advancements of this document will accommodate any necessary site plan changes, detailed design modifications, further clarify impacts as either Serious Harm to Fish associated with a Section 35 Authorization or waterbodies requiring Schedule 2 amendment, and incorporate stakeholder engagment.


Magino Gold Project


1.2 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement

The Draft EIS/EA was distributed in May 2017 (Golder et al. 2017). Consultation with DFO and ECCC to date has advanced the development of the fish habitat compensation and offsetting measures presented in the Draft EIS/EA to support the Plan presented herein. Likewise, there has been engagement with other stakeholders such as First Nation and Métis representatives and Provincial regulators (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; MNRF) during the EIS and draft plan preparation. The early consultation feedback on alternatives assessment shaped the preferred alternatives proposed in this plan. For example, opinions were expressed that compensation habitats supporting the large bodied sportfish such as walleye, whitefish and pike species were preferred over baitfish habitats. Additional consultation is anticipated to further develop the proposed offsetting measures and to inform the detailed design.

A base case of compensatory measures is proposed in this plan to demonstrate that viable compensation and offset measures exist that can appropriately address the predicted impacts. Various other options and alternatives are also provided in this report to facilitate consultation and engagement and allow modifications to the final plan to address stakeholder interests, and site specific design considerations.

1.3 Background and Environmental Setting

Detailed fisheries and fish habitat studies have been undertaken at the Project site and include multiple years and multiple seasons of investigation. Fish communities of the Project are classified as follows and shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2:

None – no fish of any species identified in the waterbody.

Baitfish – only small-bodied forage and baitfish/minnows species such as minnows and stickleback were identified or inferred to be present in the waterbody.

Low Diversity Large-bodied Fish – baitfish/minnows and one or two large-bodied sport fish such as Yellow Perch and Burbot were identified or inferred to be present. The water bodies offer some potential for recreational or sustenance fishery usages but do not provide highly sought and valued species such as Walleye, Northern Pike or Lake Whitefish.

High Diversity Large-bodied Fish – baitfish/minnows, and multiple small-bodied and large-bodied fish are present including species representative of difference trophic levels and at least one highly sought and valued species such as Walleye, Northern Pike or Lake Whitefish. Waterbodies are expected to provide premium recreational or sustenance fishery usages.

Additional detailed fisheries information and data are available in the following Project documents:

Magino Project, Environmental Impact Statement Technical Support Document 20-14: Draft Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (SLR 2017b);

Magino Gold Project, Fish and Fish Habitat Baseline Study Technical Support Document 15 (SLR 2016);

Magino Mine, Addendum to the Fish and Fish Habitat Technical Supporting Document (Minnow 2017a);


Magino Gold Project


Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4: Existing Conditions – Magino Gold Project (Golder et al. 2017); and

Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 7: Effects Assessment – Magino Gold Project (Golder et al. 2017).

A brief summary of the watercourses considered to be impacted by the Project are provided below based on the existing baseline data collected for the project. The brief summaries provide a short description of the general habitat conditions and a summary of the fish community.

1.3.1 Lovell Lake

Lovell Lake is a shallow small lake located downstream from the polishing pond via a small stream. The lake is an oligotrophic system with sediments largely comprised of organic matter and detrituts,with a substantial amount of in-water cover, and a maximum depth of 3 m. Aquatic vegetation and other structures such as deep pools and undercut banks provide abundant opportunities for minnow spawning habitat and instream cover opportunities. However, few opportunities for spawning and refuge exist for the two resident large-bodies species (Yellow Perch and White Sucker) due to low habitat diversity.

A total of 8 species (Table 1-1) of fish were captured in this waterbody, mainly represented by small bodied cyprinids and other forage species, with the exception of Yellow Perch and White Sucker, which were both found to be abundant during the Summer 2012 sampling effort. Lovell Lake is classified as a low diversity sportfish community.

1.3.2 McVeigh Creek- Downstream from Spring Lake

The principally affected portion of McVeigh Creek originates in Spring Lake and flows to Summit Lake, approximately 1 km southwest of the proposed Project footprint. The upstream section of McVeigh Creek within the Project footprint is characterized by a shallow profile, deposited of organic material, dense emergent macrophyte cover and a rocky riparian area with mature birch and spruce. The downstream section of McVeigh Creek within the Project footprint is characterized by fast flowing water, cobble and boulder substrate. Numerous beaver dams are present within McVeigh Creek, with deep pools. Habitat (flow, substrate and depth) is diverse enough to support both cyprinid and larger bodied (White Sucker) cool water baitfish / forage species, as well as some smaller bodied sportfish species.

A total of 10 cool water species (Table 1-1) of fish were captured in this watercourse during the summer 2013 sampling program. The fish community is characterized by small-bodied cyprinids and other forage species, with Yellow Perch and White Sucker present as larger bodied species. Accordingly the waterbody is classified as a low diversity sportfish community.

1.3.3 McVeigh Creek Tributaries

McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 consists of a 2nd order stream that flows from the confluence of the drainages from Waterbody 1 and Waterbody 2, to Spring Lake, and the Lovell Lake outlet stream. The small watercourse which flows from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake and McVeigh Creek Tributary 2 are also included in this characterization. Although direct fish community sampling was not conducted on either McVeigh Creek Tributary 2 or Waterbody 3, baitfish are inferred to be present based on adjacent fish communities and the habitat present. The maximum depth and width of McVeigh Creek tributaries are


Magino Gold Project


1 m and 11 m, respectively in the impounded reaches, but the majority of the watercourse length is less than 1 m in width and shallow in nature. As such, fish presence and abundance in the tributaries is expected to be fragmented. The tributaries have been assigned an inferred baitfish community classification.

1.3.4 Polishing Pond

The Polishing pond is a man made, (impounded) waterbody constructed during the previous mining operation that now passively overflows to the McVeigh Creek tributary below and reports to Lovell Lake. The impoundment has naturalized and now supports a community of 4 species of small bodied baitfish (Table 1-1). The pond is currently assigned a community classification of baitfish, but this may be further discussed with DFO given its artificial and industrial use origins, and the fact that it was never intended to serve as fish habitat.

1.3.5 Waterbody 7

Waterbody 7 is a small lake located South of Waterbody 8, at the Northwest corner of the Mine Development Area (Figure 3-1). It is a relatively narrow waterbody and offers diverse shoreline substrate and in-water cover suitable for cyprinid spawning and refuge. The fish community is comprised of mostly coolwater cyprinids, with no sportfish captured, for a total of 10 species. The waterbody has a baitfish community classification.

1.3.6 Webb Lake and Waterbody 10

Waterbody 10 and Webb Lake are located within the same watershed, with the former flowing Northeast through a narrow channel into the latter (Figure 3-1). Waterbody 10 is narrow and deep, while Webb Lake is larger (12 ha) with a deep pond throughout its center. Both waterbodies offer refuge for small-bodied fish through shallow shorelines with undercut banks, but Webb Lake offers habitat for sportfish as well (Northern Pike and Yellow Perch). Accordingly, Waterbody 10 has a fish community of baitfish and Webb Lake a classification of high diversity sportfish.

1.3.7 Waterbodies 1 through 5

Five wetland type waterbodies were identified in Project footprint area which have been assigned waterbody numbers (Waterbodies 1 to 5) for referencing purposes. Emergent and submergent macrophytes and organic matter are generally abundant within these wetlands, and both undercut banks and overhanging cover were found at all locations. Waterbody 1 is the deepest, with a maximum depth of 2.8 m, which offered refugia to the following fish species: Brook Stickleback, Finescale Dace, Iowa Darter, Northern Pearl Dace and Northern Redbelly Dace. Waterbodies 2 and 3 both have a maximum depth of approximately 1.5 m and deep pools below the beaver dams at their exiting tributaries. Waterbody 2 and Waterbody 1 both support baitfish communities. Waterbody 3 and its tributary to Spring Lake were not sampled and are inferred to have baitfish community composition as well. Neither Waterbody 4 nor Waterbody 5 are fish-bearing, as both are very shallow with maximum depths of 0.17 m and 0.37 m respectively and expected to freeze to bottom during winter.


Magino Gold Project


1.3.8 Fisheries Productivity

Fisheries productivity was measured using a surrogate metric, namely Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) (Table 1-2) which is a measure of abundance and effort by fishing gear type. By comparing CPUE in the baseline conditions to the constructed offset measure habitats, it can be demonstrated whether the offset measures have provided a comparable level of productivity. In addition to CPUE, the species richness (total number of species) at each waterbody is provided as an additional measure of community diversity (Table 1-1).


Magino Gold Project


Table 1-1: Fish Species of Local Waterbodies Affected by Project

Spring-Lovell Creek Watershed

Webb-Goudreau Watershed Herman Otto Lake

Watershed

Common name (Scientific name)

Wat

erbo

dy 2

Inle

ts

Wat

erbo

dy 2

to

conf

luen

ce w

ith

McV

eigh

Cr

eek

Trib

utar

y 1

Wat

erbo

dy 1

to

conf

luen

ce w

ith

McV

eigh

Cr

eek

Trib

utar

y 1

McV

eigh

Cre

ek T

ribu

tary

1 t

o Sp

ring

Lak

e

Polis

hing

Pon

d to

Lov

ell L

ake

Love

ll La

ke o

utle

t st

ream

to

conf

luen

ce w

ith

McV

eigh

Cre

ek T

ribu

tary

1

Stre

am fr

om W

ater

body

3 t

o Sp

ring

Lak

e

McV

eigh

Cre

ek (d

/s o

f Sp

ring

Lak

e)

McV

eigh

Cre

ek (d

/s o

f Sp

ring

Lak

e) t

o Su

mm

it

Lake

McV

eigh

Cre

ek T

ribu

tary

2

Wat

erbo

dy 1

Wat

erbo

dy 2

Love

ll La

ke

Polis

hing

Pon

d

Wat

erbo

dy 3

Spri

ng L

ake

Wat

erbo

dy 1

2

Wat

erbo

dy 1

3

Stre

am fr

om W

ater

body

13

to L

ovel

l Lak

e

Wat

erbo

dy 4

Wat

erbo

dy 5

Gou

drea

u La

ke

Wat

erbo

dy 1

0 to

Web

b La

ke

Web

b La

ke t

o G

oudr

eau

Lake

Web

b La

ke

Wat

erbo

dy 9

Wat

erbo

dy 1

0

Her

man

Lak

e

Wat

erbo

dy 7

Out

let

Wat

erbo

dy 7

Stre

am fr

om W

ater

body

6 t

o W

ater

body

7

Blacknose Shiner - - - i - - - - - - i - Brook Stickleback - - - i - - - - - - -Common Shiner - - - i - i - - - - - i -Fathead Minnow - - - - - - - - - -Finescale Dace - - - i - - - - - - i -Iowa Darter - - - i - - - - - - -Lake Chub - - - - - - - - - - Log Perch - - - - - - - - - - Longnose Dace - - - i - - - - - - - Mottled Sculpin - - - - - - - - - - Northern Pearl Dace - - - - - - - - - i -Northern Redbelly Dace - - - - - - - - - i -Spottail Shiner - - - - - - - - - -Trout Perch - - - - - - - - - - Burbot - - - i - - - - - - - Lake Whitefish - - - - - - - - - - Northern Pike - - - - - - - - - -Walley - - - - - - - - - - White Sucker - - - - - - - - - -Yellow Perch - - - - - - - - - -Species Richness - 5 4 6 - 3 - 9 10 - 6 5 10 4 8 - - - 0 0 10 - - 8 6 3 1 10 -

Notes:

‘-‘ indicates that the waterbody or watercourse was not sampled i indicates that the presence was inferred based on habitat and adjacent waterbody or watercourse communities


Magino Gold Project


Table 1-2: Fish Productivity Measures (CPUE) for Local Waterbodies Affected by Project

Waterbody Habitat Type Minnow

Traps Electrofishing Gillnets

Lovell Lake Lacustrine 3.03 - 8.5 Lovell Lake Outlet Stream to McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 Riverine 0.27 - - McVeigh Creek (d/s of Spring Lake) Riverine 0.33 - - McVeigh Creek (d/s of Spring Lake) to Summit Lake Riverine 0 2.1 - McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 to Spring Lake Riverine 0.65 1.1 - McVeigh Creek Tributary 2 Riverine - - - Polishing Pond Lacustrine - - - Stream from Polishing Pond to Lovell Lake Riverine - - - Waterbody 1 Inlet Riverine - - - Waterbody 1 Wetland 0.85 3 1.55 Waterbody 1 to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 Riverine - - - Waterbody 2 Inlets Riverine - - - Waterbody 2 Wetland 1 0.7 0 Waterbody 2 to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 Riverine - - - Waterbody 3 Wetland 2.3 - 0.4 Stream from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake Riverine - - - Waterbody 4 Wetland 0 - 0 Waterbody 5 Wetland - 0 - Stream from Waterbody 6 to Waterbody 7 Riverine - - - Waterbody 7 Lacustrine 0 - 7.25 Waterbody 7 Outlet Riverine 0.02 0.6 - Waterbody 10 Wetland - 3.90 0 Waterbody 10 to Webb Lake Riverine - - - Webb Lake Lacustrine 0 - 1.27 Webb Lake to Goudreau Lake Riverine - - - Waterbody 12 Wetland - - - Waterbody 13 Lacustrine - - - Stream from Waterbody 13 to Lovell Lake Riverine - - -

Average CPUE Riverine 0.25 1.27 -

Lacustrine 1.01 - 5.67 Wetland 1.04 1.90 0.39

Notes:

Gear-specific values represent number of individuals caught per trap/net hour or electrofishing second relative to the gear type Electrofishing values include fish capture data from backpack and boat-mounted electrofishing efforts Trap/Hoop Net values include fish capture data from hoop net, min-fyke net and trap net efforts ‘-‘ indicates the gear type was not utilized for fish collection activities at that location Zero values indicate the respective gear was utilized, but no fish were captured No seine nets were used in any sampling program

_̂

Goudreau

Dubreuilville

Hawk Junction

Wawa

LochalshÄÆ

519

Magpie RiverTerraces

ConservationReserve

Project Location

MagpieRiver

WhitefishLake

ÄÆ

17

ÄÆ

101

GrosCap 49

PotholesProvincial

Park

MichipicotenProvincial

Park

FurnivalLake

DoréLake

BillboyLake

GoetzLake

GoldieLake

HermanLake

BoulderLake

DelusionLake

TroutLake

PivotLake

ManitowikLake

BorzoiLake

CatfishLake

PineLake

GodinLakeMaskinonge

Lake

MountainLake

WabatongushiLake

GarbeLake

UpperDingman

Lake

CawdronLake

MorrisonLake

StrandedLake

SutherlandLake

DaviesLake

WawaLake

GrantLake

BlackTroutLake

HawkLake

MildredLake

WestAndreLake

PunkLake

LoonskinLake

Upper Lola Lake

TroupeLake

RadfordLake

IrisLake

McCormickLake

SwansonLake

SausageLake

LolaLake

GoudreauLake

VanreekLake

LenaLake

Big Lake

CradleLakes

ZolaLake

KinniwabiLake

ArlissLake

RutheldaLake

ClearviewLake

KapimchigamaLake

ReynoldsLake

AndreLake

LakeSuperior

660000 670000 680000 690000 700000

5310

000

5320

000

5330

000

5340

000

5350

000

5360

000

²0 5 10 15 202.5

Kilometres

LEGEND

Project Location

FIGURE: 1-1DATE: July 2018

PROJECT No: TC180502

SCALE: 1:250,000

Datum: NAD83Projection: UTM Zone 16N

NOTES:- Topograpgic information extracted from Land Information Ontario, MNRF.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

P:\

201

8\P

roje

cts\

TC

180

502

_P

GI_

Ma

gin

o_E

nvi

ron

me

nt\0

2_W

ork

_F

iles\

GIS

\D_R

uss

ell_

Mis

c\O

ffset

ting

_Pla

n\M

XD

\Pro

ject

_Lo

catio

n_1

.mxd

; La

st s

ave

d b

y: m

on

ica.

dev

eau

_̂ Project LocationConservation AreasFirst Nation ReserveProvincial ParkMunicipal BoundaryHighwayLocal RoadRailway

WatercourseWaterbody

_̂

KEY MAP

ProjectLocation

500km


Magino Gold Project


2.0 Project Contact Information

Proponent:

Names and address of Owner Project / Mailing Address

Head Office Project Office Argonaut Gold Inc. Prodigy Gold Inc. 9600 Prototype Court Box 209, 30 Dree Street Reno, NV 89521 Dubreuilville, Ontario, P0S 1B0 Authorized Contact Person

Attention to: Mr. Kyle Stanfield Director, Environment & Community Relations, Magino Project Box 309, 3 Dree Road Dubreuilville, Ontario P0S 1B0, Canada 807-621-6152 [email protected] Mr. Stanfield is an authorized representative for the Proponent and will be the signing authority for the Application(s), on behalf of the Proponent.


Magino Gold Project


3.0 Location of Proposed Project

The Project is located approximately 40 kilometres (km) northeast of Wawa, Ontario, in Finan Township, Algoma District, and is accessed via Goudreau Road from Dubreuilville. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the general Project are 689049E 5351422N (NAD 83 Zone 16U).

There are several watercourses and waterbodies (creeks, wetlands and lakes) directly affected by the Project where Serious Harm to Fish would occur or where the deposition of mine waste may require a listing of natural water features on Schedule 2 of the MDMER. These waterbody locations are summarized below in Table 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-1. Additional descriptions of the Project impacts are provided in Section 6.


Magino Gold Project


Table 3-1: Coordinates of Waterbodies Affected by Project

Relevant Legislation

Names of Waterbody Easting

(Centroid) Northing (Centroid)

Section 35 Waterbody 1 Inlet 688766 5352517 Schedule 2 Waterbody 1 688443 5352260 Schedule 2 Stream from Waterbody 1 to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 687989 5351973 Schedule 2 Waterbody 2 North Inlet 688071 5352579 Schedule 2 Waterbody 2 South Inlet 688252 5352495 Schedule 2 Waterbody 2 688000 5352408 Schedule 2 Stream from Waterbody 2 to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 687722 5352143 Schedule 2 McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 to Spring Lake 687569 5351707 Schedule 2 Waterbody 12 687066 5351132 Section 35 Polishing Pond 688671 5351629 Schedule 2 Stream from Polishing Pond to Lovell Lake 688388 5351394 Schedule 2 Lovell Lake 687850 5351056 Section 35 Waterbody 13 Inlet 687447 5350466 Schedule 2 Waterbody 13 687537 5350590 Schedule 2 Stream from Waterbody 13 to Lovell Lake 687883 5350757 Schedule 2 Inflow to McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 687007 5350783 Section 35 Inflow to McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 687008 5350740 Section 35 McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 687055 5350713 Schedule 2 Lovell Lake Outlet Stream to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 687263 5350858 Section 35 Webb Lake 688895 5350826 Schedule 2 Waterbody 3 686485 5350898 Schedule 2 Portion of stream from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake 686563 5350782 Section 35 Portion of stream from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake 686538 5350667 Schedule 2 Portion of Stream to Waterbody 8 685900 5352375 Section 35 Portion of Stream to Waterbody 8 686091 5352555 Schedule 2 Waterbody 7 685409 5351898 Schedule 2 Portion of Waterbody 7 Outlet 685480 5352231 Section 35 Portion of Waterbody 7 Outlet 685314 5352256 Schedule 2 Portion of Stream from Waterbody 6 to Waterbody 7 684953 5351526 Schedule 2 McVeigh Creek Tributary 2 685523 5351402 Schedule 2 McVeigh Creek Downstream of Spring Lake 685529 5350989 Section 35 McVeigh Creek Downstream of Spring Lake to Summit Lake 684352 5349625 Section 35 Waterbody 10 688333 5350324 Section 35 Waterbody 10 to Webb Lake 688386 5350692 Section 35 Webb Lake to Goudreau Lake 689457 5351161

Notes: Coordinates are in UTM NAD 83, Zone 16U Centroid is the approximate centermost point of the length or portion of waterbody affected by the Project

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

!k"

E

EE

E

E

E E

E

E

E

E

E

E

Goudreau Road

1A

2A2B

2C

2D

3

1B

Water QualityControl Pond

MRMF

TMF

Southwest Fill AreaOverburden and Soil Stockpile

Open Pit

CrusherStockpile

MillArea

South East Fill Area

Northwest Fill AreaOverburden and

Soil Stockpile

Waterbody13

Waterbody12Mc

Veigh

Creek

Tributary 2

2E

Lovell LakeOutlet Stream Inflow to

McVeigh CreekTributary 1

Waterbody 1Inlet

Waterbody 2North Inlet Waterbody 2

South Inlet

Waterbody 13Inlet

Stream fromWaterbody 3

to Spring Lake

Stream toWaterbody 8

Waterbody 7Outlet

Stream from Waterbody 6to Waterbody 7

McVeigh CreekDownstream ofSpring Lake toSummit Lake

Waterbody 10to Webb Lake

Webb Lake toGoudreau Lake

Stream fromWaterbody 13to Lovell Lake

Stream fromPolishing Pond to

Lovell Lake

Stream from Waterbody 1to Confluence with

McVeigh Creek Tributary 1

Stream from Waterbody 2to Confluence with


Waterbody10

Waterbody3

WestGoudreau

Pond

PP3Waterbody4

PP4Waterbody6

PP2

Waterbody5 PP1

PolishingPond

Waterbody11

TailingsPond

Waterbody7

Waterbody1

Waterbody2

Waterbody9

Waterbody8

GoudreauLake South

HermanLake

LovellLake

MaskinongeLake

MillerLakeMud Lake

OttoLakeSherman

Lake

SpringLake

WebbLake

GoudreauLake

McVeigh CreekDownstream of

Spring Lake


Herman Creek

Goudreau Cree

k

683000 684000 685000 686000 687000 688000 689000 690000 691000

5350

000

5351

000

5352

000

5353

000

5354

000

²0 1 2 3 4 50.5

Kilometres

LEGEND

Fisheries Impactand Offset Locations

FIGURE: 3-1DATE: October 2018


SCALE: 1:21,000


NOTES:- Project outline boundary, property boundary, site footprints and contours provided by Minnow.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

P:\

201

8\P

roje

cts\

TC

180

502

_P

GI_

Ma

gin

o_E

nvi

ron

me

nt\0

2_W

ork

_F

iles\

GIS

\D_R

uss

ell_

Mis

c\O

ffset

ting

_Pla

n\M

XD

\Off

setti

ng_

Pla

n_1

8.m

xd

Property BoundaryProposed Extent of Mine Development AreaSchedule 2 ListingSection 35 AuthorizationMine InfrastructureWatercourseWaterbody

Contours (2.5 m interval)RailwayRoad

1A: McVeigh Creek Diversion Channel between Spring Lake and McVeigh Creek Downstream of the TMF1B: Diversion Channel from Waterbody 10 to Goudreau Lake2A: Potential New Lake / Basin South of Spring Lake2B: Potential New Lake / Basin West of Goudreau Lake South2C: Potential New Lake / Basin North of Goudreau Lake2D: Potential New Lake / Basin East of Herman Lake2E: Potential New Lake / Basin South of Herman Lake3: Impound New Lake Basin or Pond at Waterbody 9

Captured Fish Species

!k" High Diversity Sportfish

!k" Low Diversity Sportfish!k" Baitfish

!k" None

Habitat Offsetting Options#

")")

")

")")

")") ")

")")

")")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

)

)

)

)

Goudreau

Dubreuilville

â

â

ââ

â

PorphyryLake

MurphyLake

DohertyLake

HermanLake

WilligarLake

SmithyLake

Big BenLake

JustinLake

DobbsLake

TroutLake

ClineLake

ManitowikLake

End Lake

TuffLake

TavisLake

PineLake

MaskinongeLake

BearpawLake

MountainLake

SleekLake

HorgonLake

BillboyLake

PreneveauLake

BlackoutLake

WebbLake

LovellLake

MorrisonLake

NichoLake

Spring Lake

MudLake

OttoLake

SquareLake

GarbeLake

KozakLake

McKechnieLake

WysorLake

DipneedleLake

TroupeLake Sherman

Lake

GreenLake

IrisLake

SummitLake

RowanLake

AllenLake

EmilyLake

LockeLake

CawdronLake

SausageLake

Magpie River

AlexandraLake

EastMiddleton

Lake

MillerLake

TeareLake

DreanyLake

GoudreauLake

AldenLake Speight

Lake

JacksonLake

ForgeLake

Cradle Lakes

LanierLake

HIGHWAY 519

DREY

ROAD

Hobon C reek

McVe igh Creek

Andr

e Cree

k

Garbe Creek

Herman Creek

Cradle Creek

Forge Creek

Gou dreau Creek

Billboy Creek

PSA Boundary:Operations = 86%

Closure = 77%

LSA Boundary:Operations = 66%

Closure = 59%

RSA Boundary:Operations = 34%

Closure = 30%

Upstream ofSpeight Lake:

Operations = 11%Closure = 10%

680000 685000 690000 695000

5340

000

5345

000

5350

000

5355

000

5360

000

²0 2 4 6 8 101

Kilometres

LEGEND

Flow Reduction of McVeigh Creek

FIGURE: 3-2DATE: July 2018


SCALE: 1:70,000


NOTES:- Topograpgic information extracted from Land Information Ontario, MNRF.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

P:\

201

8\P

roje

cts\

TC

180

502

_P

GI_

Ma

gin

o_E

nvi

ron

me

nt\0

2_W

ork

_F

iles\

GIS

\D_R

uss

ell_

Mis

c\O

ffset

ting

_Pla

n\M

XD

\Flo

w_

Re

duct

ion

_6.m

xd

Property BoundaryProject Study AreaLocal Study AreaRegional Study AreaFlow Reduction Limits(labelled with percentageof flow reduction)Watercourse / Waterbodiesalong McVeigh Creek withGreater than 10% Flow Loss

Flow Direction of McVeigh CreekWatercourseWaterbodyHighwayLocal RoadResource / Recreation RoadRailwayContours (10 metre interval)

Captured Fish Species") High Diversity Sportfish") Low Diversity Sportfish") Baitfish") None

â

) )


Magino Gold Project


4.0 Description of Proposed Project

Prodigy proposes to construct, operate, and eventually reclaim a new open pit gold mine at the Magino property. The Project will include all mine workings, process and waste disposal facilities, and related infrastructure.

Mining of the Magino deposit has been designed as an open pit. The process plant will operate 365 days per year with a Life of Mine (LOM) of approximately 15 years. The mill throughput range will be from 25,000 to 35,000 tonnes per day (tpd), with a peak of approximately 35,000 tpd of ore. The overall Project development schedule will consist of the following main phases, during which various Project activities will be completed:

Site Preparation and Construction: 3 years

- Site Preparation: 1 year

- Construction: 2 years.

Operation: 15 years

- Open Pit: 10 years

- Milling: 12-15 years.

Closure

- Active Closure: 3 years, corresponding to the period when primary decommissioning and rehabilitation activities are carried out

- Post-Closure: 10 years, corresponding to a semi-passive period when the Project is monitored and the open put is allowed to fill with water, creating a pit lake (up to 50 years).

The key components of the Project are as follows:

Open pit with in-pit haul roads;

Site ‘ring road’;

Topsoil and overburden storage areas;

Ore stockpiles;

Crushing plants and grinding facilities;

Process plant area (mill) and associated equipment and facilities;

Tailings management facility (TMF);

Mine Rock Management Facilitiy (MRMF);


Magino Gold Project


Water management facilities, including contact water collection system (ditches, pumping systems, seepage trenches, and pipelines);

Freshwater intake in Goudreau Lake;

Explosives facility;

Buildings and supporting infrastructure;

Water supply and associated infrastrucutre;

Package sewage treatment plant;

Cyanide treatment plant;

Potable treatment plant;

Lighting and security;

Site roads and parking areas;

Onsite pipelines;

Fuel and hazardous materials;

Aggregate sources; and

Temporary camp, administration buildings, warehouses, and maintenance faciltiies.

Project activities include the relocation and construction of the powerline owned and operated by Algoma Power. In addition to the components listed above, the Project will include all temporary activities associated with construction including stockpiles, laydown areas, access roads, water management, temporary flow isolation, environmental control measures (e.g. silt fencing), temporary facilities, and creek crossings.

Detailed descriptions of the Project components and their interactions with the environment can be found in the Magino Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Assessment (EA) (Golder et al. 2017).


Magino Gold Project


5.0 Description of the Types of Proposed Works Likely to Result in Loss or Impacts to Fish Frequented Waterbodies

Project activities have the potential to result in impacts to waterbodies frequented by fish through direct impacts such as infilling or displacment of waterbodies; water intake or discharge structures; and road crossings of local watercourses; as well as indirect impacts such as flow reductions to downstream creek sections..

Direct Impacts

Direct impacts result from works activities and undertakings that will entirely displace or cause the loss of a habitat area. Project activities with potential to cause direct impacts are shown in Figure 3-1 and include the following:

Deposition of mine waste into natural waterbodies that are frequented by fish. These waterbodies include Waterbody 1, Waterbody 2, McVeigh Creek, Waterbody 3, Waterbody 7, Lovell Lake, Waterbody 12, and Waterbody 13 as well as their connecting channels. A complete list of all waterbodies that will be overprinted by mine waste is provided in Section 7, Table 7-1b.

Overprinting of fisheries habitats or unintentional killing of fish through infilling or excavation to construct the mine features (i.e., open pit, Inlet to Waterbody 1, the Polishing Pond, Webb Lake and Waterbody 10.

Watercourse diversions (McVeigh Creek and Waterbody 10 to Goudreau Lake)

Local road crossings associated with the Ring Road, and other access roads and haul roads as required. Road crossings will use standard mitigation measures and best management practices (structure sizing, embedment, construction methods) to mitigate impacts, but will still have the potential to impact fish habitat. Road designs will occur during the detailed design stage, but all road crossings are expected to occur within areas already identified as impacted or lost habitat in Section 7.

Otto Lake diffuser structure. Based on the location of the proposed diffuser, there will be approximately 100 m of discharge pipeline extending from the shore to the diffuser, and an actual in water footprint of less than 150 m2,. Shoreline impacts associated with initial construction of the diffuser are expected to be highly localized, of short duration, restored to conditions similar to present following construction.

Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are works activities and undertakings that will not result in the complete loss of a habitat area, but will alter the conditions of the habitat to an extent where impacts to fish or use of the fish habitat may result. This is primarily associated with flow reductions where potential impacts range from negligible to an extent where the waterbody is no longer expected to support full life cycles for the resident fish.

Development of the Project infrastructure will reduce catchment drainage to adjacent watercourses, and in some cases divert 100% of flow from some of the headwater drainage channels associated with the


Magino Gold Project


Project development area. These remnant channels will be unlikely to support diverse aquatic functions and are considered to be fully impacted. These channels include: McVeigh Creek Tributaries to Spring Lake, the stream from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake, Waterbody 13 inlet, Waterbody 7 outlet stream and the stream to Waterbody 8.

Partial flow reductions or increases to waterbodies within the Project footprint were analyzed using a Lake and Stream Water Balance Model (LSWBM) while McVeigh Creek downstream of the Project footprint was assessed using an analysis of catchment reduction, and conclusions from the LSWBM. The LSWBM accounts for changes in watershed catchment areas, water takings from Goudreau Lake, increased groundwater seepage due to the development of the pit, pit dewatering, and site discharges from the Water Quality Control Pond (WQCP).

Based on the modeling results, the waterbody type habitats (lakes, ponds and backwatered reaches) will not be impacted to an extent that could be detected from existing baseline conditions. Low gradient habitats such as lakes and other backwatered habitats, are governed by persistent grade controls that maintain backwatered elevations over a relatively large range of flow conditions including low flows. As such, even minimal flow in the channelized areas is sufficient to maintain the backwatered areas. There would be velocity effects and changes in the water refresh frequency in the ponded areas due to the flow loss, but the fish communities present in the system are typical of the flooded slow flowing environments and are considered to be resilient to flow changes due to the natural variation in the annual flow regime. For example, Spring Lake will have the greatest flow reduction of the affected waterbodies, but modeling has predicted only an 8 cm reduction water during average precipitation conditions. Although the flushing rate for the lake would be altered, the habitat area and depth would remain simmilar, and is expected to continue to suport all life functions for the resifent fish species (White sucker, Yellow Perch and cyprinids) which are adapted to ponded habitats. Accordingly, no impacts to lake, pond and impounded waterbodies are predictd due to estimated partial flow losses. This prediction will be monitored and confirmed by use of water level loggers placed in representative waterbodies as part of the monitoring program.

Only McVeigh Creek is predicted to experience a flow loss greater than 10% downstream of the immediate Project development area (Figure 3-2). In order to quantify the potential impacts to channelized sections of McVeigh Creek downstream of the Project Study Area, the percent flow reduction has been used as the direct percent habitat reduction. It is Wood’s experience that this approach is very conservative, and the actual modeled habitat area reductions are typically much smaller than the values derived using this method. Predicted residual habitat losses in McVeigh Creek due to the flow reduction is accounted for in Table 7-1b.

In the case of flow reductions, the criteria used to derive the extent of permanent alteration is as follows:

Areas with less than 10% flow reduction and Lakes, ponds and impounded sections of McVeigh Creek are considered to be negligibly affected with no measurable loss of habitat. This is based on a review of ecological flow requirements by DFO (2013) in the case of less than 10% flow reductions, and based on site specific flow modeling for impounded creek and lakes.

Channelized sections of McVeigh Creek with more than 10% flow reduction but less than 85% flow reduction are considered to be partially affected and the impacted area (habitat loss) is calculated as the total channelized bankfull habitat area multiplied by the percent flow reduction. For example:


Magino Gold Project


bankfull habitat measuring 100 m2 in area with a 60% flow reduction would result in 100 m2 × 0.60 = 60 m2 of permanent habitat alteration.

Areas with greater than 85% flow reduction are considered significantly affected and habitat loss is quantified as 100% of the area. This is based on the consideration that the impacted watercourses are small headwater channels and as such have intermittent tendencies that would be greatly increased by large flow reductions, to the extent where sufficient wetted areas may not be retained to sustain the resident fish community; and, greater than 85% flow reductions would result in persistent flow conditions well below the 30% Mean Annual discharge (30% MAD) which is considered to have a heightened risk of impacts to fisheries (DFO, 2013).


Magino Gold Project


6.0 Measures and Standards to Avoid or Mitigate Impacts to Fish Frequented Waters

To avoid or mitigate additional loss of waters frequented by fish or Serious Harm during implementation of the plan, a combination of site specific mitigation measures as defined in permits, approvals or EA commitments and best management practices will be used. Measures and standards would include but not be limited to: construction water management; erosion and sedimentation controls; and, timing windows to protect sensitive life cycle periods.

To ensure that the measures and standards are implemented as proposed, construction and plan implementation will be monitored by Prodigy onsite monitors, or designates. Monitoring will be reported to DFO in an “as constructed” report provided within 12 months of the works being completed. The “as constructed” monitoring report will include a photographic record, a summary of all fish removal efforts carried out, and a record of any contingency measures that were implemented and their effectiveness.

Where possible the compensation and offset measures will be constructed in advance of major Project impacts. This approach will allow for the initial development and stabilization of the works to be achieved, and significant colonization of the new replacement habitats by adjacent fish communities at the same time that fisheries impacts occur. Any changes to the approximate time periods specified in the final plan would require notification and approval by DFO in advance of the revised schedule.

A list of typical measures, standards and contingency measures that are to be implemented during the Project to avoid or mitigate Serious Harm to Fish are shown in Table 6-1.

The measures and standards and contingencies listed in Table 6-1 will be implemented and/or ready for use prior to the start of the works and maintained in a functional or prepared state until completion of the works specified in the plan.

Monitoring and Reporting of Avoidance and Mitigation Measures

To ensure that the measures and standards described in this plan are implemented as proposed, construction and plan implementation will be monitored by Prodigy onsite monitors, or designates. Monitoring will be reported to DFO in an “as constructed” report provided within six months of the works being completed. The “as constructed” monitoring report will be as per below.

To demonstrate effective implementation and function of the avoidance and mitigation measures, Prodigy will maintain the following documentation and provide summaries of the documents in the “as constructed” report. Records include:

A photographic record from consistent vantage points and inspection reports will be kept to document measures and standards employed and their effectiveness to limit the serious harm;

A record of all fish removal efforts carried out with the numbers of fish removed and relocation locations; and

A record of any contingency measures that were implemented and the effectiveness of the measures.


Magino Gold Project


A detailed record will be made of any contingency measures that were followed to prevent impacts greater than those predicted by this offset plan in the event that mitigation measures did not function as described. A summary of any contingency measures will be provided in the “as constructed” report.


Magino Gold Project


Table 6-1: List of Measures and Standards, Success Criteria and Contingency Measures

Measure or Standard Success Criteria Contingency Sediment and erosion control measures associated with the work will be in place prior to substantial ground disturbance and through the duration of construction

No visible sediment entering natural waterbodies as a result of ground disturbance

Stop the work that is resulting in sediment release until effective controls are implemented. Maintain supply of erosion and sediment control supplies on site to repair, replace or supplement control measures as needed.

Observe timing constraints for inwater work

No inwater work during constraint period (April 1 through June 15)

Exemption from timing period may be requested from MNRF and copied to DFO

Minimize duration of inwater work to the extent practicable.

Work continues in continuous manner to completion.

Monitor contractor’s effort and implement additional site planning as needed. Ensure materials are available to complete the construction continuously as needed.

Undertake inwater activities in isolation of open or flowing water to avoid introducing sediment into the watercourse.

Work areas are effectively isolated from flowing water.

Stop works that are not isolated from flowing water. Isolate work area, remove fish from work area before continuing works. Maintain a sufficient supply of pumps and materials on site to isolate flows.

Stabilize shoreline or banks disturbed by any activity associated with the works.

Shorelines are mostly stable and not eroding.

Grade bank to stable slope if necessary. Use temporary or permanent bank stabilization material to stabilize banks.

Remove fish from areas where waterbodies are to be abandoned or isolated from the active creek channel due to the works.

No dead or stranded fish within the work areas.

If stranded or distressed fish are observed in the work area, stop work causing distress, and continue fish removal.

Screen or use other deterrents at any pump intakes to prevent entrainment or impingement of fish.

No fish entrained or impinged at pump intakes.

If fish are entrained or impinged, implement corrective action by, either repairing or supplementing the exclusion measure in place.

Ensure that machinery arrives on site in a clean condition and is maintained free of fluid leaks.

Machinery arrives on site in clean condition.

Have an area or location on site to clean equipment to a suitable condition on arrival or as required.

Wash, refuel and service machinery and store fuel and other materials for the machinery in such a way as to prevent any deleterious substances from entering the water.

No deleterious substances entering waterbodies.

Follow site response plan that is to be implemented immediately in the event of a sediment release or spill of a deleterious substance and keep an emergency spill kit on site.


Magino Gold Project


7.0 Residual Impacts to Waterbodies Frequented by Fish

Despite the efforts and measures to avoid and mitigate impacts, there will be residual impacts to fish frequented waters and serious harm to fish that cannot be avoided. These impacts will require either the addition of waterbodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, or an Authorization under Section 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act. All works requiring Schedule 2 amendment or Fisheries Act Authorizations are considered to be permanent in nature.

The impacts and losses of fish habitat will occur in waterbodies of varying size, and quality with fairly significant differences in the types of fish communities that they support (described in Section 1). In order to provide context to the losses of fish habitat that accounts for this variability we have proposed a fish community coefficient system to better compare habitat losses and habitat compensation between waterbodies.

The fish community coefficients focus on the ecological value of the habitat types, inferred from their fish community. Sufficient evidence exists in the scientific literature to conclude that larger lakes with greater mean depth, and rivers with larger drainage areas result in greater species richness and fish diversity (Amarasinghea & Welcomme, 2002). A relationship between species richness and productivity is less defined in the literature, but work completed in boreal lakes in Finland showed a positive relationship between plankton species richness and primary productivity at a regional scale (Korhonen, Wang & Soininen J, 2011). This corroborates the Project data collected which showed that the small headwater creeks and lakes were generally populated by fewer species (lower species richness) and had lower abundance (lower CPUE). The proposed fish community coefficients used to calculate adjusted areas for the impacted fish habitats are provided in Table 7-1a. The unadjusted and adjusted areas of residual impacts to waterbodies frequented by fish and to fisheries are summarized in Table 7-1b as either losses that require Schedule 2 amendment; or serious harm that requires a Fisheries Authorization.

The combined adjusted impact area to waterbodies and watercourse areas associated with the Project has been calculated as 56.75 ha. The majority of the impact area (39.69 ha, 70%) is associated with Schedule 2 waterbodies that will be overprinted due to the deposition of mineral waste such as the tailings management facility, the mine rock and overburden stockpile areas and the water quality control pond. The remaining areas of impact, (17.06 ha, 30%) will result from site development including the open pit, processing plant, access roads and other supporting infrastructure as listed in Table 7-1b.


Magino Gold Project


Table 7-1a: Fish Community Coefficient Summary

Fish Community Coefficient None 0 Baitfish (no large-bodied fish) 0.75 Low Diversity Large-bodied fish with Baitfish 1 High Diversity Large-bodied fish with Baitfish 1.25


Magino Gold Project


Table 7-1b: Summary of Impacts Requiring Fisheries Act Authorization or MDMER Schedule 2 Listing

Waterbody Name Effect Fisheries

Impact Area (ha)

Fish Community

Fish Community Coefficient

Adjusted Fisheries Impact

Area (ha) Lovell Lake Overprinted By South East Fill Area 13.31 LD 1 13.31 Lovell Lake Outlet Stream to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1

Overprinted By Tailings Facility 0.2 LD 1 0.2

McVeigh Creek (d/s of Spring Lake) within Development Area

Overprinted By Southwest Fill Area 9.9 LD 1 9.9

McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 to Spring Lake Overprinted By Tailings Facility And South East Fill Area

0.45 LD 1 0.45

McVeigh Creek Tributary 2 Overprinted By Tailings Facility And Southwest Fill Area

0.14 BF 0.75 0.105

Stream from Polishing Pond to Lovell Lake Overprinted By Tailings Facility And South East Fill Area

0.11 BF 0.75 0.0825

Waterbody 1 Overprinted By Mine Rock Stockpile 4.18 BF 0.75 3.135 Stream from Waterbody 1 to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1

Overprinted By Tailings Facility 0.84 BF 0.75 0.63

Waterbody 2 North and South Inlets Overprinted By Mine Rock Stockpile 0.03 BF 0.75 0.0225 Waterbody 2 Overprinted By Tailings Facility 2.32 BF 0.75 1.74 Stream from Waterbody 2 to confluence with McVeigh Creek Tributary 1

Overprinted By Tailings Facility 0.67 BF 0.75 0.5025

Waterbody 3 Overprinted By Tailings Facility 2.89 BF 0.75 2.1675 Stream from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake Overprinted By Tailings Facility 0.03 BF 0.75 0.0225

Stream from Waterbody 6 to Waterbody 7 Overprinted By Water Quality Control Pond

0.04 BF 0.75 0.03

Waterbody 7 Overprinted By Water Quality Control Pond

9.11 BF 0.75 6.8325

Stream to Waterbody 8 Overprinted By Northwest Fill Area And Overburden Stockpile

0.05 BF 0.75 0.0375

Waterbody 13

Overprinted By Tailings Facility 0.63 BF (Unk) 0.75 0.4725

Stream from Waterbody 13 to Lovell Lake Overprinted By Tailings Facility 0.06 BF (Unk) 0.75 0.045 Total Schedule 2 Impacts 44.96 39.69


Magino Gold Project



Impact Area (ha)

Fish Community



Area (ha) McVeigh Creek (d/s of Spring Lake) to Summit Lake

Flow Reduction 0.81 HD 1.25 1.0125

McVeigh Creek Tributary 1 to Spring Lake Flow Reduction 0.09 LD 0.75 0.0675 Polishing Pond Overprinted By Mill Area 1.88 BF 0.75 1.41 Waterbody 1 Inlet Overprinted By Mill Area 0.02 BF 0.75 0.015 Stream from Waterbody 3 to Spring Lake Flow Reduction 0.02 BF 0.75 0.015 Waterbody 7 Outlet Flow Reduction 0.04 BF 0.75 0.03 Stream to Waterbody 8 Flow Reduction 0.01 BF 0.75 0.0075 Waterbody 10 Flow Reduction 0.61 BF 0.75 0.4575 Waterbody 10 to Webb Lake Flow Reduction 0.48 LD 1 0.48 Waterbody 13 Inlet Flow Reduction 0.02 BF (Unk) 0.75 0.015 Webb Lake Overprinted By Open Pit 10.79 HD 1.25 13.4875 Webb Lake to Goudreau Lake Flow Reduction 0.05 HD 1.25 0.0625 Waterbody 13 Inlet Flow Reduction 0.02 BF (Unk) 0.75 0.015 Total Section 35 Impacts 14.82 17.06


Impact Area (ha)


Area (ha) Total Schedule 2 Impacts 44.96 39.69 Total Section 35 Impacts 14.82 17.06 Combined Schedule 2 and section 35 Area Totals (ha) 59.72 56.75

Notes:

NA not applicable Fish Community Coefficients employed are as follows: a None = 0 b. BF (baitfish) = 0.75 c. LD (Low Diversity Large-bodied fish with Baitfish) = 1 d. HD (High Diversity Large-bodied fish with Baitfish) = 1.25

Unk unknown fish species (assumed to be baitfish)


Magino Gold Project


8.0 Schedule - Period During Which the Work Undertaking or Activity will be Completed

8.1 Seasonal Construction Constraints

The waterbodies associated with the works, undertaking or activity that are likely to result in Serious Harm to Fish are considered coolwater with respect to fish communities and species sensitivities. As such, inwater works are to be avoided between April 1 and June 20 of any given year to comply with the inwater timing constraints for spring spawning species as per MNRF Inwater work timing window guidelines (OMNR 2013); and, DFO’s Ontario Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO 2017). Once the initial isolation of specific areas are complete and the risk of impacting downstream habitats is removed, this timing window would no longer apply. In the event that an exemption to the specified timing window is necessary, a request for alternate work periods will be made to the MNRF and copied to DFO.

8.2 Construction Schedule

A tentative timeline for impacts and plan implementation is provided in Table 8-1. The timeline is an estimate based on the current understanding of the Project development and approval schedule. For flexibility and contingency with respect to the actual construction start date, the schedule shown is based on the number of years prior to or after the start of the Project operation phase (Section 4.0). In general the compensation / offset measures will be constructed in advance of major Project impacts to the extent possible. This approach will alow for the initial stabilization of the works to be achieved, and significant colonization by adjacent fish communities in advance of fisheries impacts. If the work, undertaking or activity cannot be completed during the approximate time period specified in the final plan, DFO will be notified in writing in advance of the expiration of the above time period, and provided with a revised schedule. It is understood that DFO may, where appropriate, provide written notice that the period to carry on the works, undertaking or activity has been extended.


Magino Gold Project


Table 8-1: Tentative Timeline of Project Undertaking or Activities

Offset Component / Activity Impact or

Offset

Mine Commercial Operation Commences Year 1

Early Start (yr)

Late Completion (yr)

Diversion of Waterbody 10 to Goudreau Lake Offset -3 -1 Creation of New Lake Basins (excavations and impoundments) Offset -3 -1 Development of open pit and loss of associated waterbodies Impact -2 To closure Development of TMF and Stockpiles (not overprinting fish frequented waters)

N/A -3 To closure

Development of TMF and Stockpiles overprinting fish frequented waters – Requiring Schedule 2)

Impact -1 To closure

Diversion of McVeigh Creek Offset -1 1 Abandon McVeigh Creek Channel Impact -1 1 Maintenance of adjustment period for Offset / compensation measures if required

Offset -1 4


Magino Gold Project


9.0 Scale and Description of Offsetting Measures

The following measures are proposed to provide compensation for the Schedule 2 waterbody impacts and to offset the Section 35 Serious Harm to Fisheries (Table 7-1b). Numerous offsetting alternatives were proposed by the Project team and stakeholders during early planning discussions. A candidate alternatives ranking matrix was prepared to evaluate each alternative, with associated tables laying out the ranking scale (Table 9-1a) and defining categories being ranked (Table 9-1b). Alternatives were compared based on factors such as their ability to meet the project compensation / offsetting needs, construction certainty, ecological relevance, information needs, alignment with stakeholder interests and relative cost (Table 9-1c). The highest ranked alternatives cumulatively totaling the quantity of impacted habitat were then put forward in this draft of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan as the “base case plan” and are shown in Figure 3-1. The remaining alternative compensation alternatives are being carried forward in the overall plan as alternatives and contingency measures to be incorporated into the plan as needed.

Early discussions with stakeholders have indicated a preference for maintaining and promoting the higher diversity large bodied fish communities. The four proposed base case compensation measures below will contribute to both local baitfish production and increased high diversity habitat within the Project area. Ongoing and future consultation will be used to develop the final fisheries compensation plan and to refine or modify the measures described below.

The base case measures include those described below and as shown in Figure 3-1. Note that some of the measurements and areas discussed below and shown in the conceptual drawings may differ from the alternatives matrix (Table 9-1c). This is due to refinements of the design to accommodate topography and existing and proposed site features. The final locations, shapes and attributes of the features may change further to accommodate detailed design and consultation inputs.

9.1 Measure 1a – McVeigh Creek Diversion Channel between Spring Lake and McVeigh Creek Downstream of the TMF

A new diversion channel between the Spring Lake outlet and McVeigh Creek Southwest of the Southwest Fill Area Overburden and Soil Stockpile will have a channel length of approximately 580 m. The planform and cross-section of the new diversion channel was determined based on the existing habitat presence and sinuosity of McVeigh Creek channel, taking into account the cut and fill volume required to etablish a stable channel with natural characteristics, and the post construction hydrology and runoff reporting to the new channel. The current design includes an extension of the Spring Lake basin as part of the diversion to take to advantage of the flat gradient existing through that area, as shown in Attachment 1a, Drawing Nos. 002 and 003.

The design includes a functional littoral zone within the lake extension enhanced with rock and wood structure placments. The basin will have a maximaum depth of 3.5 m to provide deeper water refuge, with an average depth of approximately 1.7 m. A riparian zone will be establised through the use of native seed bank material placement where the natural vegetation has been disturbed/removed. A conceptual design of the diversion channel, plan and profile is provided in Attachment 1a, Drawing Nos. 004 and 005. The habitat is designed to accommodate the existing low diversity fish community present in the Spring Lake McVeigh Creek system, and as such has been assigned a fisheries coeficient value of 1.


Magino Gold Project


9.2 Measure 1b – Diversion Channel from Waterbody 10 to Goudreau Lake

The newly-constructed channel between Waterbody 10 and Goudreau Lake will connect existing small ponds south of the existing Webb lake. The diversion channel will have a length of approximately 570 m, and will provide an additional Habitat Offset Area of approximately 3.0 ha. The proposed alignment will connect to the newly constructed basin of Goudreau Lake (Option 2b) as shown in Figure 3-1. The channel design will incorporate the predicted hydrology condition for the sizing of the low flow and overbank channels to emulate the existing creek system. With a maximum depth od up to 3 m, the diversion will integrate overwintering habitat and integrate several existing ponds into the alignment. A conceptual design of the channel, plan and profile is provided in Attachment 1a, Drawing Nos. 006a, 006b and 007.

9.3 Measure 2 – Creation of New Lake / Pond Basins

The constructed lake basin(s) will be designed to provide in-kind habitat replacement (lacustrine environment) consistent with the majority of the habitat impacted by the project. Whereas the majority of impacted waterbodies are baitfish or low diversity sportfish communities, new basins will largely target supporting a high diversity fish community consistent with stakeholder interests, and the MNRF provincial fisheries objective for this area.

Several areas have been advanced to conceptual design as part of the base case offsetting and compensation plans, including the small basin south of spring Lake (Option 2a, Figure 3-1) and the west extension of Goudreau Lake (Option 2b). Additional locations for lake basins are shown in Figure 3-1, to provide alternative basin development options if needed; and the final location and size of the features may differ from that shown to reflect detailed design and consultation inputs.

A conceptual design of the basins south of Spring Lake (Option 2a), and west of Goudreau Lake (Option 2b) are provided in Attachment 1b, Drawing Nos. 008 and 009, and Drawings Nos. 010 to 012, respectively.

The new lake south of Spring Lake would be approximately 3 m at maximum depth, 1.9 m average depth, and measure 6.9 ha in area. Structure in the form of rock substrate placment and submerged wood is proposed to enhance the feature. A constructed outlet channel would provide connectivity to the existing Spring Lake enabling rapid colonization of the new waterbody. It is expected the new habitat will support a low diversity fish community similar to Spring Lake (White Sucker and Yellow Perch) and have been assigned a fish community coeficient of 1.

The west basin expansion to Goudreau Lake would be up to 30 ha in size and incorporate maximum and average depths of 3.5 m and 1.8 m respectively. The basin will receive flow from the diversion of Waterbody 10 and remnant Webb Lake drainage. Habitat structure including rock placement and logs will be placed strategically throughout the basin. Rock shoals will be developed in the basin to promote walleye spawning opportunities adjacent to the deeper basing habitats.

9.4 Measure 3 – Impound New Lake Basin or Pond at Waterbody 9

The impoundment of a new lake basin or pond at Waterbody 9 will have an additional area of up to 20 ha (after subtracting the existing wetted areas). This impoundment will essentially increase the area of Waterbody 9 in all directions and increase its depth, providing additional areas for the resident sport fish


Magino Gold Project


community. The new basin will have an average and maximum depth of 4.4 m and 14.1 m, respectively. Strategic channels will be excavated in the impounded areas to enhance the overall basin morphology, and structures consisting of boulder piles and log structures will be placed, along with ample wood structure positioned through the new wetted areas. Rock shoals will be developed in strategic locations to promote Walleye spawning opportunities.

A conceptual design of the impounded basin is provided in Attachment 1c, Drawing Nos. 013 and 014.

9.5 Monitoring the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Compensation and Offset Measures

Implementation and effectiveness of the compensation and offset measures will be determined by confirming that measures have been constructed as per the approved plans and are functioning as intended using the criteria outlined in Table 9-2. Prodigy will use onsite monitors, and qualified designates as required to document the compliance with the approved plans.

If the results of the monitoring indicate that the compensation measures are not completed on time and/or are not functioning according to the plan, the Proponent will give written notice to DFO and will implement contingency measures (Table 9-3) and additional monitoring.

The monitoring results will be documented in the “as constructed” report; and in performance monitoring reports submitted to DFO according to the approved schedule. The “as constructed” report will be due within 12 months of completing the compensation measures. Performance monitoring reports will be due on or before December 31 of years 1, 3 and 5 following construction of the works. Modifications to the proposed monitoring schedule may be requested by the Proponent in writing to DFO to reflect results of the monitoring program.


Magino Gold Project


Table 9-1a: Ranking Scale Legend for Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives

Rank Scale Rank Meaning Rank Definition

1 Very Low Very Low feasibility and / or certainty of the proposed offset alternative relative to the specific category

2 Low Low feasibility and / or certainty of the proposed offset alternative relative to the specific category

3 Moderate Moderate feasibility and / or certainty of the proposed offset alternative relative to the specific category

4 Moderate to Good Moderate to Good feasibility and / or certainty of the proposed offset alternative relative to the specific category

5 Good Good feasibility and / or certainty of the proposed offset alternative relative to the specific category

6 Very Good Very Good feasibility and / or certainty of the proposed offset alternative relative to the specific category

NoteL

Ranking scale legend for Table 9-1c: Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives


Magino Gold Project


Table 9-1b: Definition of Categories for Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives

Rank Alternative

Simplicity of concept and pre-design

information needs

Monitoring Simplicity and

Success Certainty

Operational Relevance

Compatibility with Existing Land Use

Habitat Area Gain

Construction Implementation and

required controls

Construction Certainty

Land Tenure Certainty

Relative Cost per Type of Offset

Measure

Stakeholder Interest (Aligns with Interests of Several Groups,

increases Diversity of Fish

Community)

Alternative Ranking (Highest is Most Preferred)

Portion of Constructed or

Restored Habitat Credited to Offset

Balance

Percent of Total Offset Amount

Required

Rank is order of feasibility and priority- 1 being the highest or most preferred alternative.

Description of alternative, representing the type of alternative (i.e., channel realignment, new lake basin, existing habitat enhancement).

Simplicity ranking- 1 being the least simple and 6 being the simplest. Lower rankings will require more extensive field programming and time to obtain necessary pre-design information.

Monitoring success simplicity ranking- 1 being the least simple and 6 being the simplest. Effort required to establish certainty of project success through monitoring.

Relevance to facilitation of project site development. High relevance (e.g., 6) means the alternative also facilitates site infrastructure development.

Brief description of existing land use and proposed offsetting alternative feasibility / compatibility with this land use type. Proposed offset alternative relevance to the existing land use, habitat type or fishery.

The proportion of the total area required to be compensated that the specific alternative can provide. New habitats receive high values (100%= very high) while habitat enhancement only receive partial credit.

The percent of the total area required to be compensated that the specific alternative can provide. This percent is broken up into two groups: watercourse % and waterbody %. Higher values are awarded to larger alternatives.

Level of controls and implementation required during the specific alternative construction to prevent additional environmental damage.

Feasibility of constructing the specific offset alternative, including access to the offset location and terrain type.

Certainty that Prodigy will have hold tenure of the lands proposed to be included in the specific offsetting alternative.

Cost of the specific offset alternative relative to other proposed alternatives within the matrix.

How well the specific offset alternative aligns with the interests of different stakeholder groups and provincial management objectives.

Total ranking of the specific offset alternative using the rank scale (Table 7-1b).

Note:

Definition of ranking categories employed in Table 9-1c: Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives


Magino Gold Project


Table 9-1c: Candidate Fisheries Compensation Alternatives Matrix

Rank

Alternative Simplicity of Concept and Pre-design Information

Needs

Monitoring Simplicity and Success Certainty



and Ecological Relevance

Habitat Area Gain


required controls Construction Certainty


Relative Cost per Type of

Compensation / Offset Measure


Increases Diversity of Fish

Community)

Alt

erna

tive

Ra

nkin

g (H

ih

iMPortion of Constructed

or Restored Habitat Credited to

Compensation / Offset Balance

Percent of Total Compensation

Amount Required (8,994 m Creek)

(52.2 ha Pond/Lake)

1 Alternative Type 01 Required Creek Realignments: McVeigh Creek downstream of Spring Lake (998 m) of creek. inline ponds (3.2 ha). Water Body 10 to Goudreau Lake. (989 m) with opportunity for waterbody enlargements.

Good (5) Realignments are common practice. Basic Fisheries and engineering values needed from Reference Creeks to replicate habitat. Most information is available or readily obtainable.

Very Good (6) Monitoring is simple and relies on comparison to baseline reference values. Relatively short duration 3-5 years. Similar habitat should have similar fish values.

Very Good (6) (required to maintain flow to McVeigh Creek and to Goudreau Lake.

Land Use Good (4) Mostly wetland (sparse treed fen) some terrestrial forest (spruce-pine). More than 50% is existing aquatic corridor. Ecological Relevance Very Good (6) High relevance as both diversion channels will connect to permanent water features, maintaining fish passage within each watershed.

Very Good (6) Nearly 100 percentage of the realigned channel should be credited to the Plan. May result in additional “Habitat Units” by addressing limiting conditions of existing channel. Any existing fish bearing waters in the alignment may only receive partial credit.

Moderate (3) Creek length ~20 % Water body area 6 %

Moderate (3) Sizeable drainage area results in larger water management needs. Existing creek flows will need to be bypassed during construction. Can use existing channel and construct most of the new alignment in isolation with cofferdams.

Good (5) Good access to site via site roads and planed infrastructure. New channel construction is relatively common and predictable. Actual new alignment is in soft wetland terrain and will require winter construction and or a new construction access road.

Very Good (6) All areas are under control of Proponent.

Moderate (3) Cost per unit of creek is high Waterbody construction is Moderate.

Very Good (6) Option is in immediate project area as per preferences of DFO, MNRF and other stakeholders. Includes sportfish potential.

53

8 Alternative Type 02 Create deeper habitat in Goudreau Lake for overwintering.

Moderate (3) Concept relies on over wintering usage to increase overall habitat value. More detailed baseline data needs to be collected during the preconstruction period to set success criteria. Need to demonstrate depth and or overwintering is limiting factor to productivity. Engineering information is obtainable but requires geotechnical studies in lake basin.

Moderate (3) Post construction comparison must demonstrate improved overwintering use, and or that depth benefit has transferred to increased productivity. May require higher effort and duration to clearly demonstrate success.

Low (2) Not required to facilitate project site development.

Land Use Very Good (6) Existing lake habitat. Ecological Relevance Very Good (6) Creation of deep water refuge in a high-diversity sportfish lake.

Poor (2) Only the demonstrated enhancement value is credited. Preliminary estimate is 30% increase in Habitat value. Ranking could be improved if DFO gives credit for surrounding lake basin to match full 8 ha.

Poor to moderate (3) Waterbody 8 ha *0.3 = 2.4 ha =4.6%. If DFO gives credit for 8 ha then increases to 15%

Poor (2) Requires large in water excavations. Containment would be difficult and may result in short term TSS and turbidity increases. Turbidity curtains can isolate work areas but fish removal would be difficult.

Moderate (3) Good access to site via site roads. Basin excavation will have to be by barge. Material management from barge to stockpiles is more complex than traditional excavation. Need to assess subsurface conditions to ensure depth can be achieved and maintained.

Moderate (3) Access area is in proponent control but lake is crown property and within other claim holdings. May require agreements with third party.

Poor (2) Cost per ha credited to Plan is expected to be considerably greater that traditional land based excavation.


35

4 Alternative Type 3a Improve drainage or Creation of new outlet for Waterbody 6. New outlet channel and additional waterbody area. (703 m channel (4.2 ha of waterbody).

Moderate to Good (4) Realignments are common practice. Basic Fisheries and engineering values needed from reference creeks to replicate habitat. Hydrology and geotechnical assessment needed to better predict flow conditions of new channel.

Moderate to Good (5) Monitoring is simple and relies on comparison to baseline reference values. Relatively short monitoring duration 3-5 years. Need to confirm fish passage.

Good (5) May be necessary to replace existing outlet from lake which drains to waterbody 7. Additional waterbody area is optional.

Land Use Moderate (3) Channel Very Poor (1) Entirely forest with no existing aquatic corridor (aspen birch hardwood) Waterbody Good (5) Additional waterbody area is fen. Ecological Relevance Moderate to Good (4) Waterbody 6 will require a new outlet to remove local site drainage due to the termination of the existing outlet.

Moderate (3) The channel area would be new and credited in full. However there is uncertainty on how much drainage will report to the outlet and a lesser value may be assigned to reflect permanency. The new waterbody area would have some fisheries value already, so likely only a partial credit is available.

Moderate (3) Creek Length = 7.8% Waterbody = 8%

Good (5) New channel can be constructed in isolation. Water body enlargement would result from impounding and berm area can be isolated. Only limited flow management expected due to small drainage area.

Moderate (3) Will require new road access to and along the channel alignment. New channel construction is relatively common and predictable. New waterbody is in soft wetland terrain and will require winter construction and or a new construction access road.

Very Good (6) All areas are under control of Proponent.

Moderate (3) Cost per unit of creek is high. Waterbody construction is Moderate.

Good (5) Option is in immediate project area as per preferences of DFO, MNRF and other stakeholders. No sportfish potential.

45


Magino Gold Project


Rank


Needs





Habitat Area Gain








Community)

Alt

erna

tive

Ra

nkin

g (H

ih






(52.2 ha Pond/Lake)

6 Alternative Type 3b Improve connectivity of waterbodies. Small channels constructed to provide direct fish habitat and habitat connectivity. Spring Lake Herman Lake, Lake 8, and Goudreau Lake (2,894 m).

Moderate to Good (4) Realignments are common practice, but some of the alignments are existing drainages with existing values. Basic Fisheries and engineering values needed from reference creeks to replicate habitat. Detailed hydrology and geotechnical assessment needed to predict flow conditions of new channel. Some channels will likely be ephemeral to intermittent. Existing channels need assessment of current fisheries value.

Good (5) Monitoring is simple and relies on comparison to baseline reference values. Relatively short monitoring duration 3-5 years. Need to confirm fish passage and show improvement from existing values where existing creeks were present.

Moderate (3) Not directly required to facilitate project site development, but close proximity to impacts helps mitigate loss of headwater creeks.

Land Use Moderate (3) Existing drainage paths are mostly wetland (fen and swamp) and terrestrial forest (aspen birch hardwood). New Drainages are typically forest. Ecological Relevance Poor (2) The lack of an existing creek suggests site hydrology may not provide sufficient flow to establish a new watercourse.

Moderate (3) Some of the channels would be new and credited in full. The existing channels at Goudreau Lake may only receive partial credit for enhancement, unless productivity enhancement is demonstrated.

Good (5) Creek Length 2,894 m = 32%

Moderate to Good (4) New channels can be constructed in isolation. Existing channel enhancement would require flow management, but manageable with pumps due to small drainage areas.

Moderate (3) Will require new road access to and along the channel alignments. New channel construction is relatively common and predictable. Some of the channel enhancements are in soft wetland terrain and will require winter construction and or a new construction access road.

Moderate to good (4) Most areas are under control of Proponent. Drainages to Goudreau Lake are on adjacent claims and may require third party agreements.

Very Poor (1) Cost per unit of small headwater creek is high.

Moderate to Good (4) Option is in immediate project area as per preferences of DFO, MNRF and other stakeholders. Includes only minor sportfish potential. Some may only provide seasonal usage.

39

5 Alternative Type 04 Restoration of acidified lakes near Wawa. Stocking fish community or supplementing trophic levels.

Very Poor (1) All data is 10-20 years old and requires updating. Uncertainty exists on whether suitable lakes exist. The desired fish community will need to be determined and approved by Province (MNRF). Requires concept approval from DFO and MNRF. Detailed fisheries and habitat investigations required to develop offset measures.

Moderate (3) Monitoring is moderately complex. The concept is simple (e.g., establish the desired species), but monitoring will be of longer duration to confirm stability and full life stage survival / reproduction; and stabilization of populations.

Very Low (1) Not required to facilitate project site development and further removed from site.

Land Use Very Good (6) Existing lake habitats. Ecological Relevance Very Good (6) Historically fish-bearing waterbodies should be able to support fish again if water quality is / has been restored.

Moderate (3) DFO has indicated they will only give partial credit as the lakes are existing.

Very Good (6) Large bodies of water available >50% of required area

Very Good (6) No in water works required.

Good (5) Good access to area with some improvement (varies by lake). No construction required, just stocking.

Poor (2) Ownership uncertain. Proponent will need to negotiate access and use of the features with land owners. Relatively predictable if crown is in agreement with option.

Very Good (6) No construction cost other than potential access improvements. Cost of stocking is Is generally low.

Moderate to Good (4) Locations are father from site but still in same region. Lake will naturally colonize with enough time but restoring impacts is a positive action.

43

2 Alternative Type 5a Excavate new Lake Basins / lakes South of Spring Lake (485 m channel and 7 ha lake). Expand Goudreau Lake (~30 ha basin).

Good (5) Lake basin development is simple concept. Basic Fisheries and engineering values needed from reference lakes to replicate habitat. Most information is available or readily obtainable. Engineering studies required to predict lake interaction and long term suitability.

Good (5) Monitoring is simple and relies on comparison to baseline reference values. Relatively short duration 3-5 years. Similar habitat should have similar fish values.


Land Use Good (4) Mostly wetland (marsh and swamp) with some forest or low -lying areas. Some terrestrial land use is affected. Ecological Relevance Very Good (6) Options to improve deficiencies is existing habitat connected to a high-diversity sportfish lake.

Very Good (6) 100 percentage of the new basin should be credited to the compensation.

Very Good (6) Large areas available >50% of required area

Good (5) Candidate sites in glaciofluvial deposits which responds well to erosion and sediment control. New basins / lakes can be constructed in isolation and filled prior to connection.

Good (5) Good access to site via site roads and planed infrastructure. New basin construction is relatively predictable. Actual new alignment is in soft wetland terrain and will require winter construction and or a new construction access road.

Good (5) Most areas are under control of Proponent. One of two Goudreau Lake options may require third party agreement.

Moderate (3) Waterbody construction is Moderate.


52


Magino Gold Project


Rank


Needs





Habitat Area Gain








Community)

Alt

erna

tive

Ra

nkin

g (H

ih






(52.2 ha Pond/Lake)

3 Alternative Type 5b Impound new lake basin / pond.

Good (5) Measure requires dams to flood existing terrestrial lands. Reservoirs are relatively common and well understood. Basic fisheries and engineering values needed from reference Lakes to replicate habitat. Most information is available or readily obtainable. Detailed engineering studies required to predict lake interaction and long term suitability.

Moderate to Good (4) Monitoring is simple and relies on comparison to baseline reference values. Similar habitat should have similar fish values. Longer term monitoring may be required to confirm lake stability and methylmercury cycle.


Land Use Good (4) Mostly wetland (marsh and swamp) with some forest. Some terrestrial land use is affected. Very Good (6) Ecological Relevance Options to improve deficiencies is existing habitat connected to a high-diversity sportfish lake or increase the size of an existing high-diversity sportfish lake (waterbody 9).

Good (5) Most of the new basin should be credited to the compensation, but existing waterbodies subtracted or only partially credited.

Very Good (6) Large areas available area (e.g., Waterbody 9 = ~20 ha)

Moderate to Good (4) Dam / berm construction can be effectively isolated from active flows but requires creek bypass system. Excavations and habitat placements within new basin footprint will require moderately complex sediment and erosion control planning to protect existing waterbody (e.g., waterbody 9) during construction.

Moderate to Good (4) Good access to site via site roads and planed infrastructure. New basin construction and dams are relatively predictable. Excavations and habitat placements in soft wetland terrain and will require winter construction and or a new construction access road.

Moderate to Good (5) Most areas are under control of Proponent. (Northeast extent of Waterbody 9 expansion may require third party agreement).

Very Good (6) Cost per unit of impounded waterbody is low.

Moderate to Good (4) Option is in immediate project area as per preferences of DFO, MNRF and other stakeholders. Includes sportfish potential. Some concern over methylmercury due to flooding has been raised.

49

7 Alternative 6a St. Mary’s River Area of Concern – Whitefish Island Channel (0.6 ha, 1 km) Enhancements.

Moderate (3) Measures improve existing habitat and require detailed existing habitat values to compare to predicted values. Option has been prepared to concept level by Remedial action group (Federal and FN). Requires planning and agreements with multiple groups.

Moderate (3) Post construction comparison must demonstrate that channel improvements have transferred to increased productivity. May require higher effort and duration to clearly demonstrate success.


Land Use Very Good (6) Existing channel / aquatic habitat. Very Low (1) Ecological Relevance High amount of study required to validate this option implies poor certainty of ecological success.

Moderate (3) The channel is existing and only partial credit for improvement will be given.

Moderate (3) Creek Length ~1 km = 11%

Moderate (3) Sizeable drainage area results in larger water management needs. Existing creek flows will need to be bypassed during construction. Requires detailed isolation plan with cofferdams.

Good (5) Good access to most of the island.

Moderate (3) Land Owner likely agreeable to works but requires agreements

Poor (2) Cost per unit of creek / channel is high.

Moderate to Good (4) Works are furthest removed from site and area of impact. Works are in “area of concern” and have interest of federal gov. and FN.

36

9 Alternative 6b St. Mary’s River Area of Concern – Eastern End Bay enhancement (7 ha).

Moderate (3) Measures improve existing habitat and require detailed existing habitat values to compare to predicted values. Option has been prepared to concept level by Remedial action group (Federal and FN). Requires planning and agreements with multiple groups.

Moderate (3) Post construction comparison must demonstrate that channel improvements have transferred to increased productivity. May require higher effort and duration to clearly demonstrate success.


Land Use Very Good (6) Existing channel / aquatic habitat. Very Low (1) Ecological Relevance High amount of study required to validate this option implies poor certainty of ecological success.

Moderate (3) The habitat is existing and only partial credit for improvement will be given.

Moderate (3) Waterbody ~7 ha = 13.4%

Poor (2) Requires large in water excavations and shoal placements. Containment would be difficult and may result in short term TSS and turbidity increases. Turbidity curtains can isolate work areas but fish removal would be difficult.

Moderate (3) Good access to general site. Work area will require barge access and or temporary working platforms in the bay area.

Moderate (3) Land Owner likely agreeable to works but requires agreements.

Moderate (3) Cost per unit of bay enhancement is uncertain but complexity of work and access will be more than traditional material management.

Moderate to Good (4) Works are furthest removed from site and area of impact. Works are in “area of concern” and have interest of federal gov. and FN.

34


Magino Gold Project


Table 9-2: Criteria to Assess Compensation / Offsetting Measures Implementation and Effectiveness Success

Attribute Success Criteria Dates Physical construction of offset measures

As-built survey demonstrates that measures are constructed as per the approved plans

Within 12 months following construction

Physical function of offset measures

Water levels (include Spring Lake, McVeigh Creek and replacement habitats), channel gradients and water depth are consistent with those specified in the design and facilitate conditions for fish passage.

Aerial extent of works as per the plans (habitat quantity consistent with design)

Within 12 months following construction

Stability of structures Constructed habitat features remain in place (wood structure, rock and vegetation structures) in place

Channel banks and offset features are stable and not eroding (greater than 80% of features are considered stable)

Riparian vegetation cover and plantings achieve 80% coverage of area, and or survival of planted stock;

Flow monitoring / water levels (using data loggers) in impacted habitats to confirm predictions made regarding flow reductions in McVeigh Creek and Spring Lake.

Stability assessment in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction.

Species presence Fish community and abundance is consistent with baseline studies of comparable habitats

Fish assessment in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction.

Full life cycle usage Multiple year classes including young of the year fish are present in the offset feature

Fish assessment in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction

Fish abundance Overall Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) for all species combined, for at least two of following capture methods (electrofishing, Minnow Traps, Gill Nets). Success criteria will be the consistent CPUE catch rates as those summarized in Table 1-2 for respective habitat types

Fish assessment in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction


Magino Gold Project


Table 9-3: Contingency Measures for Implementation Success of Compensation / Offset Measures

Attribute Mode of Failure Contingency Physical construction of the measures

Channel not constructed as per plan. Water area, depths and or habitat

structures not in place or present as per the plans

Engineer / biologist to assess cause of failure and recommend corrective actions

Proponent to take required corrective action

Physical function of measures

Conditions do not provide for fish passage or targeted life stage purpose (spawning)

Engineer / biologist to assess cause of failure and recommend corrective actions

Proponent to take required corrective action Water level not consistent with those

specified in plans. Stability of structures

Constructed habitat features (wood structure, rock and vegetation structures) missing or not functional.

Repair or replace structures

Channel not stable (less than 80% of channel is considered stable)

Assess cause and areas of instability Add permanent erosion control (rock,

vegetation in areas of erosion Grade channel to decrease velocity

Riparian vegetation cover and plantings are less than 80% coverage of area, and or survival of planted stock

Apply seed and replacement plantings where required

Substitute specie, and/or use soil amendments if conditions require

Species presence Specified baseline species of fish are not present in the offset measure.

Use monitoring data to assess limiting factors for other species

Supplemental limiting factors through additional works or assess habitat use by other species

Full life cycle usage Absence of expected year classes Use monitoring data to assess limiting factors for spawning or overwintering

Supplement limiting factors through additional planting, structure placement or excavation

Fish abundance Overall Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) does not meet targets

Overall Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) does not meet targets

Use monitoring data to assess limiting factors for abundance

Supplement limiting factors through additional planting, structure or excavation.

Consider longer term monitoring program if trend shows increasing abundance


Magino Gold Project


10.0 Conditions that Relate to Monitoring and Reporting of Implementation of Offsetting Measures

The Proponent will report to DFO on whether the offsetting measures were conducted according to the specifications of the Plans by providing the reports listed in Table 10-1. An as constructed report will be due within 12 months of completing construction of the works. Performance monitoring reports will be due on or before December 31 of years 1, 3 and 5 following construction of the works. Modifications to the proposed monitoring schedule may be requested by the Proponent in writing to DFO to reflect changes in the construction schedule and monitoring results.

Implementation and effectiveness of the compensation / offset measures will be monitored to confirm that measures have been constructed as per the approved plans and are functioning as intended. This will include using defined success criteria related to physical construction and function of the measures, stability of structures, species presence, full life cycle usage, and fish abundance as listed in Table 9-2. If the results of the monitoring indicate that the compensation measures are not completed as specified in the Plans, and/or are not functioning as predicted, the Proponent will give written notice to DFO and will implement contingency measures (Table 9-3) and additional monitoring. .


Magino Gold Project


Table 10-1: Monitoring Criteria and Reporting Schedule of Offsetting Measures

Attribute Monitoring Criteria Report Schedule Physical construction of the measures

As-built survey will be conducted within 12 months of completion of the offset measures.

Photo documentation will be taken during construction to document that mitigation and avoidance measures were implemented, and that all structures were constructed as per the approved plans.

A comparison of the constructed habitat to the approved plan will be made to confirm that the area of replacement habitat is equal to or greater than that specified in the plan.

As-constructed Report due to DFO within 12 months of construction

Physical function of the measures

Channel / lake conditions and water levels / depths remain consistent with the design.

Assess hydraulic connection through grade controls and channel transitions to confirm conditions for fish passage.

Fish presence within the Offset Areas will be monitored once per summer in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction to demonstrate fish usage and abundance.

Spring surveys will be used to assess Walleye spawning success at constructed shoals or riffles.

Flow reduction effects will be monitored using water level loggers and assessment of channel conditions in McVeigh Creek downstream to Summit Lake, to confirm predictions made during the EIS and continued fish passage conditions are maintained.

Performance Monitoring Reports due to DFO on or before December 31 each year for years 1, 3 and 5 post construction

Stability of structures Observations will be made once per year in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction, to confirm that constructed features are in place and functional.

Stability of the features and general condition will be assessed by mapping and photo documenting the habitats. Consistent vantage points will be used to provide between year comparisons.

Riparian vegetation cover and plantings success will be monitored by estimating the percent cover of herbaceous ground cover, and the percent survival of planted stock (shrubs).

Species presence Fish sampling /observation will be conducted in years 1, 3 and 5 post construction to demonstrate: o Comparable abundance and diversity in Offset Areas to

the comparable natural habitats; and o Complete age class representation by resident fish

species to demonstrate reproduction and overwintering survival.

Full life cycle usage Fish abundance


Magino Gold Project


11.0 Cost - Letter of Credits

As per the Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulation, SOR/2013-191 Paragraph 3(1)(b) and MDMER Paragraph 27.1(4) the proponent will provide irrevocable letter(s) of credit issued by a recognized Canadian financial institution to cover the costs of implementing the Section 35 Offsetting Plan and the Schedule 2 compensation plan. It is our understanding that the letters will be separate and accompany each plan, and that DFO will hold both letters until the works are completed and monitoring demonstrated that the measures have functioned according to the plans. DFO may draw upon funds of the letter of credit(s) to cover the cost of implementing the Plans if the Proponent fails to implement the required measures. The value(s) of the letter(s) of credit will be determined with DFO and submitted under separate cover with the final application documents following the detailed design phase of the project.


Magino Gold Project


12.0 Fisheries Offset Accounting and Balancing

In most cases, the impacted waterbodies support baitfish communities or low diversity large-bodied communities defined by the presence of smaller sport fish species such as Burbot or Yellow Perch. The majority of lakes with highly sought recreational and sustenance sportfish such as Walleye, Northern Pike and Whitefish, are located outside the Mine Development Area and are not considered to be affected due to the Project.

As described in Section 7 and Tables 7-1a and 7-1b, a fish community coefficient is proposed to reflect the differences between waterbodies with respect to biological diversity and quality. Consistent with the approach taken to calculate and adjusted impact area, the fish community coefficient was used to calculate an adjusted compensation habitat area that is reflective of the habitat quality: None (0); Baitfish (0.75); Low Diversity Large-Bodied Fish (1); and High Diversity Large-bodied Fish (1.25).

The Plan intentionally targets the development of high diversity offset measures as replacement to the lower diversity and baitfish waterbodies that will be impacted. By applying the coefficient consistently to both the impacted waterbodies and offset areas, the relationship between the higher ecological values of the offset measures to the lower ecological value of the impacted baitfish waterbodies can be better quantified. For example, if 1 ha of baitfish habitat with a coefficient of 0.75 is replaced with 1 ha of high diversity offset habitat with a coefficient of 1.25 the difference in adjusted habitat area is 0.5 ha as illustrated below.

A combined adjusted impact area of 56.8 ha will result from development of the Project and its associated facilities as summarized in Table 12-1-. Of this combined adjusted total, 39.70 ha will be a result of depositing mine waste into waters frequented by fish, and fall under MDMER Schedule 2 waterbodies


Magino Gold Project


requiring replacement through a compensation plan. The remaining 17.05 ha of adjusted impact area will fall under the Fisheries Act, Paragraph 35(2)(b) and requiring replacement through a Fisheries Authorization.

The base case fish habitat compensation plan currently proposed will result in the development of a total adjusted area of 75.6 ha of newly constructed fish habitat resulting in a minimum net habitat gain of 18.8 ha, and an approximate 1:1.3 replacement ratio.


Magino Gold Project


Table 12-1: Compensation / Offset Area Accounting and Balance Summary

COMPENSATION / OFFSET MEASURES

Offset / Compensation Measure Approximate Unadjusted Area (ha)

Approximate Unadjusted Cumulative

Area (ha)

Fish Community


Adjusted Area (ha)

Adjusted Cumulative Area (ha)

McVeigh Creek downstream of Spring Lake

3.2 3.2 Low Diversity 1 3.2 3.2

Water Body 10 to Goudreau Lake 3.0 6.2 Low Diversity 1 3.0 6.2 Small lake south of Spring Lake and outlet channel

6.9 13.1 Low Diversity 1 6.9 13.1

Excavate new Lake Basin (e.g., at Goudreau Lake)

30 43.1 High Diversity 1.25 37.5 50.6

Impound new lake basin / pond (e.g., Waterbody 9)

20 63.1 High Diversity 1.25 25 75.6

COMPENSATION BALANCE Section 35 Schedule 2 Combined

Unadjusted Fishery and Waterbody Area Total Impact (ha) 14.8 44.96 59.72 Adjusted Fishery and Waterbody Total Impact Area (ha) 17.1 39.7 56.8 Unadjusted Cumulative Offset / Compensation Area (Base Case) (ha) 63.1 Adjusted Cumulative Offset / Compensation Area (Base Case) (ha) 75.6 Net Gain Unadjusted (ha) 3.38 Net Gain Adjusted (ha) 18.8 Ratio Unadjusted 1:1.06 Ratio Adjusted 1:1.33

Notes:

NA not applicable

Fish Community Coefficients employed are as follows: a. None = 0 b. BF (baitfish) =0.75 c. LD (Low Diversity Large-bodied fish with Baitfish) = 1 d. HD (High Diversity Large-bodied fish with Baitfish) = 1.25

Unk unknown fish species (assumed to be baitfish


Magino Gold Project


13.0 References

Amarasinghea U.S. & Welcomme R.L. 2002. An analysis of fish species richness in natural lakes; Environmental Biology of Fishes 65: 327–339, 2002.

DFO, 2017; Timing windows to conduct projects in or around water; Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periods/index-eng.html

DFO. 2013. Framework for Assessing the Ecological Flow Requirements to Support Fisheries in Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/017.

Golder Associates, DPRA & SLR International Corporation (Golder et al.), 2017; Magino Gold Project, Finan Township, Algoma District, Ontario, Environmental Impact Statement. CEAA Reference Number 80044. May 2017.

Korhonen J.J., Wang J., Soininen, J. 2011. Productivity-Diversity Relationships in Lake Plankton Communities. PLoS ONE 6(8): e22041. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022041

Minnow, 2017; Magino Mine Addendum to the Fish and Fish Habitat Technical Support Document 15.

OMNR, 2013; In-Water Working Timing Window Guidelines, 2 pp.

SLR, 2016; Magino Gold Project, Fish and Fish Habitat Baseline Study, Technical Support Document 15.

SLR, 2017a; Magino Mine, Addendum to the Fish and Fish Habitat Technical Supporting Document; and,

SLR, 2017b; Magino Project, Environmental Impact Statement Technical Support Document 20-14: Draft Fish Habitat Compensation Plan.


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018

Attachment 1

Draft Design Drawings

Attachment 1a: Measure 1 Draft Channel Diversion Design Drawings Attachment 1b: Measure 2 Draft Lake Basin Excavation Design Drawings Attachment 1c: Measure 3 Draft Lake Basin Impoundment Design Drawings


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018

Attachment 1a

Measure 1 Draft Channel Diversion Design Drawings

Drawing 001: Typical Details Drawing 002: Spring Lake Extension Plan View Drawing 003: Spring Lake Extension Section View Drawing 004: McVeigh Creek Realignment Plan and Profile Views Drawing 005: McVeigh Creek Realignment Typical Channel Section Drawing 006a: Waterbody 10 to West Goudreau Pond Realignment

Plan View Drawing 006b: Waterbody 10 to West Goudreau Pond Realignment

Section Views Drawing 007: Waterbody 10 to West Goudreau Pond Realignment

Typical Channel Sections

15mm REBAR DRIVEN THROUGH

BOTTOM TREE INTO SUBSTRATE

1

8

" GALVANIZED CABLE TO FASTEN

TRUNKS OF OVERLAPPING TREES

FALLEN TREES

(SEE NOTE 2)

BOULDER PILE TO SUPPORT

AND ANCHOR BOTTOM TREE

A

A

15mm REBAR DRIVEN THROUGH

BOTTOM TREE INTO SUBSTRATE

1

8



BOULDER PILE TO SUPPORT

AND ANCHOR BOTTOM TREE

FALLEN TREES

(SEE NOTE 2)

1

8



1

8



NORMAL WATER LEVEL

NORMAL WATER LEVEL

BOULDERS

(SEE NOTES 2 & 3)

1/3 BURIED

BOULDER SPACING VARIES

(250-700mm SPACING)

BB

BOULDER CLUSTERS

(3-7 BOULDERS)

N

O

R

M

A

L

W

A

TE

R

LE

V

E

L

BOULDERS TO BE IRREGULAR IN

SHAPE AND VARY IN SIZE

BOULDER SPACING VARIES

(250-700mm SPACING)

ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTIONYREV D M

-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions

160 Traders Boulevard East

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4Z 3K7

www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT

FISHERIES OFFSET PLAN

TREE PILE AND BOULDER CLUSTERS

TYPICAL DETAILS

TC180502

A

JULY 2018

AS SHOWN

001

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR

30 07 2018 ISSUED FOR REVIEW NSH MCR

TYPICAL TREE PILE: PLAN VIEW

SCALE : N.T.S.

TYPICAL TREE PILE: SECTION A-A

SCALE : N.T.S.

TREE PILE MATERIALS NOTES:

1. TREE PILES SHALL CONSIST OF A MINIMUM OF 5 TREES.

2. TREES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 150mm AND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 3m.

3. IT IS PREFERRED THAT TREES WITH ROOTS AND BRANCHES INTACT BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREE PILES.

4. TREES SHALL BE SOUND AND FREE OF CENTER ROT.

5. TREES UTILIZED SHALL BE A MIXTURE OF CONIFEROUS AND DECIDUOUS TREES

6. BOULDERS UTILIZED FOR CRADLE/SADDLE AND WEIGHTING OF BOTTOM TREE SHALL BE A UNIFORM MIXTURE OF 150mm TO

400mm ROCK WHICH IS NOT POTENTIALLY ACID GENERATING.

7. TREES SHALL BE FASTENED TOGETHER UTILIZING

1

8

" GALVANIZED CABLE (OR EQUIVALENT).

TREE PILE GENERAL NOTES:

1. IT IS PREFERRED THAT WITHIN EACH POND APPROXIMATELY

1

3

OF TREE PILES CONTAIN SOLELY CONIFEROUS TREES,

1

3

OF

TREE PILES CONTAIN SOLELY DECIDUOUS TREES, AND THE REMAINING

1

3

OF TREE PILES CONTAIN BOTH CONIFEROUS AND

DECIDUOUS TREES.

2. DRYING OUT OF TREES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION SHALL BE MINIMIZED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BRANCHES

WHICH ARE BROKEN OFF DURING INSTALLATION.

TREE PILE INSTALLATION NOTES:

1. TREE PILES SHALL BE PLACED IN LOCATIONS OUTLINED IN THE APPROVED PLANS.

2. ALL TREE PILES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE DRY.

3. TREE PILES SHALL CONSIST OF A MINIMUM OF 5 TREES.

4. TREE PILES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY STACKING TREES ATOP ONE ANOTHER TO PROVIDE HEIGHT TO THE STRUCTURE.

5. THE BOTTOM TREE IN THE PILE SHALL BE PLACED IN A BOULDER CRADLE/SADDLE AND FURTHER WEIGHTED WITH

BOULDERS IN ADDITION TO BEING ANCHORED TO THE GROUND WITH REBAR.

6. REBAR ANCHORING SHALL CONSIST OF A MINIMUM OF TWO 15mm REBAR STAKES.

7. TWO PILOT HOLES SHALL BE DRILLED VERTICAL IN THE TREE TRUNK OF THE BOTTOM TREE ONCE IT HAS BEEN PLACED

SECURELY IN THE BOULDER CRADLE. THE HOLES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 300mm APART FROM EACH OTHER.

8. EACH REBAR STAKE SHALL BE DRIVEN INTO THE NATIVE GROUND THROUGH THE PILOT HOLE LEAVING 150mm OF REBAR

EXPOSED OUT OF THE TRUNK.

9. EACH EXPOSED REBAR SECTION SHALL BE BENT OVER THE SIDES OF THE TREE IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, THUS LOCKING

THE TREE IN PLACE.

10. BOULDERS SHALL BE ADDED TO THE CRADLE TO CREATE A BOULDER PILE WHICH COVERS THE REBAR STAKES.

11. TREES SHALL THEN BE ADDED TO THE PILE BY OVERLAPPING TREE TRUNKS AND BINDING THE TREES TOGETHER AT THE

POINT OF OVERLAP UTILIZING

1

8

" GALVANIZED CABLE (OR EQUIVALENT).

12. TREE TRUNKS MAY BE CLEARED OF BRANCHES AT THEIR POINT OF OVERLAP TO FACILITATE FASTENING WITH OVERLAPPING

TREES.

TYPICAL BOULDER CULSTER: SECTION B-B

SCALE : N.T.S.

TYPICAL BOULDER CLUSTER: PLAN VIEW

SCALE : N.T.S.

BOULDER CLUSTER NOTES:

1. BOULDER CLUSTERS SHALL BE PLACED IN LOCATIONS OUTLINED IN THE

APPROVED PLANS.

2. BOULDERS SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 700mm TO 1300mm IN DIAMETER.

3. USE OF IRREGULARLY SHAPED BOULDERS WITH A VARIETY OF DIAMETERS

IS PREFERRED.

4. BOULDERS SHALL NOT CONTAIN POTENTIALLY ACID GENERATING ROCK.

5. BOULDER CLUSTERS SHALL CONSIST OF 3 TO 7 BOULDERS.

6. BOULDERS SHALL BE BURIED TO ONE THIRD OF THEIR TOTAL HEIGHT.

7. BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE TOPS OF SOME BOULDERS

ARE ABOVE THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL.

8. SPACING BETWEEN BOULDERS WITHIN THE CLUSTER SHALL RANGE FROM

250mm TO 700mm.

0

+

0

0

0

0+

050

0+

100

0+

150

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

3

0

0

0

+

3

5

0

0

+

4

0

0

0+

450

0+

500

0+

550

0+

600

0+

641

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0+000

0+050

0+100

0+150

0+200

SOUTHWEST FILL AREA

OVERBURDEN AND SOIL STOCKPILE

PROPOSED EXTENT OF MINE

DEVELOPMENT AREA

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

-

0

+

0

0

0

SPRING LAKE EXTENSION

NORMAL WATER LEVEL EL. 390.0

MINIMUM WETTED AREA 3.0 ha

S

P

R

I

N

G

L

A

K

E


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



PLAN VIEW

TC180502

A

JULY 2018

AS SHOWN

002

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


PLAN VIEW: SPRING LAKE EXTENSION

SCALE = 1:1000

SCALE:

1 : 1000

0m 10 20 30 40

A

A

B

B

C

C

LEGEND

EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR

BOULDER CLUSTER

TREE PILE


DEVELOPMENT AREA

SOUTHWEST FILL AREA

OVERBURDEN AND SOIL

STOCKPILE

EXISTING WATERCOURSE /

WATERBODY

268

NOTES:

1. ALL UNITS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

2. AN AMOUNT OF TOPSOIL SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE WORKS SHALL BE

STRIPPED FROM AREAS REQUIRING GRADING AND STOCKPILED FOR RE-USE.

3. FLOWS SHALL BE MANAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL

FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFF-SITE.

VEGETATION RESTORATION NOTES:

1. ALL AREAS EXCAVATED TO THE DEPTH OF MINERAL SOIL SHALL BE TREATED WITH

A MINIMUM OF 100mm OF TOPSOIL / ORGANIC SOIL SALVAGED FROM SITE.

2. PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE COMPACTED UTILIZING THE TRACK WEIGHT OF A

CRAWLER TRACTOR OR DOZER. FURTHER MACHINERY TRAFFIC ATOP PLACED

TOPSOIL SHALL BE MINIMIZED TO PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION.

3. ANY SOIL COMPACTED DUE TO REPEATED MACHINERY ACCESS SHALL BE

LOOSENED PRIOR TO SEED APPLICATION.

4. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A NURSE CROP OUTLINED IN

TABLE 2.

5. EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO UTILIZE LOCALLY SOURCED NATIVE WETLAND SEED

BANK MATERIAL IN AS MANY AREAS AS POSSIBLE. IF SUFFICIENT WETLAND SEED

BANK IS NOT AVAILABLE THEN AN APPROVED WETLAND SEED MIX SHALL BE

UTILIZED.

6. SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE APPROVED BY PRODIGY GOLD'S

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST.

TABLE 2. NURSE CROP SEEDING

TIMING OF SEEDING

SELECTED SEED TYPE

LATIN NAME COMMON NAME APPLICATION RATE

POST-SPRING

FRESHET TO AUG. 14

Oats

15 kg/ha

AUG. 15 TO OCT. 15 Winter Wheat

15 kg/ha

TABLE 1. MATERIAL SUMMARY

LOCATION MATERIAL QUANTITY

DISTURBED

AREAS

NURSE CROP SEED MIX VARIES

DISTURBED

AREAS

SALVAGED TOPSOIL / ORGANIC SOIL

CONTAINING SEEDBANK

6,700 m

3

BELOW NWL BOULDER CLUSTER 114

BELOW NWL TREE PILE 43

Elevations Table

Minimum Elevation Maximum Elevation

Water Depth

% Area

TOTAL 30,000

Area (m

2

)

13.8%

13.2%

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

388.5

388.0

386.5

389.0

388.5

387.5

4,126

3,972

8,324 27.7% 2.5 - 3.5

14.6% 2.0 - 2.5387.5 388.0 4,372

12.1% 0.5 - 1.0389.0 389.5 3,630

18.6% 0.0 - 0.5389.5 390.0 5,576

TYPICAL TREE PILE

TYPICAL BOULDER CLUSTER

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

386

388

390

392

394

386

388

390

392

394

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+550 0+600 0+641

EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND

TYPICAL BOULDER CLUSTERS

TYPICAL TREE PILE

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED ORGANIC

SOIL (100mm MIN.)


ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

386

388

390

392

394

386

388

390

392

394

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200

EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND



SOIL (100mm MIN.)


ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

386

388

390

392

394

386

388

390

392

394

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200

PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND



SOIL (100mm MIN.)



-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



SECTION VIEWS

TC180502

A

JULY 2018

AS SHOWN

003

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


A

A

B

B

C

C

SECTION C-C: SPRING LAKE EXTENSION

SCALE: H=1:1000 V=1:200

HORIZONTAL SCALE: VERTICAL SCALE:

1 : 1000

0m 10 20 30 40 0m 2

1 : 200

4 86

SECTION B-B: SPRING LAKE EXTENSION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


SECTION A-A: SPRING LAKE EXTENSION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4100m 5

1 : 500

2015

KEY PLAN: SPRING LAKE EXTENSION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100

SCALE:

100m 5

1 : 500

2015

NOTES:


2. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SHEET 002

OUTLET POOL AND CONNECTION

TO MCVEIGH CREEK

BTM. EL. 380.5

MID-REALIGNMENT POOL

BTM. EL. 381.5

TOP OF CUT

EDGE OF FLOODPLAIN

TOP OF CUT

EDGE OF FLOODPLAIN

INLET FROM SPRING

LAKE EXTENSION

INVERT EL. 389.7

TOP OF BANKFULL

CHANNEL

CENTERLINE OF

BANKFULL CHANNEL

MCVEIGH CREEK REALIGNMENT

CONNECTION TO OUTLET POOL

INVERT EL. 382.0

-

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0+300

0

+

3

5

0

0

+

4

0

0

0

+

4

5

0

0

+

5

0

0

0

+

5

5

0

0

+

5

7

9


NWL 390.0


DEVELOPMENT AREA

SOUTHWEST FILL AREA OVERBURDEN

AND SOIL STOCKPILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+550 0+579

INLET FROM SPRING

LAKE EXTENSION

INVERT EL. 389.7

EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED BANKFULL

CHANNEL INVERT

MID-REALIGNMENT POOL

BTM. EL. 380.5

OUTLET POOL

BTM. EL. 380.5

1

4

1

4

1

4

REALIGNMENT CONNECTION

TO OUTLET POOL

INVERT EL. 382.0

REALIGNMENT CONNECTION

TO MID-REALIGNMENT POOL

INVERT EL. 382.7

MID-REALIGNMENT CONNECTION

TO REALIGNMENT

INVERT EL. 382.6

1.6

5%

0.58%


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



PLAN AND PROFILE VIEWS

TC180502

A

JULY 2018

AS SHOWN

004

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


PLAN VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK REALIGNMENT

SCALE = 1:750

SCALE:

1 : 750

5 1510 20 25 300m

PROFILE VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK REALIGNMENT

SCALE: H=1:750 V=1:150

HORIZONTAL SCALE:

1 : 750

5 1510 20 25 300m

VERTICAL SCALE:

1 : 150

0m 1 32 4 5 6

LEGEND


BANKFULL CHANNEL CENTERLINE


DEVELOPMENT AREA

SOUTHWEST FILL AREA OVERBURDEN

AND SOIL STOCKPILE


WATERBODY

338.0

NOTES:



STRIPPED FROM AREAS REQUIRING GRADING AND STOCKPILED FOR

RE-USE.

3. FLOWS SHALL BE MANAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE THE

POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFF-SITE.

4. THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE OUTLET POOL SHALL BE TIED INTO

MCVEIGH CREEK A MINIMUM OF 1m BELOW THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL OF

MCVEIGH CREEK.


1. ALL AREAS EXCAVATED TO THE DEPTH OF MINERAL SOIL SHALL BE

TREATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 100mm OF TOPSOIL / ORGANIC SOIL

SALVAGED FROM SITE.

2. PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE COMPACTED UTILIZING THE TRACK WEIGHT OF

A CRAWLER TRACTOR OR DOZER. FURTHER MACHINERY TRAFFIC ATOP

PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE MINIMIZED TO PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION.



4. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A NURSE CROP

OUTLINED IN TABLE 1.

5. EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO UTILIZE LOCALLY SOURCED NATIVE

WETLAND SEED BANK MATERIAL IN AS MANY AREAS AS POSSIBLE. IF

SUFFICIENT WETLAND SEED BANK IS NOT AVAILABLE THEN AN APPROVED

WETLAND SEED MIX SHALL BE UTILIZED.


TIMING OF SEEDING

SELECTED SEED TYPE


POST-SPRING

FRESHET TO AUG. 14

Oats

15 kg/ha


15 kg/ha

36m

VARIESVARIES

VARIES VARIES

1

4

TYP.

BANKFULL

CHANNEL

SEE DETAILED

BANKFULL CHANNEL

SECTIONS

MATCH

EXISTING

GROUND

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

BANKFULL NWL

1

4

TYP.

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED

ORGANIC SOIL (100mm MIN.)

MATCH

EXISTING

GROUND

FLOODPLAIN TO BE

ROUGH GRADED

(SEE NOTE 3)

CUT LOGS AND WOOD DEBRIS

TO BE RANDOMLY PLACED

ACROSS FLOODPLAIN

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


1

4

TYP.

4.0

1

6

TYP.

0.6 0.41.2

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

0.30

GRAVEL / COBBLE RIFFLE

(100mm MIN.)

0.6 1.2

0.40

0.10

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


1

3

TYP.

2.8

0.60.6

0.2

0.4

0.3

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND


(100mm MIN.)

0.1

0.6 0.6

1

6

TYP.

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


2.8

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.1

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

0.8 0.6

1

6

TYP.

0.4

1

2

TYP.

1

2

TYP.

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


4.0

1

4.6

TYP.

0.41.6

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

0.80

1.3 0.7

0.15

0.65

1

2

TYP.

1

2

TYP.


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS

TC180502

A

JULY 2018

AS SHOWN

005

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


SECTION VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK REALIGNMENT AND FLOODPLAIN TYPICAL

SCALE : N.T.S.

SECTION VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK STA. 0+445 TO 0+549 TYPICAL RIFFLE

SCALE : N.T.S.

SECTION VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK STA. 0+000 TO 0+425 TYPICAL RIFFLE

SCALE : N.T.S.

SECTION VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK STA. 0+000 TO 0+425 TYPICAL POOL

SCALE : N.T.S.

NOTES:


2. FLOODPLAIN WIDTH AS DESIGNED IS A CONSISTENT 36m

THROUGHOUT THE ALIGNMENT

3. FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED ONLY SO AS NOT

TO CREATE A UNIFORM FLOODPLAIN.

4. ANY COMPACTED SOIL DUE TO MACHINERY ACCESS

SHALL BE LOOSENED PRIOR TO TOPSOIL PLACEMENT AND

SEED APPLICATION.

5. ALL AREAS SHALL HAVE 100mm OF TOPSOIL / SALVAGED

ORGANIC SOIL PLACED ON SUBGRADE TO BRING AREAS

TO FINAL GRADE.

SECTION VIEW: MCVEIGH CREEK STA. 0+445 TO 0+549 TYPICAL POOL

SCALE : N.T.S.

GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN

NORMAL WATER EL. 385.0

SEE DWG. NO. 010 & 011

WATERBODY 10

WEBB LAKE

WATERBODY 10 WEST

REALIGNMENT

OUTLET INVERT EL. 389.7

WATERBODY 10 WEST

REALIGNMENT

INLET INVERT EL. 391.7

WATERBODY 10 WEST

REALIGNMENT


WATERBODY 10 EAST REALIGNMENT


WATERBODY 10 EAST

REALIGNMENT

INLET INVERT EL. 389.7

WATERBODY 10 EAST

REALIGNMENT

OUTLET INVERT EL. 384.7

EDGE OF FLOODPLAIN GRADING



EDGE OF FLOODPLAIN

GRADING

22.0

22.0

WATERBODY 10 REALIGNMENT POND



0

+

0

0

0

0+

050

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

2

6

5

PROPERTY

BOUNDARY


DEVELOPMENT AREA

0

+

0

0

0

0+

050

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0+

200

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

3

0

0

0

+

3

3

1

TYPICAL TREE PILE

TYPICAL BOULDER

CLUSTER

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0+

150

0+

200


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT


WATERBODY 10 TO WEST GOUDREAU POND

REALIGNMENT PLAN VIEW

TC180502

A

OCTOBER 2018

AS SHOWN

006a

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


PLAN VIEW: WATERBODY 10 TO WEST GOUDREAU POND

SCALE = 1:1000

SCALE:

LEGEND


BOULDER CLUSTER

TREE PILE


DEVELOPMENT AREA

PROPERTY BOUNDARY


WATERBODY

268

NOTES:


2. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SHEET 006b.

3. AN AMOUNT OF TOPSOIL SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE WORKS SHALL BE STRIPPED FROM AREAS

REQUIRING GRADING AND STOCKPILED FOR RE-USE.

4. FLOWS SHALL BE MANAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFF-SITE.


1. ALL AREAS EXCAVATED TO THE DEPTH OF MINERAL SOIL SHALL BE TREATED WITH A MINIMUM OF

100mm OF TOPSOIL / ORGANIC SOIL SALVAGED FROM SITE.

2. PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE COMPACTED UTILIZING THE TRACK WEIGHT OF A CRAWLER TRACTOR OR

DOZER. FURTHER MACHINERY TRAFFIC ATOP PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE MINIMIZED TO PREVENT

OVER-COMPACTION.

3. ANY SOIL COMPACTED DUE TO REPEATED MACHINERY ACCESS SHALL BE LOOSENED PRIOR TO SEED

APPLICATION.

4. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A NURSE CROP OUTLINED IN TABLE 2.

5. EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO UTILIZE LOCALLY SOURCED NATIVE WETLAND SEED BANK MATERIAL IN

AS MANY AREAS AS POSSIBLE. IF SUFFICIENT WETLAND SEED BANK IS NOT AVAILABLE THEN AN

APPROVED WETLAND SEED MIX SHALL BE UTILIZED.

6. SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE APPROVED BY PRODIGY GOLD'S ENVIRONMENTAL

SPECIALIST.


TIMING OF SEEDING

SELECTED SEED TYPE


POST-SPRING

FRESHET TO AUG. 14

Oats

15 kg/ha


15 kg/ha



DISTURBED

AREAS


DISTURBED

AREAS


CONTAINING SEEDBANK

1,540 m

3



Elevations Table


Water Depth

% Area

TOTAL 15,000

Area (m

2

)

19.5%

11.9%

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

388.5

388.0

387.0

389.0

388.5

387.5

2,921

1,783

2,368 15.8% 2.5 - 3.0

9.7% 2.0 - 2.5387.5 388.0 1,460

22.3% 0.5 - 1.0389.0 389.5 3,348

20.8% 0.0 - 0.5389.5 390.0 3,120

1 : 1000

0m 10 20 30 40

A

A

B

C

C

B

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

386

388

390

392

386

388

390

392

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200


SOIL (100mm MIN.)

EXISTING GROUND

3.0

VARIES

SIDE SLOPE VARIES

MAX. 4H:1V


TYPICAL TREE PILE


ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

388

390

392

394

388

390

392

394

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+265

WATERBODY 10 WEST REALIGNMENT

INLET FROM WATERBODY 10

INVERT EL. 391.7

WATERBODY 10 EAST REALIGNMENT OUTLET

TO WATERBODY 10 REALIGNMENT POND

INVERT EL. 389.7

PROPOSED BANKFULL

CHANNEL INVERT

0.75%

EXISTING GROUND

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

386

388

390

392

394

386

388

390

392

394

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+331

1.5

8%


OUTLET TO GOUDREAU BASIN

INVERT EL. 384.7


INLET FROM WATERBODY 10 REALIGNMENT POND

INVERT EL. 389.7

EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED BANKFULL

CHANNEL INVERT

PROPOSED GOUDREAU BASIN



-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT


WATERBODY 10 TO WEST GOUDREAU POND

REALIGNMENT SECTION VIEWS

TC180502

A

OCTOBER 2018

AS SHOWN

006b

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


SECTION A-A: WATERBODY 10 WEST REALIGNMENT

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


NOTES:


2. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SHEET 006a.

100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4

SECTION B-B: WATERBODY 10 EAST REALIGNMENT

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4

SECTION C-C: WATERBODY 10 REALIGNMENT POND

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4

22m

VARIESVARIES

VARIES VARIES

1

4

TYP.

BANKFULL

CHANNEL

SEE DETAILED

BANKFULL CHANNEL

SECTIONS

MATCH

EXISTING

GROUND

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

BANKFULL NWL

1

4

TYP.

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


MATCH

EXISTING

GROUND

FLOODPLAIN TO BE

ROUGH GRADED

(SEE NOTE 3)

CUT LOGS AND WOOD DEBRIS

TO BE RANDOMLY PLACED

ACROSS FLOODPLAIN

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


1.6

1

8

TYP.

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

0.20


(100mm MIN.)

0.4 0.4

0.25

0.05

0.40.4

1

2

TYP.

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


1.6

0.5

0.3

0.2

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

0.5

0.2

1

2

TYP.

1

1.5

TYP.

0.05

0.25

0.05

0.2

1

4

TYP.

1

4

TYP.

0.05

TOPSOIL / SALVAGED


1.6

0.5

0.3

0.2

BANKFULL NWL

UNDISTURBED

NATIVE GROUND

0.5

0.2

1

2

TYP.

1

1.5

TYP.

0.05

0.25

0.05

0.2

1

4

TYP.

1

4

TYP.

0.05


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT


WATERBODY 10 REALIGNMENT

TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS

TC180502

A

OCTOBER 2018

AS SHOWN

007

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


SECTION VIEW: WATERBODY 10 REALIGNMENT AND FLOODPLAIN TYPICAL

SCALE : N.T.S.

SECTION VIEW: WATERBODY 10 TYPICAL RIFFLE

SCALE : N.T.S.

SECTION VIEW: WATERBODY 10 TYPICAL LEFT-SIDE POOL

SCALE : N.T.S.

NOTES:


2. FLOODPLAIN WIDTH AS DESIGNED IS A CONSISTENT 22m THROUGHOUT

THE ALIGNMENT

3. FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED ONLY SO AS NOT TO CREATE A

UNIFORM FLOODPLAIN.

4. ANY COMPACTED SOIL DUE TO MACHINERY ACCESS SHALL BE

LOOSENED PRIOR TO TOPSOIL PLACEMENT AND SEED APPLICATION.

5. ALL AREAS SHALL HAVE 100mm OF TOPSOIL / SALVAGED ORGANIC SOIL

PLACED ON SUBGRADE TO BRING AREAS TO FINAL GRADE.

SECTION VIEW: WATERBODY 10 TYPICAL RIGHT-SIDE POOL

SCALE : N.T.S.


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018

Attachment 1b

Measure 2 Draft Lake Basin Excavation Design Drawings

Drawing 008: Compensation Pond Southeast of Spring Lake Plan

View Drawing 009: Compensation Pond Southeast of Spring Lake Section

View Drawing 010: Goudreau Lake Basin Creation Plan View Drawing 011: Goudreau Lake Basin Creation Section Views 1 of 2 Drawing 012: Goudreau Lake Basin Creation Section Views 2 of 2

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

2

8

0


TYPICAL TREE PILES

COMPENSATION POND SOUTHEAST

OF SPRING LAKE



PROPOSED OUTLET OF

COMPENSATION POND

OUTLET EL. 394.5

0+

000

0+

050

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

3

0

0

0

+

3

5

0

0

+

4

0

0

0

+

4

5

0

0

+

5

0

0

0

+

5

4

0


-

-

-

-

-

-

ENG. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.amecfw.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



OF SPRING LAKE

PLAN VIEW

TC180502

A

AUGUST 2018

AS SHOWN

008

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


PLAN VIEW: COMPENSATION POND SOUTHEAST OF SPRING LAKE

SCALE = 1:1000

SCALE:

1 : 1000

0m 10 20 30 40

LEGEND


BOULDER CLUSTER

TREE PILE


WATERBODY

268

NOTES:




3. FLOWS SHALL BE MANAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL

FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFF-SITE.


1. ALL AREAS EXCAVATED TO THE DEPTH OF MINERAL SOIL SHALL BE TREATED WITH

A MINIMUM OF 100mm OF TOPSOIL / ORGANIC SOIL SALVAGED FROM SITE.






4. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A NURSE CROP OUTLINED IN

TABLE 2.

5. EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO UTILIZE LOCALLY SOURCED NATIVE WETLAND SEED

BANK MATERIAL IN AS MANY AREAS AS POSSIBLE. IF SUFFICIENT WETLAND SEED

BANK IS NOT AVAILABLE THEN AN APPROVED WETLAND SEED MIX SHALL BE

UTILIZED.

6. SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE APPROVED BY PRODIGY GOLD'S

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST.


TIMING OF SEEDING

SELECTED SEED TYPE


POST-SPRING

FRESHET TO AUG. 14

Oats

15 kg/ha


15 kg/ha



DISTURBED

AREAS


DISTURBED

AREAS


CONTAINING SEEDBANK

8,265 m

3



Elevations Table


Water Depth

% Area

TOTAL 69,000

Area (m

2

)

8.7%

8.3%

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

393.0

392.5

391.5

393.5

393.0

392.0

5,989

5,758

26,436 38.3% 2.5 - 3.0

21.8% 2.0 - 2.5392.0 392.5 15,047

9.3% 0.5 - 1.0393.5 394.0 6,421

13.6% 0.0 - 0.5394.0 394.5 9,350

A

A

B

B

C

C

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

390

392

394

396

398

390

392

394

396

398

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+540


TYPICAL TREE PILES


EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND


SOIL (100mm MIN.)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

390

392

394

396

398

390

392

394

396

398

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200



SOIL (100mm MIN.)

TYPICAL TREE PILE


EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

390

392

394

396

398

390

392

394

396

398

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+280



SOIL (100mm MIN.)

TYPICAL TREE PILE


EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND


-

-

-

-

-

-

ENG. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.amecfw.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



OF SPRING LAKE

SECTION VIEWS

TC180502

A

AUGUST 2018

AS SHOWN

009

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


SECTION A-A: COMPENSATION POND SOUTHEAST OF SPRING LAKE

SCALE: H=1:750 V=1:150


KEY PLAN: COMPENSATION POND

SOUTHEAST OF SPRING LAKE

SCALE=1:2500

SCALE:

NOTES:


2. TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SHEET 008.

1 : 750

5 1510 20 25 300m

1 : 150

0m 1 32 4 5 6

SECTION B-B: COMPENSATION POND SOUTHEAST OF SPRING LAKE

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


SECTION C-C: COMPENSATION POND SOUTHEAST OF SPRING LAKE

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4100m 5

1 : 500

2015

B

B

C

C

A

A

40

1 : 2500

0m 20 8060 100


DEVELOPMENT AREA

PROPOSED EXTENT OF

OPEN PIT

WEBB LAKE

WEST GOUDREAU

POND

GOUDREAU LAKE

GOUDREAU LAKE

SOUTH

PROPERTY

BOUNDARY

GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN CREATION




-

-

-

-

-

-

ENG. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.amecfw.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



PLAN VIEW

TC180502

A

AUGUST 2018

AS SHOWN

010

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


PLAN VIEW: GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN CREATION

SCALE = 1:2500

SCALE:

LEGEND


BOULDER CLUSTER

TREE PILE


DEVELOPMENT AREA

OPEN PIT


WATERBODY

268

NOTES:


2. AN AMOUNT OF TOPSOIL SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE

WORKS SHALL BE STRIPPED FROM AREAS REQUIRING

GRADING AND STOCKPILED FOR RE-USE.

3. FLOWS SHALL BE MANAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO

MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT

TRANSPORT OFF-SITE.


1. ALL AREAS EXCAVATED TO THE DEPTH OF MINERAL SOIL

SHALL BE TREATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 100mm OF TOPSOIL /

ORGANIC SOIL SALVAGED FROM SITE.

2. PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE COMPACTED UTILIZING THE TRACK

WEIGHT OF A CRAWLER TRACTOR OR DOZER. FURTHER

MACHINERY TRAFFIC ATOP PLACED TOPSOIL SHALL BE

MINIMIZED TO PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION.

3. ANY SOIL COMPACTED DUE TO REPEATED MACHINERY

ACCESS SHALL BE LOOSENED PRIOR TO SEED APPLICATION.

4. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A NURSE

CROP OUTLINED IN TABLE 2.

5. EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO UTILIZE LOCALLY SOURCED

NATIVE WETLAND SEED BANK MATERIAL IN AS MANY AREAS AS

POSSIBLE. IF SUFFICIENT WETLAND SEED BANK IS NOT

AVAILABLE THEN AN APPROVED WETLAND SEED MIX SHALL BE

UTILIZED.

6. SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE APPROVED BY

PRODIGY GOLD'S ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST.


TIMING OF SEEDING

SELECTED SEED TYPE


POST-SPRING

FRESHET TO AUG. 14

Oats

15 kg/ha

AUG. 15 TO OCT. 15 Winter Wheat15 kg/ha



DISTURBED

AREAS


DISTURBED

AREAS


CONTAINING SEEDBANK

36,020 m

3



Elevations Table


Water Depth

% Area

TOTAL 300,000

Area (m

2

)

13.6%

17.2%

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

383.5

383.0

381.5

384.0

383.5

382.5

40,733

51,764

90,575 30.2% 2.5 - 3.5

17.1% 2.0 - 2.5382.5 383.0 51,145

11.0% 0.5 - 1.0384.0 384.5 33,068

10.9% 0.0 - 0.5384.5 385.0 32,715

40

1 : 2500

0m 20 8060 100

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+360

TYPICAL TREE PILE


EXISTING GROUND


SOIL (100mm MIN.)

PROPOSED GROUND

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

394

396

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

394

396

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+320




SOIL (100mm MIN.)


SOIL (100mm MIN.)


PROPOSED GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND

CONNECTION TO WEST

GOUDREAU POND


EXISTING GROUND


-

-

-

-

-

-

ENG. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.amecfw.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



SECTION VIEWS

SHEET 1 OF 2

TC180502

A

AUGUST 2018

AS SHOWN

011

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


SECTION A-A: GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN CREATION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


NOTES:

1. ALL UNITS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE

NOTED.


100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4

SECTION B-B: GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN CREATION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

394

380

382

384

386

388

390

392

394

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+360

TYPICAL BOULDER

CLUSTER

TYPICAL BOULDER

CLUSTER


SOIL (100mm MIN.)


SOIL (100mm MIN.)

NORMAL WATER LEVEL EL. 385.0 NORMAL WATER LEVEL EL. 385.0

CONNECTION TO

GOUDREAU LAKE

PROPOSED GROUND

PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

380

382

384

386

388

390

380

382

384

386

388

390

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+280

EXISTING GROUND



CONNECTION TO

GOUDREAU LAKE

SOUTH

GOUDREAU LAKE SOUTH


SOIL (100mm MIN.)

PROPOSED GROUND


-

-

-

-

-

-

ENG. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.amecfw.com

CHECKED BY:

DRAFT

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



SECTION VIEWS

SHEET 2 OF 2

TC180502

A

AUGUST 2018

AS SHOWN

012

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


SECTION C-C: GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN CREATION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


NOTES:

1. ALL UNITS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE

NOTED.


100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4

SECTION D-D: GOUDREAU LAKE BASIN CREATION

SCALE: H=1:500 V=1:100


100m 5

1 : 500

2015

1 : 100

0m 1 2 3 4


Magino Gold Project

TC180502 | October 2018

Attachment 1c

Measure 3 Draft Lake Basin Impoundment Design Drawings

Drawing 013: Waterbody 9 Impounded Lake Plan View Drawing 014: Waterbody 9 Impounded Lake Section Views

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

3

0

0

0

+

3

5

0

0

+

4

0

0

0

+

4

5

0

0

+

5

0

0

0

+

5

5

0

0

+

5

8

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0

+

2

0

0

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

3

0

0

0

+

3

5

0

0

+

4

0

0

0

+

4

5

0

0

+

5

0

0

0

+

5

2

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

5

0

0

+

1

0

0

0

+

1

5

0

0+

200

0

+

2

5

0

0

+

3

0

0

0

+

3

5

0

0

+

4

0

0

0

+

4

5

0

0

+

5

0

0

0

+

5

5

0

TYPICAL TREE PILE


EXISTING WATERBODY 9

EXISTING WATERBODY 8

NORTHERN

IMPOUNDMENT

DAM

SOUTHERN

IMPOUNDMENT

DAM

OUTLET

POOL

PROPOSED

OUTLET CHANNEL AND

FLOODPLAIN GRADING

WATERBODY 9 IMPOUNDMENT


WETTED AREA 33.99 ha

PROPOSED MINE

DEVELOPMENT AREA

PROPOSED OVERBURDEN

AND SOIL STOCKPILE

EXTENTS

PROPERTY BOUNDARY


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



PLAN VIEW

TC180502

A

OCTOBER 2018

AS SHOWN

013

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


PLAN VIEW: WATERBODY 9 IMPOUNDMENT

SCALE = 1:2000

SCALE:


TIMING OF SEEDING

SELECTED SEED TYPE


POST-SPRING

FRESHET TO AUG. 14

Oats

15 kg/ha


15 kg/ha



DISTURBED

AREAS




BELOW NWL WALLEYE SPAWNING SUBSTRATE2,840 m

2

Elevations Table


Water Depth

% Area

TOTAL 339,890

Area (m

2

)

4.8%

4.8%

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

368.0

367.5

365.5

368.5

368.0

366.5

16,462

16,171

27,813 8.2% 3.0 - 4.0

10.4% 2.0 - 3.0366.5 367.5 35,360

5.1% 0.5 - 1.0368.5 369.0 17,204

5.3% 0.0 - 0.5369.0 369.5 17,855

200m

1 : 2000

40 60 80

363.5 365.5 134,048 39.4% 4.0 - 6.0

360.5 363.5 56,199 16.5% 6.0 - 9.0

357.5 360.5 16,184 4.8% 9.0 - 12.0

355.5 357.5 2,594 0.8% 12.0 - 14.0

LEGEND


BOULDER CLUSTER

TREE PILE

WALLEYE SPAWNING SUBSTRATE

PROPOSED EXTENT OF MINE DEVELOPMENT AREA

OVERBURDEN AND SOIL STOCKPILE

EXISTING WATERCOURSE / WATERBODY

370

NOTES:




3. FLOWS SHALL BE MANAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE THE

POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFF-SITE.


1. ALL AREAS EXCAVATED TO THE DEPTH OF MINERAL SOIL SHALL BE TREATED

WITH A MINIMUM OF 100mm OF TOPSOIL / ORGANIC SOIL SALVAGED FROM

SITE.






4. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A NURSE CROP OUTLINED

IN TABLE 2.

5. EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO UTILIZE LOCALLY SOURCED NATIVE WETLAND

SEED BANK MATERIAL IN AS MANY AREAS AS POSSIBLE. IF SUFFICIENT

WETLAND SEED BANK IS NOT AVAILABLE THEN AN APPROVED WETLAND SEED

MIX SHALL BE UTILIZED.

6. SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE APPROVED BY PRODIGY

GOLD'S ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST.

B

B

A

A

C

C

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

360

362

364

366

368

370

372

374

360

362

364

366

368

370

372

374

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+520

EXISTING GROUND


EXISTING WATERBODY 9 WATER EL. 369.5


TYPICAL TREE PILES

WALLEYE SPAWNING SUBSTRATE

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

362

364

366

368

370

372

362

364

366

368

370

372

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+550 0+580



TYPICAL TREE PILES

EXISTING GROUND

IMPOUNDMENT DAM CREST

4

1

ROCK EROSION

PROTECTION

OUTLET POOL

SIDE SLOPES VARY

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

)

STATION

362

364

366

368

370

372

374

362

364

366

368

370

372

374

0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+550

EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED BANKFULL

CHANNEL INVERT

1.3

%

OUTLET FROM IMPOUNDMENT

INVERT EL. 369.5



WATERBODY 8

EXISTING WATER EL. 365.0

PROPOSED OUTLET POOL

CONNECT OUTLET POOL

TO EXISTING WATERBODY 8


-

-

-

-

-

-

DES. APPR.

REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING NO.:

REVISION NO.

PROJECT NO.:




www.woodplc.com

CHECKED BY:

A

APPROVED BY:

PRODIGY GOLD INC.

MAGINO GOLD PROJECT



SECTION VIEWS

TC180502

A

OCTOBER 2018

AS SHOWN

014

NSH

NSH

MCR

MCR


NOTES:



SECTION C-C: WATERBODY 9 IMPOUNDMENT

SCALE: H=1:750 V=1:150


1 : 750

5 1510 20 25 300m

1 : 150

0m 1 32 4 5 6

SECTION B-B: WATERBODY 9 IMPOUNDMENT

SCALE: H=1:750 V=1:150


1 : 750

5 1510 20 25 300m

1 : 150

0m 1 32 4 5 6

SECTION A-A: WATERBODY 9 IMPOUNDMENT

SCALE: H=1:750 V=1:150


1 : 750

5 1510 20 25 300m

1 : 150

0m 1 32 4 5 6

magino fisheries offset plan (oct.25.2018) ver 2 · box 309, 3 dree road, dubreuilville, ontario,...

Documents