SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING

CASTLE MOUNTAIN MINE

CC19. 1006 February 2019

PREPARED FOR Castle Mountain Venture 911 American Pacific Dr., Suite 190 Henderson, NV 89014

PREPARED BY

Geo‐Logic Associates 6155 E. Indian School Rd., Suite 200 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 (480) 659‐7131

Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... IV 1.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1 2.0 HISTORICAL PERMIT MONITORING (GROUNDWATER AND PIUTE SPRINGS) ...... 1 2.1 Groundwater Level Measurements ...... 2 2.2 Spring Flow Measurements ...... 2 2.3 1990 Plan Monitoring Response Actions ...... 3 3.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED MINING ...... 4 4.0 PROPOSED REPLACEMENT MONITORING WELL NETWORK ...... 5 4.1 Monitoring Well Locations ...... 5 4.2 Monitoring Frequency and Reporting Schedule ...... 6 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 7

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring i February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

TABLES Table 1 Coordinate Locations of Proposed Monitor Wells Table 2 Proposed Monitor Well Network

FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Historic Mining Infrastructure Figure 3 Location Map of Key Monitor, Production, and Property Boundaries Figure 4 Measured Groundwater Levels in Downgradient Monitor Wells Figure 5 Measured Flows at Piute Spring Figure 6 Location of Abandoned, Existing, and Planned Monitor Wells and Existing Production Wells (Zoomed Out) Figure 7 Location of Abandoned, Existing, and Planned Monitor Wells and Existing Production Wells (Zoomed In)

APPENDICES

Appendix A Well Construction Diagrams and Lithologic Logs

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring ii February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

SIGNATURE PAGE

R. Douglas Bartlett, PG, CHG Clear Creek Associates (Subsidiary of GLA)

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring iii February 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring Plan (“Supplemental Plan”) was prepared to address current groundwater conditions and monitoring provisions at Castle Mountain Venture’s (“CMV”) Castle Mountain Mine (“CMM”) in eastern San Bernardino County, California. Groundwater monitoring at CMM was formalized in 1990 by the report, “Castle Mountain Project Plan for Ground Water Monitoring and Contingency Water Supply to Piute Spring, August 1990”, and which will be further referenced in this report as the “1990 Plan”. This update is intended to support approved mining activities at CMM and is required owing to past abandonment of several prior groundwater monitoring wells that were sealed during mine reclamation activities from 2004 to 2010. This report does not replace the 1990 Plan, which is still in effect, but serves as a supplemental report to the 1990 Plan to account for completed reclamation at the CMM site, and also to recognize altered regional land use planning and federal land management (e.g. The Mojave National Preserve, and Castle Mountains National Monument).

To date, the approximately 20 years of data gathered at CMM, pursuant to protocol established in the 1990 Plan, have shown there has been no regional impact to the Lanfair water basin or Piute Springs from the operation at CMM. This Supplemental Plan maintains a correspondingly protective monitoring plan as established in the 1990 Plan but through the use of replacement groundwater monitoring wells. These replacement wells have been located as close as possible to the original monitoring well locations from 1990; however there are now federal land management constraints which prevent replacement at the exact same geographic locations. For instance, 1990 monitoring wells W-37, W-38, and PS-2 were all located inside the borders of the Mojave National Preserve, and it is unlikely that approval from the National Park Service (“NPS”) would be granted for the re-drilling of these three past monitoring wells.

Mining was authorized at CMM in 1990 by the County of San Bernardino (“County”) Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Record of Decision (“ROD”). The BLM and County authorized an expanded mine plan in 1998 and the latter again in 2013. While this Supplemental Plan does not materially alter the monitoring procedures and protective nature established by the 1990 Plan, actual water use at CMM has declined since the 1990 Plan was established. The BLM and County in 1990 authorized an annual average use of 725 acre-ft of water from the West Well Field, however, the 1998 authorizations for expanded mining lowered the expected annual average water use to 625 acre-ft. Historical monitoring results for that project demonstrated that mine activities had limited impacts to groundwater levels near the mine and no impacts to groundwater levels at distance from the site or at Piute Spring.

The impact of mine pumping was evaluated as part of the 1990 Plan and again as part of the 1998 mine modification of the Environmental Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The 1998 authorization for expansion included pumping in the West Well Field and from an east well field near the JSLA (or Lesley Ann) pit with total estimated groundwater extraction of 2,420 acre- feet. As a component of the 1997 EIS/EIR analysis, a 1996 report by Terracon (Influence of Mine Pit Pumping on the Alluvial Aquifer of Lanfair Valley, July 1996) evaluated the impact from mine pit pumping on the Lanfair Valley alluvial aquifer system. The Terracon evaluation indicated that

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring iv February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

removal of 2,420 acre-feet over 15 years from the mine pit area would result in an area of impact with a radius of 1 to 1.5 miles in diameter and would not impact Lanfair Valley alluvial aquifer system to any measureable degree. The current Mine Plan makes no change to the total volume of pumping which was estimated and analyzed by the 1996 Terracon report; therefore, potential impacts would not be expected to exceed the impacts analyzed and incorporated in the 1998 mine expansion authorization. The amount of groundwater withdrawal throughout the mine plan equates to less than 0.2 percent of the total amount of groundwater estimated to be contained in the upper 100 feet of Lanfair Valley alluvium as estimated by Terracon (1996).

Five groundwater monitor wells are proposed in this Supplemental Plan to monitor changes in groundwater levels that may be induced by future CMM pumping, same as in the 1990 Plan. Three of the wells (2017-1MW, 2017-2MW, and 2017-3MW) were installed adjacent to the planned heap leach pad and have been monitored quarterly since they were constructed in 2017. Two additional monitoring wells, 2019-1MW and 2019-2MW, are planned for construction in 2019. All five wells are located downgradient of CMM’s authorized West Well Field, and are favorably positioned to provide an indication of the magnitude of groundwater elevation changes that may occur over time in areas south and southeast of the mine in Lanfair Valley.

CMV plans to conduct quarterly groundwater level monitoring at each of the five wells. These data will be evaluated in relation to estimates of groundwater impacts described in the 1990 Plan and the 1996 Terracon report.

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring v February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

1.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES This Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring identifies measures that CMV will take to evaluate potential impacts to groundwater resources near the Castle Mountain Mine (CMM) in eastern San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). During earlier operations (1990 to 2001), CMV (Viceroy), developed a groundwater monitoring plan to assess groundwater within Lanfair Valley south of the mine and at Piute Spring approximately 15 miles southeast of the CMM well field (the West Well Field). This document is provided as a supplement to the original monitoring plan, “Castle Mountain Project, Plan for Ground Water Monitoring and Contingency Water Supply to Piute Spring” which was prepared for Viceroy by The Mark Group (1990). That plan is herein referred to as the “1990 Plan.” Piute Spring is considered a critical ecological resource in the area. Like the 1990 Plan, this Supplemental Plan has been developed to assure that mining operations at CMM do not negatively affect Piute Spring.

Mining and leaching activities were conducted at CMM by Viceroy from 1991 to 2005, after which time land reclamation became the focus during a period of depressed market price for gold (Figure 2). Mineral exploration and development activities were renewed by 2013 at CMM and have continued to the present day. A number of groundwater monitoring wells were abandoned (sealed) during the reclamation activities, including several that were included in the 1990 Plan (Figure 3). The 1990 Plan must be supplemented in recognition of the reclamation activities which have occurred at the site as well as to account for current land access limits associated with establishment of the Mojave National Preserve in 1994 and the Castle Mountains National Monument in 2016, both within Lanfair Valley. This need to supplement the 1990 Plan has been discussed with both the County and BLM.

As described herein, historical monitoring performed for Viceroy demonstrated that water production in support of authorized mining from the 1990’s to the early 2000’s resulted in only small declines in groundwater elevations near the mine; no effects were associated with mining at further distances from the site. Like the 1990 Plan, and the 1996 Terracon report, this Supplemental Plan anticipates that impacts will not extend to Piute Spring and it too identifies monitoring measures to verify this condition.

2.0 HISTORICAL PERMIT MONITORING (GROUNDWATER AND PIUTE SPRINGS) The monitoring program described in the 1990 Plan includes five (5) groundwater monitoring wells (plus a contingency well) and Piute Spring where spring discharge was monitored (Figure 3). Three of the wells were completed at the time the plan was written (W-3, W-19, and PS-2). Two were proposed wells that were installed in 1990 (W-37 and W-38), and one was a contingency well, W-40, which, up to this point has not been required. All of these wells were abandoned after 2004 and therefore a similar monitoring system must be put in place for the Supplemental Plan. A discussion of the monitoring data collected from these well is provided below.

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 1 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

2.1 Groundwater Level Measurements Figure 3 shows the locations of key historical monitoring wells, production wells, and the CMM property boundary. Well construction and lithologic information for historical wells are presented in Appendix A. Figure 4 presents hydrographs of water level elevations over time for the six 1990 plan monitor wells W-3, W-19, W-37, W-38, and PS-2 between 1987 (or when the well was first installed) and 2003. The cumulative monthly average pumping rate for all mine production wells is also included on the graph (secondary axis). Between May 1991 and December 2004, mine production averaged 225 gpm with a high of 466 gpm (October 1999). These graphs clearly indicate that groundwater declines associated with mining in the 1990’s to early 2000’s did not extend far from mine property; only small declines were observed at wells W-3 and W-19, both located near the west well field where most groundwater production occurred. Wells south of the mine exhibited either rising water levels (W-37) or no discernable change (W-38, PS-2).

Water levels in the two most downgradient wells (W-38 and PS-2) remained relatively stable over time (change of less than 10 ft), while the water level in W-37 increased steadily over time with a net increase of about 79 ft over the measurement period. It is noted that both W-37 and W-38 penetrated an andesite lava flow between 3,300 and 3,323 ft AMSL in W-37 and between 2,942 and 3,021 ft AMSL in W-38 before terminating in additional deeper alluvial deposits (Mark Group, 1991). The andesite flow could act as a confining layer to the deeper alluvial deposits. W-37 encountered mostly clayey sands and sandy clays below the water table, which may have resulted in slower equilibration between the piezometric heads in the alluvial deposits above and below the volcanic layer. PS-2 which was completed in fine-grained lacustrine deposits also required about four years to fully equilibrate although the rise in water level in this time was limited to only a few feet. This well encountered a layer of “dark volcanic rock” between 2,913 and 3,173 ft AMSL but is screened in the clay sediments below this layer and the water level is below the top of the volcanic layer.

2.2 Spring Flow Measurements Flow measurements are also available for Piute Springs for the period June 1987 to July 2003 and are shown in Figure 5. Measurements have been made at two locations: 25 ft downstream of the first spring outlet and, initially, 50 ft upstream of an old concrete dam. Measured flow at the upstream point has remained constant over time, averaging 43 gpm although it has been noted that there are contributions of flow from north-south oriented fracture zones downstream of the first spring outlet (Mark Group, 1989).

Measured flow at the downstream point has fluctuated over time with generally higher flows observed during the winter months and lower flows during the summer months. This has been attributed to evapotranspiration along the canyon bottom (Mark Group, 1989) who estimated total evaporation loss in the downstream flow during the summer months to be on the order of

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 2 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

80 gpm greater. The measured downstream flow increases from an average of 71 gpm from 1987 to 1993 to 190 gpm from 1994 to 1998. Starting in July 1992, the downstream flow began to separate into two separate channels and flow was generally measured in both channels. However, starting in April 1994, the measurement location was moved from the previous measurement point to a point approximately 20 ft upstream of where the two stream flows separated. Another factor contributing to the change in spring flow was the above average rainfall that occurred in 1992 and 1993 possibly causing a change in the stream bed geometry. There was no long term net increase in precipitation over the later period of measurement and no apparent direct correlation of the streamflow with precipitation totals. Groundwater elevations in the alluvium immediately upstream of Piute Spring (PS2) have also not shown any significant variation that corresponds to the changes in the spring flows. Mark Group (1989) estimated the total discharge from Piute Springs to be between 120 and 150 gpm. In comparison, the average measured downstream flow at Piute Spring is 120 gpm. We have estimated the average total discharge to Piute Spring at 135 gpm, while recognizing that subsurface flow in the streambed could create a somewhat higher total flow. Note that the Piute Spring flow represents only a small portion of the total groundwater underflow that occurs below the Piute Range towards the adjacent Piute Valley.

2.3 1990 Plan Monitoring Response Actions The 1990 Plan identified several decision points and contingency measures depending on the results of water level monitoring at well W-37. The water levels measured at W-37 and the drawdown expected to be observed at W-37 as a result of mine pumping were compared to MODFLOW model predictions to assess potential impacts to flows further down-gradient at Piute Springs. A matrix table of drawdowns observed at W-37 with time since mining began (Table 4 of the 1990 Plan) was to be used to determine various actions ranging from installing a new monitor well (W-40) to re-calibration of the MODFLOW model, to reductions of mine pumping. As long as the drawdown at W-37 did not exceed the predicted drawdown, no actions were required. This Supplemental Plan does not make any changes to the prior decision points and contingency measures included in the 1990 Plan except to substitute W-37 for planned groundwater monitoring well 2019-2MW. The latter is estimated to be an equitable substitute for the now abandoned W-37 monitoring well because they are nearly equidistant from and downgradient of the West Well Field. It should be noted that monitoring of planned well 2019-2MW and associated static water elevation increases or decreases will not be recorded as an official rise or lowering of the water table as a corresponding “impact” from mine water use until the static water level within the well equilibrates following drilling and installation of the monitoring well.

Groundwater monitoring results from the 1990 Plan (Figure 4) and the results of measurements of Piute Spring flows (Figure 5) show that none of the actions described in Table 4 of the 1990 plan were required to be implemented because groundwater levels in well W-37 actually rose over the period of active mining and no measurable decline in flow at Piute Spring was observed.

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 3 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

3.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED MINING

Terracon (1996) presented an analysis of future impacts from mine pumping on groundwater levels. The summary and conclusions of their analysis are reproduced as follows:

1. Groundwater in the Castle Mountain Mine pit area occurs in poorly transmissive bedrock units consisting primarily of volcanic and other crystalline based rocks. Recharge to the pit area originates primarily as underflow from the northwest and as minor precipitation within the mountain range. Groundwater flow from the Castle Mountain Range appears to be directed eastward to southeastward toward the Piute Range.

2. Aquifer conditions adjacent to the mine area are very limited in terms of water yield. The principal water-bearing units are thin, poorly permeable alluvial strata underlain by very low permeability volcanic rocks which separate the mine area from the principal area of groundwater withdrawal, the West Well Field, located approximately 2 miles to the west.

3. Groundwater was present in the JSLA pits at approximate elevations of 3,920 to 3,940 feet when first encountered and is at approximately 3,800 feet elevation at present [1996]. Dewatering to facilitate mining has lowered water levels in nearby wells and created localized cones of depression around the pits.

4. Groundwater underflow into the mine pit area is estimated to range from 2 acre-feet per year to as much as 200 acre-feet per year, with 20 acre feet per year as the most probable volume based on aquifer characteristics as determined from nearby tests of water wells.

5. Aquifer dewatering to date [1996] has influenced water levels in saturated rocks adjacent to the pit. Groundwater elevations in the immediate mine and vicinity have decreased by over 100 feet; however, drawdown away from the mine is significantly less. The future radius of influence, assuming extraction of groundwater at 100 gpm for 15 years [2,420 acre-feet total], is estimated to be approximately 1 to 1.5 miles. The radius of influence is expected to preferentially propagate to the north-northwest which is the direction of the groundwater recharge and the likely direction of preferential permeability.

6. Water budget analysis for the mine pits suggests underflow recharge of about 20 acre- feet per year. Additional water may be available as underflow and (or) as gravity drainage from fractures. Withdrawal of 161 acre-feet of water on an annual basis over a 15-year period may not be possible given the recharge estimates provided herein. Estimates of the mine pit water budget are very sensitive to transmissivity values used in the calculations and underestimation or overestimation of recharge due to underflow is quite possible.

7. Extraction of 153 acre-feet of water to date [1996] in the JSLA pits is equivalent to approximately 8.2% of the total volume (1,868 acre-feet) pumped from the West Well

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 4 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

Field to date [1996]. The combined volume pumped from both areas together represents about 0.2% of the total water volume in the saturated alluvium tributary to Piute Spring. Future pumping of mine water, estimated at 100 gpm for up to 15- years, equates to approximately 2,420 acre feet or 0.2% of groundwater in storage in Lanfair Valley. The total volume of groundwater produced from the mine pits to date [1996] (153 acre-feet) and planned (2,420 acre feet), when added to the West Well Field volume pumped to date [1996] (1,868 acre-feet) and planned (8,469 acre-feet), results in a total project water demand of about 13,000 acre-feet. This volume is about 1.1 percent of the water in storage in the upper 100 feet of alluvium in that portion of Lanfair Valley tributary to Piute Spring.

8. Utilization of pit water to supplement West Well Field water supply will further distribute pumping and minimize local drawdown effects in Lanfair Valley.

Given that the scope of currently authorized mining at CMM, and because associated water use described in the Mine and Reclamation Plan does not alter these prior estimates of the total volumes of groundwater pumped, the estimates of impacts to groundwater provided by Terracon are still valid.

