March 2014

GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Project Definition - Bradshaw Project

Submitted to: Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Mines and Minerals Division Ontario Government Complex - E-Wing P.O. Bag 3060, 5520 Hwy. 101 East South Porcupine ON P0N 1H0

From: Gowest Gold Ltd. Suite 1400, 80 Richmond St East Toronto, ONM5H 2A4

Report Number: 09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 Distribution: REPORT 6 copies - MNDM 1 copy - Gowest Gold 2 copies - Golder Associates 1 e-copy - Blue Heron

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY...... 1

1.1 Proponent Information ...... 1

1.2 Purpose and Nature of Project...... 1

1.3 Consultation Regarding Proposed Project ...... 1

1.4 Assisting Agencies ...... 2

1.5 Additional Contact Information ...... 2

2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION ...... 3

2.1 Project Name ...... 3

2.2 Previous Name of Project ...... 3

2.3 Current Status of Project ...... 3

2.4 Ownership of Project ...... 3

2.5 Project Coordinates ...... 3

2.6 Geographic Information ...... 3

2.7 Site Address ...... 3

3.0 LAND TENURE OF THE PROJECT ...... 4

3.1 Surface and Mineral Rights ...... 4

3.2 Timber Rights ...... 4

3.3 Sand and Gravel Resources Rights ...... 4

3.4 Neighbouring Private Land (If Applicable) ...... 4

3.5 Crown Land ...... 4

3.6 First Nations Communities ...... 4

4.0 SITE PLANS ...... 6

5.0 PROJECT DETAILS ...... 7

5.1 Mining Activities ...... 7

5.1.1 Site Condition ...... 7

5.1.2 Site Status ...... 7

5.1.3 Resource Development ...... 7

5.1.4 Geochemical and Geotechnical ...... 7

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 i

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

5.1.4.1 Geology ...... 7

5.1.4.2 Results of Geochemical Evaluation ...... 10

5.1.4.3 Geotechnical ...... 11

5.1.5 Proposed Mining Development and Operations Plans ...... 13

5.1.5.1 Haulage and Handling ...... 13

5.1.5.2 Project Duration ...... 14

5.1.5.3 Operational Phases ...... 14

5.1.5.4 Work Force and Schedule ...... 14

5.2 Processing ...... 15

5.3 Facilities and Infrastructure ...... 15

5.3.1 Roads ...... 15

5.3.2 Other Transportation ...... 15

5.3.3 Power Supply ...... 15

5.3.4 Pipelines ...... 16

5.3.5 Buildings ...... 16

5.3.6 Aggregate Requirements ...... 16

5.3.7 Storage Sites ...... 16

5.4 Tailings, Waste Rock and Other Mine Stockpiles ...... 17

5.4.1 Production Rates...... 17

5.4.2 Disposal Facilities ...... 17

5.4.3 Stockpiles ...... 17

5.5 Water Management ...... 18

5.5.1 Water Taking Requirements ...... 18

5.5.2 Water Treatment and Disposal Requirements ...... 19

5.5.3 Waste Disposal and Management Systems ...... 19

5.5.4 Closure and Rehabilitation ...... 19

6.0 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA...... 21

6.1 Current Land Use ...... 21

6.1.1 Historic Land Use ...... 21

6.1.2 Neighbouring Land Use ...... 22

6.1.3 Neighbouring Aboriginal Communities ...... 22

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 ii

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

6.1.4 Project Proximity to Sensitive Areas ...... 23

6.1.5 Neighbouring Towns and Communities ...... 23

6.1.6 Municipal Zoning Designation ...... 23

6.2 Environmental Features and Baseline Information ...... 23

6.2.1 Topography and Landforms ...... 23

6.2.2 Terrestrial Plant and Animal Life Communities ...... 24

6.2.3 Surface Water Information ...... 25

6.2.4 Aquatic Plant and Animal Communities ...... 33

6.2.6 Ground Water Information ...... 38

6.2.7 Air Emission Information ...... 43

7.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE...... 45

7.1 Development Schedule ...... 45

7.2 Detailed Construction and Proposed Schedule of Development ...... 45

7.3 Regulatory Processes and Schedule ...... 45

7.3.1 Project Regulatory Process Underway...... 45

7.3.2 Site and Regional Assessment Work ...... 46

7.4 Public and First Nations Consultation ...... 46

8.0 REFERENCES ...... 49

TABLES Table 5-1: General Overview of Stratigraphic Assemblages of Tully Township ...... 8 Table 5-2: Site Work Force Requirements ...... 15 Table 6-1: Historic Exploration of Bradshaw Deposit ...... 21 Table 6-2: Proximity of Bradshaw Project with Neighbouring First Nation Communities ...... 23 Table 6-3: Surface Water and Sediment Quality Sampling Locations and Sampling Occurrences ...... 29 Table 6-5: Statistical Summary of Sediment Quality Results for Select Parameters ...... 32 Table 6-6: West Buskegau River Tributary Fish Community Composition ...... 36 Table 6-7: West Buskegau River Tributary Backpack Electrofishing Effort and Catch Results ...... 36 Table 6-8: West Buskegau River Tributary Length and Weight of Captured Fish ...... 37 Table 6-9: Groundwater Quality Sampling Locations and Sampling Occurrences ...... 38 Table 6-10: Groundwater Level Measurements - Meters below top of pipe ...... 39 Table 6-11: Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates ...... 39

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 iii

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 6-12: Statistical Summary of Groundwater Quality Results for Select Parameters ...... 41 Table 6-13: MOE Water Well Information Request Results ...... 42

FIGURES Graph 6-1: Regional vs Local Hydrographs ...... 28 Figure 2-1: Site Plan – Regional Scale ...... 53 Figure 3-1: Land Tenure...... 53 Figure 4-1: Site Plan – Property Scale ...... 53 Figure 4-2: Project Site Layout ...... 53 Figure 5-1: Geotechnical Investigation Locations ...... 53 Figure 5-2: Overburden Stratigraphy Profiles ...... 53 Figure 6-1: Terrestrial Plant and Animal Life Survey Locations ...... 53 Figure 6-2: Water Survey Locations ...... 53

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Record of Consultation and Aboriginal Consultation Report Form (completed)

APPENDIX B Site Photographs

APPENDIX C Ecosites in the Project Area

APPENDIX D Breeding Bird Observations

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 iv

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Gowest Gold Ltd. (Gowest) is planning to develop the Bradshaw Gold deposit as part of the Bradshaw Project (the Project). This document provides an overview of the Project in support of Advanced Exploration Permitting for the Project.

1.1 Proponent Information For the purposes of the project description, the following information is provided with regards to the “proponent”:

Gowest Gold Ltd. 80 Richmond Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2A4

Telephone: (416) 363-1210 Facsimile: (416) 363-2959

The proponent acquired 100% ownership of the Bradshaw and adjacent claims commencing in March 2009.

1.2 Purpose and Nature of Project Gowest has completed a 3D computer model of the Bradshaw Gold Deposit using available geological information. This model is being used to plan future exploration programs intended to both expand knowledge of the current zone of mineralization and to discover additional zones of mineralization. Gowest intends to complete an underground bulk sample to test the validity of the geological model and to collect enough ore to complete representative metallurgical test work.

The Project includes an underground ramp to access the ore, an ore crushing and sorting facility, surface stockpiles for waste rock and overburden material, water management ponds to handle surface runoff and mine dewatering water, an effluent discharge pipeline, and ancillary infrastructure. The ore will be hauled off-site along an existing road network for processing, and as such there will be no tailings materials disposed of on-site. Power will be provided by on-site diesel generators.

Gowest has initiated the environmental baseline studies and the permitting process for Advanced Exploration, as defined under the Ontario Mining Act.

1.3 Consultation Regarding Proposed Project Gowest has been undertaking Aboriginal consultation activities since 2010, as shown in the Record of Consultation and the Aboriginal Consultation Report (Appendix A). Introductory meetings have taken place with the Matachewan, Mattagami, and Flying Post First Nation communities, as well as representatives from the Wabun Tribal Council and the MNO (Timmins Métis Council). Gowest has also met and corresponded with representatives of Wahgoshig First Nation. Further introductory phone calls were attempted with the Mushkegowuk Council and Taykwa Tagamou First Nation.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 1

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Two Project presentations have been made to Matachewan and Mattagami First Nations, who signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Gowest in 2011, coordinated by the Wabun Tribal Council.

In addition to Aboriginal consultation activities, Gowest has communicated with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) on numerous occasions. Gowest met with MNDM, Ministry of Environment (MOE), Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and Ministry of Labour (MOL) on June 14, 2010 to share the draft Project Definition and provide regulators with an opportunity to comment.

Additional consultation with federal, provincial and municipal regulatory agencies, as well as Aboriginal groups and the general public, will continue throughout the Project.

1.4 Assisting Agencies Assistance from federal, provincial and municipal regulatory agencies will be required during Aboriginal and public consultations, as well as in the granting of permits and authorizations. To facilitate the permitting and approvals process associated with mineral development projects, a ‘One Window’ Coordination Process has been initiated by the MNDM. This approach attempts to coordinate the activities of the various parties, including the Proponent, involved in mineral development permitting and approvals and defines a framework outlining the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of those parties.

1.5 Additional Contact Information Gowest’s primary contacts for the Bradshaw Project are:

Gregory Romain President and CEO Phone: (416) 363-1210 ext 205 E-mail: [email protected]

Garth Wilcox Project Development Manager Phone: (416) 363-1210 ext 202 E-mail: [email protected]

Kevin Montgomery Exploration Manager Phone: (705) 267-2399 E-mail: [email protected]

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 2

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION Photographs representing the existing conditions at the site are provided in Appendix B.

2.1 Project Name The Project will be managed and directed under the title ‘Bradshaw Project’.

2.2 Previous Name of Project The previous Gowest name of the Project site was the Frankfield Project.

2.3 Current Status of Project The Project is an undeveloped site and is currently in the Exploration phase. Gowest has initiated the environmental baseline studies necessary to support permitting and consultation requirements to move the Project into the Advanced Exploration phase. The majority of baseline studies have been completed and as the Project moves into the Advanced Exploration phase, baseline monitoring will continue. Preliminary engineering design of surface and underground facilities has been completed for purposes of the permit applications.

2.4 Ownership of Project The current owner of the Project is Gowest Gold Ltd.

2.5 Project Coordinates Project site coordinates in UTM NAD83, Zone 17 are:

Easting: 486,730 E Northing: 5,398,600 N

2.6 Geographic Information The Bradshaw Project (the Project) is located 42 km north of the City of Timmins, in the Cochrane mining district, and specifically the Prosser and Tully Townships (see Figure 2-1). The site can be accessed via a 12.6 km all-weather gravel road beginning on Highway 655; 33.4 km north of the Highway 101 and Highway 655 intersection.

2.7 Site Address The site contact information for the Project is:

Kevin Montgomery Exploration Manager Gowest Gold Ltd. 115 Jubilee Ave. East Timmins, Ontario P4N 5W4 Telephone: 705-267-2399 Facsimile: 705-267-1886 Email: [email protected]

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 3

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

3.0 LAND TENURE OF THE PROJECT 3.1 Surface and Mineral Rights The proponent owns 100 % of the mineral rights for the Project. The Project consists of nine mining leases comprised of 54 contiguous mining claim units. The proponent owns the surface rights to seven of the mining leases. Should a pipeline be required to discharge the treated effluent, surface rights will be negotiated with neighboring surface rights holders. Figure 3-1 summarizes the current tenure situation.

3.2 Timber Rights Gowest does not have timber rights. If it is necessary to cut mercantile timber to develop the Project, a licensed contractor will be retained and appropriate permits will be obtained.

3.3 Sand and Gravel Resources Rights Sand and gravel for the Project will be obtained from existing sources in Timmins. Gowest does not have sand and gravel resources rights.

3.4 Neighbouring Private Land (If Applicable) Adjacent claim holders include: Glencore (formerly Xstrata PLC, Falconbridge), SGX Resources and Barrick Gold, as illustrated in Figure 3-1.

3.5 Crown Land There is no conflict with Crown Land. The Project site is located on nine mining leases. The Crown has issued 21 year mining rights leases, the first expiring on November 30, 2020. The 12.6 km all-weather access road is located along mining leases (owned by various companies) and does not cross into Crown Land.

3.6 Aboriginal Communities Five initial First Nations communities and one Métis Council were identified by MNDM as being potentially affected by future Project development: Flying Post, Mattagami, Matachewan, Wahgoshig, Taykwa Tagamou, and Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) – Timmins Council (see Figure 2-1). Gowest commenced the consultation process in 2010, including the following activities:

 Introductory meetings and Project presentations with the Wabun Tribal Council (representing the Flying Post, Mattagami and Matachewan First Nations) were held in October 2010.  Letters of introduction were sent to Taykwa Tagamou and Wahgoshig First Nations in December 2010.  An introductory meeting with the Métis Nations of Ontario (MNO) was held in Timmins in December 2010. Gowest and MNO have had ongoing contact since that time.

Through e-mail correspondence and a series of meetings with MNDM, Wabun Tribal Council and First Nations members, it was agreed that the communities directly impacted were Mattagami and Matachewan. Gowest

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

entered into an Exploration Agreement (EA) with each of the Mattagami First Nation and the Matachewan First Nation on September 27th, 2011. At the same time, it was deemed by the Wabun Tribal Council and the Flying Post First Nation that the Bradshaw Project did not impact the Flying Post First Nation territory. Gowest received on June 29, 2011 letter from Flying Post Nation in this regard.

The Wahgoshig First Nation contacted Gowest in fall of 2013 requesting a meeting to learn about the Bradshaw Project. An initial Gowest-Wahgoshig meeting was held on January 8, 2014 in Timmins and discussions are ongoing on whether the Bradshaw Project affects the Wahgoshig First Nation.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 5

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

4.0 SITE PLANS The Project is located in the headwaters of the Buskegau River watershed with the West Buskegau River to the east and a tributary of the West Buskegau River running through its western boundary. The Project is situated on the northern edge of Gowan marsh, a regional scale wetland which dominates the topography of the Project site. The base elevation on the Project is approximately 282 meters above sea level (masl). The topography is generally flat, with less than a meter of relief permitting dry clay ridges to rise above the open/forested wetland areas. The Project site hosts one of the few outcrops of bedrock in the township.

Site plans are provided in the following figures:  Regional Scale - Figure 2-1  Property Scale - Figure 4-1  Project Site Layout - Figure 4-2.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 6

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

5.0 PROJECT DETAILS 5.1 Mining Activities 5.1.1 Site Condition There has been no previous development of the site. Exploration activity at the Project site and surrounding area was initiated in 1964 and the Bradshaw (formerly Frankfield East) Gold deposit was discovered in 1974. Previous owners excavated overburden at the end of the existing access road to carry out bedrock mapping. A pond has formed in this former excavation approximately 1.5 km west of the portal. Overburden, which was stockpiled adjacent to the excavation, has since revegetated naturally. There is no previous or current infrastructure at the site.

5.1.2 Site Status The site is in Exploration phase and exploration drilling is currently on-going. In January 2010 Gowest commenced diamond drilling focused on expanding the known resource at the Bradshaw deposit and exploring additional gold anomalies located along similar geological contact structures. Metallurgical test work to investigate processing alternatives for the Bradshaw mineralization was completed at SGS Lakefield Research labs.

Gowest is currently in the process of ascertaining information and performing all of the necessary studies to obtain the appropriate permits and environmental compliance approvals to move the Project into the Advanced Exploration phase.

5.1.3 Resource Development The mineral resource of interest of the Project is gold. Currently, the resource estimate for the Bradshaw deposit is approximately 945,600 ounces of gold (“Au”) in the Indicated category (6.0 million tonnes at a grade of 4.9 grams per tonne [“g/t”] Au) and 536,800 ounces of gold in the Inferred category (3.7 million tonnes at a grade of 4.2 g/t Au). To date, the deposit has a drilled strike length in excess of 950 m, trending N070-080°E, and has been tested to a depth in excess of 1,000 m. The mineralization remains open along strike and dip (Gow et al., 2012). Preliminary metallurgical test work indicates that the gold in the Bradshaw mineralization is refractory with a significant portion contained within the ore sulphide content. The main submicroscopic gold carrier of the mineralization is arsenopyrite.

5.1.4 Geochemical and Geotechnical 5.1.4.1 Geology This section provides an overview of the regional and local geological setting of the Bradshaw deposit, including a summary of the known mineralogical characteristics of rocks that occur in association with gold mineralization and is based on the following documents:

Bradshaw, R.J., 2008. 2008 Technical Report on Gowest New Texmont Property and Exploration and Development Progress on Frankfield Gold Deposit Tully Township, Timmins Area, Ontario for Gowest Amalgamated Resources Ltd. Signing Date: December 23, 2008.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 7

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Gow, N., Montgomery, K. and Peimeng L., 2012. Updated Mineral Resource Estimate, North Timmins Project, Timmins, ON Gowest Gold Ltd. Signing Date: November 15, 2012.

Harron, G.W., 2006. Technical Report on Gowest / New Texmont Property, Tully Township, Porcupine M.D., Ontario for Gowest Amalgamated Resources Ltd. Signing Date: February 15, 2006.

“QEMSCAN_Preliminary_11867-003_Breccia Zone.xlsx” – laboratory results provided to Golder by Gowest (Darren Koningen VP Technical Services) on October 22, 2009.

Regional Geology Tully Township is located within the Abitibi greenstone belt. The Abitibi greenstone belt is the most prolific host of gold producing mines in Canada. Gold mineralization within the Abitibi greenstone belt is structurally controlled, with the largest deposits occurring within 2 km of three major fault zones: the Destor-Porcupine Fault Zone, the Pipestone Fault Zone and the Cadillac-Larder Lake Shear Zone.

Tully Township is underlain by three stratigraphic units, referred to as “assemblages”. The Township is divided by the Buskegau River Fault. To the west of the Buskegau River Fault, the Township is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Porcupine assemblage. The Porcupine assemblage unconformably overlies volcanic rocks of the Kidd-Munro assemblage. The Kidd-Munro assemblage is the main rock unit east of the Buskegau River Fault; however, to the north of the fault, the volcanic Tisdale assemblage unconformably overlies the Kidd- Munro assemblage. Table 5-1 provides a general overview of the lithological characteristics of each assemblage.

Table 5-1: General Overview of Stratigraphic Assemblages of Tully Township Assemblage Sub-Unit Description The Kidd-Munro assemblage is dominated by ultramafic and mafic rocks, Tholeiitic to including komatiities and magnesium and iron rich tholeiites. Ultramafic komatiitic and mafic rocks are the main host of economic mineralization in Tully portions Township. Kidd-Munro Calc-alkaline (i.e., intermediate to felsic) pyroclastic rocks occur in lesser Calc-alkaline portions than ultramafic-mafic rocks in the Kidd-Munro assemblage. Rare portions sedimentary rocks have been noted in interflow units. The assemblage, as a whole, is cross-cut by felsic intrusions and diabase dykes.

Volcanic rocks of the Upper Tisdale unit consist of calc-alkaline (i.e., Upper Tisdale intermediate to felsic) clastic volcanic rocks.

Sedimentary rocks are comprised of fine-grained, turbiditic sediments, Porcupine with minor graphitic argillite and conglomerate horizons.

Source: Bradshaw, 2008 and Harron, 2006

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 8

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Site Geology and Mineralization According to the results of drill core observation and geophysical interpretation completed by Gowest, the Project area is underlain by tholeiitic basalt flows and komatiitic basalt to peridotite flows of the Kidd-Munro assemblage. The tholeiitic basalt flows dominate the northern half of the property and the komatiitic peridotite flows the southern half. Thin (<10 m) units of pyritic graphitic argillite interflow sediments are commonly at or close to the contacts of the komatiitic peridotite flows in the north tholeiitic volcanic sequence. Depositional indicators demonstrate a steeply north dipping and north younging direction for the Kidd-Munro assemblage on the Project. The stratigraphy has been deformed by at least two periods of deformation, as is common in the Abitibi Greenstone Belt. Quartz-calcite veinlets cross cut the mafic and ultramafic flows. Pyrite [FeS2] and pyrrhotite [Fe1-xS] occur throughout the sequence, and are typically enriched near pillow rims and siliceous flow-top breccias.

At the Bradshaw Gold Deposit (formerly known as the Frankfield East), gold mineralization is present in a number of sub-parallel zones that broadly follow the strike of the host volcanic stratigraphy. At present, five zones are recognized; the Main Zone One (MZ1), the Main Zone Two (MZ2) and three hanging wall zones (HWZ1, HWZ2, and HWZ3). The bulk of the mineralization lies within the two Main Zones. Gold mineralization in the Main Zones occur primarily within a fractured and brecciated altered sulphidic horizon in hanging wall basaltic flow rocks at or near the contact with steeply north-dipping (85°) footwall ultramafic rocks to the south. The mineralization is not confined to narrow vein-like structures (as can be seen in many other deposits in the Timmins area) but rather in a more massive/tabular structure that is consistently present throughout the mineralized horizon. Total sulphide content of the mineralized horizon varies from 3-30% with occasional 2-5 cm wide bands of massive arsenopyrite and pyrite. Most of the sulphide component in the main zone is in the form of seams, bands and clots of sulphides accompanied by zones of heavy disseminations of 5-15% sulphides over 5-10 cm core lengths. The largest concentrations of arsenopyrite correspond to the highest gold concentrations. Visible gold is not a feature of this type of mineralization. Gold is almost inevitably fine-grained and there is no coarse-gold problem associated with the deposit.

To date, the deposit has a drilled strike length in excess of 950 m, trending N070-080°E, and has been tested to a depth in excess of 1,000 m. The width of the Main Zone horizon varies from 2 m to 22 m. MZ1 Zone mineralization ranges in width from 1-12 m (true width). The MZ2 Zone mineralization ranges in width from 1 to 6.9 m wide (true width). The widths of the Hanging Wall Zones typically vary from 2 to 4 m up to a maximum of 12 m. The deposit remains open at depth.

Sulphide and Carbonate Mineralization at the Bradshaw Project The oxidation of sulphide minerals has the potential to result in the release of acidity, sulphate and trace metals to solution. Neutralization potential is provided by minerals with an inherent “buffering capacity”, which dissolve in response to the onset of sulphide oxidation and acid generation. Carbonate minerals (mainly calcite [CaCO3]) provide the most effective source of neutralization potential, owing to relatively rapid rates of dissolution. Dissolution of iron and manganese carbonate minerals generates no net acidity; therefore these minerals are not considered effective sources of neutralization potential. Although silicate minerals can provide some neutralization potential, relatively slow rates of reaction and dissolution prevent these minerals from being an effective source of buffering capacity.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 9

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

According to the existing geological descriptions and the results of QEMSCAN analysis performed on two samples of gold mineralized material from the zones, sulphide minerals encountered in samples of ore and waste from the Bradshaw Deposit include: arsenopyrite, pyrite, pyrrhotite, and trace sphalerite and chalcopyrite. Arsenopyrite and pyrite are known to be the dominant sulphide minerals in the mineralized zones. Geological descriptions of the Main and Hanging wall Zones indicate that silicification was the dominant metamorphic process that occurred during ore mineralization, therefore silicate minerals are abundant in mineralized zones. The results of QEMSCAN analysis identified the presence of calcium-magnesium-iron carbonate and iron carbonates in samples from the gold mineralized zone.

5.1.4.2 Results of Geochemical Evaluation Geochemical evaluation is required to quantify the acid generation and metal leaching potential of waste rock and ore lithologies that will be encountered during the development of the underground exploration ramp and extraction of the bulk sample. Regulation 240/00 of the Ontario Mining Act requires that materials that will be encountered during proposed mining projects undergo geochemical characterization according to the recommendations in the “Draft Guidelines and Methods for the Prediction of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Mine Sites in British Columbia” (Price, 1997). An update to Price (1997) was subsequently issued by Natural Resources Canada (MEND 2009).

Geochemical characterization completed to date was consistent with the approaches outlined in Price (1997) and MEND (2009). The samples were selected to represent specific rock types, to evaluate the characteristics of geological materials on a scale that is relevant to proposed mining operations. Geochemical characterization is currently on-going based on the latest mine plan to complement the data collected to date, so that the dataset meets the recommendations in Price (1997).

Geochemical analyses were conducted to quantify the acid generation, neutralization and metal leaching potential of ore and waste lithologies. The initial screening level geochemical characterization program includes static (i.e., one-time) tests. Static tests are typically used to quantify the solid phase chemical composition of samples, and evaluate metal leachability in specific test conditions. The screening level evaluation included the following tests:  Acid-Base Accounting (ABA) – used to develop estimates of the potential for acid generation based on the balance between acid producing and acid buffering minerals;  Major and Trace Element Analysis on Solids – used to determine the total amount of metals in the solid phase of the rock samples;  Net Acid Generation (NAG) Testing and Comprehensive Analysis of NAG leachates – used to verify the acid generation potential from ABA, and to evaluate the products of the complete oxidation of minerals; and  Short-Term Leach Testing (shake flask extraction testing) – used to develop initial estimates of metal leaching from a rock sample when immersed in distilled water.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 10

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

After the evaluation of the results of static testing, samples were selected for longer-term leach tests (i.e., kinetic tests). Kinetic tests are repetitive leach tests designed to evaluate mineral reactivity over an extended period of time. The test methodology is designed to enhance sulphide oxidation and/or weathering reactions relative to field conditions. Kinetic tests can be used to develop meaningful information with respect to leachate water quality in a relatively short period of time.

The results of the geochemical characterization completed to date can be summarized as follows:  A total of 35 waste rock samples were analyzed from the Bradshaw Gold deposit. . The argillaceous sediments samples indicate potential for acid generation based on static test data. Kinetic testing was not completed on this sample as it is a minor lithology (i.e., approximately 5% of total waste rock volume).

. The remaining rock types are expected to be non acid generating. Generally, the neutralization potential of waste rock samples was high, and consists primarily of reactive carbonate minerals. Kinetic testing results generally support the conclusions of static testing, classifying most waste rock lithologies as non-PAG.

. Metal leaching, most notably arsenic, does appear to be an issue, as observed in both short-term leach and humidity cell tests. While several metals do leach from all materials at different concentrations and are elevated compared to the effluent and aquatic life criteria considered, the lithologies reporting the highest concentrations of key parameters were the argillaceous sediment, tuff and, to a lesser degree, basalt. Aluminum, cobalt, antimony, selenium and vanadium concentrations were elevated for several samples in the short term and first flush of humidity cell testing.  A total of 5 ore samples were analyzed from the Bradshaw Gold deposit. . Acid generation does not appear to be an issue with the ore when considering NPR, CaNPR and NAG pH. Generally, the neutralization potential of the ore was high, and consists primarily of reactive carbonate minerals. However, kinetic testing on one ore samples suggests that there is some uncertainty with the long term acid generating potential of the ore.

. Similar to the waste rock, arsenic concentrations were elevated with respect to the effluent and aquatic life criteria in both the short and long term. Cobalt concentrations were elevated in the first flush of humidity cell testing.

A total of 25 waste rock samples were selected for additional geochemical analysis based on the most recent mine plan. Testing is on-going, and results of these analyses will confirm the findings of the initial characterization, as well as confirm the acid rock drainage and metal leaching potential of the minor argillaceous sediment rock type.

5.1.4.3 Geotechnical Geotechnical information on overburden and the first three metres (m) of bedrock was collected as part of a borehole and test pit investigation completed in October 2013 targeting major Project infrastructure footprints (see Figure 5-1). Below is a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered during the investigation.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 11

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

In general, the overburden soil strata consist of three major soil type units: fibrous peat/organics, silty clay and the underlying glacial till. The composition of the silty clay unit is not homogeneous and occasionally varies between being predominantly clay to predominantly silt. The groundwater table in the areas investigated ranged from being at ground surface to up to 0.3 m below ground surface. Figure 5-2 shows the general stratigraphy profile encountered during the investigation.

The thickness of the fibrous peat ranges from 0.2 m to 1.4 m, with an average thickness of 0.8 m. Standard penetration test (SPT) ‘N’ values ranged from 0 to 2, though the majority of split spoons were advanced with the weight of the SPT hammer. Field observations indicated that the fibrous peat is saturated and very loose in density and is considered to be highly compressible with high natural moisture contents. The moisture content measured in the laboratory was found to be 158 %.

The surficial peat is followed by a light brown to grey silty clay stratum, with minor quantities of sand and gravel. The composition of the stratum varies between clay and silt and generally becomes siltier with depth. The thickness of the silty clay ranged from 11.8 m along the proposed Run-off Collection Ditch alignment north of the proposed Waste Rock Stockpile to 0.9 m in the middle of the proposed Waste Rock Stockpile. In the remaining boreholes and test pits, the thickness of silty clay ranged between 2.5 m to 8.7 m with an average of 5.7 m.

The top of the silty clay layer tended to have a firm to stiff consistency and generally became stiffer with depth, except in locations where clay (as opposed to silty clay) was encountered; here the consistency tended to be lower, within the soft to firm range. The moisture content of the silty clay varied from 16.6% to 33.8%, with an average value of 23.5%.The specific gravity of the silty clay was found to range between 2.71 and 2.74. In terms of particle size, on average, the silty clay possesses 43%, 49%, and 7% of clay, silt and sand, respectively. The range of measured liquid limit and plasticity index are 30.3% to 54.9% and 14.9% to 35.0%, respectively. The average liquid limit was found to be at a moisture content of 38.8%, with an average plasticity index of 21.2%. The undrained shear strength, as measured from in-situ vane tests and laboratory consolidated undrained triaxial tests, ranged from 25 to 60 kPa, with an average value of about 44 kPa. The highest shear strength was generally measured about 6.0 m below the ground surface. The sensitivity of the clay (i.e., the ratio of in-situ shear strength to remoulded shear strength) is about 2. The inferred average effective friction angle (φ’) for the clay based on the triaxial testing was 25.1 degrees, with an average cohesion of 10.5 kPa.

Generally, beneath the silty clay stratum is a deposit of dense to very dense silty sand and gravel till. The thickness of the till ranged from about 0.3 m to 3.6 m, with the thickest extent being towards the south-west corner of the proposed Overburden Stockpile. The glacial till consists primarily of grey silty fine sand and gravel. The SPT ‘N’ values range from 35 to over 100 blows per 0.3 m penetration, with an average value of 46.4 blows. On average, the glacial till possesses 26.3%, 45.3%, and 31.0% of clay/silt, sand, and gravel, respectively. The moisture content of the till ranged from 6.7% to 11.1%, with an average value of 8.7%.

The upper bedrock encountered on site was fairly consistent in all boreholes. It can be classified as a massive, mafic volcanic flow, light green to black in colour, very fine to medium grained, moderately to very hard rock. At the Polishing Pond, the bedrock was classified as an ultra-mafic peridotite with characteristics similar to those listed previously. Bedrock beneath the Waste Rock Stockpile was shallowest, with depths of 1.7 m and 2.7 m observed in the borehole (GBH13-05) and test pit (GTP13-03), respectively (Figure 5-1). At the remainder of the boreholes, bedrock was encountered at depths ranging between 6.2 m and 12.8 m below the ground surface. Falling head slug tests performed in the upper bedrock zone indicated that the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 3.9x10-6 m/s to 6.3x10-8 m/s.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 12

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Geotechnical information of bedrock was also routinely collected as part of the Gowest exploration drilling on the Bradshaw Deposit that commenced in January 2010. All Gowest drill holes were photographed prior to geological logging, sample splitting, and storing for future reference. Data collection focussed on determining the rock mass classification and involved collection of standard geotechnical parameters. Every Bradshaw deposit drill hole logged by Gowest geologists included the following geotechnical parameters: Core Recovery, Rock Quality Density and geological structural measurements. In specific gold mineralization areas (zones) and any broken rock zones, detailed geotechnical data collection also included the following parameters: Joint types and fillings, structural features, geological descriptors, Weathering Index and Hardness Index. This information will be used to determine crown pillar size, stope dimensions and ground support requirements for future mining operations.

Additionally, packer tests were conducted at two exploration boreholes, to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of underlying host bedrock and ore zones. Single packer interval testing was carried out in intervals, where poor rock quality was encountered, through constant head, falling head or rising head methods between daily drilling production runs. The tested intervals ranged from 46.5 m to 94.5 m in the host rock, and from 22.5 m to 44.5 m in the ore zone. In general, hydraulic conductivity of the host rock was estimated to range from 1.0x10-7 m/s to 5.6x10-7 m/s. For the ore zone hydraulic conductivity estimates ranged from 1.5x10-4 m/s to 3.5x10-6 m/s.

5.1.5 Proposed Mining Development and Operations Plans As the Bradshaw Deposit is open at depth, the deepest mining level (based on current plans) will be located 400 metres below surface, which represents the current economic limit of the resource. Mineralization continues below 400 m. Mining will utilize mechanized equipment with primary access for the workers and equipment provided via a ramp from surface. Underground movement of ore and waste will be through internal ramp then transfer to the surface ore stockpiles. The primary ramp can readily be advanced into the Bradshaw Deposit to provide access to various levels and provide secondary egress from the mine in event of future development of a shaft.

Gowest proposes the ramp to be driven in the footwall of the mineralized zone establishing an underground exploration ramp on an outcrop exposure located approximately 400 m north of the Bradshaw deposit. The mine will extend to a depth of 400 m below surface in the deposit, and is still open at strike and depth. Primary access to the mine from surface will be from the 15% down ramp from surface to 180 m level. The main ramp will be 4.5 m wide by 4.5 m high, sized to accommodate 50-tonne trucks and 6.1-m3 load-haul-dump units (LHD’s). The ramp will be developed by a mining contractor, with access to the deposit and mine infrastructure provided by levels and in some cases secondary ramps from the main ramp. The mine has been planned with 30 m vertical level intervals, which corresponds to the sublevel spacing selected for blast hole mining.

5.1.5.1 Haulage and Handling Ore and waste rock materials will be hauled to surface during advanced exploration. Ore will be stockpiled south of the portal on a run-of-mine (ROM) stockpile pad; whereas waste rock will be hauled northeast of the portal to a designated waste rock stockpile (see Figure 4-2). Ore will be reclaimed from the ROM stockpile area by front end loader, fed to a jaw crusher, screened and secondary crushed, and then conveyed to a fine ore stockpile. The fine ore will be reclaimed and fed by conveyor or front end loader into 40 tonne trailer trucks, and transported off site for custom milling in the Timmins area.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 13

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

The underground and surface development fleet will comprise of the following:  two boom electric hydraulic jumbo, two 6-yard bucket underground loaders, and two 30-tonne trucks to haul waste rock to surface;  two 6.1-m3 LHD and four 40-50 tonne trucks to haul ore to surface;  two loaders, one excavator, two dozers, and one off-highway truck for surface/ overburden handling;  one grader and one water tanker for road service; and  four 40 tonne trailer trucks for off-site hauling.

5.1.5.2 Project Duration It is anticipated that it will take approximately eight to ten months to develop the ramp and sub-levels, and an additional four months to extract the required amount of bulk sample. During this development period, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes of ore (bulk sample) and 100,000 tonnes of waste will be generated. Approximately 15,000 tonnes of bulk sample are required for metallurgical testing.

5.1.5.3 Operational Phases The proposed Advanced Exploration phase would focus on obtaining adequate information to make a production decision. This work would provide access to the deposit for further ore reserve definition drilling, drift sampling and removal of a limited metallurgical sample. The Project can be divided into eight phases of work at the site:

1) Site preparation (i.e., removal of vegetation, peat and overburden, as required) and construction of water management infrastructure (e.g., runoff diversion berms, settling pond(s), effluent discharge pipeline, and waste rock/ overburden stockpile pads); 2) Mobilization and setup of ancillary surface facilities (e.g., offices, dry, power generation and distribution system); 3) Excavation of a mine portal and of overburden material from the ore stockpile footprints; 4) Continuation of surface exploration drilling; 5) Development of a decline ramp for access of the deposit and underground drifts in the deposit; 6) Underground exploration and development drilling; 7) Underground metallurgical sampling; and 8) Transportation of bulk sample for metallurgical processing.

5.1.5.4 Work Force and Schedule A mining contractor(s) will complete all level and waste raise development, while owner’s crews will be used for extraction of ore for the bulk sample. During the Advanced Exploration bulk sample extraction phase, owner’s crews will be responsible for all development with the exception of raising waste to surface. Site work force requirements are detailed in Table 5-2.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 14

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 5-2: Site Work Force Requirements Number Position Required Office Staff <10 Underground Workers 10 TOTAL 20

It is envisioned that the contractor will utilize two 12 hour shifts per day, based upon a four-day-on, four-day-off work schedule (total 40 underground workers, 10 on-site at any given time). Office employees will work a 40 hour, 5 day per week work schedule.

5.2 Processing No processing of ore will be completed on site for the bulk sample, which will be shipped off-site for processing within the region.

5.3 Facilities and Infrastructure 5.3.1 Roads It is expected that five to six return haul trips will be completed per day during the four-month bulk sample extraction period.

The existing all-season gravel access road (Sheridan Road) will be upgraded as required. The extent of the upgrading will allow highway trucks to meet and pass safely on the haul road, as all crushed ore will be trucked off-site to be milled in the Timmins area. The access road was recently surveyed for infrastructure and surface upgrade improvements by local contractors. The road upgrade requirements include sections to be widened and resurfaced, where necessary, to allow for safe passage and axle loads of the highway trucks. Recent construction work was completed on a major culvert to allow improved year round access. All existing culverts will be reviewed to provide complete access from the highway to the proposed development area.

An existing drill trail (approximately 1.5 km) extends Sheridan Road east, and will be upgraded to an all season gravel road prior to commencing the construction of advanced exploration infrastructure. The loading area will be prepared to allow highway tractor trailers to reach the ore stockpile.

5.3.2 Other Transportation There are no requirements for inland water transportation, dock facilities, railway transportation or air transportation directly related to the Project.

5.3.3 Power Supply Electrical consumption of the Project is estimated at 1000 kW, with underground activities accounting for about 60% of total consumption. Electricity will be supplied by two (2) 1000 kW diesel generators, one of which will remain on standby for maintenance and emergency purposes. A new surface line will be planned and installed to serve the surface facilities and underground operation.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 15

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

5.3.4 Pipelines The only pipeline anticipated at the site is to discharge treated effluent to the receiving environment (see Section 5.5.2). Water will be provided either by a well, the mine dewatering, or potable water tanks trucked to site, and thus no water intake pipeline is anticipated.

5.3.5 Buildings A sand pad spread over a portion of the tree cut area with minor resurfacing and grading will be required for surface buildings. Only temporary infrastructure is anticipated at this time, and is anticipated to include:  portable maintenance shop with a compressor room;  portable containers for stock rooms and a main electrical room; and  heated trailers for offices, first aid station, mine dry and washrooms and sample preparation. No permanent or temporary camp will be required, given the proximity of Timmins to the south of the Project.

The maintenance shop will comprise of a surface maintenance area, which will be used primarily for maintenance and minor servicing of trackless equipment. Wastewater management from these buildings are detailed in Section 5.5.2.

5.3.6 Aggregate Requirements If required, aggregates will be brought in from off-site, permitted sources. No on-site aggregate pits are anticipated.

5.3.7 Storage Sites An explosive storage facility will be supplied and maintained on site by the explosives supplier or the mining contractor. Berms will be erected and two magazines (3 m by 10 m) will be installed for storage of powder, caps, and explosives. During construction, the distance required between site buildings, the access road and explosives storage will be maintained in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Quantity-Distance Principles User’s Manual published by the Explosives Regulatory Division of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan 1995).

Diesel and gasoline fuel for the power generators, mine equipment and vehicles will be stored on site in above ground tanks, as shown in Figure 4-2. Three 22,700 litre (6,000 gallon) storage tanks for diesel fuel and one approximately 7,570 litre (2,000 gallon) storage tank for gasoline will be provided. The storage tanks will be double-walled, CSA approved. All applicable legislation will be adhered to regarding the storage and handling of fuel (e.g., Technical Standards and Safety Act 2000, Ontario Fuel Handling Code). These items will be supplied by the mining contractor.

As there is no on-site processing, storage of other chemicals and reagents are not anticipated. Waste storage and handling sites are detailed in Section 5.5.3.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 16

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

5.4 Tailings, Waste Rock and Other Mine Stockpiles 5.4.1 Production Rates Approximately 30,000 tonnes of ore and 100,000 tonnes of waste rock will be extracted during the 14 month duration of the Advanced Exploration program. The equivalent production rates are an average of 75 m3/day and 150 m3/day of ore and waste rock, respectively. In addition, it is anticipated that approximately 300,000 m3 of overburden will be stripped during site preparation activities and initial development of the portal.

5.4.2 Disposal Facilities As there is no on-site processing, a tailings disposal facility will not be required.

5.4.3 Stockpiles The ore hauled to surface will be stockpiled south of the portal on a low-angled, flat-topped ROM pad measuring approximately 50 m by 60 m, and with a capacity of 15,000 tonnes. A 6 to 8 inch layer of sand will be spread on top of the pad to form a marker between the base foundation and the ore. The ore will then be reclaimed by a front end loader, crushed and conveyed to a fine ore stockpile prior to being loaded into 40 - 50 tonne trailer trucks and transported to Timmins for custom milling. The fine ore stockpile will be constructed similar to the ROM pad and will require approximately the same containment area.

A designated waste rock stockpile will be developed northeast of the portal for disposal of non-mineralized waste rock hauled to surface during development activities. The waste rock stockpile has an estimated capacity of approximately 330,000 m3, covering an area of approximately 110 m by 350 m. At closure, some of the waste rock material may be placed in mined out areas to reduce its exposure to the environment. Providing testing confirms it is environmentally acceptable, some waste rock may also be used for surface road construction, as backfill or used to contour the site at closure.

A designated overburden stockpile will be developed adjacent to the waste rock stockpile. Overburden is anticipated to be acceptable for use as berm construction and contouring material. The overburden stockpile capacity is also anticipated to be approximately 330,000 m3, covering an area of 110 m by 350 m.

Based on the geochemical characterization completed to date (see Section 5.1.4.2), a small portion of the waste rock (approximately 5%) has the potential to be acid generating, and will be handled separately from the remaining waste rock to minimize its exposure to the environment. Neither the ore nor the remaining majority of waste rock materials (i.e., 95%) are anticipated to be acid generating; however, there is some potential for the release of certain metals from a portion of the material. As such, the ore and waste rock stockpiles will be constructed on the existing clay materials. Surface runoff and seepage will be collected for treatment in the water management ponds (see Section 5.5.2).

Overburden material is not expected to be acid generating or metal leaching; however, surface runoff will be collected and sent to the water management ponds for settling of solid particles prior to discharge to the environment.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 17

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

5.5 Water Management Water Supply Water from the mine dewatering system will be recycled for use in the underground operation. A well will be drilled for domestic use (i.e. showers and toilets) and drinking water will be brought to the site. Water in the water management ponds will be used for fire fighting contingencies. Site Water Management Overview Water inflows from the site include: mine water, site surface runoff, runoff and seepage from the ore, waste rock and overburden stockpiles, and domestic wastewater. These inflows are collected and either pumped or gravity discharged to a series of water management ponds. Berms will be constructed to direct surface runoff that has come in contact with Project facilities, as well as waste rock seepage, to the ponds. The combined effluent will be discharged from the water management ponds after treatment, as necessary, to the West Buskegau River. 5.5.1 Water Taking Requirements During the Advanced Exploration phase of this Project, there will be a requirement for dewatering during the construction of surface facilities (e.g., pads); development of the ramp, and extraction of the bulk sample. Based on previous experience it is assumed that water taking for the Project will exceed 50,000 L/day, necessitating a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) be issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Generally, the supporting hydrogeological information required for the PTTW is as follows:  Background - previous investigations, any previous dewatering, current site conditions, geology, hydrogeology (groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, other water uses, existing wetlands, surface water resources, sensitive ecosystems, potential contaminant sources, etc.);  Groundwater inflow estimates, pumping requirements, schedule and changes to groundwater levels over time;  Impact assessment – potential impact to groundwater resources, surface water resources, wetlands, aquatic habitats, terrestrial environment resources, as well as geotechnical assessment of potential impact on structures, etc.;  Monitoring, mitigation and contingency plans; and  Figures such as a site map, predicted drawdown vs. distance graph, hydrogeological cross section of existing site, etc.

A baseline hydrogeological investigation was carried out to collect data to support the PTTW application. The investigation was intended to characterize the hydrogeological conditions in the local area to support the comprehensive requirements of the PTTW application process. Preliminary results indicate that long term water inflows to the mine workings are estimated to be in the order of 2,000 m3/day, reducing over time as the host rock depressurizes and a cone of depression advances outward. Short term flow rates of up to 14,200 m3/day could add to the long term figure from newly opened stopes or tunnels.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 18

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

5.5.2 Water Treatment and Disposal Requirements An Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for Industrial Sewage is required for mine water treatment systems, settling ponds, storm water collection and treatment systems that release or discharge, store or transport contaminants to ground and surface water. An ECA (Industrial Sewage) application will be prepared in accordance with MOE guidance documents and will include an assessment of effluent quality and the receiving water assimilative capacity.

An engineered settling pond will be constructed to hold water pumped from underground for settling of solids, as well as site runoff, including from the ore, waste rock and overburden stockpiles, as shown on Figure 4-2. Water quality modelling, which incorporates the Project designs and water balance, geochemical characteristics of the waste rock and ore, and baseline data will be completed during preparation of permit applications to determine whether there is a need for additional effluent treatment. As such, a three-stage settling pond is proposed to allow for sufficient retention time for settling of suspended solids and polishing after additional treatment. In addition, best practice measures will be outlined for activities such as site preparation and explosives management.

It is estimated that effluent discharge rates will vary between 2,800 m3/day during the winter and 5,200 m3/day during the spring freshet. The effluent discharge location will be either directly east of the ponds, if predicted effluent quality is suitable for this location, or via a 13-km pipeline to a location further downstream where receiving water assimilative capacity is greater. The pipeline option was conservatively incorporated in the preliminary design, with treated effluent pumped to an in-stream effluent discharge location, as shown on Figure 4-1. Baseline hydrological and water quality data will be used to determine the optimal discharge location based on existing flow rates and receiving water quality.

In addition, a small-sized septic system (sized for 40 personnel) will be installed. The septic system will be constructed on site in accordance with the MOE and the local health unit requirements. All sewage (e.g. toilets) will be collected in a separate tank. Sludge from the tank will be removed from site by a licensed contractor. Water from the showers in the personnel change area will be directed to a tile bed.

5.5.3 Waste Disposal and Management Systems Domestic waste will be stored in a dumpster for transportation to a licensed landfill site (e.g., Timmins, providing approval is given by the City of Timmins). Scrap steel will be stockpiled for removal by a local recycler. Wood wastes will be stored on site for burning under permit. There will be no onsite disposal of wastes.

Waste oils, greases and solvents will be stored on site in a cold storage, in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, for removal by a licensed contractor. A MOE waste generator number will be obtained by Gowest and/or their contractor for removal and disposal of these wastes.

5.5.4 Closure and Rehabilitation As per the requirements of Part VII of the Ontario Mining Act, a certified Closure Plan, including financial assurance to indicate the method, schedule and cost of all rehabilitation to be conducted on the site once closure commences, will be submitted for the Bradshaw advanced exploration Project. The closure plan will be prepared based the specific requirements for Closure Plans including the standards, procedures and minimum

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 19

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

requirements for the closure of mine hazards, as outlined in on O. Reg. 240/00 (as amended by O.Reg. 194/06 and O.Reg. 307/12).

Closure and rehabilitation measures for the Project are currently in the process of being finalized. Based on experience from similar projects in the area, closure activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Removal of ore stockpiles and surface facilities, including runoff diversion berms;  Rehabilitation of disturbed surface footprints, including the waste rock and overburden stockpiles;  Decommissioning of the water management pond and effluent discharge pipeline;  Decommissioning of the water supply well; and  Backfilling and/or capping of underground openings to avoid health and safety hazards. Waste rock may be used to backfill the underground openings. Overburden may be used for re-contouring of the remaining stockpiles. Revegetation of the disturbed surfaces is expected to occur naturally based on previous experience at the site. A post-closure physical, chemical, and biological stability monitoring program will be proposed to verify the efficiency of the rehabilitation measures.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 20

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

6.0 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA 6.1 Current Land Use The current land use at the property and adjacent properties is exploration and mining.

6.1.1 Historic Land Use Before the discovery of the nearby Kidd Mine in 1964, there was very little activity, mining or otherwise, in the area. Upon the discovery of the Kidd Mine, exploration of the surrounding areas intensified. Table 6-1 provides a list of companies who conducted exploration activities on the Bradshaw Project.

Table 6-1: Historic Exploration of Bradshaw Deposit Year Company Work Completed Covered four Prosser Township claims with MAG and 1963-64 Texasgulf Sulphur Co. Ltd. HLEM surveys. Completed MAG and HLEM surveys. No follow-up 1965 Patino Mining Company conducted. MAG and VLEM surveys on current claims 508398 – 1968 Acme Gas and Oil 508402. Claims were optioned to McIntyre Mines Ltd. in 1969. Covered four Prosser Township claims with MAG and 1968 Texmont Mines Ltd. HLEM surveys. Completed 2 DDHs in current claim 508394 to investigate EM conductive horizon. Completed three DDHs collared on current claims 1969 McIntyre Mines Ltd. 508398 and 508400 to test magnetic and electromagnetic responses. Made a gold discovery on the Intex property in the Frankfield Exploration and 1974 vicinity of the common boundary intersections, now Canadian Nickel Co. Ltd. referred to as the Bradshaw deposit. Optioned claims 508395 – 508402 to Frankfield 1975 Acme Gas and Oil Exploration Ltd. Frankfield Exploration and Exploration included 24 DDHs tracing mineralization for 1975-76 Canadian Nickel Co. Ltd. 183 m of strike length. 1978 Acme Gas and Oil Claim lapsed. Staked claims 508389 – 508402 and completed MAG and VLEM surveys on claims 508395 – 508398.Three 1978 Gold Shield Syndicate conductive horizons interpreted to be graphite and disseminated sulphides were located. Completed MAG and Crone “Radem” electromagnetic 1980-82 Gold Shield Syndicate surveys on 10 claims. Drilling occurred at 6 sites. Gowest, Romex Resources Inc. 1987 An option/joint venture agreement was signed. and New Texmont Entered into a joint venture agreement with Zenmac Zinc New Texmont and Intex Mining 1989 Ltd. to finance continued drilling of the Bradshaw Co. Ltd. deposit. Drilling amounted to 5,350 m at 20 sites.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 21

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Year Company Work Completed Completed DDHs GO90-4 at 666.6 m and GO90-5 at 1990 Gowest/New Texmont 715.4 m. Acquired an option to earn a 70% interest in the Bradshaw Deposit from the Gowest/New Texmont joint venture and neighboring Sheridan (formerly Texmont) 1990 Cyprus Gold (Canada) Ltd. deposit from Intex and Frankfield. The exploration program consisted of core re-logging and sampling, MAG and HLEM surveys and 3,638 m of diamond drilling at sites. Conducted a drilling program consisting of 6,151 m at 23 2004 Gowest/New Texmont sites on the deposit. Drilled GW05-23 to 24 and GW05-26 to 30, totaling 2005 Gowest 2,809 m and completing grid drilling of the gold mineralization on 50 m centers to a depth of 300 m. Eight holes (1,407 m) were drilled and metallurgical work was started. First Ni 43-101 Inferred Resource 2006 Gowest estimation completed on the Bradshaw deposit by G Harron. This outlined 2,661,900 tonnes at 5.8 gpt Au, totaling 494,490 ounces of gold. A further 6 holes totaling 1,275 m were drilled to test the 2008 Gowest deposit. A total of 200 drill holes (58,839 m) were completed on the resource definition of the Bradshaw deposit. Engineering work, base line environmental and metallurgical studies were completed. In November 2010 to 2013 Gowest Gold 2012, the Ni 43-101Resource estimation was updated by N Gow to 945,600 ounces of gold in the indicated category (6.0 million t at a grade of 4.9 g/t) and 536,800 oz. Au in the inferred category (3.7 million t at a grade of 4.2 g/t Au).

6.1.2 Neighbouring Land Use Active exploration activities are occurring on the SGX Resources claims south of the Bradshaw Project. The area is also used for hunting activities.

6.1.3 Neighbouring Aboriginal Communities Coordination with local First Nations communities was initiated early in the exploration and development process; details of which are provided in Section 3.6. The proximity of the Project with neighbouring First Nations communities is provided in Table 6-2 and shown on Figure 2-1. First Nation consultation is on going and plans are provided in Section 7.4.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 22

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 6-2: Proximity of Bradshaw Project with Neighbouring First Nation Communities First Nation Community Proximity to Project Flying Post 65 km Matachewan 85 km Mattagami 100 km Taykwa Tagamou 40 km Wahgoshig 90 km

6.1.4 Project Proximity to Sensitive Areas The Project is not located in proximity to national parks or heritage sites. Sensitive vegetation and wildlife species identified during the ecological baseline studies carried out to date are provided in Sections 6.2.2 to 6.2.4.

6.1.5 Neighbouring Towns and Communities The nearest neighbouring town is the City of Timmins, located approximately 30 km from the property.

6.1.6 Municipal Zoning Designation The Bradshaw Project is not located within the boundaries of surrounding municipalities (Timmins, Black River – Matheson, Iroquois Falls, