preliminary design report - iaac-aeic.gc.ca

PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT

HIGHWAY 11 REALIGNMENT

LOCATION:

Highway 11 Realignment – 2.2 km West of Michael Power Boulevard Easterly for 4.7 km

Prepared by TBT Engineering

On Behalf of

Premier Gold – Hard Rock Gold Project

August 25, 2016 TBTE Ref. No. 14-192

Premier Gold – Hardrock Project TBTE Ref. No. 14-192 Preliminary Design Report - Highway 11 Realignment

TBT Engineering i

Executive Summary

Premier Gold Mines Limited (Premier) retained TBT Engineering Limited (TBTE) to prepare a

Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the proposed realignment of provincial and municipal

roadways outside of their Hardrock property gold mine project (Project). The Project is located

approximately 280 km northeast of Thunder Bay, Ontario in the Municipality of Greenstone near

the intersection of Michael Power Boulevard and Highway 11. Geraldton is situated 5 km north

of Highway 11 along Michael Power Boulevard.

The Project is generally anticipated to include an open pit mining operation with an on-site

processing facility, waste rock and tailings disposal sites, water treatment facility, serviced plant

site, and new access road from Highway 11.

King’s Highway 11 is classified as a rural arterial undivided (RAU 110) facility. The primary

function of Highway 11 is to provide access across Northern Ontario as well as a link between

many small communities. Highway 11 traverses the ore body of the Project in an east – west

direction, located in the Ward of Geraldton, in the Townships of Errington and Ashmore,

Municipality of Greenstone, in the District of Thunder Bay. As the ore body is beneath Highway

11, a realignment of the highway and Michael Power Boulevard (secondary Highway 584) will

be necessary to allow surface mining developments.

A Feasible Route Study was completed by Premier in 2013 during their Project Planning Phase.

The route study identified six possible alignment alternatives for Highway 11; five bypassed the

Project to the north and one to the south. Following further Project planning and preliminary

infrastructure design functions, a 500 m safety offset buffer was identified surrounding the

proposed open pit. This requirement removed four of the potential alignments. Premier

completed a Highway Alignment Evaluation Summary Report in 2014 which assessed and

optimized the two remaining alignment options (1 A & 1B) and added a third alternative (1D)

with improved geometry, exceeding the minimum design requirements, and intersects Michael

Power Boulevard at the most favourable angle of the alignment alternatives. Through

consultation with the Ministry of Transportation, it was determined that option 1D is the preferred

alternative as it provides the best horizontal and vertical alignments of the options available.

The length of re-alignment for alternative 1D is 4.7 km.

Alignments 1A, 1B, and 1D all bypass the Project to the north of Highway 11, bordering Mosher

Lake and Kenogamisis Golf Club and cross the existing MacLeod tailing deposits. The MacLeod

tailing deposits include two components; MacLeod Low Tailings (MLT) which is tailings beach

deposited at grade; and, MacLeod High Tailings (MHT) which is a landscaped tailings dump with

heights in the order of 10 m above original ground. All alignments intersect with Michael Power

Boulevard at varying offsets from the current junction.

The realignment of Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard will be designed and constructed

to MTO standards. Legal agreements will be required between MTO and Premier; and, the

Municipality of Greenstone and Premier for their respective sections of new roadway. All costs

for the realignment, including utility relocation and establishment, are to be borne by Premier.


TBT Engineering ii

Once construction is complete, the MTO will need to acquire/assume the new alignment and

designate it. Following this, the MTO and the Municipality of Greenstone will have to remove the

designation from the bypassed segments of roadway alignment and dispose of it to Premier.

The existing Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard are to remain operational until such time

as the realigned segments are constructed, accepted, and opened. All pre-development access

is to be maintained.

As the MTO will be the ultimate owner of the relocated Highway 11, MTO is expecting that the

detail design and construction of the relocated portions of Highway 11 are undertaken in a

manner consistent with MTO process, standards, and design criteria.


TBT Engineering iii

Attachments

APPENDIX A June 2014 Open House Summary

APPENDIX B Design Criteria

APPENDIX C Preliminary Design Drawings - Highway 11 Realignment

APPENDIX D Preliminary Design Drawings – Mine Site Entrance

APPENDIX E Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report

APPENDIX F Preliminary Foundations Design Report

APPENDIX G MTO Correspondence


TBT Engineering iv

Table of Content

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

Project History .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1

Preliminary Design Report............................................................................................ 2 1.2

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ............................................................... 3 2.0

Public Consultation Summary .....................................................................................14 2.1

Public Information Session #1 – Federal EA and MTO Class EA .........................14 2.1.1

Public Information Sessions #2 and #3 ................................................................14 2.1.2

EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................15 3.0

Transportation .............................................................................................................15 3.1

Traffic ...................................................................................................................15 3.1.1

Posted Speed ......................................................................................................16 3.1.2

Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................................16 3.1.3

Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................16 3.1.4

Cross Section .......................................................................................................17 3.1.5

Intersections and Sideroads .................................................................................17 3.1.6

Roadside Safety Hazards .....................................................................................18 3.1.7

Entrances .............................................................................................................18 3.1.8

Illumination ...........................................................................................................18 3.1.9

Geotechnical & Foundations ................................................................................19 3.1.10

Drainage ..............................................................................................................20 3.1.11

Utilities .................................................................................................................20 3.1.12

Environmental Contaminant Screening .......................................................................21 3.2

Mosher Portal Area ..............................................................................................21 3.2.1

Former MacLeod Mine Landfill .............................................................................21 3.2.2

MacLeod High Tailings .........................................................................................22 3.2.3

Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard .......................................................................22 3.2.4


TBT Engineering v

ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION .............................................................................23 4.0

Feasibility Study Report ..............................................................................................23 4.1

Trade-Off Study (TBT Engineering) .............................................................................23 4.2

Preliminary Design ......................................................................................................24 4.3

PROPOSED Design .......................................................................................................29 5.0

Horizontal Alignment ...................................................................................................29 5.1

Vertical Alignment .......................................................................................................29 5.2

Cross Section ..............................................................................................................29 5.3

Intersections and Sideroads ........................................................................................30 5.4

Roadside Safety ..........................................................................................................31 5.5

Traffic Signage and Pavement Markings .....................................................................31 5.6

Drainage .....................................................................................................................31 5.7

Centreline Culverts ...............................................................................................31 5.7.1

Roadside Ditch Design .........................................................................................32 5.7.2

Water Management ..............................................................................................32 5.7.3

Entrances ....................................................................................................................32 5.8

Illumination ..................................................................................................................33 5.9

Snow Plough Turnarounds and Truck Inspection Stations ..........................................33 5.10

MTO Patrol Yard .........................................................................................................33 5.11

Geotechnical Pavement Design ..................................................................................33 5.12

Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Study ................................................................36 5.13

Materials Management and Aggregate Sources ..........................................................37 5.14

Utilities ........................................................................................................................38 5.15

Property ......................................................................................................................38 5.16

Construction and Traffic Staging .................................................................................38 5.17

ADDITIONAL ConTamiNATED PROPERTY Requirements ...........................................39 6.0

CORRIDOR CONTROL ..................................................................................................40 7.0

PERMITTING .................................................................................................................40 8.0

Corridor Control Permits ..............................................................................................40 8.1

Building and Land Use Permits ............................................................................40 8.1.1

Encroachment Permits .........................................................................................41 8.1.2

Entrance Permits ..................................................................................................41 8.1.3

Construction Permits ...................................................................................................42 8.2


TBT Engineering vi

LEGAL AGREEMENT.....................................................................................................42 9.0

SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................................42 10.0

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................43 11.0

CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................43 12.0


TBT Engineering 1

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Premier Gold Mines Limited (Premier) retained TBT Engineering Limited (TBTE) to

prepare a Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the proposed realignment of provincial

and municipal roadways outside of the Hardrock property gold mine project (Project).

The Project is being located primarily on private, patented lands owned by Premier in the

District of Thunder Bay, within the Municipality of Greenstone, and the Geographical

Townships of Errington and Ashmore in Northwestern Ontario. One of the project

components in developing this mining project is the realignment of Highway 11 and

Michael Power Boulevard outside of the footprint of the proposed mining operations.

Highway 11 is classified as a rural arterial undivided (RAU 110) King’s Highway which

provides access across northern Ontario and links several small communities. The

segment of Highway 11 affected by the proposed realignment is 4.7 km in length in an

east – west direction located south of the community of Geraldton, ON, approximately

280 km northeast of Thunder Bay, ON. The project location is depicted in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 – Project Location

Project History 1.1

A Feasible Route Study was completed by Premier in 2013 during their Project Planning Phase. The route study identified six possible alignment alternatives for Highway 11; five bypassed the Project to the north and one to the south. Following further Project planning and preliminary infrastructure design functions, a 500 m safety offset buffer was introduced surrounding the proposed open pit. This requirement removes four of the


TBT Engineering 2

potential alignments. Premier completed a Highway Alignment Evaluation Summary Report in 2014 which assessed and optimized the two remaining alternatives (1A & 1B) and added a third alternative (1D) with improved geometry, exceeding the minimum design requirements, and intersects Michael Power Boulevard at the most favourable angle of the alignment alternatives. Through consultation with the Ministry of Transportation, it was determined that Alternative 1D provides the best horizontal and vertical alignments of the options available. On the basis of the findings contained within the Feasible Route Study and Highway Alignment Evaluation Summary, and in consideration of the intentions and perspective of both Premier and MTO, Alternative 1D was determined to be the preferred route. Alternative 1D has significant advantages in terms of alignment geometry, changes in travel distances for road users and changes in highway maintenance effort.

Preliminary Design Report 1.2

As the MTO will be the ultimate owner of the relocated Highway 11 and as the MTO is expecting that the detail design and construction of the relocated portions of the Highway 11 alignment are undertaken in a manner consistent with MTO process, standards and design criteria, this Preliminary Design Report has been prepared to provide a concordance between Premier’s EA process and engineering design for development of the Project. This Preliminary Design Report has been prepared to present a preliminary engineering design for the preferred alternative 1D route selected from the planning phases and to document the evaluation of alternative alignments.

Contributors to the PDR are:

Premier Gold Mines Limited

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

TBT Engineering Limited


TBT Engineering 3

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 2.0

The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) Report for the Hardrock Project which includes the realignment of Highway 11 will be developed and structured in a manner that follows an Approved Provincial Terms of Reference and the Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines, as directed by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Environmental and socio-economic concerns associated with the design, construction, and maintenance of the recommended Highway 11 realignment are addressed using information obtained from environmental baseline studies that will be incorporated into the EA report for the Project. Table 2.1 is intended to summarize and illustrate concordance between the Hardrock Project EA and the MTO Class EA principles. Table provides an overview of environmental features that may be impacted by highway realignment works, as well as a summary of potential environmental effects, proposed mitigation to minimize adverse effects, and commitments to further work.

In addition to the information supplied in Table 2.1, further details of concordance with the Class EA process are provided in this preliminary design document. More specifically, planning alternatives, from the perspective of the Hardrock Project as a whole, including consideration of the Highway 11 realignment component, are described in Section 4.0 of this Preliminary Design Report (PDR).


TBT Engineering 4

Table 2.1 MTO Class EA Principles within Premier Gold Mines Limited Environmental Assessment

Component MTO Principles Background Conditions Environmental

Concerns Identified

for Proposed Highway

11 realignment

Mitigations and Commitments to

Further Work

Soils Identify soils features that

may be threatened by

Highway 11 realignment

objectives.

Develop environmental

design and mitigation

concepts as necessary for

minimizing erosion and

sedimentation, loss of soils

and soil contamination as a

result of Highway 11

realignment works.

The dominant landforms of the proposed Highway 11 realignment study area are anthropogenic through the Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard, MacLeod High Tailings and in the area of the existing utility corridor and Mosher Portal, with organic, glaciofluvial and till areas throughout the remainder.

The area in the western vicinity of the proposed Highway 11 realignment is generally poorly drained, with small rapid drainage pockets. Drainage in the MacLeod High Tailings area is generally poorly drained, with small well drained areas in the east of the proposed realignment near the Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard.

Native soil types in the proposed Highway 11 realignment study area are classified as developed land through the Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard and MacLeod High Tailings areas, with remaining areas, and primarily Scotia (Eluviated Dystric Brunisol developed on medium-textured morainal (till) deposits, typically well-drained, some surface stoniness, and often thin over bedrock) and Dunbar (Orthic Humic Gleysol developed on medium-textured morainal (till) deposits, typically poorly-drained, some surface stoniness, and often thin over bedrock) with small pockets of Jeannie (Eluviated Dystric Brunisol developed on coarse-textured glaciofluvial deposits, typically rapidly-drained, some surface stoniness, some sites with high gravel content, and often thin over bedrock) to the immediate east of Mosher Lake.

None identified. Premier Gold Mines Limited will

conduct ongoing monitoring

during design and construction

and, using adaptive management

techniques, address any

concerns that may arise.


TBT Engineering 5


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

Groundwater Identify groundwater

features (quantity and

quality) that may be

threatened by Highway 11

re-alignment objectives.



measures to minimize

impacts to groundwater

quality (increased

pollutants) and quantity

(fluctuation on groundwater

levels), runoff (water

quantity) to groundwater

recharge areas, and well

water levels and quality due

to the proposed design.

Avoid contamination of

groundwater.

Groundwater flow is generally to the east towards

Kenogamisis Lake and topographically controlled,

discharging in low-lying surface waters and

recharging at higher elevations.

The overburden is considered to be hydraulically

connected to the underlying bedrock (shallow).

Groundwater elevations are generally found 1 – 2

meters below ground surface.

During background (considered unaffected by

historic mining activities) groundwater sampling

for baseline studies (Stantec Consulting Limited,

2015), several parameters were found to exceed

Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards,

ODWQS (Iron, Manganese, Arsenic)

Groundwater sampling within historic mining areas

showed ODWQS exceedances for iron, free

cyanide, manganese and arsenic.

Ground water within the

upper overburden has

been estimated to exist

within 1 - 2 m of ground

surface. The

groundwater levels can

be expected to reach

ground surface and will

vary seasonally and in

response to

precipitation.

Several parameters in

groundwater were found

to exceed ODWQS

guidelines during

Environmental Baseline

studies (iron,

manganese, free

cyanide, arsenic).

Further investigations and testing and preparation of a Geotechnical Design Report will be completed for the recommended alignment.

To prevent groundwater contamination, a spill prevention plan will be developed and implemented, and contingency plans and procedures will be in place to respond to any spills.

Premier Gold Mines Limited will conduct ongoing monitoring during design and construction and, using adaptive management techniques, address any concerns that may arise.

Fisheries and

Aquatic

Habitat

Identify fisheries and

aquatic habitat features that


Highway 11 re-alignment

objectives.



concepts for minimizing

erosion and sedimentation

(including erosion and

sedimentation into

The various watercourses to be crossed by the proposed realignment (WC-C, D, F, and I) of Hwy 11 provide marginal warmwater fish habitat. Fish species sensitivity is considered low, due to the presence of only baitfish. The watercourses are generally low gradient, low energy systems characterized by single channels with the occasional riparian-zone wetland habitat. Habitat sensitivity is considered low, due to the common and widespread nature of the habitat present.

Mosher Lake, located immediately west of the proposed Hwy 11 realignment, is a small and

The proposed route includes crossings of several very small unnamed watercourses. Potential effects are anticipated to be minor, since more sensitive habitats will be avoided and crossings will follow MTO standards. As such, impacts to fish

Best management practices and standard measures will be applied to maintain fish passage and prevent negative impacts to fish and fish habitat. Crossing structures will be sized to accommodate a minimum 50 yr flow unless identified otherwise.

The final detail design will be completed following principles of MTO / DFO / OMNR Fisheries Protocol (MTO / DFO / OMNR


TBT Engineering 6


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

watercourses).



measures to minimize direct

or indirect loss of aquatic

habitat, changes to water

quality / quantity, inhibiting

fish passage or reduced fish

productivity.

shallow (5m deep) lake, supporting a coolwater fish community that includes pike, perch, and white sucker. Sensitive habitat near the proposed Hwy 11 realignment includes yellow perch spawning habitat along the east shore, near the outlet of WC-A.

Barton Bay (East & West) of Kenogamisis Lake, is located north of the proposed Hwy 11 realignment and is a shallow (<2m deep) bay of the lake, supporting a coolwater fish community that includes walleye, pike, and perch. Sensitive habitat near the proposed Hwy 11 realignment included northern pike spawning habitat along the south shore, near the outlet of WC-C.

Sampling in the study area between 2013 and 2014 did not provide evidence of any aquatic species at risk either under federal or provincial legislation.

The variability in the benthic invertebrate community data was generally a result of differences in habitat availability (i.e. substrates) as opposed to sediment or water quality impairments.

passage concerns and alteration or destruction of existing fish habitat will be avoided.

No direct or indirect effects are expected to local waterbodies along the remainder of the alignment or those downstream of each watercourse crossed.

Version 2, 2013 and as subsequently amended).

Premier Gold and their sub-consultants will conduct ongoing monitoring during construction, using adaptive management techniques to address any concerns that may arise.


TBT Engineering 7


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

Vegetation and

Ecosystems

Identify rare plants or

sensitive ecosystems that



objectives.




minimizing severance of /

encroachment on sensitive

ecosystems.



concepts as necessary that

minimize effects on ANSI’s,

ESA’s, Provincially

significant wetlands,

provincially rare species,

NEC “Natural Areas”,

cultural / heritage, social /

economic landscape

features, and woodland

resources.

A unique vegetation community feature in the

form of a sparse treed fen (Ecosite B136) was

noted near the outlet of WC-C during the baseline

surveys.

No plant species at risk were recorded in the

study area during any of the baseline surveys.

The main vegetation cover types associated with

the Hwy 11 realignment are: 1) dry to fresh,

coarse loamy, jack pine-black spruce dominated,

2) rich conifer swamp, and 3) compact gravelled

surface. A significant area of compact gravelled

surface will be traversed due to previous

development activities in the area.

Vegetation removal

will be required along

the planned

realignment. A small

amount (28 ha, max)

of vegetation will need

to be cleared for the

preferred route.

However, potential

effects are anticipated

to be minor, given the

narrow width (~60m)

and short length

(4.7km) of the new

section.

A unique ecosite

(B136 - sparse treed

fen) was noted near

the outlet of WC-C,

and efforts to avoid

fragmentation of the

habitat will be taken to

maintain habitat

functionality.

The unique ecosite (B136 - sparse treed fen) identified in the area of the realignment will not be fragmented by the preferred route, since the northern ROW boundary skirts, only partially, along the southern perimeter of the fen.

Refer to mitigation measures and commitments identified for groundwater, surface water, and fisheries and aquatic habitat.

If necessary, Premier Gold will develop a habitat management program that to address any potential compensation required as a result of the realignment of Hwy 11.

Wildlife Identify wildlife or habitat

features that are threatened

by Highway 11 re-alignment

objectives.




Two mammalian species at risk (Little Brown

Myotis and Northern Myotis) were identified during

field investigations. No bat hibernacula or bat

maternity colonies were found during field

investigations, although mature trees suitable for

bat roosting may be found in the vicinity of the

Highway 11 realignment, based on the FRI

vegetation communities identified.

If unavoidable,

impacts to habitat of

SAR species,

protected either

federally (SARA) or

provincially (ESA), will

require a permit and

compensation to offset

If necessary, Premier Gold will develop a habitat management program to address potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat as a result of the realignment of Hwy 11.

Premier Gold is completing permitting under the Species at


TBT Engineering 8


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

minimizing the destruction

of wildlife habitat, barrier

effects on travel corridor(s),

adverse impacts on rare,

threatened or endangered

Species, and wildlife –

vehicle accidents.

The proposed Hwy 11 realignment will include

some minor encroachments within wetland

habitat. Kenogamisis Lake is considered

significant wildlife habitat for waterfowl stopover,

staging, and nesting purposes, including the

associated wetland habitat.

Potential late winter habitat for moose was

identified along the proposed Hwy 11 realignment

just east of Mosher Lake. However, relative

importance was considered low due to the

abundance of similar habitat in the general area.

No moose aquatic feeding areas (MAFA) were

noted within proximity to the proposed Hwy 11

realignment during baseline surveys.

A relatively high level of avian species diversity

was noted in the area, which reflects the variety of

habitats available. The vast majority of bird

species observed in the vicinity are migratory.

Bald eagles have regularly been recorded during

various inventories in proximity to the proposed

realignment of Hwy 11. It is likely that eagles use

Kenogamisis Lake as a feeding area. However,

no bald eagle nest or nests of other raptor species

were identified within close proximity to the

proposed Highway 11 realignment.

Baseline studies and SAR surveys identified five

avian SAR in proximity to the proposed Hwy 11

realignment, including four Threatened species

and one Special Concern species. Two of the

Threatened species (Canada warbler and

common nighthawk) are protected federally under

impacts.

Potential effects of the

realignment on wildlife

existing in the area are

expected to be minor,

given the narrow width

(~60m) and short

length (4.7km) of the

new section, and the

current extent of

residential,

commercial, and

infrastructure

development in the

general area.

Risk Act and Endangered Species Act for the entire

proposed development area, which will include any areas affected by the Hwy 11 realignment.

Permit applications will consider impacts to Species at Risk and their habitat, including impacts that may require compensation.

Premier Gold and their sub-consultants will conduct ongoing monitoring during construction, using adaptive management techniques to address any concerns that may arise.


TBT Engineering 9


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

SARA, and the other two (barn swallow and bank

swallow) are protected provincially under the ESA.

The official status of the Special Concern species

(eastern wood pewee), does not yet afford it legal

protection either federally or provincially.

Based on the proposed Hwy 11 realignment,

habitat of SAR species such as Canada warbler,

common nighthawk, and eastern wood pewee

was documented that would be intersected by the

Hwy 11 realignment.

The general use of the area by other SAR species

such as barn swallow and bank swallow should

also be considered when appropriate conditions

are noted for these species.

Air Quality and

Sound

Identify potential

exceedances of relevant air

quality or noise guidelines in

relation to Highway 11 re-

alignment works.




minimizing impacts to

sensitive receptors as a

result of air emissions and

noise from road

construction works.

Background air quality is expected to be good,

given the absence of nearby large urban centres

and industrial sources. Local anthropogenic air

emission sources include road traffic, the Town of

Geraldton and drilling associated with exploration

activities.

The primary contaminants of concern are

particulate matter and metals.

The proposed Highway 11 realignment site is

regarded as a Class 2 area – i.e. “urban hum” or

traffic noise dominates the daytime acoustical

environment while sound from natural

environment dominates the night-time

environment.

None identified. Premier Gold Mines Limited will monitor noise levels during highway construction activities in order to minimize acoustic impacts.


TBT Engineering 10


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

Surface Water

(Hydrology

and Water

Quality)

Identify surface water

features (quantity and

quality) that may be

threatened by highway

realignment objectives



measures as necessary to

avoid increased water

quantity to receiving

watercourses (flood levels

and erosion), surface

erosion / runoff to receiving

watercourses, and / or

pollutants to receiving

watercourse (water quality)

The proposed Highway 11 realignment is located

in the Kenogamisis Lake watershed. This is part

of the Lake Superior watershed due to

hydroelectric power diversion activities.

The proposed Highway 11 realignment is in an

area crossing four small unnamed watercourses

(watercourses C, D, F and I), as well as a low

lying wetland area to the west of the MacLeod

High Tailings, and Mosher Lake to the west of the

alignment.

There are no known municipal water sources

within the proposed Highway 11 realignment area.

The Town of Geraldton takes drinking water from

Cecile Lake.

The climate normal annual precipitation for the

proposed mine area, in which the Highway 11

realignment is located, is 765 mm.

Year to year trend hydrological analysis for three

creeks within the proposed mine study area (but

outside the proposed highway corridor) show

defined sharp peaks in June, low flow through

summer and minor peaks in the autumn months.

Water quality results from Watercourse C in

recent years typical met Provincial Water Quality

Objectives (PWQO); however, arsenic, iron, and

cobalt were consistently present at elevated

concentrations, and did not meet PWQO in

numerous samples. Arsenic exceeded PWQO

objectives in all samples observed.

The preferred route

includes the crossing

of three small

watercourses,

identified as

Watercourses C, D, F

and I.

Drainage associated

with the re-aligned

highway will be

managed by open

ditches and culverts

(as noted in Section

5.7.1 and 5.7.2 of this

PDR).

Arsenic, iron and

cobalt consistently

elevated in waters

from Watercourse C.

Refer to mitigation measures / commitments identified above for fisheries and aquatic habitat.

Best practices will be used to manage stormwater, and a Drainage and Hydrology Report will be completed during Detail Design (as noted in Section 5.7.1 of this PDR).

To prevent surface water contamination, a spill prevention plan will be developed and implemented, and contingency plans and procedures will be in place to respond to any spills.

Premier Gold Mines Limited will conduct ongoing monitoring during design and construction and, using adaptive management techniques, address concerns that may arise.

Aboriginal Identify traditional land use Traditional uses of the area identified through None identified. No concerns were identified


TBT Engineering 11


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

Traditional

Land Use

that may be threatened by

highway realignment

objectives




minimize impacts from


works on traditional land

uses.

consultation activities include trapping, fishing,

and hunting

– however Premier Gold Mines Limited will undertake additional Stage 2 archaeological assessment in previously identified areas of archaeological potential if necessitated by changes to the layout of the Highway 11 realignment.

Non-

Traditional

Land and

Resource Use

(including

Community

/ Recreation,

Agriculture,

and

Commercial /

Industrial)

Identify non-traditional land

use that may be threatened

by highway realignment

objectives




minimize impacts from

Highway re-alignment works

on non-traditional land

uses.

The proposed Highway 11 realignment runs

through the back nine and adjacent to the front

nine of the Kenogamisis Golf Club.

The eastern portion of the realignment runs

through a recreational trail that exists on a portion

of the tailings and north along the Lake.

No significant features are identified in the

Highway 11 realignment area in the Greenstone

Official Plan (Appendix F).

No Provincially significant features such as

provincially significant wetlands or protected areas

are located in the Highway 11 realignment study

area.

Use of and access to the

Kenogamisis Golf Club

as a result of the


may be temporarily

disrupted or eliminated

during re-alignment

construction works.

Premier Gold Mines Limited will continue ongoing stakeholder consultation as part of the EA process.


TBT Engineering 12


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

Archaeological

and Cultural

Heritage

Resources

Identify archaeological and

cultural heritage features

that may be threatened by


objectives.




avoid the loss of

archaeological and cultural

heritage resources.

A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment undertaken

by Stantec Consulting Limited for Premier Gold

Mines Limited has indicated that the MacLeod

Townsite may contain early 20th

century

settlements, and testpitting in this area is

recommended if affected by the proposal.

The majority of the eastern portion of the

proposed Highway 11 realignment consists of the

MacLeod High Tailings impoundment and

Kenogamisis Golf Club. Any archaeological

potential has been removed and no further

archaeological field work is recommended in this

area.

Little to no archaeological potential was identified

within the proposed Highway 11 realignment area,

with the exception of areas along the limits of

roadways and waterbodies.

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was

completed as recommended by the Stage 1

Assessment. No archaeological resources were

identified during the Stage 2 Assessment found

Small areas of potential

archaeological interest

along roadways and

water bodies identified.


works are not

associated with any pre-

contact or historic, nor

any built heritage sites.

No archaeological

resources identified

during Stage 2

Archaeological

Assessment.

Premier Gold Mines Limited will conduct ongoing monitoring during design and construction and, using adaptive management techniques, address any concerns that may arise.

Premier Gold Mines Limited will undertake additional Stage 2 archaeological assessment in previously identified areas of archaeological potential if necessitated by changes to the layout of the Highway 11 realignment.

Consultation Consultation will be used to

assist in the identification of

data requirements.

The proponent will

constructively address input

received during the

consultation process.

Premier Gold Mines Limited initiated consultation

in 2008 in advance of the EA process.

A Project website, local office in Geraldton,

regular newsletter, Public Information Centres

(meetings with agencies and stakeholders) and

direct mailing have all been undertaken by

Premier gold Mines Limited to share information.

Specific concerns

raised by interested

stakeholders were

related potential effects

on the Hardrock Project

as a whole are

addressed in the

Project Terms of

Premier Gold Mines Limited will continue ongoing stakeholder consultation as part of the EA process.


TBT Engineering 13


Concerns Identified


11 realignment


Further Work

During later planning and

design phases, the

proponent will show how the

input received in earlier

stages affected the project.

The amount, extent and

timing of consultation will

vary according to the

complexity of a specific

project, the nature of the

specific environmental

issues, and the concerns

expressed by the public and

external agencies.

The proponent will make

reasonable efforts to

resolve concerns.

Premier Gold Mines Limited identified potentially

interested aboriginal groups (listed in the Terms of

Reference documents) as part of the Hardrock

project EA.

Other Stakeholder participants identified in the

Hardrock EA included property owners in the

immediate Project vicinity, residents and business

owners in the municipality of Greenstone, non-

governmental organizations and groups with an

interest in the Undertaking, local land users

including hunters, trappers and fishermen and

agencies including a Government Review Team,

municipal representatives and Planners.

Comments provided by MTO on the Highway 11

realignment Feasibility Report are appended to

this PDR (Appendix G).

Reference (Stantec

Consulting Limited,

December 29, 2014).

*Project information taken from Environmental Baseline reports by Stantec Consulting Limited (January 2015), as well as monitoring data provided by Premier

Gold Mines Limited.


TBT Engineering 14

Public Consultation Summary 2.1

Public Information Session #1 – Federal EA and MTO Class EA 2.1.1

The first series of PICs were held in Longlac, Geraldon, Nakina and Long Lake #58 First Nation on June 24 and 25, 2014. Premier was pleased to offer the opportunity to hold an event on-reserve for Ginoogaming First Nation and Aroland First Nation, and in Thunder Bay for Métis members. While Premier followed up on these offers, the groups elected not to follow through on the opportunities. The purpose of the PIC was to introduce the Project, and provide information about Premier, the EA process to be followed, the federal Project Description Report, the Transportation Needs Assessment component of the MTO Class EA, environmental baseline activities, and planned consultation activities. Copies of the draft federal Project Description report were available at the sessions for review and questions from attendees. Participants provided comments on suggested locations for relocation of Highway 11, as well as possible business and employment opportunities in the future. Concerns were expressed regarding potential environmental impacts of the Project as it was known at that time, including:

Potential impacts to water quality, specifically related to Kenogamisis Lake; Potential impacts to Kenogamisis golf course as a result of the pit proximity and highway

realignment; and, Proposed location of the Tailings Management Facility and mine waste rock piles.

Attendees at Long Lake #58 also requested that traditional knowledge be incorporated into project planning.

A summary report detailing the planning and outcomes of this round of PICs is included as Appendix A, including comments received and responses from Premier. Individuals submitting comments at the PIC received a response in writing from Premier.

Public Information Sessions #2 and #3 2.1.2

The second series of PICs were held in Longlac, Geraldon, and Nakina on September 22, 23 and 24, 2014. At each of these sessions, Premier delivered a presentation entitled ‘Hardrock Project Update - Provincial EA Process - Development of Terms of Reference for the EA – Getting Involved in the Process’. Participants were encouraged to ask questions and provide comments related to the presentation content which included a Project overview and update, the EA process, developing the draft ToR, the consultation process and how the public would like to be involved. Overall, there was positive interest in the Project as participants noted that it would bring socio-economic benefits to the Greenstone region. The third series of PICs were held in Longlac, Geraldon, and Nakina on October 28 and 29, 2014. At each of these sessions, Premier delivered a presentation entitled ‘Hardrock Project Update - EA Terms of Reference – What we heard from you – Draft Terms of Reference’. Participants were encouraged to ask questions and provide comments related to the presentation content, which included a description of the Project, the


TBT Engineering 15

purpose of the ToR, and what Premier heard during ToR PIC #2 on how the community wanted to be consulted. The presentation continued with the rationale for the Project, alternatives assessment, the existing environment, potential effects, commitments and monitoring, the consultation plan for the EA and next steps. In addition to the questionnaire typically provided at Premier PICs, a Land and Resource Use (LRU) questionnaire was provided to gather information on traditional and subsistence uses of the land in the area of the Project. This LRU questionnaire was made available at the Geraldton office throughout the EA process. As with previous PICs, there was a positive interest in the Project as it brings socio-economic benefits to the Greenstone region.

EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.0

The following section describes the existing transportation conditions within the study

area and provides an overview of the Environmental Contaminant Screening Report

(ECS).

The existing environmental conditions, aside from those mentioned above, have been

described by environmental baseline studies completed by others and are not included

within this report. Baseline Environmental data will be available in the Hardrock Project

EA Report.

Transportation 3.1

This section documents the existing transportation conditions of the study area. The

study area has been defined in Exhibit 3.1. Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard

(MPB) are the two most prominent transportation facilities located in the study area.

Within northwestern Ontario, Highway 11 is classified as a Rural Arterial Undivided

King’s Highway with a design speed of 110 km/hr (RAU 110). MPB is a paved sideroad

providing the community of Geraldton access to Highway 11 and serving as a connecting

link between Highway 11 and Highway 584.

In addition to engineering surveys undertaken by TBT Engineering, MTO Plans

(B&C896-11-2, B&C896-11-3 and B&C895-11-1) were referenced to assist in developing

the description of existing geometric conditions.

Traffic 3.1.1

Previous traffic studies within the project limits were divided into two sections: Hwy 584

Westerly (Section 1) and Hwy 584 Easterly (Section 2). Traffic data for Section 1 was

obtained from MTO’s iCorridor – Transportation Planning & Forecasting online program.

For section 1 the program was limited to observed traffic rates in 2006.

Traffic data for Section 2 was provided by MTO and included Average Annual Daily

Traffic (AADT), Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT), Design Hour Volume (DHV),

Percent Commercial Traffic and Percent Long Truck traffic observed in 2007. Traffic

volumes are summarized in Table 3.1.


TBT Engineering 16

Table 3.1 – Existing Traffic Volumes

LOCATION YEAR AADT SADT DHV % COMM % LT

HWY 11 From Hwy 584 Westerly 2006 1850 - - 29.6 % 25.5 %

HWY 11 From Hwy 584 Easterly* 2007 1500 1750 150 47.3 % 40.9 %

*LHRS 17880 O/S 0.0 km TO Goldfield Rd LHRS 17880 O/S 4.7 km

Posted Speed 3.1.2

The posted speed within the project area ranges from 70 km/h to 90 km/h.

The posted speed on Highway 11 is 90 km/hr and is reduced to 70 km/h within the

vicinity of the Michael Power Boulevard and Highway 11 intersection.

The posted speed on Michael Power Boulevard is 80km/hr. The speed limit is reduced to

70 km/h within the vicinity of the Highway 11 intersection.

Horizontal Alignment 3.1.3

This section of Highway 11 contains three horizontal curves. All curve radii exceed the

design standard for a design speed of 110 km/h. Curve locations and radii are provided

in Table 3.2.

Within the study area Michael Power Boulevard has one horizontal curve with a radius of

250m (80 km/h design speed).

Table 3.2 - Existing Horizontal Curves on Highway 11

P.I. Station Township Radius

(m)

Design Speed

(km/hr)

17+150 Errington 3490 m >120

11+049 Ashmore 1747 m >120

Unavailable* Ashmore 1500 m >120

* B&C Plans unavailable east of 11+900 Ashmore. Radius estimated using TBT survey of existing crown.

Vertical Alignment 3.1.4

The majority of vertical curves meet or exceed the design standard for a design speed of

110 km/hr. The existing vertical curves are summarized in Table 3.3. The maximum

longitudinal grade is 1.3% and extends for approximately 200 meters.

Table 3.3 – Existing Vertical Curves on Highway 11

P.I. Station Township Curve

Type

K Design Speed

(km/hr)

16+642 Errington Crest 100 110

16+801 Errington Crest 70 100

17+054 Errington Sag 240 >120

17+618 Errington Crest 580 >120


TBT Engineering 17







10+471 Ashmore Sag 70 >120

10+685 Ashmore Crest 370 >120

10+847 Ashmore Crest 50 90

11+375 Ashmore Sag 250 >120

11+823 Ashmore Crest 290 >120

Cross Section 3.1.5

Within the project area Highway 11 has the following cross section elements:

Pavement Width: Two 3.5 m through lanes

Shoulder Width: 2.0 m – 2.5 m

0.5 m partial paved shoulder where granular shoulders are present

Rounding Width: 0.5 m

Right-of-Way: 60.96 m

Within the project area Michael Power Boulevard has the following section elements:

Pavement Width: Two 3.5 m through lanes

Shoulder Width: 1.5 m

0.5 m partial paved shoulder where granular shoulders are present

Rounding Width: 0.5 m

Right-of-Way: 30.48 m

Intersections and Sideroads 3.1.6

There are three sideroads located within the project limits which include Midlane Street,

Hard Rock Drive and Michael Power Boulevard.

Midland Street is an unpaved sideroad that forms a ‘T’ intersection with Highway 11. This

intersection consists of a simple open throat design.

The intersection of MPB, Hardrock Drive, and Highway 11 is a partially channelized

intersection. Channelized right turn movements with raised median islands are provided

for Highway 11 westbound traffic turning northbound on Michael Power Boulevard and

southbound Michael Power Boulevard traffic turning westbound onto Highway 11. An

auxiliary left turn lane is provided for Highway 11 eastbound traffic turning north onto

Michael Power Boulevard.

Highway 11

Michael Power Boulevard

Mosher Lake

Kenogamisis Lake

Waterco

urse D

Watercourse F

Watercourse E

Watercourse B Water

cour

seC

WatercourseH

SW ArmTributary

Watercourse G

Watercourse a

Macleod HighTailings

Macleod LowTailings

LittleLonglacTailings

HardrockHistoricTailings

CloutierPit

Mosher Pit(Premier)

0 330 660m

1:15,000

Y:\Pr

ojects

\2014

\14-04

1 Prem

ier G

old G

eraldt

on\G

IS\Pr

emier

Gold

- Mar

25 (F

or GW

) Fig

2.mxd

Revis

ed: 2

015-0

3-31 B

y: cm

itche

llLegend

WatercourseRailwayPower Transmission LineRecreational TrailOpen Pit 500m BufferOpen PitHighway 11Major RoadLocal RoadPit or QuarryWaterbodyGolf CourseHistoric TailingsWetlandSatellite PitStudy Area

Notes1.

2.

3.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 16N

Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.

Orthoimagery © Microsoft product screen shot(s) reprinted with permission from Microsoft Corporation, 2014

Exhibit 3.1- Study Area


TBT Engineering 18

Hardrock Drive is a paved sideroad extending southerly from Highway 11 providing

access to the Hardrock townsite. The total cross section width is approximately 11.0

meters.

Within the study area there are two sideroads intersecting Michael Power Boulevard.

Sunset Drive is an unpaved sideroad providing services to the MacLeod community.

Barrick Drive is a paved sideroad providing access to the Discover Geraldton Interpretive

Centre and the Barton Bay Wildlife Trails. Both sideroads have a total cross section

width of approximately 10.0 meters.

Roadside Safety Hazards 3.1.7

There are minimal roadside safety concerns along the existing section of Highway 11

within the study area. The majority of rock cut heights are less than 2 meters have been

relocated beyond a 7 meter clearzone.

There is one three cable guide rail installation addressing a safety hazard associated

with a high embankment and steep fill slope.

Entrances 3.1.8

Within the project limits there are twelve private entrances along Highway 11 and five

private entrance along Michael Power Boulevard.

The O.P.P entrance located at station 19+850 Lt Errington (MTO Plan B-896-11-3)

consist of a westbound right turn lane and taper and eastbound left turn slip around.

There is one truck inspection station (paved partial width) located at station 10+250 Rt

Ashmore (MTO Plan B-895-11-1)

An MTO patrol yard is located at the east limit of the study area. The purpose of this

facility is to provide storage of equipment and materials necessary for highway

maintenance. There are currently two entrances providing access to the facility.

Illumination 3.1.9

Highway 11 has partial illumination at the Michael Power Boulevard intersection. There

are a total of four luminaires with high pressure sodium lamps and drop lenses. The

luminaires are located on Highway 11 at the northwest and southeast corners and

approximately 100m east of the intersection for the channelized right turn movement.

One luminaire is located approximately 50m north of the intersection on Michael Power

Boulevard for the channelized right turn movement.

Within the study area Michael Power Boulevard has illumination throughout. The

luminaires are located along the east side of the road on joint-use poles with Bell and

Hydro.


TBT Engineering 19

Geotechnical & Foundations 3.1.10

Geotechnical investigations were completed along the existing and proposed highway

alignments. Results of the preliminary findings are summarized below and further

discussed in the appended Preliminary Foundation Design Report and Preliminary

Geotechnical Design Report.

Pavement Structure

Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard are paved rural roadways with open roadside

ditches and corrugated steel culverts at cross-drainage locations. The pavement

structure for Highway 11 includes 100 to 150 mm of hot-mix asphalt, 150 mm crushed

granular base (generally substandard in gradation for Granular ‘A’ due to fineness of

gradation) and 800 mm to 1.3 m of sandy granular subbase (generally substandard in

gradation for Granular ‘B’ due to fineness of gradation and/or excess fines).

In general, Michael Power Boulevard includes 80 – 100 mm of hot-mix asphalt, crushed

granular base and 500 mm to 1.0 m of granular subbase fill. Further investigations are

required to develop the detailed geotechnical / pavement design components for new

Michael Power Boulevard.

General Subsurface Conditions

The subgrade conditions within the project limits can be generalized into three

predominant types.

The western portion of the alignment, approximately 1/3 of the project length,

consists of moderate relief, bedrock controlled terrain with thin, discontinuous

deposits of sand and silt.

The middle segment, approximately 1/3 of the project length includes low-lying

terrain occupied by organic deposits atop undulating bedrock and fine grained

soils.

The eastern portion of the alignment, the remaining 1/3 of the project length,

includes historical mine tailings beaches and mine tailings dump (known as

MacLeod High Tailings see Exhibit 3.1).

The MacLeod tailings deposit consists of a large tailings deposit placed over natural

terrain, dating back to the 1930’s. The perimeter of the deposit consists of shaped

tailings with varying side slopes and configurations. Typically in the areas of this

investigation the side slopes are roughly 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. Some sections of

the MHT perimeter have a toe berm/drain while other sections do not. A tailings beach is

also evident along much of the toe of the MHT perimeter. The height of the perimeter

typically varies from 6 to 8 m. Reshaping of the perimeter, plus the construction of the

toe berms (where applicable) was completed circa 2000.

It is understood that the original terrain consisted of a low lying swamp which is still

evident at some locations beyond the perimeter of the MHT.


TBT Engineering 20

The subsurface soils along the alignment on top of the MHT typically consist of fill/topsoil

at surface underlain by tailings. The tailings are underlain by organic material followed

by silt. The silt is underlain by a till with occasional cobbles before auger and/or SPT

refusal.

The subsurface soils around the perimeter of the MHT typically consists of organic

material or tailings at surface, followed by silt which are underlain by a till with occasional

cobbles before auger and/or SPT refusal.

The geology of the study area has been taken from the 43-101 Mineral Resource

Estimate Update – Hardrock Project, 2014 which sites work by Lafrance, 2004, and OGS

Maps No. 1951-2 and No. 1951-7. The proposed re-alignment is underlain by the

southern sedimentary unit of the Beardmore-Geraldton Greenstone belt, part of the

Wabigoon Subprovince. The southern sedimentary unit is composed of metasedimentary

pile consisting of thick sequences of sandstone-argillite and minor polymictic

conglomerate with interlayered magnetite-chert banded iron formation.

Based on mapping by F.G. Pye, 1949, the re-alignment is restricted to the Quartz

greywacke (sandstone) with minor intercalated conglomerate sequences that have been

cut by dykes composed of diorite, hornblende diorite, and hornblende gabbro. In the

area of Mosher Lake, the re-alignment will be underlain by iron formation, albite porphyry

and intermediate volcanic tuffs and breccias. Structural fabrics in the area of the re-

alignment include the Ellis Syncline, a regional, west-northwest trending syncline that

plunges shallowly to the west-northwest (280o/35o).

Preliminary investigations indicated the groundwater table is present at or near surface

through low-lying muskeg areas and in the order of 15 - 20 m below the elevated

bedrock grade within the western portion of the alignment.

Drainage 3.1.11

The study area is located within the Kenogamisis Lake watershed. Drainage tends to

flow northerly into Barton Bay; a west leg of Lake Kenogamisis.

Highway drainage is achieved through open ditches and transverse culverts. Catch

basins and sewer pipes provide drainage for the curbed islands, ramps and main lanes

at the Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard intersection.

Utilities 3.1.12

In addition to MTO’s infrastructure, the following companies and municipalities have

plants within the study area:

Bell Canada

Hydro One


TBT Engineering 21

Union Gas

Greenstone Municipal Services

Environmental Contaminant Screening 3.2

TBT Engineering (TBTE) completed an Environmental Contaminant Screening (ECS) for

a proposed Highway 11 realignment corridor as part of the preliminary design phase for

the Hardrock Gold Mine Project.

The Study Area for this ECS is the proposed 110 m Right of Way (ROW) for the Highway

11 realignment. The ECS identified four Areas of Potential Environmental Concern

(APECs) based on pre-screening. These APECs are, from west to east, the Mosher

Portal Area, Former MacLeod Mine Landfill, MacLeod Low and High Tailings, and a

Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard.

Individual Findings and Evaluations for each APEC are identified in the ECS report under

a separate cover. A general description of these APECs is outlined below, for sites from

west to east along the proposed highway realignment.

Mosher Portal Area 3.2.1

The Mosher Portal Area is currently vacant, and was formerly the site of the Mosher

Mine and a gravel pit (western section). There are two historic, capped mine shafts in

the Mosher Portal Area. Shaft No. 1 is located in the eastern portion, and shaft No. 2 is

located in the western section of the Mosher Portal Area, north of the gravel pit area and

outside of the study area of the ECS. There is a utility corridor along the northern portion

of the Mosher Portal Area, running from west to east to the south of Mosher Lake.

There is one small unnamed watercourse in the area. Watercourse F (identified as per

Stantec baseline reporting) runs north from the existing Highway 11 corridor to Mosher

Lake.

Contaminants of concern in soils and groundwater at the Mosher Portal Area include but

are not limited to suspected arsenic, copper, lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

based on a review of historic reports, as well as suspected petroleum hydrocarbons

(PHCs), BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) due to historic mining and gravel pit activities.

Former MacLeod Mine Landfill 3.2.2

This APEC is a former landfill located east of Highway 584 in Geraldton that exists

beneath the practice fairway and chipping green as part of the Kenogamisis Golf Club.

The Landfill site is currently inactive and closed with cover and exists to the south of the

ECS study area. Site access is from Michael Power Boulevard (Highway 584).


TBT Engineering 22

Historic information indicates that the landfill was active from an undetermined date until

approximately 1965. Groundwater flow in the area is anticipated to be to the northeast

towards the proposed realignment corridor.

Contaminants of concern in soils and groundwater at the Former MacLeod Mine Landfill

include but are not limited to suspected cyanide due to historic disposal activities, as well

as cobalt and iron which regularly exceed Provincial Water Quality Objectives in surface

waters from the adjacent Watercourse C.

Two groundwater monitoring wells were installed by TBTE in 2014 and sampling in

spring/summer 2015 is recommended for cyanide, metals and mercury, PHCs, volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, pH, conductivity and hardness to assess existing

conditions.

MacLeod High Tailings 3.2.3

The MacLeod High Tailings site is a large tailings deposit originating from the former

MacLeod-Cockshutt and Mosher Mines. The MacLeod High Tailings (MHT) are located

on the east side of Highway 584, and north of Highway 11. A portion of the proposed

corridor exists across the northeastern section of the MHT.

Groundwater flow in the area is anticipated to be to the northeast towards Kenogamisis

Lake.

Several historic reports as well as Acid-Base accounting on samples taken by TBTE

indicate that the MacLeod High Tailings are considered non-potentially acid generating.

Contaminants of concern in soils and groundwaters in the MacLeod Tailings include but

are not limited to arsenic, cobalt, chromium, and antimony, all of which have been

confirmed in tailings samples (TBTE 2014).

Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard 3.2.4

The Patrol Yard is an MTO property located on Highway 11 in Geraldton and is directly

adjacent to Kenogamisis Lake.

The Patrol Yard property currently has a garage/office building, salt storage dome,

several storage tanks (primarily for fuel) and miscellaneous storage sheds. The site has

a septic field and groundwater well, however the property is supplied with municipal

water supply. The central portion of the Site is paved. The Site is an irregularly shaped

parcel of land with an approximate area of 3.2 hectares (ha). The Site can be accessed

from an entrance on the south side of the property, off of Highway 11. Prior to 2013, the

Site was operated by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO).


TBT Engineering 23

Contaminants of concern in soils at the Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard include but

are not limited to arsenic and chromium (confirmed, TBTE 2015 sampling), as well as

additional metals, xylenes, and ethylbenzene (suspected based on historic reports).

Suspected contaminants of concern in groundwater (based on historic reports) at the

Patrol Yard include but are not limited to arsenic, PHCs, xylenes, and ethylbenzene.

Refer to the Environmental Contaminant Study (TBTE 2015) for detailed Findings and

Evaluation at each of these APECs.

ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 4.0

Route planning for the Highway 11 realignment around the proposed Hardrock Project

site was initiated through the Feasibility Study Report generated by Stantec Consulting

Ltd. (Stantec). Select route alternatives were then further analysed in more detail though

a Trade-Off Study prepared by TBT Engineering. Using the information generated from

these reports and further refinement, the preferred alignment 1D was identified and the

preliminary design phase of the project was initiated.

Several meetings involving Premier, Stantec, TBTE, and MTO were held throughout the

route evaluation process to provide an opportunity to discuss project goals, highway

safety, geometry and other design criteria associated with the Highway 11 realignment.

The meeting minutes are included in Appendix G.

Feasibility Study Report 4.1

Stantec’s Feasibility Study Report (FSR) identified 6 route alternatives (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4,

and 5) to provide a bypass of the Hardrock Project site. As seen in Exhibit 4.1, five of the

proposed alternatives bypassed the project site to the north and one to the south. After

evaluating highway geometry, safety, environmental impacts (social, cultural and

natural), constructability and cost, Alternative 3 was identified as the ‘base case’

alignment to carry forward for future studies of the Highway 11 realignment.

Trade-Off Study (TBT Engineering) 4.2

The Trade-off Study was initiated to address a critical evaluation criteria that was

unknown and unaccounted for during the FSR phase. The additional criteria was the

requirement of a 500 m safety buffer from the open pit mine operation. Four of the route

alternatives considered during the FSR phase, including Alternative 3, were no longer

viable due to their proximity to the proposed open pit mine operation. Route alternatives

1A and 1B satisfied the pit safety buffer and were carried forward to be examined further

in the Trade-off Study.

""

" " " "

" "

"

"

""

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

""

"

"

"""

"""

""

""

""

"

"

"

"

"

"""

"

" ""

"

""""

" "

""

"

"""

"

"

""

"

"""

""

""

""

"

"

"

"

" "

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" """" "

""

"

""

"

""

""

"

"

"

""

"

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

ÑÑ

Ñ

ÑÑ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

ÑÑ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ ÑÑ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

ÑÑ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

Ñ

s

³²

³²

³²

MosherLake

BartonBay

KenogamisisLake

KenogamisisLake

MACLEODPROVINCIAL

PARK

360

350

340

360

350340

370

360

340

330

330

350

350

350

340

340 340

340

340

340

340

340

340

Rosedal eP

oint

Rd

Twilight Cres cent

Sakamoto Road

Sunset Drive

Old Arena Road

Barric k Drive

Laht

i'sR

oad

Hardrock Road

352

356

332

341

341339

353

339

339

349

343

335

335

343

367

349

349

364

344348

339

352

339

344

337

334

337

331

335

323

336

347342

344

341

337

336

337

334

339

335

345

336

332

335

333

339

337

336

338

355

347

342

333

336

331

343 342

335

343

336

338

337

333

334

333

332

332

333

333

333

334

342

345

Alte

rnat

ive

5

Alternative 4

Alternative 3

Alternative 2

Altern

ativ

e 1b

Altern

ativ

e 1a

10+000

10+500

11+00011+500

12+000

13+000

13+500

14+000

14+007

10+000

10+500

11+000

11+50012+000 12+500

10+000

10+500

11+000

11+500

12+000 12+50013+000

13+309

10+000

10+500

11+000

11+500

12+00012+500

13+000

13+473

10+000

10+500

11+000

11+500

12+000

12+500

13+000

13+500

10+00010+500

11+000

11+500

12+000

12+500

13+000

13+500 14+000 14+500

15+000

15+500

16+000

16+245

Exhibit 4.1 - FSR Route AlternativesD Spot Height

" Small Bulding

Large Building

Watercourse

Utility Line

Primary Road

Secondary Road

Tertiary Road

Contour

Provincial Park

Waterbody

Wetland

Wooded Area

§0 200 400 m

Premier GoldHardrock Site

Alternatives

Altern

ative

1a

Altern

ative

1b

Altern

ative

2Alte

rnat

ive 3

Altern

ative

4Alte

rnat

ive 5

Preliminary Proposed Layout

Mill Site & Associated Infrastructure

Water Treatment Facility

Highway 11


Mosher Lake

Kenogamisis Lake

Waterco

urse D

Watercourse F

Watercourse E

Watercourse B Waterco

urse

C

WatercourseH

SW ArmTributary

Watercourse G

Watercourse a


Macleod LowTailings



CloutierPit

Mosher Pit(Premier)

10+00010+500

11+000

11+500

12+000

12+500

13+00013+500

14+000

14+500 15+00015+070

10+000

10+500

11+000

11+500

12+000

12+500

13+00013+500 14+000 14+500 15+000

15+500

16+00016+500

16+685

0 330 660m

1:15,000

Y:\Pr

ojects

\2014

\14-04

1 Prem

ier G

old G

eraldt

on\G

IS\Pr

emier

Gold

- Mar

25 (F

or GW

) Fig

1.mxd

Revis

ed: 2

015-0

3-31 B

y: cm

itche

llLegend

WatercourseRailwayPower Transmission LineRecreational TrailOpen Pit 500m BufferOpen PitHighway 11Major RoadLocal RoadPit or QuarryWaterbodyGolf CourseHistoric TailingsWetlandSattelite Pit

Notes1.

2.

3.




Alternative AlignmentsAlternative 1AAlternative 1BAlternative 1CAlternative 1D

Exhibit 4.2- Trade-off Study Route Alternatives

Highway 11


Mosher Lake

Kenogamisis Lake

Waterco

urse D

Watercourse F

Watercourse E

Watercourse B Water

cour

seC

WatercourseH

SW ArmTributary

Watercourse G

Watercourse a


Macleod LowTailings



CloutierPit

Mosher Pit(Premier)

0 330 660m

1:15,000

Y:\Pr

ojects

\2014

\14-19

2 Prem

ier G

old\G

IS\Pr

emier

Gold

- May

22- P

lan of

High

way 1

1 rea

lignm

ent P

referr

ed Al

terna

tive 1

D.mx

dRe

vised

: 201

5-05-2

2 By:

cmitc

hell

LegendWatercourseRailwayPower Transmission LineRecreational TrailOpen Pit 500m BufferOpen PitHighway 11Major RoadLocal RoadPit or QuarryWaterbodyGolf CourseHistoric TailingsWetlandSattelite Pit

Notes1.

2.

3.




Alternative AlignmentsOriginal Alternative 1DPreferred Alignment 1DMicheal Power Blvd Re-Alignment

Exhibit 4.3- Plan of Highway 11 Re-Alignment Preferred Alternative 1D


TBT Engineering 24

During the initial stages of the Trade-off Study and after further consultation with MTO a

new alignment alternative, 1D, was generated and Alternatives 1A and 1B were

modified. The new alternatives were designed with consideration of the new pit safety

limit, environmental constraints and highway geometrics.

The eastern connection between existing Highway 11 and Alternatives 1A and 1B was

modified to incorporate a larger radius curve. These minor variation to Alternatives 1A

and 1B are described by Alternative 1C. The three alternatives are mapped in Exhibit

4.2. An evaluation summary is provided in Table 4.1.

In summary, Alternative 1D was selected as the preferred alternative from the Trade-off

Study based on:

alignment curve geometry exceeding the minimum design stand;

desirable intersection angle between Highway 11 and MPB; and

shortest length (minimizes future maintenance requirements)

Preliminary Design 4.3

The preferred Alternative 1D was carried forward from the Trade-Off Study into

preliminary design. As the alignment was examined in more detail, minor local variations

were made in the alignment to address safety concerns that were encountered as

additional information was gathered for preliminary design. The alignment modifications

are described in Exhibit 4.3.

Mosher Shaft is a historical vertical mine shaft that was in close proximity to the

selected route Alternative 1D. Through consultation with Premier, the alignment

was adjusted to accommodate a 30 m buffer from the south limit of the proposed

MTO Right-of-Way.

The Highway 11 and MPB intersection geometry was further analysed and it was

determined the sight distance for the intersection was sub-standard. To address

the substandard sight distance an additional horizontal curve was introduced to

Alignment 1D and a slight change in the tangent direction at the intersection with

existing MPB. These two changes along with a minor realignment of MPB yielded

a design that provides a 425 m sight distance for the intersection and meets the

MTO Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.

Alternative 1D was shifted to the north-east within the MHT area to accommodate

the 500 m pit safety buffer zone.


TBT Engineering 25

Due to the minor alignment changes to Alternate 1D and the availability of additional

baseline environmental data, the three alternatives (1A, 1B and 1D) were re-evaluated

using a ranking system.

Based on the evaluation summarized in Table 4.1 and in consideration of the natural

environment, cultural environment, mine features, socio-economic features, and highway

engineering, Alternative 1D was established as the preferred alignment to carry forward

in the preliminary design.


TBT Engineering 26

Table 4.1 – Route Alternative Evaluation

Category Element Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 1D N

atu

ral

En

vir

on

men

t

Terrestrial -

Vegetation

Fragmented mature conifer and deciduous forest.

Minor wetlands present.

Ranking Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Terrestrial – Impact

to Wildlife & SAR Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Low - Moderate


Streams Crosses streams WC-A (Permanent); WC-B,

WC-C, WC-D (Intermittent), WC-H & WC-I

Crosses Intermittent Stream WC-C WC-D

WC-F, & WC-I

Crosses Intermittent Stream WC-C, WC-D,

WC-F, & WC-I

Ranking Not Preferred Preferred Preferred

Fisheries WC-A – Permanent Watercourse.

Low Sensitivity Habitat Low Sensitivity Habitat Low Sensitivity Habitat

Ranking Not Preferred Preferred Preferred

Cu

ltu

ral

Heri

tag

e Archaeology &

Cultural Heritage Little or no archaeological potential was identified within the proposed Highway 11 realignment area.


Min

e F

eatu

res

Tailings Alignments cross approximately 1200 m of historical mine tailings (MacLeod Low and High Tailings)

Ranking Acceptable

Mine Operations Maintains 500 m offset from proposed open pit

and greatest offset from Mosher Shaft.

Maintains 500 m offset from proposed open

pit and 50 m offset from Mosher Shaft. -

Maintains 500 m offset from proposed

open pit and 50 m offset from Mosher

Shaft.



TBT Engineering 27

So

cio

-Eco

no

mic

(D

iffe

ren

ces

) Noise Receptors

Increased traffic volume proximal to property

owners on Barton Bay and Kenogamisis Golf

Club (specifically holes 11&12)

Increased traffic volume proximal to

Kenogamisis Golf Club (specifically holes

4,5,7,11,&12) and Barton Bay.

Increased traffic volume proximal to

Kenogamisis Golf Club (specifically holes

4,5,7,11,&12)

Ranking Acceptable Acceptable Preferred

Recreational

Facilities

Maintains distance (about 400 m) from the

Original 9 Golf Course. Takes up a portion of

snowmobile club trail on Old Arena Rd.

Encroaches on the Original 9 Golf Course

Crosses minimum of 2 holes on Eastern

Portion of the Golf Course and

Encroaches on the Original 9 (west

portion)

Ranking Preferred Acceptable Acceptable

MTO Patrol Yard

Proximity considered likely to require

alterations to MTO yard and impact access

from Highway 11.

Proximity considered likely to require

alterations to MTO yard and impact access

from Highway 11.

Relocation of MTO Patrol Yard required to

favourable location with acceptable site

distance.

Ranking Not Preferred. Not Preferred. Preferred

Utilities

Potential impact to overhead hydroelectric

transmission lines present along south limit of

existing Old Arena Road Corridor for ~ 700 m

where Alignment A parallels existing corridor.

Overhead hydroelectric distribution and

telecommunication lines present along north

limit of Old Arena Road corridor for ~ 2.2 km

where Alignment A parallels existing corridor.

Potential impacts to overhead hydroelectric

transmission line where Alignment crosses

existing hydro corridor ~ 350 m north of

Highway 11 near SE corner of Mosher Lake.

Crosses water line for Golf Course from

Mosher Lake.

Potential impacts to overhead

hydroelectric transmission line where

Alignment crosses existing hydro corridor

~ 350 m north of Highway 11 near SE

corner of Mosher Lake. Crosses water

line for Golf Course from Mosher Lake.

Ranking Not Preferred Acceptable Acceptable


TBT Engineering 28

Hig

hw

ay E

ng

ine

eri

ng

Curve Radii

All horizontal curves meet or exceed minimum

design standard for design speed of 110km/h

All horizontal curves meet or exceed

minimum design standard for design speed

of 110km/h

All horizontal curves exceed minimum

design standard for design speed of

110km/h

Ranking Not Preferred Not Preferred Preferred

HWY 11 and MPD

Intersection Angle

Undesirable intersection angle at MPB & Hwy

11. More impact to existing MPB alignment.

Undesirable intersection angle at MPB &

Hwy 11. More impact to existing MPB

alignment.

Desirable intersection angle at MPB &

Hwy 11. Less impact to existing MPB

alignment.

Ranking Not Preferred Not Preferred Preferred

Constructability

Approximately 1550 m of construction through

deep muskeg deposits (1 – 2m thick). All

alternatives traverse the same length of the

MHT’s.

Approximately 940 m of construction through

deep muskeg deposits (1 – 2m thick). All

alternatives traverse the same length of the

MHT’s.

Approximately 900 m of construction

through deep muskeg deposits (1 – 2m

thick). All alternatives traverse the same

length of the MHT’s.

Ranking Not Preferred Acceptable Preferred

Realignment Length 6.7 Km (1.6 on existing Old Arena Rd.) 5.1 Km 4.7 Km

Ranking Not Preferred Acceptable Preferred


TBT Engineering 29

PROPOSED DESIGN 5.0

This section describes the design of the preferred alignments for Highway 11, Michael

Power Boulevard and associated works. Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard will

be designed in accordance to the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways

(GDSOH) and design speed standards of 110 km/h and 80 km/h respectively.

The proposed design standards for Highway 11 are summarized in the Design Criteria

attached in Appendix B. Preliminary plans and profiles are provided in Appendix C.

Horizontal Alignment 5.1

The horizontal alignment for the proposed Highway 11 realignment conforms to a 110

km/h design speed in accordance with the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario

Highways (GDSOH) Table C3-2. Curve length shall be a minimum of 150 m or the

appropriate minimum length for the deflection angle.

During the Trade-Off Study phase, MTO requested that any horizontal curve radii are to

be designed with an 800 m radius or greater. The alignment design consists of three

800 m radius curves and one 900 m radius curve.

Alignment 1D has been designed to provide a 90° intersection on tangent with Michael

Power Boulevard. Due to environmental constraints, Kenogamisis Golf Course, the Pit

Safety Limit and highway geometric standards, approximately 600 m of Michael Power

Boulevard will be re-aligned to achieve the 90° crossing. The section of Michael Power

Boulevard being realigned will be designed using a design speed of 80 km/h and curve

radii of 250 m or greater.

The preferred alignment for Highway 11 is considerate of the possibility the highway may

be upgraded to a four lane facility in the future. Alignment 1D essentially follows the

alignment for the eastbound lanes in a four lane facility.

Vertical Alignment 5.2

The profile grade for the proposed Highway 11 realignment will be considerate of soils

conditions, longitudinal drainage, intersection approaches, freeboard in wetter areas and

depth of cover for drainage features. Where traversing the MacLeod High Tailings the

profile has been set to provide a minimum 2 m separation between profile grade and

original ground. All vertical curves on Highway 11 will meet or exceed the design

standard for a 110km/h design speed.

Cross Section 5.3

The design highway cross section for Highway 11 will be in accordance with GDSOH

Table D2-1& D5-1 and will consist of two 3.75 m lanes, 2.5 m shoulders and 1.0 m

minimum rounding. Auxiliary lanes as detailed elsewhere will be 3.5 m in width.


TBT Engineering 30

Pavement widening will be designed in accordance with GDSOH Table D3-3 and a WB-

17.5 design vehicle. Super-elevation will conform to GDSOH Table C3-5 and a design

speed of 110 km/h.

Granular and fill foreslopes shall be at a rate no steeper than 3:1 in shallow fill and cut

sections. In high fill sections where constraints restrict construction of 3:1 foreslopes, the

foreslope between the bottom of the granular base and the toe of the fill may be

steepened up to a maximum of 2:1 in earth fills and 1.25:1 in rock fills.

In cut sections earth backslopes less than 3.0 m in height shall be constructed at rate no

steeper than 3:1 and earth backslopes greater than 3.0 m in height may be steepened to

2:1 as required.

A preliminary foundations investigation and design was completed for rock

embankments traversing and adjacent to the MHT’s. Construction and grading

requirements for these rock embankments are provided within the Preliminary

Geotechnical Foundation Study section of this report and in Appendix F.

The design cross section for the portion of Michael Power Boulevard being realigned will

consist of two 3.5 m lanes, 2.0 m shoulders and 1.0 m minimum rounding. This proposed

platform width is consistent with the existing platform.

Typical cross sections are provided in exhibit 5.1 and 5.2.

Intersections and Sideroads 5.4

The proposed design of the new Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard intersection

is very similar to the existing intersection. Channelized turn movements with raised

median islands will be provided for Highway 11 westbound traffic turning northbound on

Michael Power Boulevard (E-N Ramp) and southbound Michael Power Boulevard traffic

turning westbound onto Highway 11(N-W Ramp). The curb and gutter for the E-N and N-

W ramps will consist of barrier curb and standard gutter with offsets designed in

accordance to GDSOH Table E8-7. The ramp alignments will both utilize 80 m radius

curves and spiral parameters of 40.

An auxiliary left turn lane will be provided for Highway 11 eastbound traffic turning north

onto Michael Power Boulevard. Based on the percentage of long trucks turning north

onto Michael Power Boulevard, the design will include a minimum storage length of

15 m.

The intersection of Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard has been designed to

provide 425 m of sight distance from the sideroad along the main highway. This

requirement will ensure southbound traffic turning left onto Highway 11 has sufficient

time to accelerate without being overtaken by approaching traffic on Highway 11

traveling at the design speed.


TBT Engineering 31

Roadside Safety 5.5

The Ministry of Transportation Roadside Safety Manual, 1993 defines the clear zone

width as “the distance from the edge of the travelled roadway to the face of an

unprotected hazard.” This width, which is dependent on design speed and roadway

geometrics, must be traversable and clear of any hazards such as: rigid sign supports,

light standards, and non-traversable drainage structures.

The applications of clear zone width will be reviewed in accordance with the Roadside

Safety Manual. Obstacles within the clear zone should be treated in the following order

of preference: remove the hazard; relocate the hazard outside the clear zone; minimize

the hazard by making it traversable (i.e., slope flattening) or using breakaway devices;

and shield the hazard.

The minimum required clear zone distance for a 110 km/h design speed and an AADT of

2080 is 7.0 m on tangents and 9.0 m for an 800 m radius curve. The typical design cross

section will locate rock cuts beyond the clearzone.

Where it is not practical to relocate a roadside hazard or to provide traversable

embankment slopes, all hazards that are located within the clear zone will be protected

with guide rail according to current Ministry design standards, practices and procedures.

Ideally, surplus excavation material is utilized for slope flattening to eliminate and/or

minimize the need for guide rail.

Traffic Signage and Pavement Markings 5.6

Pavement markings and signage requirements throughout the project including

cautionary signing at critical locations will be reviewed during detail design.

All recommended permanent signage is to be reviewed and approved by the Ministry.

Approved permanent signage is to be detailed in the contract package. Wording on both

permanent and construction identification signs must be approved. Permanent Signing

and Pavement Marking drawings and a Permanent Signing Table will be prepared. All

permanent signing and pavement markings shall be in accordance with the Ontario

Traffic Manuals, King’s Highway Guide Signing Policy Manual, Ministry standards and

regional guidelines. The Permanent Signing Plan and Permanent Signing Table shall be

submitted to the Ministry for review and approval.

Drainage 5.7

The highway drainage design for surface drainage and water crossings will be in

accordance to the MTO Highway Drainage Standards (2008).

Centreline Culverts 5.7.1

A preliminary design has been undertaken to determine centerline culvert locations.

Since all catchments are estimated to be under 100 hectares, peak flows have been


TBT Engineering 32

estimated using the using the Rational Method. The following data sources have been

referenced to describe the watershed characteristics:

Engineering survey plans and profiles

LIDAR and high resolution ortho-imagery

Aerial photographs (scales: 1:50000)

Ontario Base Maps (scale 1:20000).

The appropriate storm return period and headwater elevation will be used to design

centreline culverts for surface drainage and water crossings. All DFO and MTO protocols

will be implemented to protect designated fisheries. Culvert design will be reviewed

during detail design to determine the impact of changes in adjacent land and topography

resulting from the mine operation and eventual closure.

Gravity pipe design will be completed during detailed design using a 50 year design

service life.

Roadside Ditch Design 5.7.2

It is recommended that standard roadside ditching be provided for 0.5 m below subgrade

in earth and 0.25 m below subgrade in rock with consideration for 1 m flat bottom widths

in flatter and wetter areas. It is recommended that protection of ditches be in the form of

seeding and mulching and/or rock protection depending on the steepness of the highway

grade. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be reviewed during detail

design.

Water Management 5.7.3

Highway construction materials and techniques will be optimized along the MacLeod

High Tailings to minimize the infiltration of service water into the tailings. Water

management design alternatives will be further investigated during the detail design

phase.

Entrances 5.8

The MTO Corridor Management Office will be consulted to ensure conformance with

sight distance and permit requirements for both existing and new entrances for Highway

11. See the Permitting section of this report for more details.

A new commercial entrance will be required at station 17+848 Rt Errington Township

(MTO Plan B-896-11-2) to provide access to the mine site. The Traffic Impact Study

recommends an auxiliary westbound left turn lane (minimum 15m storage, parallel lane,

taper, and run-out lane to correspond to the selected design speed) and eastbound right


TBT Engineering 33

turn lane and taper are constructed to accommodate traffic. The traffic impact study also

recommended illumination for the new entrance.

The Municipality of Greenstone will be consulted regarding existing and new entrances

on Michael Power Boulevard.

Illumination 5.9

Illumination will be provided at the decision points for the Highway 11 and Michael Power

Boulevard intersection and at the main entrance for the mine site.

Snow Plough Turnarounds and Truck Inspection Stations 5.10

A new truck inspection station will be provided along the proposed alignment. The

location will be determined during detail design.

A requirement for snow plough turnarounds has not been identified for this project.

MTO Patrol Yard 5.11

Construction of the preferred alignment may require the relocation of the existing MTO

Patrol Yard. Consultation with MTO revealed that if a new patrol yard is required, this

location would require access to the municipal water supply. Based on this requirement a

preliminary relocation site may be available at south of the highway at station 17+850 Rt

Errington Township (MTO Plan B-896-11-2).

Further evaluation of the proposed alignment nearing the eastern tie-in/connecting point

should be completed during detail design phase in attempt to avoid interference or

relocation of the MTO patrol yard.

Geotechnical Pavement Design 5.12

Preliminary Structure Design – Highway 11

The preliminary pavement structure design was carried out utilizing the MTO’s Adaption and Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide for Ontario Conditions (Materials Information Report MI-183) which uses Structural Numbers (SN) derived using standard values for new construction projects. The SN design method references the amount of traffic anticipated over the design life. Based on a forecasted 20 year Equivalent Single Axle Load of 11.6 million and a design subgrade of low plastic clay, the target SN is calculated to be 177 mm. Based on the structural layer coefficients provided in MI – 183 the Structural Number for the proposed Highway 11 realignment pavement structure is provided in the table below:

Highway 11 Proposed Pavement Structure:


TBT Engineering 34

Preliminary Pavement Structure Structural Layer Coefficients

Structural Number

Component Avg. Thickness (mm)

New Asphaltic Concrete 130 0.42 55

New Granular ‘A’ Base 150 0.14 21

New Granular ‘B’ Type II Subbase 850 0.12 102

Theoretical Design Structural Number 178

Target Structural Number 177

Preliminary Design – Michael Power Boulevard Intersection

The forecasted traffic loadings on Michael Power Boulevard extending northerly from proposed Highway 11 is 1.6 M 20 yr ESAL’s which requires a SN of 135 mm using a design subgrade of low plastic clay. As such, the preliminary pavement structures for this segment of Michael Power Boulevard, and associated intersection ramps, are as follows: Michael Power Boulevard North and Intersection Ramps


Structural Number







The proposed Michael Power Boulevard extension south of the proposed intersection has a forecasted traffic loading of 10,000 20 yr ESAL’s requiring a SN of 64 mm. The preliminary pavement structure for this segment is as follows: Michael Power Boulevard South


Structural Number





TBT Engineering 35




Preliminary Pavement Types

The types and thicknesses of asphaltic concrete for Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard are as follows: o Highway 11 Main Lanes: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course

80 mm SuperPave 19.0 Binder Course

o Highway 11 Auxiliary Lanes: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course 80 mm SuperPave 19.0 Binder Course

o Highway 11 Paved Shoulders: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5

o Highway 11 Ramps to 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course

Michael Power Boulevard North: 50 mm SuperPave 19.0 Binder Course

o Michael Power Boulevard North: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course 50 mm SuperPave 19.0 Binder Course

o Michael Power Boulevard South: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course

o Hwy 11 Ramps & Michael Power 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course Boulevard Paved Shoulders:

SuperPave binder and surface courses should be specified with a Performance Grade Asphalt Cement of 58-34. Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard paving courses shall be specified with traffic categories D and B, respectively. Stripping and Muskeg Excavation

All topsoil and organic/muskeg should be removed from the proposed new highway

footprint regardless of the fill height. For design purposes assume an average stripping

depth of 200 mm and that stripping commences at the inner edge of rounding where

widening. Grubbing shall be done in accordance with OPSS 201. For design purposes,

assume a grubbing depth of 300 mm. Grubbing shall not apply for embankments greater

than 2.5 m.

All organic deposits and muskeg should be removed as per OPSD 203.010 for new

construction.

Embankment Fills

New highway embankments will be constructed with rock fill or suitable earth/granular borrow materials. Foreslopes constructed with earth and granular material should be graded at 2:1 or flatter and rock embankments shall be at 1.25:1 or flatter (outside


TBT Engineering 36

foundation areas). Slope flattening opportunities will be reviewed as part of the detailed design process.

Roadway Cuts

New earth cuts will have backslopes graded at 2:1 or flatter (material specific) in conjunction with erosion protection. Erosion protection is anticipated to vary from seed and cover to armouring with granular sheeting or rock protection. The majority of the existing earth along the proposed re-alignment is generally not suitable for re-use as embankment fill due to the fineness of gradation and saturated conditions. New rock cuts should be designed in accordance with MTO’s Northwest Region Rock Cut Guidelines. Rock generated from the cuts within the western portion of the project length will be further evaluated during the detailed design phase to investigate suitability for the production of rock fill, granular materials, and hot-mix stone. Detail Design Phase

The geotechnical components, including field investigations, data analysis, recommendations and reporting shall be carried out as per the MTO’s Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual, Second Edition; MTO NWR Geotechnical Investigation Minimum Requirements dated 1998-06-01; and MTO Adaption and Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide for Ontario Conditions (Materials Information Report MI-183).

Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Study 5.13

The appended Preliminary Foundation Investigation and Design Report address several

roadway embankment design considerations. The report discusses the subsurface

conditions encountered surrounding the MacLeod High Tailings (MHT) and those

encountered within the MHT. Design discussions focus on the stability of the proposed

roadway embankments both on and adjacent to the MHT, and estimated settlement

performance of the roadway embankments for various subsurface conditions. The report

includes a discussion on considerations which will need addressing for the completion of

the detailed design. A brief summary of these three items are provided as follows.

Embankment Stability of the proposed alignment both on the MHT and adjacent to the

MHT was completed. Numerous scenarios were analyzed; from the simple embankment

on top of the MHT, to the highest embankment which crosses the perimeter of the

MHT. For these scenarios, sub-scenarios were further analyzed to determine how far

the embankment could be from the perimeter without effecting it to how to safely

excavate organic material and deleterious soils (such as tailings) from beneath the

embankment footprint without destabilizing the MHT perimeter. From these analyses the

following construction, and design requirements were determined:

Typical rock fill embankment side slope will be 1.5(H) to 1(V).

Rock fill embankments extending “side saddle” over the MHT perimeter will have

side slopes of 1.5(H) to 1(V).


TBT Engineering 37

A zone of organic material and/or tailings will not be able to be excavated at the MHT

perimeter toe (approximately 20 m from the toe).

A flanking berm may be required along the perimeter of the MHT to facilitate the

excavation of organic material and/or tailings for the roadway embankment.

MHT perimeter slope will require reinforcement where the roadway embankment is

within 14 m from the perimeter crest. The reinforcement will include 0.6 m of rock fill

along the face of the perimeter and 15 m wide stepped flanking berm.

Monitoring and instrumentation plans may need to be considered in areas where

construction is over organic material, for construction and stability safety.

Settlement performance has been assessed in reference to the MTO Embankment

Settlement Criteria. This criteria indicates that over the design life of the embankments

that a maximum of 200 mm of settlement can occur post construction of the roadway. In

order for this to be realized either delays in final grading and paving or preloading of the

foundation soils needs to be allowed for. Depending on the area of concern and the

prevailing subsurface conditions delays upwards of three months may be

required. Where estimated delays extend beyond three months preloads may be

considered, the size of the preloads will be dependent on the subsurface conditions and

the allowable delay time.

Further field investigations will be required to obtain additional subsurface data. Water

levels and soil stratigraphy, attempt to locate known subsurface structures, and

considerations for additional design criteria will be investigated. Of the proposed detailed

design considerations two highlighted items are further field investigations and refining

and clarifying the design criteria. Further field investigations are required both on and off

the MHT to obtain more groundwater data, and further subsurface soil stratigraphy. This

will provide more information on the extent of the tailings beach surrounding the MHT,

the condition and variability of the fills above the tailings on the MHT and phreatic

surface data near the perimeter of the MHT. Refining and clarifying the design criteria

will be required to complete the detailed design. In the event that design criteria

becomes more stringent, than those applied within the preliminary report, because of the

state of the MHT, from adjacent structures, or from a regulatory agency the findings of

the preliminary report may no longer be valid.

The above three items (stability, settlement, and detailed design considerations) are

discussed in greater detail in the Preliminary Foundation Investigation and Design Report

provided in Appendix F.

Materials Management and Aggregate Sources 5.14

Excess earth will be generated as the majority of excavated earth material is unsuitable

for roadway construction purposes. The design will be considerate of the “MTO Earth

Best Practices & Recommendations for Design & Construction – June, 2010.” The

responsibility will be placed on the proponent to effectively manage earth that is excess

to the contract requirements outside the right-of-way.


TBT Engineering 38

A significant volume of rock fill is required for rock embankment construction of new

Highway 11 across the MacLeod High Tailings. It is anticipated the rock will be supplied

from quarrying additional rock beyond the clearzone in the vicinity of station 10+800

(Highway 11 Realignment).

Utilities 5.15

Utility relocations are anticipated for Bell Canada and Hydro One aerial plant within the

vicinity of the new Highway 11 and MPB intersection.

Bell Canada aerial plant relocates are anticipated at the east limit of the project where

the new Highway 11 alignment ties into existing Highway 11.

There is a Hydro One transmission line that crosses the proposed alignment in the

vicinity of station 10+850. This line will likely require temporary relocation for construction

of the new highway.

Property 5.16

Premier Gold will acquire all lands for the purposes of highway construction. Upon completion of construction and prior to opening to traffic, the new highway right-of-way shall be assumed and designated by the MTO. The right-of-way width will be 110 m throughout the length of the new Highway 11 alignment. A similar process will be required for the transfer of the new MPB alignment to the Municipality of Greenstone.

Construction and Traffic Staging 5.17

In general, on existing highways, construction staging and/or detours are required for

various purposes including safety, traffic control, grading requirements and other related

highway improvements. In areas where geometric improvements are proposed,

temporary delays and/or detours will be required for construction purposes. Detours may

involve temporary shoulder widening and temporary flagging during construction

operations.

As a majority of the new construction is on a new alignment, major traffic impacts on the

existing Highway 11 are not anticipated during construction. During detail design traffic

staging should be reviewed at the following locations:

Highway 11 where the new alignment ties into the existing highway

MPB where the new alignment ties into the existing roadway

MPB and the new channelized intersection


TBT Engineering 39

ADDITIONAL CONTAMINATED PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS 6.0

The Study Area for the ECS is the proposed 110 m Right of Way (ROW) for the Highway

11 realignment. The ECS identified four Areas of Potential Environmental Concern

(APECs) based on pre-screening. These APECs are, from west to east, the Mosher

Portal Area, Former MacLeod Mine Landfill, MacLeod Low and High Tailings, and a

Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard.

MTO’s Contaminated Property Process is divided into six steps as follows:

Contamination Overview Study (Now completed)

Preliminary Site Screening (Now completed)

Phase I ESA (Now completed)

Phase II ESA (Partially completed)

Screening Level Risk Evaluation (to be completed) and

Site management (to be completed).

As the project moves into detailed design, additional Phase II ESA work is required at the

sites to allow the screening level risk evaluations as necessary. Recommendations

associated with each APEC are identified below:

Mosher Portal Area – Soil and groundwater quality testing are recommended in the

area of the Mosher Pit and in the vicinity of the Mosher No. 1 Shaft (including buildings)

to investigate potential contaminants at and adjacent the proposed realigned corridor;

Former Macleod Mine Landfill Area - The groundwater monitoring wells previously

installed in 2014 downgradient of the closed landfill Site (i.e. 14-FL-MW1 and MW2)

should be sampled for water quality to investigate potential landfill leachate migration

towards the proposed realigned corridor;

Macleod Tailings Area – Additional soil quality testing is recommended from

geotechnical boreholes completed for detailed design activity along the proposed

corridor. This will be focused on identifying the presence or absence of the burgundy

coloured tailings in each of the boreholes;

Highway Maintenance Patrol Yard – Additional Soil and groundwater quality testing are

recommended in the yard area to delineate contaminants previously identified.

Based on the additional Phase II ESA information, qualitative risk evaluations shall be

completed (as necessary) to assess the short and long term risk of contamination

identified at each of the APECs to both human and natural environment receptors. From

this point, strategies to mitigate site contamination will be developed. Any contaminant

management strategy would involve site monitoring, or remediation, or possibly the

preparation of a formal risk assessment as per O.Reg. 153/04.


TBT Engineering 40

CORRIDOR CONTROL 7.0

The deletion of the portion of the existing Highway 11 being realigned and the addition of

the new alignment into the provincial system will require an Order in Council. The

proponent will prepare all required legal plans with some oversight by MTO Geomatics.

A Municipality of Greenstone Council resolution may be required for acquiring the

realigned section of MPB. Consultation with Municipality of Greenstone will be required

in the next design phase to determine the transfer and closure process.

PERMITTING 8.0

The MTO has permit administration for corridor control with respect to building, land use,

encroachments, entrances and signs etc., within provincial highway right-of-ways and the

ministry’s legislated area of control. Any permit issued by the Ministry shall not relieve

the owner of the necessity of meeting the requirements of local bylaws, local zoning

regulations and/or other legislation. Permitting is under the control of the MTO Corridor

Management Office. All permits must be in place prior to opening of the new highway to

traffic.

Corridor Control Permits 8.1

Building and Land Use, Encroachment, and Entrance Permits will be required prior to

construction taking place within the existing designated MTO controlled area. Permits will

be required along the realigned Highway 11 and are to be coordinated with the legal

agreement and transfer of the realigned portion of Highway 11 to MTO.

Building and Land Use Permits 8.1.1

Building and Land Use Permits will required for any construction or change in use of the

property adjacent to the highway that falls within the MTO controlled area. Relocation of

existing Utility Infrastructure will possibly require permitting depending on the selected

location of the infrastructure and its proximity to the MTO controlled area.

For extraction of aggregates and materials, applicants deal with appropriate authority

(i.e. MNR) and must provide proof of compliance prior to MTO approval. If direct access

to the highway is required, such application for an entrance permit shall be considered

simultaneously. The location of the entrance shall meet Ministry commercial standards.

The Aggregate Resources Act requires that normally no excavation of aggregates may

occur within a 30 m setback bordering a road or road right-of-way.

Where a mining claim adjoins or is adjacent to a highway or road maintained by the

Ministry of Transportation, no surface mining operations shall be carried on within 45 m


TBT Engineering 41

of the limits of the highway or road except with the consent in writing of the Minister.

R.S.O. 1990, Chapter, M. 14, Section 34.

Encroachment Permits 8.1.2

An encroachment includes any installation or work upon, over or under, or within the

limits of a provincial highway right-of-way (excluding entrances).

Encroachments along the Highway 11 bypass will include both the East and West tie in

locations to the existing Highway 11 alignment and the intersection of Michael Power

Boulevard. Utilities within the MTO right-of-way (Hydro One, Union Gas, Greenstone

Municipal Services, and MTO) will be relocated along the new Highway 11 alignment.

The appropriate specifications and standard drawings should be consulted for material

requirements and acceptable construction procedures to be followed during installation

of an encroachment.

All existing utilities and new plants erected within the new highway right-of-way will

require permits with some possible exceptions for Bell Canada per Statutory Authority.

Any utility will normally be expected to adhere to the following:

Confine the utility plant within a 2 m horizontal strip along the highway right-of-way

where possible, but should not take up a width more than 50% of the distance

between the right-of-way and the shoulder rounding and the right-of-way limits. The

accepted tolerance shall mean 0.5 m on either side of the approved 2 m strip.

The 2 m horizontal strip is to be parallel to and immediately adjacent to the right-of-

way, unless that location is already occupied by another utility, trees, or other

obstacles which preclude this location. The 2 m horizontal strip must be as close to

the right-of-way limit as possible, and in all cases not closer to the roadway or

pavement than the centre of the roadside ditch. Any exception must be negotiated

between the parties involved before the start of construction.

Provide appropriate depth of cover for all new roadway crossings

The utility company placing the proposed new facility shall be responsible for locating

any other existing plant as well as resolving any conflicts which could occur.

Any Municipal infrastructure situated within the road allowances or along existing

Highway 11 will require permitting through the new road authority MTO.

Entrance Permits 8.1.3

Entrance permits are required for:

All new entrances along the new Highway 11 alignment. Permits are the

responsibility of the property owner.


TBT Engineering 42

Construction of a temporary entrance or the use of any part of the highway right-of-

way as a means of temporary access sometimes for construction purposes (usually

issued for a 6 month or two year period).

The Municipality of Greenstone will be consulted regarding existing and new entrances

on Michael Power Boulevard.

Construction Permits 8.2

Entrances that will require grading beyond the highway right-of-way will require a

Permission to Enter from the property owner. Entrance plan and profiles will be provided

to the owner.

For all construction upon lands not owned by the proponent, i.e. Municipal road

allowances or provincial, a Permission to Construct will be required.

LEGAL AGREEMENT 9.0

The new Highway 11 realignment will have to be designed and constructed to MTO

standards. A legal agreement will be required between MTO and the proponent to

address responsibilities and obligations.

SCHEDULE 10.0

The schedule for Highway 11 construction is governed by the Premier Gold Hard Rock

Project federal EA. Property acquisition, highway design, utility relocations, highway

construction and highway transfers and designations will be in alignment with the federal

EA. A project schedule is provided below in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1 – Highway 11 Realignment Project Schedule


TBT Engineering 43

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 11.0

The construction cost estimate for the Highway 11 realignment and associated works is

$ 14.9 million. A breakdown of quantity and costs for the major items is provided in Table

10.1. Contingencies have been included for minor items, utilities, engineering and

contract administration.

Table 10.1 – Highway 11 Realignment Cost Estimate

CLOSURE 12.0

Should there be any questions or concerns regarding the information presented in this report,

please do not hesitate to contact Premier Gold Mine Limited or TBT Engineering Limited.

Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:

Don Bowes, P. Eng.,

Project Engineer

TBTE Engineering Limited

Scott Peterson, P.Geo.,

Vice President

TBTE Engineering Limited

Bertho Caron, Ing.

Eng. & Const. Manager


<Original signed by><Original signed by>

Premier Gold – Hardrock Project TBTE Ref. No.: 14-192 Highway 11 Realignment

APPENDIX A

Preliminary Design Criteria

PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA

Date: March 2015

HARDROCK GOLD PROJECT HWY NO. 11 TYPE OF PROJECT: [G, D, GB, HMP, ILLUM] WORK PROJECT NO. Highway 11 Realignment LOCATION Hwy 11 – 2.2 km west of Michael Power Boul evard easterly for 4.7 km MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS Greenstone Geographic Township(s) of Errington, Ashmore

TRAFFIC

Location Year AADT SADT DHV % Comm % LT

From Hwy 584 LHRS 17880 O/S 0.0 km TO Goldfield Rd LHRS 17880 O/S 4.7 km.

HWY 11 2007 1500 1750 150 47.3 % 40.9 %

2017 1575 1840 155 NA NA

Reference – MTO GWP 6064-09-00 DC

PRESENT

CONDITIONS DESIGN

STANDARDS PROPOSED

STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY:

HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION

RAU 110

RAU 110

RAU 110

Signature:

MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (m) 160 215 215 Printed Name:

EQUIVALENT MINIMUM “K” FACTOR

CREST 50 90 90 Date:

SAG 70 50 50 MTO Project Manager / Engineer

GRADES MAXIMUM (%) 1.3 6.0-7.0 3.3 Signature:

RADIUS MINIMUM (m) 1500 525 800 Printed Name:

PAVEMENT WIDTH (m) 3.5 3.75 3.75 Date:

SHOULDER WIDTH (m) 2.0 – 2.5 2.0 2.5 Head, Planning and Design Section

SHOULDER ROUNDING (m) 0.5 1.0 1.0

MEDIAN WIDTH (m) N/A N/A N/A APPROVED BY:

R.O.W. WIDTH (m) 60 N/A 110 Signature:

POSTED SPEED (km/h) 90(a) 90(a) 90(a) Printed Name:

MISCELLANEOUS N/A N/A N/A Date:

Regional Manager, Engineering


Date: March 2015

HARDROCK GOLD PROJECT HWY NO. 11 TYPE OF PROJECT: [G, D, GB, HMP, ILLUM] NOTES Vertical and Horizontal Alignment

DESIGN SPEED (km/h)

NUMBER OF CURVES EXISTING ALIGNMENT PROPOSED DESIGN

HORIZ. CREST SAG HORIZ. CREST SAG

≥120 2 4 4 0 3 4 110 0 0 0 4 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 1 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 2 5 4 4 3 4

a) The posted speed is reduced to 70km/hr within the vicinity of the Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard Intersection. The reduced speed zone shall be applied to the new Highway 11 alignment within the vicinity of the Michael Power Boulevard intersection.

REMARKS: 1. Project Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the project is the construction of a new section of Highway 11 around the Hardrock Gold Project. The proponent, Premier Gold Mines Ltd. will be responsible for all aspects of the project. The highway construction project will include, but is not limited to:

• New alignment beginning 2.2 km west of the existing intersection at Michael Powers Boulevard extending easterly for 4.7 km.

• New alignment includes construction over approximately 1.2 km of existing mine tailings, known as the MacLeod High Tailings (MHT) which currently supports recreational use (golf course).

• New at grade intersection and illumination for Michael Power Boulevard. • Relocation of utility lines and infrastructure • Demolition and re-location of MTO Patrol Yard currently located at the east project limit • Decommissioning of exiting MTO electrical plant

2. Design Year The design year is 2036. Construction is anticipated for 2016.

3. Related Studies and Adjacent Projects MTO GWP 6064-09-00, Highway 11 Resurfacing Contract 2013-6012. 4. Environmental Assessment

The highway construction is considered part of the Individual Federal EA for the mine development project.


Date: March 2015

HARDROCK GOLD PROJECT HWY NO. 11 TYPE OF PROJECT: [G, D, GB, HMP, ILLUM] 5. Pavement

The pavement strategy for this project is new construction consisting of a Granular B subbase, Granular ‘A’ base, 80 mm Superpave 19.0 binder course and 50 mm Superpave 12.5 surface coarse.

6. Cross-Fall Cross-fall will meet a 110 km/h design speed standard.

7. Superelevation

Highway 11 superelevation will meet a 110 km/h design speed standard. 8. Drainage

The MTO Gravity Pipe Design Guidelines will assist in designing the gravity pipe systems. Centreline culverts will be designed using a 50 year storm return period and a 50 year design service life. The minimum highway crossing culvert size will be 800 mm diameter.

9. Roadside Safety A clear zone of 7.0 m on tangent will apply. The clear zone will be increased on curves by applying the appropriate curve correlation factor. In rock cut sections, the rock shall be removed to the minimum clear zone offset. Rock cuts should be designed in accordance with the MTO Northwest Region Rock Cut Guidelines. In fill sections the foreslope shall be at a rate no steeper than 3:1. In high fill sections where constraints restrict construction of 3:1 foreslopes, the foreslope between the bottom of the granular base and the toe of the fill may be steepened up to 2:1 in earth fills and 1.25:1 in rock fills. These areas shall be protected with guide rail.

10. Signing

Signing will be replaced, installed, or adjusted where warranted in accordance with current MTO standards.

11. Illumination

Illumination will be provided at the decision points for the Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard intersection and the mine site access entrance.

12. Traffic Signals

Not applicable to this project. 13. Commercial Entrances

Commercial entrances will be installed where warranted in accordance with current MTO standards. 14. Intersections

An at-grade intersection will be provided for the new Highway 11 alignment and Michael Power Boulevard. Geometric elements of Michael Power Boulevard will be designed using an 80 km/hr design speed. A portion of Michael Power Boulevard north and south of the new Highway 11 will be realigned to improve the angle of intersection. The intersection will consist of an eastbound auxiliary left turn lane and channelized right turn movements for south bound and westbound traffic.

15. Structures

Not anticipated for this project. 16. Pavement Widening on Curves


Date: March 2015

HARDROCK GOLD PROJECT HWY NO. 11 TYPE OF PROJECT: [G, D, GB, HMP, ILLUM]

Pavement widening will be applied based on the requirements of a WB 17.5 (Tractor-Semi-Trailer) vehicle.

17. Passing Lanes / Truck Climbing Lanes Not applicable to this project. 18. Fencing

Not applicable to this project. 19. Active Transportation Infrastructure

Not applicable to this project. 20. Property Requirements

Property acquisition will be required. The property necessary to facilitate the new alignment is the responsibility of the Proponent.

21. Railway Crossings

There are no railway crossings within the project limits. 22. Utilities and Pipelines

Utility relocations will be determined during Detail Design. All costs for relocation will be borne by the Proponent.

23. Construction Staging/Traffic Management

As a majority of the new highway construction is on a new alignment, major traffic impacts on the existing highway are not anticipated. Traffic staging requirements at the new Michael Power Boulevard intersection and the east and west tie-ins for the new highway alignment will be determined during detail design.

24. Legal Agreements and Approvals

A legal agreement will be required between MTO and the Proponent. 25. Highway Closings, Assumptions, Transfers

Once construction is complete and prior to traffic access, the MTO will need to acquire/assume and designate the new alignment. Following this, the MTO will have to remove the designation from the bypassed section and dispose of a portion to the proponent. The Proponent shall prepare a Property Strategy Plan and complete all required legal documents, surveys and plans with some oversight by MTO.

26. Municipal Council Resolution

A Township of Greenstone Council resolution may be required for the transferring of any portions of Michael Power Boulevard bypassed by the new highway.

27. Kenogamisis Golf Club A portion of the golf course, east of Michael Power Boulevard, would be impacted by the proposed alignment, specifically holes 10, 11, and 12 which skirt the northeastern corner of the MacLeod High Tailings.

28. MacLeod High Tailings (MHT)


Date: March 2015


Preliminary explorations indicate the tailings to be 6 to 12 m thick and consist of silt to clay sized particles. Further study of the MHT is recommended to investigate their chemical and physical properties within the proposed highway corridor to assess foundation design requirements.


Date: March 2015



APPENDIX B

Preliminary Design Drawings – Highway 11 Realignment


APPENDIX C

Preliminary Design Drawings – Mine Site Entrance


APPENDIX D

Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report

PAVEMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

REPORT

LOCATION:

Highway 11 Realignment – 2.2 km West of Michael Power Boulevard Easterly for 4.7 km

Prepared for: Premier Gold Mines Limited

Hardrock Site Geraldton, ON

Prepared by: TBT Engineering Limited

1918 Yonge Street Thunder Bay, ON

P7E 6T9

March 31, 2015 TBTE Ref. No. 14-192-3

Premier Gold – Hardrock Site TBTE Ref. No. 14-192-3 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report

TBT Engineering i

Executive Summary

TBT Engineering Limited (TBTE) was retained by Premier Gold (PG) to assist with

transportation engineering for PG’s Hardrock Mine Project, specifically the completion of a

Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the relocation of Highway 11 from 2.2 km west of Michael

Power Boulevard easterly for 4.7 km. The proposed realignment runs north of the existing

Highway 11 and will intersect Michael Power Boulevard approximately 1.3 km north of the

current intersection. The realignment will transverse the Townships of Errington and Ashmore,

Municipality of Greenstone within the Provincial district of Thunder Bay, ON.

The western portion of the realignment transverses moderate relief, bedrock controlled terrain

with intermittent pockets of fine grained silts with varying amounts of sand. The eastern portion

of the alignment transverses fine grained soils with discontinuous organic/swamp deposits and a

historical tailings dump, known as McLeod High Tailings (MHT).

Along with the attached report, a set of Preliminary Pavement Structure Treatment Charts

(PPSTC’s) are provided with preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the various

realignment sections addressing site specific conditions. The PPSTC will include pavement

structure thicknesses, frost heaving and erodiblity potential, and drainage recommendations.

Geotechnical investigations and recommendations for the portion of highway bypass traversing

the MHT are addressed by TBTE’s Preliminary Foundation Design Report, under a separate

cover.

The preliminary pavement structure design is based on the anticipated traffic loadings along with

references to MTO and AASHTO design methods.


TBT Engineering ii

Attachments

Appendix 1 Pavement Structure Treatment Charts

Highway 11 6 Pages

Michael Power Boulevard 4 Pages

Appendix 2 Borehole Logs

Township of Errington 6 Pages

Township of Ashmore 2 Pages

Appendix 3 Laboratory Results

Township of Errington 13 Pages

Township of Ashmore 6 Pages

Appendix 4 MTO Geotechnical Abbreviations 1 Pages


TBT Engineering iii

Table of Content

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2

Highway Alignment Evaluation Study ............................................................................... 3

EXISTING TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY ............................................................ 4

INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................. 4

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS DATA .............................................................................. 5

Subgrade Materials ...................................................................................................... 5 Bedrock Geology .......................................................................................................... 6 Groundwater Table ...................................................................................................... 7 Suitability of Overburden Soils ..................................................................................... 7

TRAFFIC DATA ............................................................................................................... 7

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES .......................................... 9

Pavement Structure Design .......................................................................................... 9 New Roadway Construction ........................................................................................11

Preliminary Pavement Design ..............................................................................11

Embankment Fill Chart .........................................................................................12

Stripping and Muskeg Excavation ...............................................................................13 Widening and Benching ..............................................................................................13 Drainage .....................................................................................................................14

Drainage Culverts ................................................................................................14

Open Ditches .......................................................................................................14

Foreslope and Backslope Grades ...............................................................................14 Erosion Protection .......................................................................................................14

Seed and Cover ...................................................................................................15

Granular Sheeting ................................................................................................15

Transition Treatments .................................................................................................16 Slope Flattening and Foreslope Construction ..............................................................16

Side Roads and Entrances ..........................................................................................17 Frost Penetration Depth ..............................................................................................17

LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................17

CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................18


TBT Engineering Page 1 of 18

INTRODUCTION

TBT Engineering (TBTE) has been retained by Premier Gold Mines Limited (PG) for the

provision of a Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the relocation of Highway 11 as part of PG’s

Hardrock Gold Project near Geraldton, Ontario. Preliminary studies completed to support the

PDR include topographical engineering surveys, geotechnical investigations studies and field

investigations). The following report describes the findings from the preliminary geotechnical

field investigations and laboratory testing and provides preliminary geotechnical pavement

engineering recommendations.

LOCATION

Premier Gold’s Hardrock site is centralized near the existing intersection of MTO Highway 11

and Michael Power Boulevard located 5.4 km south of the town of Geraldton, Ontario.



The proposed highway realignment traverses the geographical townships of Errington and

Ashmore.

Chainages for the proposed Highway realignment are as follows:

West Project Limit: STA 10+000 Errington Twp. Michael Power Boulevard Intersection: STA 12+172 Errington Twp. Township Change: STA 12+177 Errington Twp. = 12+177 Ashmore Twp. East Project Limit: STA 14+684.751 Ashmore Twp.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

King’s Highway 11 is classified as a rural arterial undivided (RAU 110) facility. The segment of

Highway 11 effected by the relocation is running east-west and is located south of the

community of Geraldton, ON. The primary function of Highway 11 is to provide access across

Northern Ontario as well as a link between many small communities. The new bypass will be

designed and constructed to meet MTO standards. Upon designation and transfer of the new

corridor from PG to MTO, the existing bypassed segment will be transferred to PG.



Currently Michael Power Boulevard connects Highway 11, northerly to Geraldton and MTO

secondary Highway 584 extending northerly.

HIGHWAY ALIGNMENT EVALUATION STUDY

TBTE had previously completed a Highway Alignment Evaluation Study (trade off study) which

evaluated six alignment alternatives, five of which bypassed the Hardrock Project Site to the

north and one to the south. Four of the alignment options were removed from this segment

given there their proximity to the proposed open pit which did not accommodate a 500 m

buffer/setback.

Through consultation and engagement with the MTO, the highlighted alignment (alignment 1D

from the trade off study) was selected as is presents the best vertical and horizontal alignment

and intersects Michael Power Boulevard at the most favorable angle.

Since the trade off study was conducted, minor alterations to the horizontal alignment and

vertical profile have been made during the PDR phase in order to optimize the cut – fill material

quantities, accommodate mine infrastructure planning, and address foundation issues

associated with the McLeod High Tailings.



EXISTING TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY

Where the realignment portion of Highway 11 extends easterly from Michael Power Boulevard

the existing ground conditions change from muskeg/swamp to historic tailings, formerly known

as the MacLeod High Tailings (MHT). As part of the PDR assignment, TBTE has investigated

the existing conditions of the MHT facility and will provide preliminary embankment

recommendations for new construction of Highway 11 over the existing Tailings. The results of

the investigations and the preliminary recommendations will be covered under a separate report.

INVESTIGATION

Preliminary geotechnical field investigations to investigate the subsurface conditions along the

proposed alignment options were drilled using hand auger equipment. Explorations east of

Michael Power Boulevard approaching and across the MHT site were completed using TBTE’s

CME 75 and CME 55 drill rigs equipped for geotechnical sampling and testing.

All borehole locations were geospatially referenced using hand held Trimble GeoXT GPS units

and are provided on the attached Borehole Logs in Appendix 2. Hydraulic boreholes completed

for the preliminary geotechnical foundation study were surveyed with Real Time Kinematic

(RTK) equipment.

Representative soil samples were collected for laboratory testing to investigate their engineering

properties and gradations. The lab testing program consisted of natural moisture contents,

grainsize analysis, and liquid and plastic limit determination testing (as appropriate). Laboratory

Reports are attached in Appendix 3 and summarized on the attached Borehole Logs in

Appendix 2.



PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS DATA

Subgrade Materials

The subgrade conditions within the project limits can be generalized into three predominant types.

The western portion of the alignment, approximately 1/3 of the project length, consists of

moderate relief, bedrock controlled terrain with thin, discontinuous deposits of sand and

silt.

The middle segment, approximately 1/3 of the project length includes low-lying terrain

occupied by organic deposits atop undulating bedrock and fine grained soils.

The eastern portion of the alignment, the remaining 1/3 of the project length, includes

historical mine tailings beaches and mine tailings dump (known as McLeod High Tailings).

The McLeod High Tailings (MHT) consists of a large tailings deposit placed over natural terrain,

dating back to the 1930’s. The perimeter of the deposit consists of shaped tailings with varying

side slopes and configurations. Typically in the areas of this investigation the side slopes are

roughly 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. Some sections of the MHT perimeter have a toe berm/drain

while other sections do not. A tailings beach is also evident along much of the toe of the MHT

perimeter. The height of the perimeter typically varies from 6 to 8 m. Reshaping of the perimeter,

plus the construction of the toe berms (where applicable) was completed circa 2000.

It is understood that the original terrain consisted of a low lying swamp which is still evident at

some locations beyond the perimeter of the MHT.

The subsurface soils along the alignment on top of the MHT typically consist of fill/topsoil at

surface underlain by tailings. The tailings are underlain by organic material followed by silt. The

silt is underlain by a till with occasional cobbles before auger and/or SPT refusal.

The subsurface soils around the perimeter of the MHT typically consists of organic material or

tailings at surface, followed by silt which are underlain by a till with occasional cobbles before

auger and/or SPT refusal.

Peat/organic deposits, extending up to 3.0 m are common through lower-lying areas with the

water table generally present at surface.



Native non cohesive silt and sand deposits were generally found to have moderate frost

susceptibility and moderate to high erosion potential. Field observations indicate the deposits

were typically in a loose to compact condition.

Cohesive deposits are more prevalent within the eastern portion of the alignment. These soils

are considered to be moderately to highly frost susceptible and have high erosion potential.

Typically, fine grained cohesive soils exhibit less erodible characteristics than silty non-cohesive

soils. However the samples taken from the eastern portion of the realignment only contain small

amounts of clay which does not assist in reducing erosion since it reduces soil permeability and

increases runoff. Based on field observations, the majority of the soils were found to have a firm

to stiff consistency.

Bedrock Geology

The geology of the study area has been taken from the 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate

Update – Hardrock Project, 2014 which sites work by Lafrance, 2004, and OGS Maps No. 1951-

2 and No. 1951-7. The re-alignment of Highway 11 wraps the northern edge of the proposed

open pit outline at the Hardrock Project site. The proposed re-alignment is underlain by the

southern sedimentary unit of the Beardmore-Geraldton Greenstone belt, part of the Wabigoon

Subprovince. The southern sedimentary unit is composed of metasedimentary pile consisting

of thick sequences of sandstone-argillite and minor polymictic conglomerate with interlayered

magnetite-chert banded iron formation.

Based on mapping by F.G. Pye, 1949, the re-alignment is restricted to the Quartz greywacke

(sandstone) with minor intercalated conglomerate sequences that have been cut by dykes

composed of diorite, hornblende diorite, and hornblende gabbro. In the area of Mosher Lake,

the re-alignment will be underlain by iron formation, albite porphyry and intermediate volcanic

tuffs and breccias. Structural fabrics in the area of the re-alignment include the Ellis Syncline, a

regional, west-northwest trending syncline that plunges shallowly to the west-northwest

(280o/35o).



Groundwater Table

Preliminary investigations completed along the proposed highway re-alignment indicate that the

water table is present at or near surface through low-lying muskeg areas, within 2.0 m of ground

surface across the MHT, and in the order of 5 to 10 m below the elevated bedrock grade within

the western portion of the project length.

Suitability of Overburden Soils

Organic materials are typically very compressible, have poor load sustaining properties and a

low shear strength. These materials should be excavated as per Section 9.3 of this report and

may be suitable for re-use as landscaping material, mine or aggregate site rehabilitation, cover

over earth slopes or abandoned sections of roadway to aid in crop/vegetation development or

hauled to a suitable disposal site.

The fine grained lacustrine silt and clay soils present are generally situated within lower lying

segments of the highway alignment and will be covered by embankment fill. Where these

materials are excavated, they should be considered waste, not considered suitable for highway

embankment.

Fine to medium grained granular material (sand with gravel and trace silt) is present near the

west limit of the proposed Highway 11 bypass. Preliminary tests indicate that sections of this

deposit may be suitable as subgrade fill although quantities are expected to be limited. Further

investigations are recommended during detailed design to assess the quality and quantity of this

deposit.

TRAFFIC DATA

The preliminary pavement structure design is based on 20 year Equivalent Single Axle Loads

(ESAL’s) derived from previous & forecasted traffic studies.

Previous traffic studies within the project limits were divided into two sections: Michael Power

Boulevard Westerly (Section 1) and Michael Power Boulevard Easterly (Section 2). Traffic data

for Section 1 was provided by MTO and included Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes

and percent commercial traffic observed in 2007 and forecasted volumes for 2017. Using the

AADT values provided an annual growth rate of 0.5% was calculated.



Traffic data, including AADT and commercial traffic information, for Section 2 was obtained from

MTO’s iCorridor – Transportation Planning & Forecasting online program. For Section 2 the

program was limited to observed traffic rates in 2006. For forecasting purposes the annual

growth rate of 0.5% (calculated for Section 1) was applied.

For design purposes the AADT of both sections was calculated for the years 2015 and 2035 (20

year design period). For both sections, the 2035 interpolated AADT includes the additional mine

traffic of 360 and 175 vehicles/day for Sections 1 and 2 respectively.

The forecasted additional mine traffic data was obtained from Stantec’s “Highway 11 Feasible

Route Study” report that was provided to TBTE by Premier Gold.

Table 8.0.1 – Traffic Analysis Summary

Traffic Data

Section 1

Michael Power Boulevard W’ly

Section 2

Michael Power Boulevard E’ly

AADT (2006) - 1850

AADT (2007) 1500 -

AADT (2017) 1575 -

Interpolated AADT (2015) 1560 1933

Interpolated AADT (2035) 2080 2307

Annual Growth Rate 0.5%

Percent Commercial Traffic (%) 47.3 29.6

Percent Long Trucks (%) 40.9 25.5

Design ESAL’s (20 Years) 11,595,182 8,990,059

As shown in Table 8.0.1 the anticipated 20 year ESAL value for Section 1 - Michael Power

Boulevard W’ly is larger than Section 1 and as such will govern the Highway 11 pavement

structure design.

Traffic volumes and ESAL loadings for the components of the Michael Power Boulevard

intersection were derived from traffic data in Stantec’s “Highway 11 Feasibility Route Study”.

The forecasted traffic loadings on Michael Power Boulevard are 1.6 M 20 yr ESAL’s for the

section extending northerly from proposed Highway 11 and 1.6 M 20 yr ESAL’s for proposed

Michael Power extension south of the proposed intersection.



During the detail design process it is recommended that more recent traffic data be obtained for

additional analysis.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

The following sections provide details specific to the preliminary pavement engineering

recommendations and construction features.

Pavement Structure Design

The preliminary pavement structure design was carried out utilizing MTO Adaption and

Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide for Ontario Conditions (Materials Information

Report MI-183).

Structural Numbers (SN) used in analyses have been derived using standard values for new

construction projects. The following references and guidelines were used for the pavement

design and soil classifications:

MTO’s “Adaption and Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide for Ontario Conditions”, MI-183, March 2008

AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. 1993

MTC Soil Classification Manual

Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual, MTO

The following design considerations were addressed in using the AASHTO mechanistic

pavement design approach:

1) Traffic 2) Roadbed Soils 3) Construction Materials 4) Drainage 5) Reliability

The SN design method references the amount of traffic anticipated over the design life, normally

described using Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s), a standardized truck axle rating. The

cumulative number of ESAL’s over a design period of 20 years is estimated to be 11.6 M.

A target SN for the highway realignment has been developed using the above design

considerations and is summarized in the table below. A design subgrade of low plastic clay was

utilized for the SN analysis program.



Table 9.1.1 – AASHTO Design Factors & Target Structural Numbers (SN)

Design Factor Description/Data Remarks

Time Constraint 20 year Design Period

Traffic Data Design lane 20 year ESAL’s 11.6 x 106 (365 day/yr)

Based on 47.3% Commercial Traffic

Design Subgrade

Clay (Low Plasticity) Predicted Resilient Modulus =16 MPa

MI – 183, Table D-8 (20 % reduction to accommodate northern conditions)

Construction Materials AASHTO – Ontario Structural Layer Coefficients (SLC)

New Material Asphaltic Concrete = 0.42 Granular A Base = 0.14 Granular B – Type II Subbase = 0.12

Drainage Coefficient M1,2,3 = 1.0

MI – 183, Table D-9 & D-10

Level of Reliability (R) & Standard Deviation (So)

R = 90 So = 0.47

MI – 183 Table D-7

Serviceability ( PSI) 2 MI – 183, Table D-6

Target Structural Number = 177

Based on the recommended structural layer coefficients provided in Table D-9 of MI – 183

publication and the parameters listed above (Table 9.1.1), the Structural Number (SN) for the

proposed Highway 11 realignment is provided below in Table 9.1.2.

Table 9.1.2 – Proposed Pavement Structure

Type of Structure

Pavement Structure Summary Structural Layer

Coefficients

Structural Number Component Avg. Thickness (mm)

Typical Pavement Structure


New Granular ‘A’ 150 0.14 21

New Granular ‘B’ Type II 850 0.12 102

Design Structural Number 178

As illustrated in Table 9.1.2 above, a pavement structure including 130 mm of hot-mix

SuperPave asphalt, 150 mm Granular ‘A’, and 850 mm Granular ‘B’ – Type II meets the

theoretical structural number of 177 mm over a low plastic clay subgrade.



New Roadway Construction

Preliminary Pavement Design

The preliminary pavement structure for Highway 11 consists of 130 mm of hot-mix asphalt

with a PGAC of 58-34, 150 mm of new Granular ‘A’ and 850 mm Granular ‘B’ Type II

subbase fill. Specific granular depths for earth and rock excavation scenarios are provided in

the Preliminary Pavement Structure Treatment Charts (PPSTC’s).

The pavement types for the main lanes of Highway 11 shall be specified as 80 mm

SuperPave 19.0 binder course and 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 surface course. The main lanes

and auxiliary lanes should be paved with both courses, providing 130 mm HMA and paved

shoulders shall include 50 mm SuperPave 12.5, matching the main lane surface course.

The preliminary pavement structures of both the north and south section of Michall Power

Boulevard includes a granular structure of de=750 mm (150 mm Granular ‘A’ and 600 mm

Granular ‘B’ – Type II). Paving shall include a 50 mm SP 12.5 surface course for both

sections and a 50 mm SuperPave 19.0 binder course for the north section. Paved shoulders

shall include 50 mm SP 12.5, matching the main lane surface course.

Traffic ramps will be provided for Highway 11 westbound traffic turning northbound on

Michael Power Boulevard (E-N Ramp) and southbound Michael Power Boulevard traffic

turning westbound onto Highway 11 (N-W Ramp).

For both ramps, a granular structure of de= 750 mm (150 mm of Granular ‘A’ and 600 mm

Granular ‘B’ - Type II) shall be maintained through all cut sections. Fill sections shall be

constructed as per section 9.2.2.1 of this report. Widening and muskeg excavation shall be

done as per the appropriate section of the PGDR.

Paving of the main ramp lanes shall consist of a 50 mm SuperPave 19.0 binder course and a

50 mm SuperPave 12.5 surface course. Paved shoulders shall include 50 mm SP 12.5,

matching the main lane surface course.



A summary of the preliminary summary of the types and thicknesses of asphaltic concrete for

Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard are as follows:

o Highway 11 Main Lanes: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course 80 mm SuperPave 19.0 Binder Course

o Highway 11 Auxiliary Lanes: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course


o Highway 11 Paved Shoulders: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5

o Highway 11 Ramps to 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course Michael Power Boulevard North: 50 mm SuperPave 19.0 Binder Course

o Michael Power Boulevard North: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course


o Michael Power Boulevard South: 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course

o Hwy 11 Ramps & Michael Power 50 mm SuperPave 12.5 Surface Course Boulevard Paved Shoulders:

Table 9.2.1.2 below summarizes the hot mix design criteria to be used for the project.

Table 9.2.1.2 – SuperPave Mix Design Criteria

HMA Type Traffic Category

PGAC Grade ACBID (%)

SuperPave 19.0 D* 58-34 4.8

SuperPave 12.5 D* 58-34 5.2

*Paving courses for Michael Power Boulevard may have a traffic category B.

Embankment Fill Chart

Table 9.2.2.1 is provided for the design team to apply at fill locations. The following minimum

granular depths shall apply to this work project, unless stipulated otherwise in the PPSTC’s

and shall consist of 150 mm of Granular ‘A’ and the remainder of Granular ‘B’ - Type II.



Table 9.2.2.1 Embankment Fill Granular Thickness Chart

Item Subgrade Material Minimum Granular Fill Thickness (mm)

i) Over Bedrock (shattered surface) 300

ii) Over a minimum 500 mm thickness of Rockfill 300

iii) Over a minimum 500 mm thickness of Select

Subgrade Material (SSM) 850

- Sub-excavation may be required to meet the minimum subgrade fill thicknesses noted above; - Where fill heights are less than 300 mm, construct entirely with Granular ‘A’

Typical unit weights (compacted) are provided below for design purposes only. SuperPave 12.5 and 19.0 Asphaltic Concrete 2460 kg/m3 Granular ‘A’ 2400 kg/m3 Granular ‘B’ – Type II 2200 kg/m3

Stripping and Muskeg Excavation

All topsoil and organic/muskeg should be removed from the proposed new highway footprint

regardless of the fill height. For design purposes assume an average stripping depth of 200 mm

and that stripping commences at the inner edge of rounding where widening. Grubbing shall be

done in accordance with OPSS 201. For design purposes, assume a grubbing depth of 300

mm. Grubbing shall not apply for embankments greater than 2.5 m.

All organic deposits and muskeg should be removed as per OPSD 203.010 for new

construction.

Widening and Benching

Widening is required where Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard transition from the

existing alignment to the re-alignment portions. Benching of the fill embankment may be

required at transition / widening areas and should be completed as per OPSD 208.010.

Widening of existing rock embankments should not require benching. Cross sections should be

reviewed prior to completion of detailed design to verify limits and areas of such applications.

End dumping from the top of the existing fill should not be allowed.



Drainage

Drainage Culverts

All culverts to be placed on this project should be treated as per appropriate section of OPSD

802 and 803 series. In areas of organic material, culverts should be placed in accordance

with OPSD 203.04.

Open Ditches

New ditches associated with the new alignment should be constructed using geodetic control,

ensuring positive drainage of the pavement structure. Ditch inverts should be established a

minimum of 500 mm below the top of subgrade.

Foreslope and Backslope Grades

Rockfill embankments shall be constructed no steeper than 1.25:1. Granular fill embankment

shall be constructed no steeper than 2:1.

Earth foreslopes and backslopes in cut sections will vary depending on the erodibility of the

earth cut material. Where erodibility is low or moderate (k factors < 0.40) foreslopes and

backslopes shall be constructed no steeper than 2:1 and where erodibility is severe (k factor ≥

0.40) no steeper than 3:1. All disturbed earth backslopes and foreslopes should be treated with

seed and cover as per section 9.7. The PPSTC provide specific details regarding erodibility.

Rock cut backslopes shall conform to the Northwestern Ontario Rock Cut Design Guidelines

which generally allow for a vertical cut for faces less than 10 m in height. Rock cuts greater than

10 m in height shall be constructed at 0.25:1. To achieve uniformity, rock cuts less than 10 m

may require similar 0.25:1 backsloping to join up sections greater than 10 m.

Erosion Protection

Erosion factors (k) are reported on the borehole logs. Specific erosion treatments are included

in the PPSTC’s attached as Appendix 1. In general, the predicted soil erodibility is moderate for

the silt and sand subgrade and severe for the low plasticity silty clay subgrade.



Seed and Cover

All disturbed earth slopes should be treated as per Provincial OPSS 804. Available organic

material meeting OPSS 802 may be applied to earth cut slopes in accordance with OPSS

802.07 prior to seed and cover.

Granular Sheeting

Select locations with severe erodiblity concerns will require additional armouring. Details of

such locations can be found in the PPSTC’s. In general, slope protection will include 300

mm of Granular Sheeting beginning at the top of subgrade on the foreslope and shall extend

1.5 m up the backslope. The remaining earth backslope (from 1.5 m above bottom of ditch to

the top of backslope crest) shall be protected with seed and cover as per section 9.7.1.

Subexcavation will be required to accommodate the 300 mm layer of Granular Sheeting.

Granular sheeting materials shall conform to OPSS 1004. Granular ‘B’ – Type II shall be

used for granular sheeting. As such, the gradation curve of the Granular Sheeting in OPSS

1004 should be adjusted to allow for up to 10% passing the 75 µm sieve. The gradation

curve can be found below in Table 9.7.2.1.

Table 9.7.2.1 Modified Granular Sheeting Gradation

Sieve Size Modified Granular Sheeting Gradation

150 mm 100

26.5 mm 50.0 – 100

13.2 mm 35.0 – 100

4.75 mm 20.0 – 80.0

1.18 mm 10.0 – 50.0

300 µm 5.0 – 25.0

150 µm 0 – 15.0

75 µm 0 – 10.0*

*Adjusted from 8.0% passing in OPSS 1004 to 10.0%



Transition Treatments

All transition treatments should be treated as per the appropriate section of OPSD 205. For

design purposes, use a treatment depth of t=1.5 m, granular depth over bedrock dr=300 mm,

depth of organic accumulation da=300 mm. The granular fill depth over earth (de) will be

displayed in the PPSTC and will vary depending on the earth subgrade material.

Slope Flattening and Foreslope Construction

All slope flattening areas should be reviewed for drainage and areas of proposed rock fill should

be designed with drainage gaps as per OPSD 202.020 (or a 1.0 m, full width free draining

drainage layer at the base) where required.

Top of the slope flattening should not extend above 0.5 m below the top of subgrade, or

should be constructed of free draining material

Surplus earth placed adjacent to existing fill should be comprised of acceptable fill

construction materials (Table 9.2.2.1). Materials that have high organic contents and/or

exhibit plasticity (clay) and/or are too wet to place as a stable unit should be considered

as waste or stockpiled to dry or used for landscaping or topsoil (Depending on organic

content) cover to a depth not exceeding 150 mm.

Where modified/ blended embankment construction is required, comprised of a rockfill core and

earth foreslopes, a drainage base layer is required to allow free lateral drainage of the

embankment core fill and subgrade soils. Drainage layers should be constructed of like

materials, matching or exceeding the hydraulic conductivity of the core embankment fill and

should be placed at strategy locations to ensure positive drainage of both embankments.

Drainage layers constructed of rockfill should be covered with Class II non-woven geotextile

(FOS 75-150) to mitigate the migration of the overlying material into the drainage layer. The

drainage layers shall have a minimum width of 5.0 m, thickness of 1.0 m (above original

ground), and spaced at a maximum interval of 75 m (spacing defined by terrain).

Where muskeg excavation is required and drainage layers are to be employed, muskeg should

be removed full depth and width at the drainage locations.



Side Roads and Entrances

New side road and driveway embankments shall be constructed using a de=600 mm and dr=300

mm. New side-road embankments shall be constructed with Granular ‘B’ Type II subbase

capped with 150 mm Granular ‘A’. Pavement side roads and entrances shall be paved with 50

mm of SP 12.5 matching the main lane mix design. Further assessment and design required

during the detailed design phase once proposed uses and traffic loadings are available for new

side road locations.

All topsoil or muskeg should be removed from the proposed new side road / entrance footprint

prior to the placement of granular fill.

Frost Penetration Depth

Based on the MTO’s Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual, the estimated frost

penetration depth at the project site is 2.5 m.

LIMITATIONS

Conclusions and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based on the

analyses of the information available and are intended for the use of the design team as part of

the preliminary design report. Further investigations and analyses should be done prior to detail

design and construction.

Any issues or claims arising from these recommendations, where based on erroneous data

provided by others, shall not be the responsibility of TBT Engineering Limited. Conditions may

become apparent during detail design that was not reflected in the available data. Sub-surface

and groundwater conditions between and beyond test locations may differ from those provided.

If new information is discovered during future work, TBT Engineering shall be allowed to re-

evaluate the conclusions presented in this report and to provide amendments as required.

The information contained within this report in no reflects any environmental aspect of the site or

soil.

APPENDIX 1 –

Pavement Structure Treatment Charts

Highway 11 Realignment Preliminary Pavement Structure Treatment Charts TBTE Ref. No.: 14-192-3 March 31, 2015

Page 1 of 6

Preliminary Pavement Structure Treatment Charts

Location Feature Recommended Treatment Comments/ Rationale Highway 11 Realignment STA 10+000 – 14+685

Basic Pavement Strategy: - Pave main lanes, and auxiliary lanes with 80 mm SP 19.0 binder course and 50 mm SP 12.5 surface course - Pave shoulders with 50 mm SP 12.5 matching surface course from main lanes

10+000 – 10+220

Transition from existing Highway 11 to new Highway alignment Fill Widening Lt. (North)

Remove asphalt full depth and width. Reshape with Granular ‘A’ for profile and crossfall correction. For design purposes assume 250 mm of asphalt (200 mm existing plus net increase of 50 mm paved under Contract 2013-6012). Construct a 5 m step joint at 10+000 – 10+005 for the full thickness of the new surface course. Grade granular to ensure a smooth transition (min. 400:1). Bench existing foreslope as per OPSD 208.010 and strip remainder of widening footprint. Ensure that existing north side ditch directs drainage away from new embankment. Ensure a minimum granular structure of de=1.0 m.

Previous Highway 11 investigations done in 2012 indicate the existing highway is constructed with granular depths of 1.7 m overlying a slightly plastic silt and sand subgrade. Asphalt core data conducted under the same assignment indicates the section of Highway 11 requiring widening has between 180 and 220 mm of existing HMA. If the existing highway embankment is constructed with rockfill benching is not required.

10+220 – 10+370 Proposed Earth & Rock Cut

Excavate to provide a minimum of dr= 300 mm in rock and de= 1000 mm in earth. Ensure positive drainage of granular structure and transition treatments. Treat transitions as per appropriate section of OPSD 205. For design purposes use de=1000 mm, t=1.5 m and Y=12 m.

Borehole data indicates ~ 50 mm of organic overburden overlying fine sandy silt with intermittent pockets of F-Med Sand with silt transitioning to bedrock on surface at station 10+324.


Page 2 of 6


Location Feature Recommended Treatment Comments/ Rationale

10+370 – 10+670 Proposed Fill

Construct granular structure in accordance with Granular Thickness Table (Section 9.2.2.1 of PGDR). Grub organics as per GDR where muskeg excavation is not required. 10+435 – 10+460 Excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Ensure positive drainage.

10+370 – 10+435 Borehole data indicates bedrock on surface. 10+435 – 10+460 Low lying swamp with deep pockets of organics extending to depths up to 2.2 m. Subgrade typically consists of undulating bedrock with clay extending to 2.5 m below OG. 10+470 – 10+610 Borehole data indicates ~ 50 mm of organics overlying ~ 900 mm of sand with varying amounts of silt and overlying a bedrock subgrade. 10+610 – 10+670 Bedrock on surface.

10+670 – 10+990 Proposed Rock Cut

Construct rock cut to allow for a minimum dr= 300 mm in rock. Treat transitions as per appropriate section of OPSD 205. For design purposes, use de=850 mm, t=1.5 m and Y=12.0 m. Ensure positive drainage of granular structure and transition treatments.

Borehole data indicates bedrock on surface.


Page 3 of 6



10+990 – 11+150 Proposed Shallow Fill with shallow rock

For fill scenarios, strip and grub as per PGDR recommendations. Construct granular structure in accordance with Granular Thickness Table (Section 9.2.2.1 of PGDR). Ensure a minimum granular structure of de=850 mm in earth and dr= 300 mm in rock. Treat transitions as per appropriate section of OPSD 205. Ensure positive drainage of granular structure and transition treatments. Earth cut material may be suitable for reuse as subgrade fill. Rock cut material may be acceptable to be reused as rock fill.

10+990 – 11+100 Borehole data indicates bedrock on surface. 11+100 – 11+150 Borehole data indicates 50 mm of organics overlying ~ 900 mm of fine sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt overlying a bedrock subgrade.

11+150 – 11+358 Proposed Fill

Construct granular structure in accordance with Granular Thickness Table (Section. 9.2.2.1 of PGDR). 11+165 – 11+358 Excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Ensure a minimum granular structure of de=1000 mm in earth and dr=300 mm in rock. Ensure positive drainage.

Borehole data indicates organics ranging in depth from 1.1 to 1.6 m overlying fine sand with silt contents varying 35 to 45 %.


Page 4 of 6



11+358 – 11+940 Proposed Cut and Shallow Fill

In fill sections where muskeg excavation is not required, strip and grub as per PGDR recommendations. Ensure a minimum granular structure of de=1000 mm in earth and dr=300 mm in rock. 11+556 – 11+720 Excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. 11+700 – 11+940 Grade earth backslopes no steeper than 3:1 and apply granular sheeting as per PDR recommendations. Treat earth cut to rock cut as per OPSD 205.050. For design purposes, use t=1.5 m, de=1000 mm and Y = 10 m. Ensure positive drainage of the granular structure and transition treatments. Earth cut material may be suitable to be reused as embankment fill. Rock cut material may be suitable as rock fill.

Borehole data indicates organics ranging in depth from 700 mm to 3.0 m. Subgrade underlying the organics consists of low plasticity silty clay to silty F-Med sand. Bedrock was encountered on the ridge at station 10+368. Lab data indicates the silty F-Med sand subgrade is moderately susceptible to frost heaving and moderately erodible (0.35). Lab data indicates the silty clay is moderately susceptible to frost heaving and severely erodible (k=0.55).


Page 5 of 6



11+940 – 12+700

Proposed Fill

12+025 – 12+180; 12+206 – 12+700 Excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Where muskeg excavation is not required, grub organics as per GDR recommendations. Ensure a minimum granular structure of de=1000 mm in earth and dr=300 mm in rock. Where new Highway 11 alignment crosses Michael Power Boulevard: Remove existing asphalt full depth. Maintain the granular structure of de= 1000 mm. Ensure the existing drainage features do not drain into the new roadway embankment. Ensure positive drainage of the granular structure and transition treatments.

Borehole Data indicates muskeg depths ranging from 500 mm to 2.1 m. Subgrade underlying organics generally consists of silty clay with varying amounts of fine to medium sand. Lab data indicates the silty clay subgrade is of low plasticity, is moderately to highly susceptibility to frost heaving and severely erodible (0.57< k < 0.63). Existing Michael Power Blvd crosses new Highway alignment at station 12+200 (roughly).

Realignment of Highway 584 (Michael Power Blvd)

12+200 Refer to Preliminary Pavement Structure Treatment Charts for Michael Power Boulevard realignment. See PGDR for the recommendations regarding the East-North and North-West ramps.

12+700 – 14+500

Embankment Fill overriding existing tailings management area.

Refer to Preliminary Geotechnical Foundation Report. Apply granular thickness as per PGDR granular thickness table.


Page 6 of 6



14+500 – 14+685 Transition back to existing Highway 11

Remove asphalt full depth and width. Reshape with Granular ‘A’ for profile and crossfall correction. Construct a 5 m step joint at 14+680 – 14+685 for the full thickness of the new surface course. Grade granular to ensure a smooth transition (min. 400:1). Bench existing foreslope as per OPSD 208.010 and strip remainder of widening footprint. Ensure that existing north side ditch directs drainage away from new embankment. Ensure a minimum granular structure of de= 1.0 m.

No borehole investigations of the existing highway have been conducted through this section. If the existing highway embankment is constructed with rockfill benching is not required.

Michael Power Blvd Realignment Preliminary Pavement Structure Treatment Charts TBTE Ref. No.: 14-192-3 March 31, 2015

Page 1 of 4


Location Feature Recommended Treatment Comments/ Rationale Michael Power Blvd Realignment (MPB) STA 9+648.684 – 10+421.671

Basic Pavement Strategy for MPB North of new Highway 11: - Pave main lanes and widening sections with 50 mm SP 12.5 surface course and 50 mm SP 19.0 binder course. - Pave shoulders with 50 mm SP 12.5 surface course matching main lane surface course

9+648 – 9+720

9+648 North Paving Limit

9+648 – 9+651 Construct a 3 m step joint at 9+648 and 9+651 for the full thickness of the new surface course.

Rehabilitation of existing Roadway

9+651 – 9+720 Remove existing asphalt full depth and full width. Reshape with Granular ‘A’ for profile and crossfall correction. Ensure Positive drainage.

9+720 – 9+820 Transition to new MPB alignment Rt.

Remove asphalt full depth and width, allowing for cross-fall and grade correction. Re-shape with Granular ‘A’. For widening, excavate existing Rt shoulder from inner edge of rounding to a depth of 750 mm and extend laterally to foreslope. Bench remainder of foreslope as per OPSD 208.010 (as necessary). Extend excavated ditch grade laterally to proposed toe of slope, ensuring that ditch drainage is directed away from the new embankment. Strip organics as per PGDR recommendations. Where required, excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Provide a minimum granular structure of 750mm (150 mm of Granular ‘A’ and 600 mm Granular ‘B’ Type II). Ensure positive drainage for de=750 mm.


Page 2 of 4



9+820 – 9+988 Proposed Shallow Fill/ Cut

Grub roadway footprint as per PGDR regardless of fill height. Where required, excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Provide a minimum granular structure of de= 750 mm – 150 mm Granular ‘A’ and 650 mm Granular ‘B’ – Type II. Where fill heights exceed 750 mm, construct granular structure in accordance with Granular Thickness Table (Section 9.2.2.1 of PGDR). Where fill heights are less than 300 mm below profile grade, construct entirely of Granular ‘A’. Earth backslopes shall be graded no steeper than 3:1 and apply granular sheeting as per GPDR recommendations. Ensure positive drainage for de= 750 mm.

Borehole data indicates the subgrade soils outside the existing MPB consist of a deep pocket of organics ranging in depth from 1.4 to 1.7 m overlying firm to stiff silty clay. Lab data indicates the silty clay is moderately to highly susceptible to frost heaving and severely erodible.

9+988 – 10+010 New Highway 11 Intersection

Refer to the Preliminary PSTC for details regarding Highway 11.


Page 3 of 4


Location Feature Recommended Treatment Comments/ Rationale Basic Pavement Strategy for MPB South of new Highway 11:

- Pave main lanes, widening sections and paved shoulders with 50 mm SP 12.5 surface course

10+010 – 10+260 Proposed Shallow Fill/Cut

Grub roadway footprint as per PGDR regardless of fill height. Where required, excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Provide a minimum granular structure of de= 750 mm – 150 mm Granular ‘A’ and 650 mm Granular ‘B’ – Type II. Where fill heights exceed 750 mm, construct granular structure in accordance with Granular Thickness Table (Section 9.2.2.1 of PGDR). Where fill heights are less than 300 mm below profile grade, construct entirely of Granular ‘A’. Grade earth backslopes no steeper than 3:1 and apply granular sheeting as per PGDR recommendations. Ensure positive drainage for de= 750 mm.

Borehole data indicates the subsurface conditions outside the existing MPB consist of a deep pocket of organics ranging in depth from 1.7 to 2.1 m overlying silty clay. The consistency of the silty clay ranges from Wet & Firm to Moist & Soft. Lab data indicates the silty clay is moderately to highly susceptible to frost heaving and severely erodible.


Page 4 of 4



10+260 – 10+361 Transition new alignment to existing MPB Lt.

Remove existing asphalt full depth and full width. Reshape with Granular ‘A’ for profile and crossfall correction. For widening, excavate existing Rt shoulder from inner edge of rounding to a depth of 750 mm and extend laterally to foreslope. Bench remainder of foreslope as per OPSD 208.010. Extend excavated ditch grade laterally to proposed toe of slope, ensuring that ditch drainage is directed away from the new embankment. Where required, excavate muskeg full depth as per OPSD 203.010. Provide a minimum granular structure of 750 mm (150 mm of Granular ‘A’ and 600 mm Granular ‘B’ - Type II). Ensure positive drainage.

10+361 - 10+412

Rehabilitation of existing Roadway

10+361 – 10+409 Remove existing asphalt full depth and full width. Reshape with Granular ‘A’ for profile and crossfall correction. Ensure Positive drainage.

10+412 South Paving Limit

Construct a 3 m step joint at 10+409 – 10+412 for the full thickness of the new surface course.

APPENDIX 2 –

Borehole Logs

TBT Engineering Hwy. 11 Realignment

Premier Gold Mines Ltd. TBTE 14-192-3

Hwy. 11 Realignment – Twp. Errington

Page 1 of 6


ERRINGTON TOWNSHIP

Station 9+540 13.7 Lt 14-HA-500

15UTM 5502778 N 501558 E

BR on Surf

Station 9+926 24.7 Lt 14-HA-501

15UTM 5502798 N 501642 E

0 - 100 Blk Org (Co Fib) with F-Co Sa &

Gr (Moist)

100 - 300 Br F-Co Sa with Gr (Moist & L)

300 - 1.0 Br F-Co Sa Tr Si (Moist & L)

1.0 NFP Prob Bld Poss BR

Station 9+710 16.9 Lt 14-HA-502

15UTM 5502800 N 501726 E

0 - 100 Blk Org (Co Fib) (Wet)

100 - 500 Br F-Co Sa with Gr (Wet & L)

500 - 1.0 Br F-Co Sa with Si (Wet & L)

1.0 - 1.7 Blk Org (Co Fib) (Wet)

1.7 - 2.0 Gry Si(y) F Sa (Wet & Comp)

2.0 EOH

Station 9+803 19.1 Lt 14-HA-503

15UTM 5502813 N 501818 E

0 - 500 Br F-Co Sa(y) Gr (Moist & Comp)

500 - 1.0 Br Gr with F-Co Sa Tr Si

(Moist & D)

1.0 NFP Sloughing

Station 9+960 36.0 Lt 14-HA-504

15UTM 5502848 N 501972 E

0 - 50 Blk Org (F Fib) (Moist)

50 - 500 Br F-Med Sa & Gr Tr Si

(Moist & Comp)

500 - 800 Br F-Co Sa Tr Gr & Si

(Moist & Comp)

800 NFP Sloughing

Station 9+960 36.0 Lt 14-HA-504

Sample No. 14-SM-100 (100 – 300)

% Passing 4.75 mm 53.9 %

% Passing 75 um 6.5 %

FMC @ 300 6.8 %

Group Symbol SP-SM

Station 9+975 37.2 Lt 14-HA-505

15UTM 5502851 N 501987 E

0 - 50 Blk Org (Co Fib) (Moist)

50 - 1.0 Br F Sa & Si (Moist & Comp)

1.0 - 1.5 Br F Sa with Si (Moist & Comp)

1.5 - 2.5 Br F Sa & Si (Moist & Comp)

2.5 EOH

Station 9+975 37.2 Lt 14-HA-505

Sample No. 14-SM-110 (100 – 300)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 300 10.5 %

Group Symbol ML

MSFH

'K' Factor = 0.39

Station 9+975 37.2 Lt 14-HA-505

Sample No. 14-SM-111 (1.0 – 1.4)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %


FMC @ 1.4 3.8 %

Group Symbol SM

Station 10+004 40.9 Lt 14-HA-506

15UTM 5502858 N 502015 E


50 - 1.0 Br F Sa with Si (Moist & Comp)


1.5 EOH

Station 10+039 43.7 Lt 14-HA-507

15UTM 5502865 N 502049 E


50 - 1.0 Br Si(y) F-Med Sa Tr Gr

(Moist & Comp)


1.5 EOH

Station 10+039 43.7 Lt 14-HA-507

Sample No. 14-SM-112 (100 – 400)

% Passing 4.75 mm 93.3 %


FMC @ 400 9.8 %

Group Symbol SM




Page 2 of 6

Station 10+065 44.2 Lt 14-HA-508

15UTM 5502869 N 502074 E


50 - 600 Br F Sa with Si (Moist & L)

600 - 1.5 Gry Si with F Sa (Moist & Comp)

1.5 EOH

Station 10+065 44.2 Lt 14-HA-508

Sample No. 14-SM-101 (100 – 400)

% Passing 4.75 mm 96.6 %


FMC @ 400 7.9 %

Group Symbol SM

Station 10+210 44.9 Lt 14-HA-509

15UTM 5502901 N 502208 E


50 - 1.0 Br F Sa(y) Si (Moist & Comp)

1.0 - 1.2 Br F-Med Sa with Si

(Moist & Comp)

1.2 - 1.5 Br F Sa(y) Si (Wet & Comp)

1.5 EOH

Station 10+324 31.0 Lt 14-HA-510

15UTM 5502927 N 502315 E

BR on Surf

Station 10+409 15.7 Lt 14-HA-511

15UTM 5502951 N 502396 E

BR on Surf

Station 10+435 13.6 Lt 14-HA-512

15UTM 5502962 N 502419 E

0 - 1.5 Blk Org (Co Fib) (Wet)

1.5 NFP BR

Station 10+435 0.8 Rt 14-HA-513

15UTM 5502966 N 502418 E


1.5 NFP BR

Station 10+436 17.5 Lt 14-HA-514

15UTM 5502950 N 502427 E


700 NFP BR

Station 10+438 2.1 Lt 14-HA-515

15UTM 5502954 N 502428 E


1.8 - 2.6 Br F Sa & Si with Gr

(Wet & Comp)

2.6 NFP Sloughing

Station 10+438 2.1 Lt 14-HA-515

Sample No. 14-SM-109 (2.0 – 2.3)

% Passing 4.75 mm 88.7 %


FMC @ 2.3 21.9 %

Group Symbol SM

Station 10+442 6.7 Lt 14-HA-516

15UTM 5502960 N 502429 E

0 - 50 Wat

50 - 2.2 Blk Org (F Fib) (Wet)

2.2 - 2.5 Gry Cl(y) Si (Wet & Stiff)

2.5 EOH

Station 10+448 3.0 Lt 14-HA-517

15UTM 5502960 N 502436 E


1.0 - 1.2 Blk Si(y) F-Med Sa (Wet & Comp)

1.2 - 1.4 Blk Si(y) F-Med Sa with Org

(Wet & Comp)

1.4 - 1.8 Blk Si(y) F-Med Sa (Wet & Comp)

1.8 NFP BR

Station 10+460 10.0 Lt 14-HA-518

15UTM 5502972 N 502442 E

BR on Surf

Station 10+545 3.1 Lt 14-HA-519

15UTM 5503015 N 502515 E

0 - 50 Blk Org (F Fib) (Moist)

50 - 500 Br Si(y) F Sa (Moist & Comp)

500 - 900 Br F-Co Sa with Gr Tr Si

(Moist & Comp) (Wet from 800)

900 NFP BR

Station 10+610 2.9 Rt 14-HA-520

15UTM 5503052 N 502569 E

BR on Surf




Page 3 of 6

Station 10+761 49.4 Rt 14-HA-521

15UTM 5503133 N 502656 E

BR on Surf

Station 10+844 15.4 Rt 14-HA-522

15UTM 5503221 N 502734 E

BR on Surf

Station 10+886 17.8 Rt 14-HA-523

15UTM 5503255 N 502759 E

BR on Surf

Station 10+965 19.2 Rt 14-HA-524

15UTM 5503325 N 502800 E


100 NFP BR

Station 11+034 16.4 Rt 14-HA-525

15UTM 5503389 N 502827 E


50 - 700 Br F-Med Sa with Si

(Moist & Comp)

700 - 900 Br F-Med Sa with Gr & Si

(Moist & D)

900 NFP BR

Station 11+141 14.6 Rt 14-HA-526

15UTM 5503488 N 502869 E

BR on Surf

Station 11+178 16.7 Rt 14-HA-527

15UTM 5503521 N 502886 E


800 - 1.3 Gry F-Med Sa(y) Si (Wet & L)

1.3 - 2.3 Gry F-Med Sa with Si (Moist & L)

2.3 NFP Sloughing

Station 11+272 6.7 Rt 14-HA-528

15UTM 5503611 N 502915 E


1.1 - 1.5 Gry Si & F-Med Sa (Wet & Comp)

1.5 EOH

Station 11+272 6.7 Rt 14-HA-528

Sample No. 14-SM-102 (1.2 – 1.5)

% Passing 4.75 mm 97.4 %




FMC @ 1.5 27.1 %

Group Symbol ML

MSFH

'K' Factor = 0.35

Station 11+368 2.1 Rt 14-HA-529

15UTM 5503697 N 502956 E


1.6 - 2.1 Br Si(y) F-Co Sa Tr Gr

(Wet & Comp)

2.1 EOH

Station 11+368 8.8 Rt 14-HA-530

15UTM 5503700 N 502950 E


150 NFP BR

Station 11+457 6.6 Rt 14-HA-531

15UTM 5503776 N 502996 E


50 - 800 Br Gr(ly) Sa Tr Si (Moist & Comp)

800 NFP Sloughing

Station 11+556 6.5 Rt 14-HA-532

15UTM 5503856 N 503052 E


3.0 - 3.5 Gry Si(y) Cl (Moist & Firm)

3.5 EOH

Station 11+658 7.1 Rt 14-HA-533

15UTM 5503931 N 503121 E


700 - 1.2 Br Si(y) F-Co Sa Tr Gr

(Wet & Comp)

1.2 NFP Cob




Page 4 of 6

Station 11+751 0.5 Lt 14-HA-534

15UTM 5503997 N 503186 E



500 - 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl (Moist & Firm)

1.5 EOH

Station 11+751 0.5 Lt 14-HA-534

Sample No. 14-SM-103 (700 – 1.0)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 1.0 24.3 %

WL 27 %

Wp 19 %

Ip 8

Group Symbol CL

MSFH

'K' Factor = 0.54

Station 11+881 3.2 Rt 14-HA-535

15UTM 5504064 N 503297 E



500 - 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl (Moist & Firm)

1.5 EOH

Station 11+881 3.2 Rt 14-HA-535

Sample No. 14-SM-104 (1.0 – 1.3)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 1.3 24.6 %

WL 27 %

Wp 20 %

Ip 8

Group Symbol CL

MSFH

'K' Factor = 0.53

Station 12+024 3.0 Rt 14-HA-536

15UTM 5504120 N 503428 E



2.4 EOH

Station 12+100 7.9 Rt 14-HA-537

15UTM 5504139 N 503501 E



2.1 EOH

Station 12+163 19.7 Lt 14-HA-538

15UTM 5504185 N 503552 E


1.7 - 2.5 Gry Si(y) Cl (Wet & Firm)

2.5 EOH

Station 12+172 14.1 Rt 14-HA-539

15UTM 5504156 N 503572 E



2.3 EOH

Station 12+172 14.1 Rt 14-HA-539

Sample No. 14-SM-105 (1.7 – 2.0)

% Passing 4.75 mm 99.0 %




FMC @ 2.0 25.3 %

WL 26 %

Wp 18 %

Ip 8

Group Symbol CL

HSFH

'K' Factor = 0.57

Station 12+178 6.1 Lt 14-HA-540

15UTM 5504177 N 503571 E



2.3 EOH

Station 12+206 25.2 Lt 14-HA-541

15UTM 5504204 N 503592 E


2.1 - 2.8 Gry Si(y) Cl (Moist & Soft)

2.8 EOH




Page 5 of 6

Station 12+211 4.6 Lt 14-HA-542

15UTM 5504186 N 503603 E


1.8 - 2.3 Gry Si(y) Cl (Moist & Stiff)

2.3 EOH

Station 12+218 19.7 Rt 14-HA-543

15UTM 5504165 N 503617 E



2.0 EOH

Station 12+257 3.1 Lt 14-HA-544

15UTM 5504199 N 503647 E


1.5 - 2.0 Gry Si(y) Cl with F-Med Sa

(Moist & Stiff)

2.0 EOH

Station 12+257 3.1 Lt 14-HA-544

Sample No. 14-SM-106 (1.5 – 1.8)

% Passing 4.75 mm 99.9 %




FMC @ 1.8 19.5 %

WL 21 %

Wp 14 %

Ip 7

Group Symbol CL-ML

MSFH

'K' Factor = 0.57

Station 12+354 0.5 Rt 14-HA-545

15UTM 5504226 N 503740 E


500 - 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl with F-Med Sa

(Moist & Stiff)

(Very Stiff from 700)

1.5 EOH

Station 12+441 0.2 Lt 14-HA-546

15UTM 5504252 N 503823 E

0 - 1.0 Blk Org (Co Fib) (Moist)

1.0 - 1.5 Gry SP Si

(Moist & Very Stiff)

1.5 EOH

Station 12+441 0.2 Lt 14-HA-546

Sample No. 14-SM-107 (1.1 – 1.4)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 1.4 28.8 %

WL 26 %

Wp 23 %

Ip 3

Group Symbol ML

HSFH

'K' Factor = 0.63

Station 12+524 3.3 Rt 14-HA-547

15UTM 5504265 N 503905 E


800 - 1.5 Gry Si(y) Cl with F Sa


1.5 EOH

Station 12+603 2.0 Lt 14-HA-548

15UTM 5504278 N 503983 E


1.0 - 1.5 Gry Si(y) Cl with F Sa

(Moist & Stiff)

1.5 EOH

Station 12+700 0.2 Lt 14-HA-549

15UTM 5504275 N 504080 E




(Moist & Firm)

2.0 EOH

Station 12+799 0.5 Lt 14-HA-550

15UTM 5504262 N 504178 E

0 - 800 Gry F-Med Sa(y) Si (Wet & L)



2.5 EOH




Page 6 of 6

Station 12+799 0.5 Lt 14-HA-550

Sample No. 14-SM-108 (1.7 – 2.1)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 2.1 24.0 %

WL 23 %

Wp 16 %

Ip 7

Group Symbol CL-ML

HSFH

'K' Factor = 0.58

Station 12+838 1.0 Lt 14-HA-551

15UTM 5504254 N 504216 E




(Wet & Firm)

3.0 EOH

12+177 ERRINGTON TOWNSHIP =

12+177 ASHMORE TOWNSHIP



Hwy. 11 Realignment – Twp. Ashmore

Page 1 of 2


ASHMORE TOWNSHIP

12+177 ERRINGTON TOWNSHIP =

12+177 ASHMORE TOWNSHIP

Station 12+178 6.1 Lt 14-HA-540

15UTM 5504177 N 503571 E



2.3 EOH

Station 12+206 25.2 Lt 14-HA-541

15UTM 5504204 N 503592 E


2.1 - 2.8 Gry Si(y) Cl (Moist & Soft)

2.8 EOH

Station 12+211 4.6 Lt 14-HA-542

15UTM 5504186 N 503603 E



2.3 EOH

Station 12+218 19.7 Rt 14-HA-543

15UTM 5504165 N 503617 E



2.0 EOH

Station 12+257 3.1 Lt 14-HA-544

15UTM 5504199 N 503647 E



(Moist & Stiff)

2.0 EOH

Station 12+257 3.1 Lt 14-HA-544

Sample No. 14-SM-106 (1.5 – 1.8)

% Passing 4.75 mm 99.9 %




FMC @ 1.8 19.5 %

WL 21 %

Wp 14 %

Ip 7

Group Symbol CL-ML

MSFH

'K' Factor = 0.57

Station 12+354 0.5 Rt 14-HA-545

15UTM 5504226 N 503740 E


500 - 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl with F-Med Sa

(Moist & Stiff)

(Very Stiff from 700)

1.5 EOH

Station 12+441 0.2 Lt 14-HA-546

15UTM 5504252 N 503823 E

0 - 1.0 Blk Org (Co Fib) (Moist)

1.0 - 1.5 Gry SP Si


1.5 EOH

Station 12+441 0.2 Lt 14-HA-546

Sample No. 14-SM-107 (1.1 – 1.4)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 1.4 28.8 %

WL 26 %

Wp 23 %

Ip 3

Group Symbol ML

HSFH

'K' Factor = 0.63



Hwy. 11 Realignment – Twp. Ashmore

Page 2 of 2

Station 12+524 3.3 Rt 14-HA-547

15UTM 5504265 N 503905 E


800 - 1.5 Gry Si(y) Cl with F Sa


1.5 EOH

Station 12+603 2.0 Lt 14-HA-548

15UTM 5504278 N 503983 E



(Moist & Stiff)

1.5 EOH

Station 12+700 0.2 Lt 14-HA-549

15UTM 5504275 N 504080 E




(Moist & Firm)

2.0 EOH

Station 12+799 0.5 Lt 14-HA-550

15UTM 5504262 N 504178 E

0 - 800 Gry F-Med Sa(y) Si (Wet & L)



2.5 EOH

Station 12+799 0.5 Lt 14-HA-550

Sample No. 14-SM-108 (1.7 – 2.1)

% Passing 4.75 mm 100.0 %




FMC @ 2.1 24.0 %

WL 23 %

Wp 16 %

Ip 7

Group Symbol CL-ML

HSFH

'K' Factor = 0.58

Station 12+838 1.0 Lt 14-HA-551

15UTM 5504254 N 504216 E




(Wet & Firm)

3.0 EOH

APPENDIX 3 –

Laboratory Results


LABORATORY 711 Harold Cres.,Thunder Bay, ON P7C 5H8

PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163

E-Mail: [email protected]

Grain Size Analysis Client: Premier Gold Mines Limited TBTE Project No.: 14-192

Project: Hwy 11 Realignment Lab No.: 23001

Location: Hwy 11 Geraldton, ON Field No. 14-SM-100

Station: 9+960

Twp Errington Offset (m): 36.0 Lt

Reported To: Scott Peterson Depth: 100 mm - 300 mm

Sampled By/Date: Sam Molendijk/Nov. 4, 2014 Tested By/Date: F.Valela / November 12, 2014

Reported By: Forch Valela Reviewed By: Tim Fummerton

Sieve Size Percent Passing 75 mm 50 mm37.5 mm25.0 mm19.0 mm 100.016.0 mm 95.613.2 mm 88.9 9.5 mm 80.84.75 mm 53.92.00 mm 39.0.850 mm 32.1.425 mm 23.8.250 mm 16.9.106 mm 8.5.075 mm 6.5

Remarks: Test Method LS 602, 701, ASTM C136, D2216 Soil Classification - SP-SM

Natural Moisture Content:6.8% @ 300 mm depth

CCIL Certified

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis

Material GradationSieve Size

R10521-Rev.1112


LABORATORY711 Harold Cres.,Thunder Bay, ON P7C 5H8

PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163


Grain Size Analysis of Soil By Hydrometer

Client: Premier Gold Mines Limited TBTE Project No.: 14-192



Station: 9+975



Sampled By/Date: Sam Molendijk/November 5, 2014 Tested By/Date: F.Valela G.Homac/Nov. 14, 2014


Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis

Sieve (mm) % Passing Diameter (mm) % Finer

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 23.9

25.0 100.0 15.6

19.0 100.0 10.0

13.2 100.0 5.6

9.5 100.0 3.9

4.75 100.0 3.3

2.00 100.0 2.2

0.850 100.0 1.7

0.425 99.9

0.250 99.1 2.9

0.106 68.5 2.0

0.075 50.8

%Gravel 0.0 % Silt 47.9 % NMC 10.5 MSFH NAGM

% Sand 49.2 % Clay 2.9 PI NP 0.39 ML

Remarks: Test Method LS 701, 702, ASTM D2216, D4318

5 µm

2 µm

CCIL & CSA Certified

Material Suitability

Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

0.009675

0.006859

0.003378

0.001411

0.047988

0.035550

0.023141

0.013656

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163





Station: 9+975


Reported To: Scott Peterson Depth: 1.0 m - 1.4 m



Sieve Size Percent Passing 75 mm 50 mm37.5 mm25.0 mm19.0 mm16.0 mm13.2 mm 9.5 mm4.75 mm 100.02.00 mm 100.0.850 mm 99.9.425 mm 99.0.250 mm 75.8.106 mm 24.1.075 mm 14.8

Remarks: Test Method LS 602, 701, ASTM C136, D2216 Soil Classification - SM

Natural Moisture Content:3.8% @ 1.4 m depth

CCIL Certified

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10521-Rev.1112



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163





Station: 10+039





Sieve Size Percent Passing 75 mm 50 mm37.5 mm25.0 mm19.0 mm16.0 mm 100.013.2 mm 99.8 9.5 mm 97.74.75 mm 93.32.00 mm 88.2.850 mm 83.1.425 mm 66.3.250 mm 51.1.106 mm 28.2.075 mm 22.9



CCIL Certified

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10521-Rev.1112



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163





Station: 10+065





Sieve Size Percent Passing 75 mm 50 mm37.5 mm25.0 mm19.0 mm16.0 mm13.2 mm 100.0 9.5 mm 99.24.75 mm 96.62.00 mm 92.7.850 mm 88.2.425 mm 82.2.250 mm 72.9.106 mm 32.2.075 mm 16.4



CCIL Certified

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10521-Rev.1112



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163





Station: 10+438





Sieve Size Percent Passing 75 mm 50 mm37.5 mm25.0 mm19.0 mm 100.016.0 mm 98.513.2 mm 96.7 9.5 mm 94.14.75 mm 88.72.00 mm 83.9.850 mm 80.8.425 mm 75.5.250 mm 65.4.106 mm 45.5.075 mm 36.9


Natural Moisture Content:21.9% @ 2.3 m depth

CCIL Certified

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10521-Rev.1112



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163






Station: 11+272

Twp Errington Offset (m): 6.7 Rt


Sampled By/Date: Sam Molendijk/November 4, 2014 Tested By/Date: F.Valela G.Homac/Nov. 14, 2014

Reported By: Premier Gold Mines Limited Reviewed By: Tim Fummerton



50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 31.9

25.0 100.0 24.2

19.0 100.0 16.5

13.2 100.0 9.8

9.5 98.8 7.7

4.75 97.4 5.7

2.00 95.9 4.1

0.850 93.0 2.6

0.425 84.2

0.250 75.3 5.0

0.106 59.1 3.3

0.075 51.0


% Sand 46.4 % Clay 5.0 PI NP 0.35 ML


0.009515

0.006761

0.003339

0.001402

0.044856

0.033443

0.022188

0.013307

5 µm

2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163





Location: Hwy 11 Geraldton ON Field No. 14-SM-103

Station: 11+751


Reported To: Scott Peterson Depth: 700 mm - 1.0 m

Sampled By/Date: Sam Molendijk/Nov. 4, 2014 Tested By/Date: F.Valela G.Homac/Nov. 14, 2014




50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 90.5

25.0 100.0 87.3

19.0 100.0 81.6

13.2 100.0 74.4

9.5 100.0 65.5

4.75 100.0 56.6

2.00 100.0 31.5

0.850 100.0 12.9

0.425 100.0

0.250 99.7 54.0

0.106 98.7 22.0

0.075 97.4


% Sand 2.6 % Clay 54.0 PI 8 0.54 CL


2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

5 µm

0.007267

0.005396

0.002971

0.001330

0.033550

0.024339

0.016052

0.009735

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103


LABORATORY711 Harold Crescent

Thunder Bay, ON P7C 5H8

PH: (807) 624-5162 Fax (807) 624-5163




Location: Errington Field No.: 14-SM-103

Station: 11+751

Twp Errington Offset: 0.5 Lt

Reported To: Scott Peterson Depth: 700 mm - 1.0 m

Sampled By/Date: Sam Molendijk/Nov. 4, 2014 Tested By/Date: G.Homac / Nov 11, 2014


Liquid Limit Determination

Dish No.: K Z A Liquid Limit

Wet Soil + Dish: 38.072 37.693 39.613 25 Blows

Dry Soil + Dish: 34.423 34.086 35.673

Moisture: 3.649 3.607 3.94

Dish: 20.742 20.858 21.675

Dry Soil: 13.681 13.228 13.998

% Moisture: 26.67 27.27 28.15

No. of Blows: 29 25 19

Liquid Limits: 27 27 27 27

Liquid Limit, %: 27

Plastic Limit, %: 19

Plasticity Index: 8

Plastic Limit Determination Natural Moisture

Dish No.: 1 2

Wet Soil + Dish: 27.356 27.315 927.6

Dry Soil + Dish: 26.145 26.048 792.9

Moisture: 1.211 1.267 134.7

Dish: 19.902 19.491 237.6

Dry Soil: 6.243 6.557 555.3

% Moisture: 19.40 19.32 24.3

Average: 19

Test Method : ASTM: D4318, D2216


Atterberg Limits

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

32.00

10 100

Liquid Limit



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163






Station: 11+881







50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 91.9

25.0 100.0 89.1

19.0 100.0 84.3

13.2 100.0 77.7

9.5 100.0 69.2

4.75 100.0 58.7

2.00 100.0 36.0

0.850 99.8 15.2

0.425 98.8

0.250 97.9 54.4

0.106 96.0 25.0

0.075 94.9


% Sand 5.1 % Clay 54.4 PI 8 0.53 CL


5 µm

0.007527

0.005571

0.002978

0.001329

0.036665

0.026351

0.017104

0.010219

2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103




PH: (807) 624-5162 Fax (807) 624-5163




Location: Errington Field No.: 14-SM-104

Station: 11+881

Twp Errington Offset: 3.2 Rt





Dish No.: Q G 18 Liquid Limit


Dry Soil + Dish: 31.044 33.155 33.297

Moisture: 2.812 3.563 3.566

Dish: 20.88 20.771 21.401

Dry Soil: 10.164 12.384 11.896

% Moisture: 27.67 28.77 29.98



Liquid Limit, %: 28


Plasticity Index: 8


Dish No.: 4 5

Wet Soil + Dish: 27.78 26.891 1150.4

Dry Soil + Dish: 26.538 25.607 970.9

Moisture: 1.242 1.284 179.5

Dish: 20.241 19.104 242.1

Dry Soil: 6.297 6.503 728.8

% Moisture: 19.72 19.74 24.6

Average: 20


Atterberg Limits


23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

32.00

33.00

10 100

Liquid Limit



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163






Station: 12+172







50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 85.2

25.0 100.0 80.5

19.0 100.0 71.2

13.2 99.1 59.9

9.5 99.1 52.4

4.75 99.0 42.1

2.00 99.0 25.3

0.850 98.8 12.2

0.425 98.8

0.250 97.5 37.0

0.106 95.2 18.0

0.075 93.2

%Gravel 1.0 % Silt 56.2 % NMC 25.3 HSFH NAGM

% Sand 5.8 % Clay 37.0 PI 8 0.57 CL


2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

5 µm

0.008070

0.005939

0.003087

0.001341

0.037892

0.027475

0.018209

0.011062

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103




PH: (807) 624-5162 Fax (807) 624-5163




Location: Hwy 11 Geraldton ON Field No.: 14-SM-105

Station: 12+172

Twp Errington Offset: 14.1 Rt





Dish No.: 12 5 38 Liquid Limit


Dry Soil + Dish: 33.991 32.308 31.025

Moisture: 2.721 3.053 2.277

Dish: 22.625 20.758 22.788

Dry Soil: 11.366 11.55 8.237

% Moisture: 23.94 26.43 27.64



Liquid Limit, %: 26


Plasticity Index: 8


Dish No.: 6 7

Wet Soil + Dish: 27.399 27.388 1175.8

Dry Soil + Dish: 26.257 26.202 985.2

Moisture: 1.142 1.186 190.6

Dish: 19.998 19.722 230.4

Dry Soil: 6.259 6.48 754.8

% Moisture: 18.25 18.30 25.3

Average: 18



Atterberg Limits

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

10 100

Liquid Limit



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163






Station: 12+257

Twp Ashmore Offset (m): 3.1 Lt






50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 69.4

25.0 100.0 63.0

19.0 100.0 55.1

13.2 100.0 46.3

9.5 100.0 39.9

4.75 99.9 33.5

2.00 98.9 22.3

0.850 96.8 11.2

0.425 93.8

0.250 91.8 30.5

0.106 86.9 16.5

0.075 83.7


% Sand 16.2 % Clay 30.5 PI 7 0.57 CL-ML


2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

5 µm

0.008248

0.005999

0.003077

0.001337

0.038640

0.028385

0.018759

0.011320

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103




PH: (807) 624-5162 Fax (807) 624-5163





Station: 12+257

Twp Ashmore Offset: 3.1 Lt





Dish No.: 32 21 5 Liquid Limit


Dry Soil + Dish: 35.954 33.587 33.572

Moisture: 2.734 2.359 2.37

Dish: 22.393 22.522 22.783

Dry Soil: 13.561 11.065 10.789

% Moisture: 20.16 21.32 21.97



Liquid Limit, %: 21


Plasticity Index: 7


Dish No.: 8 9

Wet Soil + Dish: 27.882 27.657 1030.6

Dry Soil + Dish: 26.891 26.647 902.3

Moisture: 0.991 1.01 128.3

Dish: 20.044 19.667 243.8

Dry Soil: 6.847 6.98 658.5

% Moisture: 14.47 14.47 19.5

Average: 14



Atterberg Limits

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

10 100

Liquid Limit



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163






Station: 12+441







50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 84.7

25.0 100.0 77.1

19.0 100.0 66.6

13.2 100.0 50.4

9.5 100.0 39.0

4.75 100.0 29.5

2.00 100.0 17.1

0.850 100.0 10.5

0.425 99.8

0.250 99.4 24.6

0.106 99.0 13.8

0.075 98.3

%Gravel % Silt 73.7 % NMC 28.8 HSFH NAGM

% Sand 1.7 % Clay 24.6 PI 3 0.63 ML


5 µm

0.008532

0.006234

0.003178

0.001351

0.038386

0.028205

0.018733

0.011565

2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103




PH: (807) 624-5162 Fax (807) 624-5163





Station: 12+441






Dish No.: K Z H Liquid Limit


Dry Soil + Dish: 32.64 31.095 31.864

Moisture: 3.051 2.717 2.812

Dish: 20.759 20.888 21.685

Dry Soil: 11.881 10.207 10.179

% Moisture: 25.68 26.62 27.63



Liquid Limit, %: 26


Plasticity Index: 3


Dish No.: 1 2

Wet Soil + Dish: 27.59 27.369 916.1

Dry Soil + Dish: 26.164 25.911 768.5

Moisture: 1.426 1.458 147.6

Dish: 19.902 19.492 255.6

Dry Soil: 6.262 6.419 512.9

% Moisture: 22.77 22.71 28.8

Average: 23


Atterberg Limits


21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

10 100

Liquid Limit



PH: (807) 624-5162 FAX: (807) 624-5163






Station: 12+799







50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0 87.4

25.0 100.0 81.8

19.0 100.0 71.6

13.2 100.0 55.8

9.5 100.0 45.5

4.75 100.0 35.3

2.00 100.0 21.4

0.850 99.8 11.2

0.425 99.4

0.250 99.1 31.0

0.106 98.7 15.6

0.075 98.5

%Gravel 0.0 % Silt 67.5 % NMC 24.0 HSFH NAGM

% Sand 1.5 % Clay 31.0 PI 7 0.58 CL-ML


2 µm



Soil Classification

Frost Heave Susc.

Erodibility (k)

5 µm

0.008276

0.006079

0.003124

0.001344

0.037266

0.027180

0.018113

0.011231

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

%

P

a

s

s

i

n

g

Grain Size Analysis


R10501-Rev.0103




PH: (807) 624-5162 Fax (807) 624-5163





Station: 12+799






Dish No.: Q G 18 Liquid Limit


Dry Soil + Dish: 34.075 32.727 30.993

Moisture: 2.918 2.686 2.253

Dish: 20.759 20.888 21.685

Dry Soil: 13.316 11.839 9.308

% Moisture: 21.91 22.69 24.20



Liquid Limit, %: 23


Plasticity Index: 7


Dish No.: 10 11

Wet Soil + Dish: 27.832 28.281 1100.2

Dry Soil + Dish: 26.731 27.163 931.5

Moisture: 1.101 1.118 168.7

Dish: 19.977 20.331 227.9

Dry Soil: 6.754 6.832 703.6

% Moisture: 16.30 16.36 24.0

Average: 16



Atterberg Limits

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

10 100

Liquid Limit

APPENDIX 4 –

MTO Geotechnical Abbreviations


APPENDIX E

Preliminary Foundations Report

Preliminary Foundation Investigation and Design Report

Highway 11 Relocation MacLeod High Tailings Geraldton, Ontario

SUBMITTED TO:

Premier Gold Mines Hardrock Inc. 1100 Russel Street, Suite 200 Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5N2

SUBMITTED BY: TBT ENGINEERING LIMITED 1918 Yonge Street Thunder Bay, On P7E 6T9 CONTACT PERSON: Gordon Maki, P.Eng. Steven Seller, P.Eng Phone: (807) 624-5160 SUBMISSION DATE: March 30, 2015 REFERENCE NO.: 14-192-2

Preliminary Foundation Investigation and Design TBTE Ref. No. 14-192-2 Highway 11 Relocation Premier Gold

Page i

Table of Contents

PART A - FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION REPORT Draft Preliminary Foundation Investigation and Design Report................................................. 1 Highway 11 Relocation ............................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Site Description ................................................................................................................. 2 3 Surficial Geology ............................................................................................................... 3 4 Investigation Procedures ................................................................................................... 3 5 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................ 4 6 Sub-Surface Conditions .................................................................................................... 4

6.1 Topsoil ....................................................................................................................... 4 6.2 Fill .............................................................................................................................. 4 6.3 Organic Material ......................................................................................................... 5 6.4 Silt .............................................................................................................................. 5 6.5 Tailings ...................................................................................................................... 6 6.6 Till .............................................................................................................................. 7 6.7 Ground Water ............................................................................................................ 7 6.8 Refusal ...................................................................................................................... 8

7 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................... 8 PART B - FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 10 9 Roadway Embankment Analyses .................................................................................... 11 9.1 Geotechnical Model ........................................................................................................ 11

9.2 Roadway Embankment Stability ............................................................................... 11 10 Settlement Performance.................................................................................................. 15

10.1 Roadway Embankment on Top of MHT.................................................................... 16 10.2 Roadway Embankment Constructed Adjacent to the Perimeter of the MHT ............. 17 10.3 Embankments Constructed Off of MHT .................................................................... 18

11 Scope of Detailed Investigation and Future Considerations ............................................ 18 12 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 21 13 Closure ........................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDICIES

Appendix A, Borehole Logs Appendix B, Laboratory Test Data Appendix C, Borehole Locations, and Soil Strata Drawing Appendix D, Stability Models


Page 1

Part A - FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION REPORT 1 Introduction

TBT Engineering Limited (TBTE) has been retained by Premier Gold (PG) to provide a

preliminary foundation investigation and design report for the proposed realignment of Highway

11 as it crosses over the MacLeod High Tailings (MHT). The MHT is located south of

Geraldton, Ontario near the intersection of Highway 11 and 584. The preliminary foundation

investigations were conducted along the proposed new highway alignment with particular

attention to areas where the alignment crosses the tailings pile. The proposed alignment

crosses the perimeter of the tailings pile at four locations at the approximate Stations of

13+015, 13+340, 13+575, and 14+035.

This investigation consisted of twelve boreholes drilled along the proposed alignment. Six

boreholes were drilled off the MHT (at approaches to the raised pile), four boreholes were

advanced near the crests of the MHT perimeter and the remaining two were advanced at mid

points between the perimeter crossings on the MHT. The boreholes are labeled from BH 500 to

BH 511.


Page 2

2 Site Description

The preliminary foundation investigations were completed to investigate subsurface conditions

for the four MHT perimeter crossings, located at stations 13+015, 13+340, 13+575, and

14+035, and provide some data for areas between the crossings.

The MHT consists of a large tailings deposit placed over natural terrain, dating back to the

1930’s. The perimeter of the deposit consists of shaped tailings with varying side slopes and

configurations. Typically in the areas of this investigation the side slopes are roughly 2.5

horizontal to 1 vertical. Some sections of the MHT perimeter have a toe berm/drain while other

sections do not. A tailings beach is also evident along much of the toe of the MHT perimeter.

The height of the perimeter typically varies from 6 to 8 m. Reshaping of the perimeter, plus the

construction of the toe berms (where applicable) was completed circa 2000

It is understood that the original terrain consisted of a low lying swamp which is still evident at

some locations beyond the perimeter of the MHT.

Photo 2.1 – Looking North Easterly Towards Station 13+015


Page 3

3 Surficial Geology

Available surficial geology mapping (OGS NOEGTS Map 5078 – Longlac) indicates the site is

located in a terrain unit comprised of a peat veneer (organic terrain) over a sand (outwash

plain); the area may also include a till (ground moraine) beneath the sand. The surrounding

terrain is a low local relief plain.

4 Investigation Procedures

A geotechnical site investigation was undertaken from December 16, 2014 to February 4, 2015.

The borehole locations are illustrated on the Borehole Location and Soil Strata Drawing found in

Appendix D.

The borehole locations were identified in the field by TBTE personnel and service clearances

were completed prior to mobilizing the drill rig to site. Numerous drill set ups were used to

complete the boreholes and associated Standard Penetration Testing (SPT), as indicated

below:

Table 4.1: Boreholes and Associated Drill Equipment

Drill Equipment

SPT Delivery Mechanism (Efficiency)

Borehole

CME 55 Automatic Hammer (0.73) 500, 501, 502, 505, 506, 507, 509, 511

CME 750 Automatic Hammer (0.67) 503, 504, 508

Tripod Safety Hammer (0.6)* 510

*Based on published data.

SPT “N” values reported on the borehole logs and referenced in Section 6 (Sub-Surface

Conditions) are uncorrected field values.

Drilling methods applied to all boreholes consisted of keeping the hollow stem augers or casing

filled with water (to ground level) to reduce the possibility of the soils being “blown up” within the

boreholes. Soil samples were obtained from the auger flights and using a split spoon sampler

as a part of the Standard Penetration Testing . Refusal material was sampled not sampled.

Borehole locations were surveyed by TBTE and were based on North American Datum 1983,

UTM CSRS CBNV6-2010 Zone 16. Control was established from existing published Horizontal

Control Monuments and a Geodetic Benchmark using the Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum


Page 4

1928. The following horizontal control points and vertical control points were utilized throughout

this project:

HCM 00119753139, HCM 0011984U045

VCM 0011984U045 VCM 00819728155

5 Laboratory Testing

Samples which were obtained during the field investigation were subjected to laboratory testing

consisting of moisture content, grain size analysis (mechanical sieves and hydrometers),

consolidation testing and drained direct shear testing. The results of this testing are shown on

the Borehole Logs (Appendix A) and on the laboratory data reports (Appendix B).

6 Sub-Surface Conditions

Details of the subsurface conditions are provided on the borehole (Appendix A), laboratory

reports (Appendix B) and on the Soil Strata Drawing (Appendix C).

The subsurface soils along the alignment on top of the MHT typically consist of fill/topsoil at

surface underlain by tailings. The tailings are underlain by organic material followed by silt.

The silt is underlain by a till with occasional cobbles before auger and/or SPT refusal.

The subsurface soils around the perimeter of the MHT typically consists of organic material or

tailings at surface, followed by silt which is underlain by a till with occasional cobbles before

auger and/or SPT refusal.

6.1 Topsoil

Topsoil was encountered within the MHT at the ground surface of Boreholes 503, 504, and 508.

The topsoil’s thickness varied from 1.4 to 1.8 m.

6.2 Fill

Fill was encountered at ground surface at boreholes both outside and within the MHT.

Within the MHT (BH 503, 505 and 507) fill was encountered at elevation 336.1, 338.5 and 336.8

and extended to elevations 335.3, 333.0 and 335.5 m, respectively. The fill ranges from sandy

gravel with silt with trace sand to silt with trace sand. The test results indicate a grain size


Page 5

distribution of 0 to 53 % gravel, 1 to 27 % sand, and 18 to 99 % silt/clay sized particles. The

presence of cobbles was noted within the fill at Borehole 505. The fill is very loose to dense as

indicated by “N” values ranging from 3 to 34 blows/0.3 m.

Outside of the MHT (BH 510 and 511) fill was encountered at elevation 331.1 and 332.6 and

extended to elevations 330.4 at both locations. Based on a single grain size analysis this fill

consists of sandy silt. The test results indicate a grain size distribution of 0 % gravel, 29 %

sand, and 72 % silt/clay sized particles. The fill is very loose to compact as indicated by “N”

values ranging from 2 to 13 blows/0.3 m.

6.3 Organic Material

Organic matter was encountered at all boreholes with the exception of Boreholes 508, 509, and

511. The organic material varies from being on surface to be being below topsoil or tailings.

For boreholes located outside of the MHT organic material was encountered at ground surface

at Boreholes 500 and 501, beneath tailings at Boreholes 502 and 506, and beneath fill at

Borehole 510. The material was encountered at elevations ranging 328.8 to 330.6 and varied in

thickness from 0.8 to 2.1 m with natural moisture contents ranging from 119 to 685 %.

A consolidation test was conducted on a disturbed sample of the organic material from

Borehole 505 at a depth of 10.5 m. The results of this consolidation test indicate a drained

constrained modulus in the range of 0.1 to 0.9 MPa within the normal effective stress range of

the test (5 to 150 kPa). The coefficient of consolidation, Cv, varied from 9.5 to 2.5 mm2/min.

The organic material within the MHT was encountered beneath tailings at Boreholes 503, 504,

505 and 507 at elevations ranging from 328.3 to 330.0 and varied in thickness from 0.3 to 1.4

m, with natural moisture contents ranging from 119 to 325 %.

6.4 Silt

Native silt was present at all the borehole locations with the exception of Boreholes 508, 510

and 511. The native silt was encountered beneath the organics at all the boreholes with the

exception of Borehole 509, where it was encountered directly beneath the tailings. The silt was

encountered at elevations ranging between 327.0 to 330.6 m.


Page 6

Within the MHT (BH 503, 504, 505, 507 and 509) the native silt was encountered at elevations

327.0 to 330.6 m and varied in thickness from 2.4 to 5.2 m, with Borehole 505 terminating within

the silt. Based on four grain size analysis the material consists of silt with trace sand as

indicate by a grain size distribution of 0 % gravel, 3 to 8 % sand, and 92 to 97 % silt/clay sized

particles. The silt is loose to dense as indicated by “N” values ranging from 4 to 31 blows/0.3

m.

Outside of the MHT (BH 500, 501, 502 and 506) the native silt was encountered at elevation

327.6 and 329.6 and varied in thickness from 3.3 to 3.9 m, with Borehole 506 terminating within

the silt. Based on a three grain size analysis the material consists of gravelly sandy silt to silt

with trace sand. The test results indicate a grain size distribution of 0 to 30 % gravel, 3 to 24 %

sand, and 47 to 97 % silt/clay sized particles. The presence of cobbles was noted within the fill

at Borehole 500, 502 and 506. The silt is typically very loose to compact as indicated by “N”

values ranging from 3 to 29 blows/0.3 m. The silt was very dense at a depth of 9.1 m in

Borehole 506 with an “N” value of 42 blows/0.3 m

6.5 Tailings

Tailings was present at all the borehole locations with the exception of Boreholes 500, 501, 510

and 511.

Within the MHT tailings were encountered at surface (BH 509), beneath topsoil (BH 504 and

508) and beneath fill (BH 503, 505, and 507) at elevations 333.0 to 336.3 m and varied in

thickness from 3.7 to 7.9 m. Based on fourteen grain size analysis the material consists of

gravelly sandy silt, silt and sand with trace gravel to silt. The grain size analysis typically

indicates a grain size distribution of 0 to 4 % gravel, 0 to 38 % sand, and 58 to 99 % silt/clay

sized particles. A single sample from Borehole 508 has a grain size distribution of 32 % gravel,

22 % sand, and 45 % silt/clay sized particles at a depth of 4.4 m. The tailings is typically very

loose, with a few instances of it being compact as indicated by “N” values ranging from 1 to 25

blows/0.3 m.

A consolidation test was conducted on a disturbed sample of the tailings material from Borehole

504 at a depth of 3.0 m. This sample consists of 5% sand and 95% silt and clay sized particles.

The results of this consolidation test indicate a drained constrained modulus in the range of 6 to


Page 7

17 MPa within the normal effective stress range of the test (15 to 200 kPa). The coefficient of

consolidation, Cv, varied from 47 to 157 mm2/min.

Consolidated drained direct shear testing was conducted on a sample from Borehole 504 at a

depth of 3.0 m to estimate the effective stress strength parameters of the tailings. The lower

bound of the shear strength points developed at low horizontal shear strain level of 2% is

represented by effective stress strength parameters of c’ = 0 kPa and ϕ’ = 31°.

Outside of the MHT (BH 502 and 506) the tailings was encountered at ground surface at

elevation 331.7 and varied in thickness from 1.2 to 3.0 m. Based on a two grain size analysis

the material consists of sandy silt to silt with trace sand. The test results indicate a grain size

distribution of 0 % gravel, 5 to 32 % sand, and 68 to 95 % silt/clay sized particles. The tailings

is very loose to loose as indicated by “N” values ranging from 2 to 7 blows/0.3 m.

6.6 Till

Till consisting of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, sand, silt and cobbles is encountered

beneath the silt at Boreholes 500 to 504, 507, and 509, beneath the tailings at Borehole 508,

beneath organic material at Borehole 510 and beneath fill at Borehole 511. Till was not

encountered at Boreholes 505 and 506. The till was encountered at elevations ranging from

323.9 to 330.9 m. It should be noted that all boreholes where till was encountered, terminated

within the till. The till can range from sand with trace gravel and trace silt to sandy silty gravel.

Grain size analysis conducted on seven samples of the indicate the layer consist of 4 to 49 %

gravel , 25 to 92 % sand and 4 to 29 % silt/clay size particles. Occasional cobbles were noted

within several boreholes. The till is compact to dense as indicated by an “N” values ranging

from 10 to 46 blows/0.3m.

6.7 Ground Water

The ground water levels are based on the pre-existing well data collected from 1996, 2012,

2013 and 2014. The wells reviewed are situated in close proximity to the proposed highway

right of way. The wells reviewed are provided in the following table with a summation of their

data from 1996, 2012, 2013, and 2014 data for all years may not have been present for all

wells.


Page 8

Table 6.1: Ground Water Level (elevations m)

Well ID Average Level Max. Level Min. Level

96-03 331.4 332.7 330.5

96-04 330.0 337.6 324.8

96-09A1 335.4 338.3 333.3

96-09A4 335.3 338.3 333.1

96-12A 330.3 331.4 329.6

6.8 Refusal

Auger refusal and “N” values of 100+ blows/0.3 m was encountered at all borehole with the

exception of Borehole 505 which extend to a maximum depth of 15 m. The following table

indicates the recorded refusal depths at each borehole. Refusals may be on cobbles, boulders,

or bedrock. Refusal material was not sampled.

Table 6-2: Borehole Refusal Site 3

Test hole Number

Refusal Depth (m)

Refusal Elevation (m)

500 7.8 322.8

501 8.6 322.5

502 6.3 325.4

503 12.6 324.9

504 14.6 323.0

506 10.0 321.7

507 13.7 323.1

508 9.0 327.4

509 13.5 322.8

510 3.2 327.9

511 5.9 326.7

7 Miscellaneous

Laboratory testing was carried out at the TBT Engineering Limited laboratory in Thunder Bay.

The drill equipment for this investigation was operated by TBT Engineering. The field operations

were supervised by Alan Finke. Laboratory testing was supervised by T. Fummerton C.E.T.


Page 9

This report was prepared by Steven Seller, P.Eng and Gordon Maki, P.Eng., and reviewed by

W. Hurley, P.Eng (TBTE designated principal contact identified for MTO Foundation

Engineering projects).


Page 10

Part B - FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8 Introduction

TBT Engineering Limited (TBTE) has been retained by Premier Gold (PG) to provide

preliminary foundation investigation and design services for the proposed Highway 11

relocation over the MacLeod High Tailings. The preliminary foundation investigations were

conducted along the proposed new highway alignment particularly attention was paid to the

areas where the alignment crossed the tailings pile perimeter, with some investigation along the

tailings pile. The proposed alignment crosses the perimeter of the tailings pile at four locations

at the approximate Stations of 13+015, 13+340, 13+575, and 14+035.

The preliminary foundation investigations as described in Part A, was completed to investigate

subsurface conditions at these sites. These investigations consisted of twelve boreholes drilled

near the proposed centerline, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis of the data. The Part

A report describes the subsurface conditions encountered during the investigation. The test

holes are labeled from Borehole 500 to 511.

The foundation soils at these sites typically consist of organics, tailings, topsoil, or fill at surface

which overlie silt, with till to termination. Cobbles are present within the native soils at

numerous locations. All boreholes extended to practical refusal (100+ “N” values as

determined from the Standard Penetration Test), or extend to a maximum depth of 15 m.

The purpose of this section of the report (Part B) is to provide preliminary embankment design

recommendations for various embankment configurations. These are based on the conditions

encountered at the test hole locations, TBTE’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the

site and analyses of embankment stability.


Page 11

9 Roadway Embankment Analyses 9.1 Geotechnical Model

Stability modeling was completed using Slope/W software and limit equilibrium analysis using

the Morgenstern-Price method.

The preliminary soil properties established for the embankment and foundation soils are

presented below. The preliminary strength properties of the native soils have been based on

published correlations with index tests. The preliminary strength properties of the tailings has

been determined through direct shear testing, and index tests. Typical preliminary strength

properties have been selected for the various potential fill materials.

Table 9-1: Assumed Soil Properties for Stability Analyses

Soil

Effective Stress Strength Properties

Unit Weight γ

(kN/m3)

Effective Angle of Internal Friction,

φ’ (degrees)

Effective Cohesion

Intercept, C’ (kPa)

Rock Fill 45 0 18

Compacted Granular Fill 35 0 20

Filter Material 35 0 18

Tailings 31 0 20

Organic material 28 0 11-12

Native Silts 32 0 20

Till 35 0 20

A tailings beach overlying organic material exists along the toe of the MHT perimeter. The

thickness and extent of the tailings beach is likely variable. While the added weight of the

tailings beach can significantly improve stability of the perimeter, for this assessment its

potential presence was conservatively ignored. This would also cover a scenario where some

or all of the tailings beach material is either eroded or removed in the future.

9.2 Roadway Embankment Stability

Stability analyses have been completed to investigate stability of the proposed roadway

embankment crossing the MHT. For this preliminary assessment stability analyses was

completed for embankment sections off the MHT, adjacent to the MHT perimeter, and for the


Page 12

embankment constructed on the MHT independent of the MHT perimeter. The following factors

of safety (FoS) were applied as follows:

FoS 1.5 - For areas along the MHT perimeter both during and after construction.

FoS 1.3 - For areas where the embankment does not influence the stability of the MHT

perimeter.

Stability analyses were conducted under static long term steady state seepage conditions and

under short term construction loading conditions. During construction, it is expected that

porewater pressures within the existing tailings and organic subgrade will likely increase. For

this preliminary assessment the increase in porewater pressure was modelled with a Bbar of

0.3 for the tailings and 0.4 for organic material. The actual increase in porewater pressures

should be investigated for detailed design and/or construction (fill placement) should be

controlled (with staged and monitored fill placement) to ensure porewater pressures do not

exceed the assumed Bbar values.

A uniformly distributed traffic load of 20 kPa was utilized during analysis.

Seismic parameters for the stability models was not consider based on the Canadian Highway

Design Bridge Code (CHBDC). The subject site has a Zonal acceleration Ratio of 0, as

provided in Table A3 of the CHBDC. Assuming the roadway embankment is considered an

“Emergency rout and other bridges”, the site is located in a Seismic Performance Zone 1, in

accordance with Table 1 of Section 4.4.4. As per Section 4.4.5.1, structures within Seismic

Performance Zone 1s do not required seismic analyses.

It is understood that the highway embankments will be constructed with rock fill with a 300 mm

thick pavement structure consisting of granular fills. Where rock fill is placed along the perimeter

slope of the tailing pile, a zone of filter material between the MHT and the rock fill should be

considered. The design of the filter material should retain the tailings soils while not restricting

seepage.

A description of the analyzed configurations and the results of the stability assessment are

provided below for the various configurations. All slope models (Figures 1 to 7) are provided in

Appendix D:


Page 13

1. High fill embankments off the MHT:

a. At areas where the embankment will be constructed with full removal of all

existing organic material and/or tailings, the following

recommendations/comments apply (Refer to Figure 1):

i. The embankments shall be constructed with side slopes no steeper than

1.5H:1V through the rock fill and 2H:1V through the granular fills.

ii. Since all the organic material and tailings will be removed there are no

requirements for staged filling operations.

iii. The use of mid slope benches shall be used for rock fills heights in

excess of 10 m.

b. At areas of high fill embankments off the MHT that must be constructed over

existing tailings and organic material (to maintain stability of the MHT perimeter)

it was assumed the tailings beach thickness is insignificant and a total thickness

of 2 m of organic material exists (conservative) the following


i. The embankments shall be constructed with side slopes no steeper than


ii. A stepped flanking berm will be required on both sides of the

embankment. The stepped flanking berm may consist of a 3.0 m thick

5.5 m wide step followed by a 1.0 m thick 4.0 m wide step.

iii. To ensure stability during construction, staging with delays for excess

porewater pressure dissipation will likely be required.

iv. A monitoring and instrumentation plan to monitor stability and excess

porewater pressures within the organic material subgrade should be

considered.

v. Staging requirements must be addressed during detailed design.

vi. The use of mid slope benches shall be used for rock fills in excess of 10

m in height.

2. Embankments constructed on the MHT that do not influence the stability of the MHT

perimeter:

For embankments that are constructed on the MHT but away from the MHT perimeter

(14 m or further) the following recommendations/comments apply (Refer to Figure 3 and

Figure 4):


Page 14

i. The proposed highway embankment is not expected to have a significant

impact on the stability of the MHT perimeter where the embankment is

located at least 14 m away

ii. The embankments shall be constructed with side slopes no steeper than


iii. During detailed design confirmation that a Bbar of 0.3 for the tailings is

suitable. Should additional porewater pressures be realized, staged

construction and/or the use of flanking berm may be required to improve

stability during construction.

3. Embankments crossing the MHT perimeter:

a. To facilitate excavation of the existing tailings and organic material below the

proposed embankment adjacent to the toe of the MHT perimeter, a steeped rock

fill berm is required along the MHT perimeter toe. The berm will be constructed

over organic material, removal of this organic material would destabilize the MHT

perimeter. The rock fill berm must be constructed prior to the excavation of the

organic material. The following recommendations/comments apply (Refer to

Figure 5):

i. The stepped flanking berm may consist of a 3 m thick 11 m wide step

followed by a 1.0 m thick 4.0 m wide step. This provides a FoS of 1.5

during construction (assuming excess porewater pressures).

ii. To ensure stability during construction, staging with delays for excess

porewater pressure dissipation may be required. A monitoring and

instrumentation plan to monitor stability and excess porewater pressures

within the organic material subgrade should be considered.

iii. Staging requirements must be addressed during detailed design. Refer

to Figure 5.

b. After the construction of the stepped rock fill flanking berm excavation of the

organic material and tailings from the beneath the proposed embankment can

begin. For this assessment it was assumed that that the excavation would be

constructed in the “wet” without dewatering of the excavation. The following


i. The porewater pressures induced from the construction of the stepped

rock fill flanking berm must dissipate, prior to excavation.


Page 15

ii. The excavation of the organic material cannot be within 4 m of the toe of

the steeped rock fill flanking berm. This provides a calculated FoS of 1.3

for the first step of the flanking berm and an overall FoS > 1.5 for global

stability of the MHT perimeter.

c. Stability perpendicular to the MHT perimeter of the tailings or parallel to the

highway alignment:

The stability for potential slope failures longitudinally along the highway

alignment was analized and found to be in excess of 1.5.

4. Embankments constructed on the MHT that do influence the stability of the MHT

perimeter:

For embankments that are constructed on the MHT but within 14 m of the MHT

perimeter the a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for both long term steady state and short

term construction conditions were considered. The following

recommendations/comments apply (Refer to Figure 7 and Figure 8):

i. As a minimum, the existing tailings slope should be covered with at least

0.6 m of filter material / rock fill.

ii. The rock fill slopes may be constructed at grades of 2H:1V. In addition, a

stepped flanking berm (as described in 3 a) will be required and may

consist of a 3 m thick 11 m wide step followed by a 1.0 m thick 4.0 m

wide step.

iii. To ensure stability during construction, staging with delays for excess

porewater pressure dissipation may be required.

iv. A monitoring and instrumentation plan to monitor stability and excess

porewater pressures within the organic material subgrade should be

considered.

v. Staging requirements must be addressed during detailed design.

vi. The use of mid slope benches must be considered.

10 Settlement Performance

Settlement analyses have been completed for three distinct sections along the proposed

alignment. The three sections include:

Roadway embankment constructed on top of MHT,


Page 16

Roadway embankment constructed at toe of MHT perimeter over tailings and organics,

and

Roadway embankment beyond MHT perimeter toe with all tailings and organics

removed

For this preliminary assessment, embankment settlements have been estimated on primary

consolidation of the tailings, native silt and till subgrade, and the primary and secondary

consolidation of the organics. In addition, short and long term settlement associated with rock

fill construction (assuming dumped rock fill) have been included.

As per MTO Embankment Settlement Criteria (July 2, 2010), the design life established for

settlement criteria for King’s highways is 20 years following construction of the pavement

structures. The settlement criteria over the design life for embankments on compressible soils

is 200 mm total with a differential settlement rate of 100:1.

10.1 Roadway Embankment on Top of MHT

It is anticipated that the roadway embankment height will be in the order of 3.5 m in height on

top of the MHT. Preliminary settlement analyses indicates the following:

Table 11-1: Estimated Settlement for Roadway Embankment on MHT

Material Total Settlement After Construction (mm)

1 month 3 months 6 months 1 year 21 years

Tailings 40 55 60 70 80

Organic Material 55 90 110 130 185

Native Silt and Till 5 20 45 50 50

Rock Fill 5 20 35 40 50

Estimated Total 105 185 250 290 365

Remaining Settlement from 21 Year Estimate

260 180 115 75 0

Remaining Settlement meet MTO Criteria

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

In order to meet the MTO settlement performance criteria for total settlements, the embankment

would need to be constructed with a delay in the order of 3 months for final grading and paving.

A small preload surcharge in the order of 10 kPa (approximately 0.5 m of fill) may also be


Page 17

considered to expedite settlements. Deferential settlement performance should be assessed

during detailed design.

10.2 Roadway Embankment Constructed Adjacent to the Perimeter of the MHT

Where the embankment crosses the perimeter of the MHT, it is expected that settlements will

be most significant near the toe of the MHT perimeter where fill heights of up to 9 m are

expected and the foundation soils are expected to include up to 2 m of loose tailings and

organic material. For this assessment it has been assumed that 2 m of organic material exists

(no tailings). Preliminary settlement analyses indicates the following.

Table 11-2: Estimated Settlement for Roadway Embankment at Perimeter of MHT

Material

Total Settlement After Construction (mm)

1 month 3 months 6 months 1 year 3 years 21 years

Organic Material 210 415 545 675 875 1030

Native Silt 30 95 190 210 210 210

Rock Fill 20 60 120 135 140 155

Total 260 570 855 1020 1225 1395

Remaining Settlement from 21 Year Estimate

1135 825 540 375 170 0

Remaining Settlement meet MTO Criteria

No No No No Yes Yes

In order to meet the MTO settlement performance criteria for total settlements, the embankment

would need to be constructed with a delay in the order of 3 years for final grading and paving.

In order to expedite settlements, a preload will be required. A preliminary assessment of

preloading options was assessed to expedite primary and secondary consolidation within the

organic material. Based on this assessment, post construction settlements are expected to

meet design, with either an 18 month preload with a 20 kPa (approximately 1 m of fill)

surcharge, or a 12 month preload with a 40 kPa (approximately 2 m of fill) surcharge. Where

surcharge fills are considered, stability analyses should be reassessed to consider the

additional fill height. Deferential settlement performance should be assessed during detailed

design.


Page 18

10.3 Embankments Constructed Off of MHT

Where the embankments are constructed well beyond the toe of the perimeter of the MHT, it

has been assumed that any existing tailings and/or organic material will be excavated to expose

native silt or till. For embankments up to 9 m in height, settlements within the native (non-

organic) subgrade and within the rock fill are expected to be in the order of 360 mm. In order to

meet MTO settlement criteria for total maximum settlements, a delay in the order of 3 months

for final grading and paving should be considered for embankments up to 9 m in height. No

delay in final grading and paving is expected for embankments 4 m in height and less.

11 Scope of Detailed Investigation and Future Considerations

The following items should be considered for detailed foundation design of the proposed

highway relocation over the MHT.

Design Criteria:

The design of the highway must consider standard design and performance criteria for

the highway as well as design criteria for the MHT. Currently, the design criterial for the

existing tailings facility is not well defined. The last design report (“Tailings Area

Preliminary Investigations Report (Draft)”, issued July 1996) does not clearly identify the

design criteria for the facility and/or demonstrate the existing facility meets the

suggested levels of stability. The hazard potential classification and subsequent design

criteria for the existing tailings facility should also be reviewed in light of the proposed

change in conditions (as the facility will now support a public road). Consultation with

the appropriate regulatory authorities is recommended. The current state of stability of

the existing tailings facility may also need to be reassessed and upgraded, if required.

Seismic Considerations:

As per the Canadian Highway Design Bridge Code, seismic analyses is not required for

the design of the highway embankment. However, design requirements for the MHT will

likely require seismic analysis which will be dependent on the design criteria established

for the existing facility. Any future analyses for the tailings facility should consider any

potential effects associated with the proposed new highway. Depending on the design

criteria established, further investigations may be required to more accurately identify

and address potential liquefaction and/or stability issues.


Page 19

Stability During Construction:

The stability of the highway embankment and perimeter of the tailings facility during

construction (filling operations) will be highly dependent on the porewater pressures

response within the existing tailings and organic material subgrade soils. Further study

consisting of laboratory and/or field studies (eg. CPTU testing, or instrumented test fills),

may be considered to identify expected porewater pressure response and dissipation

properties. Additional strength testing under both drained and undrained conditions may

also be considered. Based on the results of new testing data, the stability analyses

should be reassessed to determine requirements for staging including instrumentation

and monitoring, if required.

Phreatic Surface Along Perimeter of Tailings Facility:

The groundwater conditions within the perimeter of the tailings facility can have a

significant impact on global stability and potential for instability due to piping. Currently,

there is little data to identify the current state or fluctuations of the groundwater level

through the perimeter of the existing tailings facility. A monitoring program consisting of

the installation of piezometers along the perimeter of the tailings facility and the

associated toe berm should be considered.

Tailings Beach:

The existing tailings beach beyond the toe of the MHT can have a significant impact on

stability. If the existing tailings beach has a relatively consistent thickness throughout

the areas of concern, stability of the existing MHT perimeter is improved. However,

should the tailings beach be removed at some future time, or be highly variable in terms

of thickness and extent, it may not be reliable in terms of its contribution towards

stability. Further investigation to study the variability, extent and condition of the tailings

beach may be considered.

Fills On Top of Tailings Facility:

Further investigation should be completed to identify the extent, quality and conditions of

the fills on top of the tailings facility along the proposed highway alignment.

Tailings and Organic material:

Additional Investigation and laboratory testing should be considered to address

variability within the tailings and organic material subgrade in terms of strength and

consolidation properties.


Page 20

Existing Structures:

It is understood that a buried splitter dyke, abandoned decant structures and drainage

pipes may exist within the MHT along the proposed highway alignment. Additional

investigation should be completed to locate and inspect these structures to identify any

potential future long term settlement issues exist.

Future Structures:

It is understood that a future waste rock pile is planned to be constructed on the MHTs.

The impacts of this structure on the roadway embankments will need to be determined

and design adjustments may be required.

Filter Material:

The design of the filter material will need to be determined.


Page 21

12 Limitations

Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information

determined at the borehole locations. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and

beyond these locations may differ from those encountered. Conditions may become apparent

during construction that were not detected and could not be anticipated at the time of the site

investigation.

The comments given in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods of

construction are intended only for the guidance of the designer.

Groundwater levels indicated are based on the information described within the report. The

presence of all conditions that could affect the type and scope of dewatering procedures which

may be considered cannot readily be determined from boreholes. These include local and

seasonal fluctuations of the groundwater level, changes in soil conditions between test

locations, thin and/or discontinuous layers of highly permeable soils, etc.

The information contained within this report in no way reflects any environmental aspect of the

site or soil.

TBTE REF No.:14-192

Page 23

APPENDIX A Borehole Logs

(97)

(27)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

329.1

325.2

322.8

3

25

Water onsurface.

ORGANICS - black, very loose

SILT - trace sand, grey, loose tocompact

- - - - -- numerous cobbles & bouldersTILL - GRAVEL - Sandy, Silty,grey, compact to very dense

End of Borehole @ 7.8 m.Auger Refusal.

1

4

8

13

18

13

100+

1.5

5.4

7.8

685.4

457.4

0

49

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2015 February 3 DATUM

0.0

SOIL PROFILE

Numbers refer toSensitivity

STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S

Realignment of Hwy 11

DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

330.6

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&

GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION

(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

330

329

328

327

326

325

324

323

Ministry ofTransportation

Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

TBT Engineering Consulting Group

Foundation Design

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

ORIGINATED BY

:

RECORD OF Borehole No 15-BH-500

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1

WATER CONTENT (%)UNDRAINEDDIRECT SHEAR

3

UNCONFINED FIELD VANE

N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 12+764 o/s 1.8 Rt N5504265.729, E504143.806

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(47)

(29)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

329.0

325.7

322.5

24

38

Water @ surface.ORGANICS - black, some greytailings to 75 mm

- - - - -- brown

- - - - -- blackSILT - Gravelly, Sandy, grey,loose to compact

TILL - SAND - Gravelly, Silty,grey, compact to dense

- - - - -- numerous cobbles & bouldersEnd of Borehole @ 8.6 m.Auger Refusal.

1

1

10

9

6

23

43

100+

2.1

5.4

8.6

279.4

422.4

30

32

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT


CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

331.1

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324

323


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 12+867 o/s 3.6 Rt N5504242.045, E504242.767

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(68)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

330.5

329.6

326.3

325.4

32

Water @ surface.TAILINGS - SILT - Sandy, someorganics, grey, loose

ORGANICS - black, very loose

SILT - Sandy, grey, loose tocompact

- - - - -- numerous cobbles & bouldersTILL - SAND & GRAVEL - grey,very dense


7

2

7

13

19

100+

1.2

2.1

5.4

6.3

325.7

0

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT


CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

331.7

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

331

330

329

328

327

326


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 12+969 o/s 4.7 Rt N5504206.698, E504337.855

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(99)

(87)

(26)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

51

336.1

335.3

330.0329.7

327.3

324.9

1

0

13

54

TOPSOIL - SAND - brown

FILL - SILT - trace sand, grey,very loose

TAILINGS - SILT - trace tosome sand, grey, very loose toloose

ORGANICSSILT - grey, compact to dense

TILL - SAND - Silty, Gravelly,occasional cobbles, grey, dense

End of Borehole @ 12.6 m.

4

3

6

4

3

5

31

12

35

100+

48

1.4

2.2

7.57.8

10.2

12.6

280

0

0

0

21

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2014 December 16 DATUM

0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

P.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

337.5

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

337

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 13+041 o/s 4.7 Rt N5504175.869, E504403.445

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(64)

(93)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

72

76

336.2

328.3

327.1

324.7

323.0

8

5

36

8

Frost to 150 mm.TOPSOIL - SAND - brown

- - - - -- trace tailingsTAILINGS - SILT - trace sand,grey, very loose to loose

- - - - -- SILT & SAND

ORGANICS - brown

SILT - trace sand, loose tocompact

TILL - SAND - Silty, Gravelly,grey


3

3

2

1

3

4

5

13

28

9

46

100+

20

19

1.4

9.3

10.5

12.9

14.6

289.3

0

0

0

0

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

P.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

337.6

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

337

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 13+176 o/s 1.3 Rt N5504120.356, E504525.853

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(18)

(97)

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

35

333.0

328.4

327.0

323.5

29

38

3

On cobbles

FILL - GRAVEL - Sandy, somesilt, occasional cobbles, brown,compact to very dense

- - - - - -- grey

TAILINGS - SILT & SAND -trace gravel, grey, loose tocompact

- - - - -- burgundy

ORGANICS - black

SILT - trace sand, loose tocompact


11

34

32

28

100+

12

8

5

15

18

5

16

23

5.5

10.1

11.5

15.0

306.2

53

4

0

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2015 January 14 DATUM

0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

T.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

338.5

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

338

337

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 13+323 o/s 0.6 Rt N5504056.903, E504658.373

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(95)

(89)

(95)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

328.8

327.6

321.7

5

11

4

TAILINGS - SILT, trace sand,grey, some organics, brown,very loose to loose

- - - - -- burgundy

ORGANICS - black

SILT - trace to some sand, grey,loose to very dense

- - - - -- numerous cobbles & boulders


6

4

2

2

3

10

4

42

100+

3.0

4.1

10.0

119.4

0

0

0

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT


CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

331.7

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324

323

322


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 13+454 o/s 0.1 Rt N5504000.158, E504776.767

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(75)

(97)

(96)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

66

335.5

329.4329.1

323.9

323.1

25

3

4

4

FILL - SILT - Sandy, brown,loose

TAILINGS - SILT - trace sand,grey, very loose

ORGANICS - blackSILT - trace sand, grey, loose tocompact

TILL - SAND & GRAVEL


7

2

1

1

1

4

15

13

9

14

100+

31

1.3

7.47.7

12.9

13.7

119

0

0

0

0

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

T.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

336.8

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 13+603 o/s 6.6 Rt N5503929.485, E504907.652

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(94)

(45)

(8)

(4)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

334.6

330.9

327.4

6

22

81

92

Frost to 300 mm.

On cobbles

TOPSOIL - brown

TAILINGS - SILT, trace sand toSandy, very loose

- - - - -- Gravelly, compact

TILL - SAND - trace silt, trace tosome gravel, occasionalcobbles, very dense


7

9

1

1

25

100+

100+

100+

1.8

5.5

9.0

0

32

12

4

>>

>>

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

P.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

336.4

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 13+823 o/s 5.6 Lt N5503847.034, E505112.597

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(94)

(91)

(93)

(15)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

69

330.6

326.5

322.8

6

9

16

7

49

TAILINGS - SILT, trace to somesand, grey, very loose tocompact

SILT - some gravel, trace sand,grey, compact

TILL - SAND & GRAVEL - somesilt, grey, dense


11

2

1

2

2

17

13

11

34

22

100+

15

5.7

9.8

13.5

0

0

0

0

36

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

T.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

336.3

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324

323


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 14+017 o/s 21.7 Rt N5503772.957, E505295.367

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(72)SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

330.4

329.6

327.9

29FILL - SILT - Sandy, grey

ORGANICS - black

TILL - SAND & GRAVEL - grey,compact to very dense

- - - - -- GRAVEL & COBBLES - Silty


5

10

18

100+

0.7

1.5

3.2

463.9

0

>>

1

2

3

4

5


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT


CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

331.1

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

331

330

329

328


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 14+098 o/s 13.5 Rt N5503774.878, E505378.041

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

(3)

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

330.4

326.7

74

FILL - SAND - very loose tocompact- - - - -- grey

- - - - -- Silty, some organics, blackTILL - SAND - Gravelly, tracesilt, grey, compact to dense


13

2

27

13

32

100+

2.2

5.9

23

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


0.0

SOIL PROFILE


STRAIN AT FAILURE

20 40 60 80 100

GEOCRES No

kN/m3

BOREHOLE TYPE

LOCATION

PROJECT

Hollow Stem Auger

T.P.

S.S.

CL

ELEVwP

SA

LIQUIDLIMIT


UN

ITW

EIG

HT

COMPILED BY

3%

wL

DATE

GR20 40 60 SI

"N"

VA

LUE

S


DEPTHDESCRIPTION

w

CHECKED BY

61

PLASTICLIMIT

T.B.

N/A

HWY

332.6

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

METRIC

REMARKS&


(%)

TBTE JOB#

SPT (N)

ST

RA

T P

LOT

332

331

330

329

328

327


Ontario

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DIST

20 40 60 80 100

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE


Foundation Design


ORIGINATED BY

:


GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

DIT

ION

S

11

SAMPLES

NP Non Plastic

1 OF 1


3


N/A

14-192-2

Geodetic

UTM Sta. 14+139 o/s 16.7 Rt N5503771.72, E505420.353

W O

ON

_MT

O_B

H_U

TM

14-

192

FD

TN

GE

RA

LTO

N.G

PJ

ON

_MO

T.G

DT

15/

3/30

TBTE REF No.:14-192

Page 24

APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Data

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

99.317.674.671.5

D6015-BH-50315-BH-50515-BH-50715-BH-510

%Clay0.053.10.00.0

SAND

TBT Engineering Ltd.1918 Yonge StreetThunder Bay, Ontario P7E 6T9PH: 807-624-5160FX: 807-624-5161Email: [email protected]: www.tbte.ca

1.502.300.600.30

0.729.325.428.5

0.2537.54.75

2

12.899 0.917

D30

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

%Sand

Project: Realignment of Hwy 11

W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium

%SiltTest Hole Depth %Gravel

COBBLES

D10

SILT OR CLAY

Remarks:FILL

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

68.499.886.891.795.3

D6015-BH-50215-BH-50315-BH-50315-BH-50415-BH-504

%Clay

0.001

0.0020.003

0.00.00.00.00.0

SAND


0.753.004.602.303.00

31.60.213.28.34.7

20.1060.25

20.425

0.007

0.0260.022

0.003

0.0080.008

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

D10

SILT OR CLAY

Remarks:TAILINGS

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

63.758.194.697.296.5

D6015-BH-50415-BH-50515-BH-50615-BH-50715-BH-507

%Clay

0.001

0.002

0.04.20.00.00.0

SAND


7.506.001.502.303.00

36.337.75.42.83.5

0.259.5

0.4250.25

2

0.083

0.012

0.009

0.005

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

D10

SILT OR CLAY

Remarks:TAILINGS

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

93.845.393.890.783.6

D6015-BH-50815-BH-50815-BH-50915-BH-50915-BH-509

%Clay

0.003

0.032.40.00.00.0

SAND


3.004.501.503.004.50

6.222.36.29.316.4

0.8537.54.750.850.425

0.417

0.033 0.012

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

D10

SILT OR CLAY

Remarks:TAILINGS

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

97.146.592.596.789.3

D6015-BH-50015-BH-50115-BH-50415-BH-50515-BH-506

%Clay0.029.80.00.00.0

SAND


3.004.60

10.5013.506.10

2.923.77.53.310.7

0.8537.50.850.25

2

0.352

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

Remarks:SILT

D10

SILT OR CLAY

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

95.495.793.0

D6015-BH-50615-BH-50715-BH-509

%Clay0.20.00.0

SAND


9.109.007.50

4.44.37.0

9.522

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

Remarks:SILT

D10

SILT OR CLAY

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

26.529.125.87.84.0

D6015-BH-50015-BH-50115-BH-50315-BH-50815-BH-508

%Clay

0.1140.161

49.032.420.611.74.3

SAND


6.006.10

10.506.007.50

24.538.553.680.591.7

37.537.525

13.29.5

7.4172.9291.0881.4640.831

0.1610.080.1070.4690.346

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

D10

SILT OR CLAY

Remarks:TILL

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

coarsefine

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarsefine

14.82.9

D6015-BH-50915-BH-511

%Clay

0.336.223.4

SAND


10.503.00

49.073.7

37.525

3.9062.443

0.7980.764

D30



%Sand


W P: N/A

DIST: 61 HWY: 11

D100

GRAVELmedium


COBBLES

D10

SILT OR CLAY

Remarks:TILL

MT

O_G

S 1

4-19

2 F

DT

N G

ER

ALT

ON

.GP

J O

N_M

OT

.GD

T 1

5/3/

27

14-192-2

Peat

Borehole 505 Depth: 10.5 Lab No.: 23044

CONSOLIDATION TEST Project No.:

0123456789

10

1 10 100 1000

Cv (

mm

^2/m

in.)

Load (kPa)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 10 100 1000

Str

ain

Load (kPa)

14-192-2

Tailings

Borehole 504 Depth: 3 Lab No.:

CONSOLIDATION TEST Project No.:

020406080

100120140160180

10 100 1000

Cv (

mm

^2/m

in.)

Load (kPa)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

10 100 1000

Str

ain

Load (kPa)

Ref

. No

.: 1

4-1

92

-2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

01

00

11

01

20

13

01

40

15

01

60

17

01

80

19

02

00

21

02

20

23

02

40

25

02

60

Shear Stress (kPa)

No

rmal

Str

ess (

kP

a)

Dra

ine

d D

ire

ct

Sh

ea

r Te

st

-Ta

ilin

gs

BH

50

4, D

ep

th 3

.0 m

10

0 kP

a @

2 %

Str

ain

50

kP

a @

2 %

Str

ain

20

0 kP

a @

2 %

Str

ain

c' =

0 k

Pa,

Ph

i' =

31

º

TBTE REF No.:14-192

Page 25

APPENDIX C Borehole Locations, and Soil Strata Drawing

TBTE REF No.:14-192

Page 26

APPENDIX D Stability Models

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Till

Roc

k F

ill

Fill

1.58

DN

NS

Roa

d on

Exi

stin

g G

roun

d N

o P

eat o

r T

ailin

gs.g

szY

:\Pro

ject

s\20

14\1

4-19

2 P

rem

ier

Gol

d -

PD

R\1

4-19

2-2

Pre

lim F

ND

N\A

naly

sis\

Slo

pe\F

or P

relim

inar

y\M

orge

nste

rn-P

rice

26/0

3/20

15F

OS

: 1.5

8N

ame:

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: T

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 30

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: R

ock

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

18 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 45

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

1.5H

:1V

Fig

ure

1

20 k

Pa

Dis

tanc

e

-80

-75

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

Pea

t

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Till

Roc

k F

ill

Fill

Roc

k F

illR

ock

Fill

1.39

DN

NS

Roa

d on

Exi

stin

g G

roun

d -

No

Ex

with

BB

ar lo

wer

che

ck.g

szY

:\Pro

ject

s\20

14\1

4-19

2 P

rem

ier

Gol

d -

PD

R\1

4-19

2-2

Pre

lim F

ND

N\A

naly

sis\

Slo

pe\F

or P

relim

inar

y\M

orge

nste

rn-P

rice

26/0

3/20

15F

OS

: 1.3

9N

ame:

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

Nam

e: P

eat

U

nit W

eigh

t: 12

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 2

8 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

B

-bar

: 0.4

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: T

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 30

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: R

ock

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

18 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 45

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

1.5H

:1V

2H:1

V

5.5

m F

lank

ing

Ber

m3

m T

hick

20 k

Pa

4 m

Fla

nkin

g B

erm

1 m

Thi

ck

Fig

ure

2

Dis

tanc

e

-90

-85

-80

-75

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

1.51

DN

NS

slo

pe w

ith N

o B

ench

Slo

pe o

n to

p.gs

zY

:\Pro

ject

s\20

14\1

4-19

2 P

rem

ier

Gol

d -

PD

R\1

4-19

2-2

Pre

lim F

ND

N\A

naly

sis\

Slo

pe\F

or P

relim

inar

y\M

orge

nste

rn-P

rice

26/0

3/20

15F

OS

: 1.5

1N

ame:

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 32

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

Nam

e: T

ailin

gs

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

1 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

B

-bar

: 0.3

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: P

eat

U

nit W

eigh

t: 12

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 2

8 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

B

-bar

: 0.4

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: T

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 30

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: R

ock

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

18 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 45

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

20 k

Pa

1.5H

:1V

Fig

ure

3

Dis

tanc

e

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

85

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

2.01

DN

NS

Roa

d on

Tai

lings

, NO

Slo

pe in

fluen

ce w

ith B

Bar

.gsz

Y:\P

roje

cts\

2014

\14-

192

Pre

mie

r G

old

- P

DR

\14-

192-

2 P

relim

FN

DN

\Ana

lysi

s\S

lope

\For

Pre

limin

ary\

Mor

gens

tern

-Pric

e26

/03/

2015

FO

S: 2

.01

Nam

e: F

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: Y

es

N

ame:

Tai

lings

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 31

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

.3

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Pea

t

Uni

t Wei

ght:

12 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 28

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

.4

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Till

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: N

ativ

e S

ilts

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

0 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Roc

k F

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 18

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 4

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: Y

es

20 k

Pa

1.5H

:1V

Fig

ure

4

Dis

tanc

e

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

Tai

lings

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Till

Pea

tRoc

k F

ill

1.51

DN

NS

slo

pe w

ith N

o B

ench

Exc

avat

ion

with

BB

ar.g

szY

:\Pro

ject

s\20

14\1

4-19

2 P

rem

ier

Gol

d -

PD

R\1

4-19

2-2

Pre

lim F

ND

N\A

naly

sis\

Slo

pe\F

or P

relim

inar

y\M

orge

nste

rn-P

rice

26/0

3/20

15F

OS

: 1.5

1N

ame:

Tai

lings

Mod

el: M

ohr-

Cou

lom

b

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 31

°

Phi

-B: 0

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

.3

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Pea

t

Mod

el: M

ohr-

Cou

lom

b

Uni

t Wei

ght:

12 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 28

°

Phi

-B: 0

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

.4

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Till

Mod

el: M

ohr-

Cou

lom

b

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Phi

-B: 0

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: N

ativ

e S

ilts

M

odel

: Moh

r-C

oulo

mb

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

0 °

P

hi-B

: 0 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Roc

k F

ill

M

odel

: Moh

r-C

oulo

mb

U

nit W

eigh

t: 18

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 4

5 °

P

hi-B

: 0 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: Y

es

4 m

Fig

ure

5

10.9

m2H

:1V

Dis

tanc

e

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

Tai

lings

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Till

Pea

tR

ock

Fill

1.30

DN

NS

slo

pe w

ith N

o B

ench

Exc

avat

ion.

gsz

Y:\P

roje

cts\

2014

\14-

192

Pre

mie

r G

old

- P

DR

\14-

192-

2 P

relim

FN

DN

\Ana

lysi

s\S

lope

\For

Pre

limin

ary\

Mor

gens

tern

-Pric

e26

/03/

2015

FO

S: 1

.30

Nam

e: T

ailin

gs

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

1 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

B

-bar

: 0

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Pea

t

Uni

t Wei

ght:

12 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 28

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: T

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 30

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: R

ock

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

18 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 45

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

4 m

4 m

11 m

2H:1

V

Fig

ure

6D

ista

nce

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

Pea

t

Tai

lings

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Till

Fill

Roc

k F

ill

Roc

k F

illF

ilter

Mat

eria

l

1.50

DN

NS

slo

pe w

ith N

o B

ench

Roa

d on

top

with

bba

r.gs

zY

:\Pro

ject

s\20

14\1

4-19

2 P

rem

ier

Gol

d -

PD

R\1

4-19

2-2

Pre

lim F

ND

N\A

naly

sis\

Slo

pe\F

or P

relim

inar

y\M

orge

nste

rn-P

rice

26/0

3/20

15F

OS

: 1.5

0N

ame:

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

Nam

e: T

ailin

gs

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

1 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

B

-bar

: 0.3

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: P

eat

U

nit W

eigh

t: 12

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 2

8 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

B

-bar

: 0.4

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: T

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 30

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: R

ock

Fill

Uni

t Wei

ght:

18 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 45

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

Nam

e: F

ilter

Mat

eria

l

Uni

t Wei

ght:

18 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

Yes

20 k

Pa

1.5H

:1V

4 m

10.4

m

2H:1

V

0.6

m T

hick

Fig

ure

7D

ista

nce

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

75

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

Pea

t

Tai

lings

Nat

ive

Silt

s

Till

Fill

Filt

er M

ater

ial

Roc

k F

ill

1.51

DN

NS

slo

pe w

ith N

o B

ench

Roa

d on

slo

pe (

ii) w

ith b

bar.

gsz

Y:\P

roje

cts\

2014

\14-

192

Pre

mie

r G

old

- P

DR

\14-

192-

2 P

relim

FN

DN

\Ana

lysi

s\S

lope

\For

Pre

limin

ary\

Mor

gens

tern

-Pric

e26

/03/

2015

FO

S: 1

.51

Nam

e: F

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: Y

es

N

ame:

Tai

lings

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 31

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

.3

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Pea

t

Uni

t Wei

ght:

12 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 28

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

B-b

ar: 0

.4

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Till

Uni

t Wei

ght:

20 k

N/m

³

Coh

esio

n: 0

kP

a

Phi

: 35

°

Pie

zom

etric

Lin

e: 1

Add

Wei

ght:

No

Nam

e: N

ativ

e S

ilts

U

nit W

eigh

t: 20

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

0 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: N

o

N

ame:

Roc

k F

ill

U

nit W

eigh

t: 18

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 4

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: Y

es

N

ame:

Filt

er M

ater

ial

U

nit W

eigh

t: 18

kN

/m³

C

ohes

ion:

0 k

Pa

P

hi: 3

5 °

P

iezo

met

ric L

ine:

1

A

dd W

eigh

t: Y

es

20 k

Pa

1.5H

:1V

10.9

m

4 m

Fig

ure

8

2H:1

V

Dis

tanc

e

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-50

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

75

Elevation

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360


APPENDIX F

MTO Correspondence

Premier Gold/Stantec/MTO Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2014

Premier Gold/TBTE/MTO Meeting Minutes – Progress Meetings 1- 3

Meeting Minutes

fc c:\users\fchristiansen\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\uwwpnn0a\not_premier_mto_jan30_14_dft.docx

Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Meeting # 1

Highway 11 Realignment – Premier Gold Hardrock Mine Development / 160960900

Date/Time: January 30, 2014 / 2:00 PM

Place: Ministry of Transportation

Northwestern Region

615 South James Street

Thunder Bay

Next Meeting: TBD

Attendees: Amiel Blajchman Premier Gold, Director, Environment, Aboriginal, and

Community Affairs

Fiona Christiansen Stantec, Project Manager (Teleconference)

Gregg Cooke Stantec, Managing Principal, Transportation

Maya Caron Stantec, Senior Environmental Planner (Teleconference)

Absentees: N/A

Distribution: Internal

Item: Action:

1. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the possible realignment of Highway 11 to accommodate the Premier Gold Hardrock Mine Development in Geraldton, Ontario, including the proposed environmental assessment process. Any issues discussed during that meeting that are anticipated to result in potential Project delays are highlighted in bold below.

2. Amiel Blajchman provided a brief overview of the overall study, and noted that Premier has elected to approach the study by following the relevant Class Environmental Assessment (EA) processes, including the MTO Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities. Ultimately a Federal EA will be completed to include the entire study, including the results of the highway realignment EA study. The MNR and MNDM Class EA processes will also be followed where relevant.

3. MTO noted that “recent” projects completed in the Region followed a voluntary individual EA process. MTO questioned if the Class EA process was “supported” by MOE. Premier confirmed that discussions with MOE are ongoing, however the choice of process is proponent driven.

4. A copy of the feasibility study route alternatives and the preliminary site plan for the mine (including the Mill and Open Pit areas) were provided for discussion. Premier has met with MTO previously to discuss the overall study. A Feasibility Study Report for the realignment of Highway 11 was previously provided to MTO.

January 30, 2014


Page 2 of 5


5. Gregg Cooke Provided a brief overview of the highway realignment feasibility study, and proposed MTO Class EA process.

6. Gregg Cooke noted that the scope of the proposed realignment would fall under the Group B MTO Class EA process. Generally Group A studies have more significant impacts (i.e. bypass communities). It is likely that this study would be considered to be a “significant” Group B project that would warrant the submission of a Study Design Report.

MTO noted that it is up to the proponent to determine the appropriate Class that should be followed under the MTO Class EA. MTO also confirmed that as they are not the proponent for this EA they will not formally “approve” the Class EA. The EA sign-off will generally occur at the end of the 30-day public review of the TESR. MTO’s input on the EA will be obtained through stakeholder consultation.

7. It was discussed that the EA study would be required to develop and evaluate a range of feasible route alternatives, with consideration for public and agency input, including the development of a range of preliminary evaluation criteria that will be reviewed by the public and agencies.

8. A separate process will be required to transfer the existing highway to the proponent, and to transfer the new highway to MTO. This process could be initiated in parallel with construction; however, will not be completed until construction is complete to MTO’s satisfaction, and the legal agreement has been executed. MTO noted that the acquisition process for the new highway and closure/transfer of the new highway could be lengthy. MNR may also need to be involved in the process associated with the old highway as the land was formerly Crown. Premier noted that the old highway is within the open pit footprint. This process will need to be confirmed by MTO.

9. An Order in Council will be required for both the closure of the existing highway and the designation of the new highway. This process could take 6 months, optimistically.

10. MTO noted that utility relocations can affect the construction schedule. Premier will be contacting utilities as part of the study to confirm impacts and relocation requirements.

11. Maya Caron noted that environmental specialist work would be completed to meet MTO Standards and Practices documents, similar to previous route planning studies.

12. Gregg Cooke requested input into the level of design requested by MTO to complete the EA, and noted that the alignment, profile, and cross-sections will be developed to a preliminary design level of detail to identify the grading footprint and the property requirements. Geotechnical and foundations work would generally be deferred to preliminary design, although some boreholes may be required to

January 30, 2014


Page 3 of 5


evaluate the alignment alternatives.

13. MTO noted that a Preliminary Design Report would be expected, including Design Criteria

14. MTO will confirm the scope required for the Traffic Impact Study

15. There was a discussion about the need to relocate the existing OPP Station. MTO noted that this process may be significant and OPP and IO will have a significant interest.

16. The following additional comments were provided by MTO during the meeting:

a. MTO will not approve the final results of the MTO Class EA Study (Transportation Environmental Study Report) since a Recommended Plan is ultimately approved if the process is followed – elements for MTO approval will include a legal agreement and design standards.

b. This region would not provide comments on the study process (unless a red flag issue is identified) but would participate as a key stakeholder.

c. The Recommended Plan must be designed and constructed in accordance with MTO standards.

d. A traffic impact study and drainage study will be required.

e. MTO may have a responsibility as the Crown to consult with first nation / aboriginal groups – MNDM may be the lead on behalf of the Crown for this element of the study. MTO noted that aboriginal consultation would be important during the Project; “inadequate” consultation could result in Project delays.

f. Generally there are no specific concerns with relocating the highway. However MTO noted potential concerns with regard to the Project schedule. They raised concerns with regard to the likely hood of a new highway being constructed and the old highway been closed by 2016.

g. Entrance permits for the mine and local road closures will be required.

h. A legal survey will ultimately be required for the new corridor.

17. During the meeting, the following questions were answered and responses were provided.

January 30, 2014


Page 4 of 5


Q. Did MOE agree to the proposed Class EA processes?

A. MOE has not indicated which process it prefers and noted that either the Individual EA or Class EA route could be followed. They have indicated that specific guidance will not be provided and that ultimately, Premier Gold should confirm that they are following the appropriate process. It was discussed that the risk with the Class EA route is that there is the potential for Part II Order requests, but that this process has general timelines associated within it (e.g. MOE has agreed to provide responses within 45 days). For a similar study, the Individual EA Terms of Reference (ToR) process lasted for approximately one year.

Q. How was the preliminary Preferred Route identified?

A. The identified route was based on a preliminary feasibility study and has not been vetted through the EA process. It considered geology, geography, cost, quantity estimates, and MTO design standards, at a conceptual level of detail. Environmental, public, and stakeholder input will be key components of the MTO Class EA.

Q. Will the proponent have any more discussions with MNR / MOE?

A. Ongoing meetings will be held.

Q. Is the Municipality of Geraldton aware of the study?

A. The proponent is meeting with the town next week.

Q. Is the land required for a future highway Crown Land?

A. This will be confirmed as part of the study.

Q. Will the highway be relocated to the identified tailings area?

A. A Contamination Overview Study will be conducted to identify potential contamination and materials testing will be required to determine suitability for highway construction. Arsenic may be a concern in this area. MTO noted that a plan would have to be in place to ensure that contamination would not enter the future highway right-of-way. MTO confirmed that they will likely not want to take ownership of a new highway built on historic tailings. Remediation should be considered. Premier noted that the current highway is already located on the historic tailings. It was noted that the existing highway was constructed on tailings.

January 30, 2014


Page 5 of 5


The meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM

The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately.

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Maya Caron, B.Sc., MCIP, RPP, AVS Senior Environmental Planner Phone: 416-598-7162 Fax: 416- 596-6680

[email protected]

of 3

TBT Engineering Limited 1918 Yonge Street., Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6T9 807-624-5160

MINUTES OF PROGRESS MEETING # 1

Premier Gold Mines Limited Highway 11 Realignment - Hardrock Mine Development

June 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM. EST – MTO Boardroom 2A

Teleconference Information Participant Code: 0587023

Dial-in Number: 1-866-384-4004 Attendees : Jim McKever MTO

Steve Sutch MTO Cindy Brown MTO Dick Dykstra MTO

Linda Kaszuba MTO Mike Satten MTO Matt Leavitt MTO

Patricia DeCal MTO Amiel Blajchman PG (Telecon)

Rob Frenette TBTE Doug Steele TBTE

Scott Peterson TBTE 1.0 Introductions and Roles

TBT Engineering chaired the meeting. An agenda was issued in advance of the meeting and identified the main topics of discussion. Three handouts were included for discussion purposes (Draft Map of Proposed Highway Realignment and Mine Infrastructure; a copy of the Initial Public Notice and a copy of the Group A MTO Class EA Study Stages and Phases). Introductions were made and Amiel Blajchman provided a brief overview of the Hardrock Gold Mine project and current status of the Federal and Provincial environmental assessments. Amiel indicated that Premier had just learned that a Federal Standard EA will be conducted. The draft EIS guidelines were expected to be ready by the current day (June 13) and finalized within 60 days.

i) Project Team

• Premier Gold Mines Limited (PG) is the Hardrock Gold Mine project proponent who will be undertaking and funding the necessary

Meeting Minutes – Progress Meeting No. 1 TBTE Ref. No.: 14-041 Highway 11 Realignment

Page 2 of 3


environmental assessments, design initiatives, and ultimately the construction of the mine site and proposed realignment of Highway 11.

• Stantec Consulting has been retained to complete the Federal Mine EA

and Provincial Class EA’s with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ministry of Northern Development of Mines and Forestry (MNDMF).

• TBT Engineering has been retained to complete the Ontario Ministry of

Transportation (MTO) Class EA. • G Mining is PG’s mine feasibility consultant.

ii) Stakeholders • MTO is the primary stakeholder for the proposed highway realignment

component of the mining study. • Municipality of Greenstone will be consulted as part of the MTO Class

EA.

2.0 Environmental i) EA Process

• The highway realignment portion of the mining study has been identified as a Group A Project for the MTO Class EA. MTO agreed with the designation level. TBTE and PG are in the process of finalizing the Study Design Report which will formalize the first stage of the planning phase for this Group A project. Action: TBTE

• A Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre (PIC) advertisement was initially issued June 4, 2014 for the first of three planned open house consultations. The first round of PIC’s will be held within the Municipality of Greenstone in the communities of Geraldton, Longlac, and Nakina extending from June 24 to 26th.

• PG noted that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has provided comment in regards to their expectation of MTO’s involvement for the MTO Class EA process (reference to recent PG/STANTEC/MOE meeting). PG will share minutes of this meeting to MTO for review and follow-up with MOE.

Action: PG • MTO will advise of their understanding and level of engagement

for the MTO Class EA upon further internal review. Following which, a meeting with the MOE will be arranged. Action: MTO

ii) Study Stages and Phases

• PG and TBTE will follow the study stages as outlined by the MTO Class EA process for a Group A project.


Page 3 of 3


3.0 Engineering i) Highway Corridor

• The existing Highway 11 corridor/right-of-way (ROW) is 60 m in width. This should be the minimum acceptable width for realignment planning purposes, however; this is dependent upon MTO senior management approval.

ii) Highway Design Speed

• A design speed of 110 km/h was agreed to be appropriate for realignment planning studies, however; this also must be approved by MTO senior management.

iii) Aggregate Sources • PG indicated that they will have their own sources for aggregate

during construction activity.

4.0 Schedule • PG provided a general overview of the mine development

schedule, anticipating that Provincial EA’s would be complete by the end of 2014, detailed design activities would extend through 2015, with construction of the mine and new highway to begin mid 2016.

5.0 Action Items

• MTO provided a hardcopy of the property easement plan illustrating the location of the municipal water line which services MTO’s Patrol Yard on Highway 11, east of the intersection with Michael Powers Boulevard.

• It was confirmed that Cindy Brown will continue to be the principle point of contact for MTO.

• MTO requested that a meeting be arranged to present the proposed alignment options once available. Attendance would include MTO’s NWR senior management level. Action: PG & TBTE

• Consultation with First Nations – MTO will review roles and responsibilities with MNDMF. Action: MTO

6.0 New Business

Minutes Prepared By: Doug Steele/Scott Peterson TBTE

of 3


DRAFT MINUTES OF PROGRESS MEETING # 2

Premier Gold Mines Limited Highway 11 Realignment - Hardrock Mine Development

July 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM. EST – MTO Boardroom 2A


Dial-in Number: 1-866-384-4004 Attendees : Jim McKever MTO

Steve Sutch MTO Cindy Brown MTO Dick Dykstra MTO

Patricia DeCal MTO Mike Grant MNDM Amiel Blajchman PG

Fiona Christiansen Stantec (Telecon) Rob Frenette TBTE Doug Steele TBTE

Scott Peterson TBTE 1.0 Introductions and Project Update

TBT Engineering chaired the meeting. An agenda was issued in advance of the meeting and identified the main topics of discussion. Two handouts were included for discussion purposes (Draft Map of Proposed Highway Realignment and Mine Infrastructure; a copy of the Draft PM#1 Meeting Minutes). In addition, two large size preliminary plans (one with aerial background) of the potential routes were brought for common viewing and left with MTO at the end of the meeting. Introductions were made and Amiel Blajchman provided a brief overview of the Hardrock Gold Mine project.

2.0 Environmental

i) MTO Involvement on EA Process • General discussion commenced around the current EA strategy

and MTO re-asserted that they are only a stakeholder and not the


Page 2 of 3


proponent of the highway realignment. The MOE and MTO have differing opinions on this issue and additional inter-agency meetings are forthcoming.

• At this point, MTO is not planning to issue any approval on the Class EA documentation provided, however; will review for comment as a stakeholder.

• MTO indicated that PG is taking a risk proceeding on the Class

EA as the agencies continue discussions on the MTO role. The MTO cannot confirm that the Class EA would not be re-commenced if at some point the MTO becomes the proponent of the highway project.

• The MTO indicated that PG may proceed to construct a “road” to

MTO design standard at their risk. MTO would not accept the proposed highway transfer until the other project EAs are completed and the transfer would require a legal agreement. MTO is to provide a template of this agreement to PG for review.

Action: JM at MTO

ii) MNDM Involvement • Mike Grant indicated that a Closure Plan may not be required for

the highway realignment, however; this would have to be discussed with the Director (Gordon Mackay). In any case, the Director would have to provide permission of some form regarding work on rehabilitated works (i.e. re-graded Macleod High Tailings). In addition, any rehabilitation work now would have to be completed to the current standards which changed in 2000. He acknowledges that they did not know much about the tailings and additional details about the tailings and work plan are required. He indicated that First Nations in the area will be concerned about environmental impacts associated with the construction and the historic tailings. There needs to be an up-to-date Tailings Characterization Report for agencies and stakeholders to utilize in upcoming decisions.

Action: PG

3.0 Engineering i) MTO Involvement on the Engineering

• MTO will actively participate in review of all engineering related documentation to ensure that design standards of the “road” will be acceptable for potential transfer to highway designation in the future.

ii) Highway Corridor

• The existing Highway 11 corridor/right-of-way (ROW) is 60 m in width. This is likely the acceptable width for realignment planning purposes, however; a 110 m corridor may be requested by MTO


Page 3 of 3


senior management. This would be discussed at an executive presentation.

iii) Presentation to MTO Senior Management

• PG requested when a presentation of the potential realignments could be made to MTO senior management. MTO subsequently confirmed that a meeting could be scheduled for the 21st of July.

iv) Construction Date • PG confirmed that that they would like to construct in 2016 if legal

transfer proceeds as anticipated (transfer estimated to take approximately 6 months).

4.0 Action Items

• MTO provided email and verbal comments on the Draft Minutes for PM#1 to TBTE. TBTE will await clarification of one point from MTO Geotech sent via email from Jim prior to finalizing the minutes.

Action:TBTE 5.0 New Business

Minutes Prepared By: Doug Steele/Scott Peterson TBTE

of 3


MINUTES OF PROGRESS MEETING # 3


Highway 11 Realignment - Hardrock Mine Development

July 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM. EST – MTO Millennium Boardroom


Dial-in Number: 1-866-384-4004 Attendees : Dan Schutte MTO

Doug Cooper MTO Michelle McGrath MTO Jim McKever MTO Wes Mound MTO Steve Sutch MTO

Iain Galloway MTO Marvin McNabb MTO Shawn Nickerson MTO Bertho Caron PG Rob Frenette TBTE Scott Peterson TBTE An executive summary was issued at the start of the meeting and TBTE provided an

overview of the past and present mine plans, transportation planning activities, and

engineering / design considerations for the proposed realignment of Highway 11. Large

size plans and profiles of the potential routes were brought for common viewing. Copies

of the executive summary and the presentation are attached.

The following summarizes discussion points and questions/comments raised during the

presentation.

1. MTO questioned the requirement / purpose for the 500 m buffer zone

surrounding the open pit. PG confirmed that a 500 m safety buffer zone is

required for open pit blasting operations.

Meeting Agenda – Progress Meeting No. 3 TBTE Ref. No.: 14-041 Highway 11 Realignment

Page 2 of 3


2. MTO questioned the limits reviewed for re-alignment options, more specifically

options available to the south. Given the natural features (lakes, rivers), nearby

community infrastructure, and historic mine workings in the area, no feasible

options were available to the south. A high level option to the north was

considered however resulted in a re-alignment length > 40 km.

3. Along the proposed alignments, each intersect some portion of muskeg / swamp

terrain. Preliminary boreholes indicate swamp depths in the order of 1 – 2 m.

4. All proposed alignment options transverse some length of existing MacLeod High

Tailings (MHT) which generally consist of silt and clay sized particles and are in a

loose to very loose condition. Option A & B traverse both of unconfined confined

tailings. Option D traverses primarily confined tailings. Subsequent stages of the

design process will require a detailed foundation study to investigate the in-situ

properties, design options, and evaluate ground improvement requirements for

the proposed surface infrastructure.

5. PG noted that impacted residential properties will be purchased by PG and there

are discussions in place regarding a new residential development.

6. All of the alignment options have some impact on the MTO Patrol Yard property

situated near the east connection limit. MTO will provide guidance as to a

preferred new Patrol Yard location. Action – MTO

7. MTO noted that the new Patrol Yard location would ideally have access to a

municipal water supply. PG noted that options may be available depending on

proximity to the municipal service line to the mine site.

8. MTO questioned whether the portion of new highway corridor which traverses the

MHT could have a reduced /limited ownership depth. Requires further

discussion.

9. MTO questioned the arrangement of recreational property (golf course) and if the

new highway would sever the property requiring access across the highway,

alternatively an underpass crossing may be considered. Requires further

discussion once the mine site plan is further developed.

10. All of the alignment options intersect Michael Powers Boulevard. MTO will

advise on intersection requirements. Action – MTO

Meeting Agenda – Progress Meeting No. 3 TBTE Ref. No.: 14-041 Highway 11 Realignment

Page 3 of 3


11. It was agreed by all parties that Alignment Option D has no fundamental

objections and could be carried forward to the next stages of preliminary design

and planning.

Meeting adjourned at 12:00 pm. Minutes Prepared By:

Scott Peterson TBTE Engineering Limited Distribution: All in attendance.

<Original signed by>

preliminary design report - iaac-aeic.gc.ca

Documents