4.0 PROPOSED REPLACEMENT MONITORING WELL NETWORK 4.1 Monitoring Well Locations As shown on Figures 6 and 7, groundwater production to support CMM will include wells in the West Well Field and new wells installed to the east closer to historical mining areas.

On February 12, 2016, President Obama established the Castle Mountains National Monument which is comprised of nearly 21,000 acres of land between the Nevada state line and the Mojave National Preserve. The establishment of this monument changed the accessibility of lands to the south of the Caste Mountain Mine, and in tandem with the existing Mojave National Preserve, greatly limit CMV’s ability to monitor groundwater or even possibly spring flows in Lanfair Valley as has been done in the past. All attempts will be made by CMV to reinitiate flow monitoring at Piute Springs, though whether that occurs is ultimately up to the National Park Service which manages the land surround Piute Springs. For this reason, and recognizing that the wells that were installed historically south of the mine have been abandoned, the groundwater monitoring program outlined in the 1990 groundwater monitoring plan must be updated to include different monitoring locations.

A new monitoring network of wells is proposed that can provide the protection to Piute Spring that was envisioned in the 1990 Plan. CMV plans to utilize three existing and two planned wells in the southern portion of the property to monitor the impact of mine pumping on groundwater

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 5 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

levels. Table 1 lists the coordinate locations for each proposed well and Table 2 provides pertinent information regarding each well.

The monitoring data from these wells will be collected quarterly and assessed annually in the Annual Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring Report, which CMV produces annually for submission to the BLM and County. The contingency measures adopted in the 1990 Plan will similarly be enforced should the produced data warrant their implementation, as explained in the 1990 Plan.

Figures 6 and 7 are plan-view maps of the locations of the existing and planned monitor wells in association with abandoned monitor wells and existing production wells. Well construction diagrams and lithologic logs for each of the existing and abandoned wells are provided in Appendix A. A diagram of the planned construction of the additional two wells is also provided in Appendix A.

4.2 Monitoring Frequency and Reporting Schedule CMV will continue to comply with the County and BLM conditions which require quarterly monitoring of water levels in the monitoring wells until the end of operations or reclamation activities which use groundwater, or as determined by mutual agreement between the agencies and CMV (BLM Project Stipulation #13/County Condition of Approval # 40).

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 6 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

5.0 REFERENCES Broadbent & Associates, 1997. Groundwater Resource Modeling Investigation, Castle Mountain Project, Lanfair Valley. April 3.

Broadbent & Associates, 1999. 1998 Annual Report of Water Levels and Water Quality for Piute Spring, San Bernardino County, California. February 22.

California Geological Survey, 1961. Geologic Map of California, Kingman Sheet. Compiled by C. W. Jennings.

Capps, R.C. and J.A. Moore, 1998. Castle Mountains Geology and Gold Mineralization, San Bernardino County California and Clark County Nevada.

Cooper, H.H. and C.E. Jacob, 1946. A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating Formation Constants and Summarizing Well Field History. American Geophysical Union Trans., vol. 27, pp. 526‐534.

Domenico, P.A. and M.D. Mifflin, 1965. Water from Low‐Permeability Sediments and Land Subsidence. Water Resources Research, vol. 1, no. 4., pp. 563‐576.

Driscoll, F.G., 1986. Groundwater and Wells (2nd ed.). Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1089p.

Freiwald, D.A., 1984. Ground‐Water Resources of Lanfair and Fenner Valleys and Vicinity, San Bernardino County, California. USGS Water‐Resources Investigations Report 83‐4082. July.

Geo‐Logic Associates, 2017a. Drilling, Installation, and Testing of Well CMM‐W‐02, NewCastle Gold. August.

Geo‐Logic Associates, 2017b. Drilling, Installation, and Testing of Well CMM‐W‐01, NewCastle Gold. September.

Heath, R.C., 1983. Basic Ground‐Water Hydrology, U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Supply Paper 2220, 86p.

Mark Group, 1987. Investigation of Groundwater Flow in Lanfair Valley and Piute Spring Discharge. Report #87‐2114.28, August 31.

Mark Group, 1988. Development of a Ground Water Supply for Viceroy Gold Corporation, Vol I, II, and III. Report #87‐2114.38, August 17.

Mark Group, 1989. Evaluation of Potential Effects on Lanfair Valley Aquifer and Piute Spring. February.

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 7 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

Mark Group, 1990. Castle Mountain Project, Plan for Ground Water Monitoring and Contingency Water Supply to Piute Spring, Project No. 87‐2114.68, August, 1990.

Mark Group, 1991. Monitor Wells W37 and W38, Castle Mountain Project, Lanfair Valley, California. Report No. 90‐2299.18, April 22.

Maxey, G.B. and Eakin, T.E., 1949, Groundwater in the White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln counties, Nevada. Water Resources Bulletin No. 8, State of Nevada, Office of the State Engineer.

Moss, A.L., 2000. Lesley Ann Pit Water Level Analysis. Moss Engineering and Geological Associates, January 21.

Moss, A.L., 2002. Updated Appendix Data for 11/01/00 Report on Wellfield Optimization. February 14.

National Park Service (NPS), 1999. Mojave National Preserve California Water Resources Scoping Report. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR‐99/225

Singh, R.B. and C. Taylor, 2015. Geo‐structural Evolution for Castle Mountain San Bernardino County California, July 15.

Terracon, 1995. Water Supply Development Castle Mountain Mine San Bernardino County California. January 31.

Terracon, 1996. Summary of Exploration Well Drilling Program, Castle Mountain Mine. March 1.

Terracon, 1996. Influence of Mine Pit Dewatering on the Alluvial Aquifer – Lanfair Valley. Castle Mountain Project. May 22.

Thompson, D.G., 1921. Ground Water in Lanfair Valley California. US Geological Survey, California Water Supply Paper 450‐B.

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 8 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

TABLES

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 9 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

TABLE 1 COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED MONITORING WELLS

Zone 11 Zone 11 Well Latitude Longitude Cadastral UTM m N UTM m E

2017‐1MW 35°15'31.63"N 115° 6'32.73"W 3903381.29 672014.91 T14N R17E S25 N 2017‐2MW 35°15'36.26"N 115° 6'57.08"W 3903512.89 671396.02 T14N R17E S26 Q 2017‐3MW 35°16'41.70"N 115° 7'24.65"W 3905515.52 670661.85 T14N R17E S23 M 2019‐1MW 35°15'25.69"N 115° 7'22.72"W 3903173.97 670754.11 T14N R17E S35 D 2019‐2MW 35°14'37.15"N 115° 7'33.89"W 3901673.05 670500.06 T13N R17E S2 D Note: coordinates for wells 2019‐1MW and 2019‐2MW are approximate because the wells have not been drilled/installed as of the date of this report.

TABLE 2 WELL CONFIGURATIONS OF PROPOSED MONITORING WELL NETWORK

Measurement Depth Total Casing Screened Water Level Date Point to Well Depth Type/Diameter Interval (ft Elevation (ft Installed Elevation (ft Water Drilled (ft) (inches) bgs) AMSL) AMSL) (ft bgs)

2017‐1MW 9/16/2017 755 PVC/4 ~4180 630‐690 503.82 3676 2017‐2MW 9/29/2017 755 PVC/4 ~4214 680‐740 535.73 3678 2017‐3MW 10/16/2017 755 PVC/4 ~4337 630‐690 166.71 4170 2019‐1MW Planned ~750 PVC/4 ‐ ~600‐750 ~600 ‐ 2019‐2MW Planned ~750 PVC/4 ‐ ~600‐750 ~600 ‐ Note: measurement point elevations listed are estimated from Google Earth – surveyed elevations are pending.

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 10 February 2019 Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

FIGURES

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 11 February 2019 Date File ID/Rev # February 2019

Figure 1 Location Map Castle Mountain Ventures Date File ID/Rev # February 2019

Figure 2 Historic Mining Infrastructure Castle Mountain Ventures T15N NV T30S R63E West Well Field

W‐45P Castle Mtn Ven ture W‐3 W‐18P T14N W‐19P W‐14P Castle Mtn National Monument W‐37

T13N W‐38

T12N Piute Spring Mojave National Preserve PS‐2 R19E R17E R18E

Date File ID/Rev # February 2019 N 5 Miles Figure 3 Location Map of Key Monitor, Production, and Property Boundaries Castle Mountain Venture Date File ID/Rev # February 2019

Figure 4 Measured Groundwater Levels in Downgradient Monitor Wells Castle Mountain Venture Date File ID/Rev # February 2019

Figure 5 Measured Flows at Piute Spring Castle Mountain Venture Date File ID/Rev # February 2019

Figure 6 Location of Abandoned, Existing, and Planned Monitor Wells and Existing Production Wells (Zoomed Out) Castle Mountain Venture Date File ID/Rev # February 2019

Figure 7 Location of Abandoned, Existing, and Planned Monitor Wells and Existing Production Wells (Zoomed in) Castle Mountain Venture Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Castle Mountain Mine

APPENDIX A

LITHOLOGIC AND WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS

CC19.1006 | Supplemental Plan for Groundwater Monitoring 12 February 2019

2-Foot Stickup

Cement Grout Seal

4-inch LCS Blank Casing (0.250” wall thickness)

8-inch Borehole

50 Feet 60 Feet

Bentonite Seal

600 Feet

Static Water Level = ~600 ft bls 4-inch PVC Slotted Well Screen (0.02- inch Mill Slots)

Filter Pack – 8-12 sand

8-inch Borehole

PVC End Cap Potential Sediment Fill 750 Feet 760 Feet Preliminary Well Design Not To Scale Explore Wells Notes: LCS = low carbon steel Newcastle Gold ft bls = feet below land surface All diameters are nominal Castle Mountain Venture 2-Foot Stickup

6-foot x 6-foot x 8-inch Concrete Pad

18-inch LCS Surface Casing 24-inch Surface Borehole

Cement Grout Seal 50 Feet

8 5/8-inch LCS Blank Casing (0.250” wall thickness)

12 3/4-inch LCS Intermediate Casing

13-inch Borehole 140 Feet

257 Feet Bentonite Seal 267 Feet Cement Basket

Static Water Level = 589.93 ft bls (8/3/17)

744 Feet

11 5/8-inch Borehole

Open Annulus

8 5/8-inch LCS Slotted Well Screen (64 per foot, Mill Slot, 2.25” X 0.250”, 0.250” wall thickness)

LCS Bullnose Sediment Fill 1,587 Feet 1,612 Feet As-Built Well Design Not To Scale CMM-W-01 Notes: LCS = low carbon steel Newcastle Gold ft bls = feet below land surface All diameters are O.D. Castle Mountain Venture 2-Foot Stickup

18-inch Surface Borehole

Cement Grout Seal

12 3/4-inch LCS Intermediate Casing 50 Feet 59 Feet 55 Feet Bentonite Seal 64 Feet Cement Basket

Static Water Level = 443.96 ft bls 8 5/8-inch LCS Blank Casing (0.250” (as of 8/10/2017) wall thickness) Sediment Fill 682 Feet 712 Feet 13 1/2-inch Borehole 782 Feet 802 Feet 862 Feet 882 Feet

962 Feet 982 Feet 1,002 Feet 1,022 Feet

1,122 Feet 11 1/2-inch Borehole 1,142 Feet Open Annulus 1,262 Feet 1,282 Feet 1,342 Feet 1,362 Feet 1,382 Feet 1,402 Feet

1,422 Feet 8 5/8-inch LCS Blank Casing (0.250- 1,442 Feet inch wall thickness) 1,462 Feet 1,482 Feet

1,582 Feet 8 5/8-inch LCS Slotted Well Screen (64 1,602 Feet per foot, Mill Slot, 2.25” X 0.250”, 1,642 Feet 0.250” wall thickness) 1,662 Feet

1,762 Feet 1,782 Feet 1,822 Feet 1,842 Feet LCS Bullnose 1,962 Feet Sediment Fill 1,972 Feet 2,015 Feet As-Built Diagram Not To Scale CMM-W-02 Notes: LCS = low carbon steel Newcastle Gold ft bls = feet below land surface All diameters are O.D. Castle Mountain Venture

LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: ~ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

DESCRIPTION d S ~ 3 ~ : z u ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ -- < . ~ ~ u Drilling Method: A1r Rotary p.. ~ 0 Boring Diameter: 8 1/2" U ~ <~ ~ ~ d ~ ~~I~n~te_r_v_a7l-n-o7t~lo_g_g-ed~.~In~te-r~b-ed~d~e-d~sa-n~d~y-g_r_a_v~e~~a-n~d~g-r_a_v~el~cy--+------+0~'0~-o~G~VV~-4----l~--4-----~------~------l ~ sands composed predominantly of intrusive igneous 0 o SVV l 0 e>: min era~ with volcanics, percentage of volcanics ~ 0 5 ~ 0 = ~ increased with depth and dominant below about 250 feet. ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ 0 0 0 10 1: 0 1: o 0 o ~ ~ o 0 15 ~ e>: o~o ~ !f 0 0 20 ~ u.. oo 0 :::: 0 o -= 0 0 ~ ~ oo 0 25 ~ 0 ~ o o ~ ~ o~a 30~ E= 0 0 ~ 0 oOa = z 00 0 35 ~ 0 8 o 0 ~ 0 c.:) oo 40~= Z o 0 o := 0 5 o o ~ 0 0 o 0 45 ~ 3 0 = 0 0 = oo o ~ 0 50 ~ ~ Formation cemented below 50 feet. Entire section (50' to ::::: ~ oo ~ 1= 390') composed of well graded sandy gravel and gravelly o ~ o ~ ~ sand with variable degree of cementation o o 55 l ~ :~: 60 ~ < ~ 6 o~o ~ E= 0 0 65 ~= < oo o = u 000 0 -=§ ~ 0~ 0 70 1 i oo ~ ~ o~o 75 ~ < oo ~ ~ o~o ~ z 0 0 80 ~ 0 o~ 0 ~

0 0 ~ 0 85 ~ "- o 0 o ~ ~ o o ~ >- o 0 o 90--§ 0 ~ o o ~ ~ oo o 95 ~ :::> 0 °0 ~ ~ ~ i~------~~~~~~~~~------4------1-0 ~~-0~--~100 ~ E- Continued Next Page THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES : IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES : DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. ~Brr aw-an t-----1-0-1_7-9_5 --+---P-ag_el_of_S --t I~ ... PROJECTNO.: PLATE: 1 64957175 A-25 DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.): LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: I ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

DESCRIPTION Cliz = 0 "' E= -­CI)

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES: DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. t----1-0-1_7-9_5 --+---P-ag_e2_of_8 --I PROJECT NO.: PLATE: 1Err a can 64957175 A-26 DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.): LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: I ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

c ....:l DESCRIPTION 0 0 ,...... _ ....:l a:l ~ 1.0 "'z ~ IJ.. ..._ 0 ~ '-" w f: en>- ....:l en ~ ::r: ::r: u Drilling Method: Air Rotary ~ en E-o ~ ~ 0 Boring Diameter: 8 1/2" < u ~ ~ 0 ....l ~ en w ....:l ~ C) ;:J < Ill 0 en a:l :I: b~Fno_r_m_a~t~io-n--ce-m--en-t~e'd'b-e"lo_w__ 5~0•~~ee~t-.'Enn~t~ir_e_s_e_c~ti-on--(5~0"'~t-o----+------~~~ ou 0 GW-... +----=r--+-----r------~r------f 0 .~ ~ 390') composed of well graded sandy gravel and gravelly 0 0 SW -= oo o ~ sand with variable degree of cementation 0 ~05 -i 0 0 ~ Ill oo o ::E 0 10 ~ E= 0 0 ~ · ~ :I: ~ E-o 0~ 0 0 0 ~15 ~ ~ oo o ~ Ill 0 ~ u.. 0 0 u.. ~20 ~ oo o } 0 0 >­ 0 0 ~ ~ oo o 0 ~25 ~ ::E 0 0 ...:§ z 0~ 0 "'0 730 ~ f: 0 0 ~ 0 0~ 0 = z 0 0 235 ..§ 0 u oo o ~ 0 0 0 0 240 ~ oo o ~ z 0 6 0 0 ~ 0 0 oO o 245 ~ ....l 0 u.. 0 0 ~ 0 oo o 250 Ill 0 ..§ ::E 0 0 ~ oo o --==: f: 0 Ill 0 0 255 ~ :I: E-o 0~ 0 ~= ~ 0 0 ~60-§ z oo o 0 0 ~ f: 0 0 ~ oo o ~65 ~ u 0 0 0 -.§ 3 oo o 0 ~-70 ~= "':c 0 0 E-o oo o ~ E-o 0 ~ 0 0 ~75 ~ >­ oO o ~ ....l 0 = z 0 0 ~80 ~ 0 oo o ...:§ 0 Ill"' 0 0 :Jp.. oo o ~85 ~ p.. 0 ~ ~ 0 0 = >­ oO o 290 ..§ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ::E oo o ::E 0 295 ~ ;::> 0 0 ~ "' oo o -= 0 "':c~------~=-~--~~~~~------+------+-~+---~ 00} E-< Continued Next Page THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES: DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. 16 10-17-95 Page 3 of8 below ground surface. err acan PROJECT NO.: PLATE: DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.): 64957175 A-27 LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: 'ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

DESCRIPTION zvi 0 != u-< Drilling Method: Air Rotary 0 ...J Boring Diameter: 8 1/2" .,: Ul ~~F~o-r_m_a~t~io-n--ce-m--en~t~e~d~b-e~lo-w~S~O~~~ee~t-.~E~n-t~ir_e_s_e_c~ti-on~~~O~'~t-o----+------+o~.~~o+G~VV7-+----~~--+-----r------r------l !;;: 390') composed of well graded sandy gravel and gravelly ~ ~ SVV ] 0 -:zo ~ sand with variable degree of cementation o J' 5 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 310~ f: oo ~ :Z: oo0 o b ~ ~ o o f-'15 ~ .,: o~o ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~20 ~ 5 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ oO 0 ~25 ~ ~ 0 ~ "' 0 0 ~ 6 °~ 0 ~30 ~ != 0 0 ~

5 oO0 o b · ~ 6 o 0 1-'35 ~ U o~o ~ 0 ° 0 340 ~ z o 0 o :::: 5 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 345 ~ s 0 ~ 11- 0 0 -~ ~ 0 ~ 0 350~ ~ oo ~ E= o~o "255 ~ ~ 0 0 1-' ~ ~ :~: b6o] -< 1-'' ~ 6 o~o ~ != 0 0 b651 ~ -< oo 0 1-' ~ u 000 ~ ~ o~o ~70~ i oo ~ ~ 0~ 0 b75 ~ -< 0 0 1-' ~ ~ :~: 380 ~ 6 0 o 0 ~ "' 0 ~ ~ 0 0 "285 ~ - oo o -'' ~ "" 0 -= -< 0 0 'll ~ ~ ~V:-:-e_r_y_w---,el'"'"l-g-ra-d-=-e-d=-,-v-e-ry--c-oa_r_s_e_g_r_a-ve--;I,-WI....,.,-,th~fm~e~t-o_c_o_a-rs-e-----1 ~ .J90 ~ 0 ~ sand, moderate to very strong calcareous interstitial 0 o j ~ cement, fmes are generally washed out of samples 0 ~ 0 395 ~ "' oo ~=== i~------~=-~--~~~~~------+------+o_o~o+---~•00 ~ ,.. Continued Next Page THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES: DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. Brr aeon 1--1_0·1_7-_95--+---P-ag_e 4_or_s ---i t;;;. PROJECT NO.: PLATE: 1r. 64957175 A-28 DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.): LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: !ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

DESCRIPTION ~ 0 E=

:E 0~ 0 ~10 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ .... oO o = ~ 0 °0 415 ~ ,:.: o 0 a ~ 0 If o o A20 ~ ~ oo o 't". l 5 0 -= >- 0 0 = 0 < o 0 425 ~ 0 ~ o o ~ 5 °~ 0 430 ~ E= 0 0 ~

5 oO0 o A' ~ 5 o 0 '1"35 ~ 0 u o 0 ~ ~ 0 = c.:i oo 440~ z o~o ~ G o a j1A· ~ 0 8 o 0 l'f""T5 § 0 ~ o o ~ 0 oO 0 l.i50 -..§ w 00 0 1'1"· ~ ;:§ 0°o ::; ~ 0 l.155 ~ :I: 0 0 1'1"· = ~ o~o ~ ~ 0 0 ~60 ~ z o~o ~ ~ ~0: ~651 u 000 ~ ~ O~o 470-§ i oo ~ ~ :~: 475 ~ >- o 0 o ~ 0 ~ o 0 480 ~ ~ oo 0 ~ ~ 00 0 485 ~ s: 0~ 0 ~ < oo ~ ~ o~o 490-§, < 0 0 ~ ~ oO 0 A95 ~ ~ 0 °0 "t": ~ ~ ~ i~------~=-~--~~~~~------+------+-0 ~~-0+----DOO ~ ~ Continued Next Page

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES: DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. r.!!arr aeon t---l_0-1_7-9_5--t--P-ag_e 5_or_s --t I;. PROJECT NO.: PLATE: lli 64957175 A-29 DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.): LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: IELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

Ci .....l DESCRIPTION 0 0 ,-.... til .....l Ill ~ 1.0 z ::E ~ 0 u '-' Ul b >-en .....l --en <( -:I: :I: u Drilling Method: Air Rotary J:l.. en E-< J:l.. ~ 0 Boring Diameter: 8 1/2' <: u J:l.. ::E 0 ....l ~ en Ul <: .....l ~ ;:::, Ul Ci 0 en Ill

~~~----~----~------~~~~~------+------~~~~+----=~-+----~------~~------~o<> o o Very well graded, very coarse gravel with fme to coarse 0 GW- ~ \;: sand, moderate to very strong calcareous interstitial 0 0 sw -= 0 ] ~ cement, fmes are generally washed out of samples. 0~ ~05 ~ 0 0 ~ Ul oo o = ::E 0 ~10 ~ b 0 0 X oO o ~ !- 0 0 0 ~15 ~ ~ oo o ~ 0 ~ Ulu. 0 0 = u. oo o ~20 ~ 0 ~ i5 ~ >­ 0 0 <( oo o 0 ~25 ~ ::E 0 0 til ~ z 0~ 0 = 0 ~30 ~ b 0 0 0 0~ 0 ~ z 0 0 0 ~35 ~ u oo o ~ 0 0 0 = 0 oo o 540 ~ z 0 G 0 0 ~ 0 oO o 545 ~ 3 0 ~ u. 0 0 0 oo o 550] Ul 0 ::;: 0 0 ~ oo o ~ b 0 Ul 0 0 555 ~ X !­ oo o 0 ~ !­ <( 0 0 ~60 ~ oo o ~ z 0 { 0 0 0 oo o b65 ~ u~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ....l oo o ~· = til 0 70 ~ i 0 0 ~ !­ oo o !­ 0 <( 0 0 ~75 ~ >­ oo o ~ ....l 0 = z 0 0 ~80 ~ 0 oo o ~ til 0 Ul 0 0 oo o ~85 ] ~ 0 ~ "'"<( 0 0 -= >­ oo o ~ 0 ~90 ~ <( 0 0 ~ ::E oo o = ::E 0 ::J 0 0 ~95 ~ til oO o til 0 i~------=-~~~~~~~------+------1-~1---~ oo-=l ._. Continued Next Page THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Pans Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL . All Samples are Tubes NOTES : DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. 1Err acan I-P_R_O_J:-:-~-:-:-.~----l-P-LA_T_E_~_a_ge_6_o_f_8---l DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs .) : 64957175 A-30 LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: !ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

DESCRIPTION ztil 0 f: v<: Drilling Method: Air Rotary 0 ..J Boring Diameter: 8 112 " IX ~ ~~~--~~--~~------~~~~~------+------~~~"'+----=~-+-----r------1------~ o Very well graded, very coarse gravel with rme to coarse 0 ~ c GW- ...§ E- sand, moderate to very strong calcareous interstitial c o SW ~ ~ cement, rmes are generally washed out of samples :~: 605 j

~ o~ c blO ~ f: c 0 ~ ::C cOo -:::: ~ 0 °c 615 i g3 0~ c ~ !t ~0: b20 ~ Ci 0 ~ >- 0 c ~ :;; oo c ()25 ~ 0 ""' c o ~ til ~ 5 °~ 0 fl30 -§

~ ~o:0 ~ 5 c c p35 ~ U o 0 c ~ ,o ~co] g I--:V=-=-er_y_c_o_a_r_se--sa_n_d,...y_g_r_a_v_e,...l,-v-a-r.,...ia7b7le--gr-a_,d:-:-in-g-.---=-u""""n-c-o-n-so--=I'""'id:-a-te-d:---l ~o>,.v.-"o'+Q=p:-_ M l 0 § or very weakly cemented ~c: GW ~ ~ 0 5 3 c 0 ~ ~ oo o ~ ~ oc c ~50 ~ ~ oo c ~ 0 ~ c 0 655 ~ ~ o~o ~ !;;: oc (.60~ cO c u• ~ 0 5 c o ~ ~ 0~ 0 b65 ~ u 0 c ~ ~ o~c 670-.§ i co ...§ f- oO 0 :;:: 0 f- c c 675 ~ <: o 0 c ~ ~ ,o ~ zo 1--:=-::------=------=------=ll:----,ll::------,---;d,---d:----::-ll---l 0 vo o GW 80 Very coarse sandy gravel, genera y we cemente an we · -;=~ ~ graded ~o: ~85 ~ c.. 0 = c.. co --=== ~ :~: ~90 ~ <: oo c ~ ~ 0 ie::l ~ ~ c 0 ~95 ~ tl) o~o ~ i~--:------~~~-----=~:--~:------+------~o~c~--~~00 ~ E- Continued Next Page THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES : IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES: DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. ~Brr aeon 1---1_0·1_7-9_5--+---P-ag_e 7_of_8 --t II=; PROJECT NO.: PLATE: 1 64957175 A-31 DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.): LOG OF BORING NO. 45 CLIENT: PROJECT: Viceroy Gold Corporation West Well Field Development BORING LOCATION: 'ELEVATION (ft.): SITE: See Site Diagram 4559.4 Lanfair Valley

DESCRIPTION "'z 0 1= u< Drilling Method: Air Rotary 0 ...l Boring Diameter: 8 1/2" Ul"' ~~~------~----~----~~~~--~~--~~--+------~~~-4----~--+----+------~------~ o Very coarse sandy gravel, generally wen cemented and well 0 ~ o ~ ~ graded o o ~ "' 0°0 0 ro5 ~ 0 o o ~ Ul 0 0 -== ~ 0° ~10 ~ 1= oo 1: :::: 0~ 0 r, . ~ ~ 0 0 1'15 ~ "' oo o ~ Ul 0 0 0 720 ~ ti:: o 0 o ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 = ~ oo 0 725 -"§ 0 ~ o o ~ "' ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 730 ~ 1= 0 0 ~ ~ :~: 735 ~ U o 0 o ~ 0 °00 740 ~ Z o 0 o ~ - 0 -= 8 ~0 ~ 745 ~ 3 0 ~ l.t. 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 r5o ~ ~ oo ~ - oO o ::: 0 ~ o 0 r55 ~ :::: oo 0 ~ E- 0 r,, = ~~~~--~~~~--~~~------~ swt'60 ~~= ~ Similar, well developed grain coatings · · ~ 1= . . 765 ~ ~ . ·.. 770 1 s: .-.- ~ ~ .. 775 ~ < ~ ~ . . ~ z 1-:::----~--":":C"":"-:--:----:----;---;--:;;---:------;------j . . sw 780 ~ o Some interstitial clay, predominanly rme to coarse sand, · · ~ ~ crushed, very well cemented 785 ~ _ rmes are generally washed out of samples . · . · ~ ~ . . ..,, ~ ~ ,go~ < .· .· ~ ~ . . 795 ~ ~ ~ i~------=-~--~~~~~------+-----~--~~00 ~ E- Bottom at 800 feet THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I *ppm = Parts Per Million BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES : IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. All Samples are Tubes NOTES: DATE DRILLED: PAGE NUMBER: Static water level measured at 439 ft. below ground surface. fl!!arr aeon t--1__0-1 __ 7-__95 --t----P--ag __e S__ of__ S ---1 I;; PROJECT NO .: PLATE: 1r. 64957175 A-32 DRIVING WEIGHT (lbs.):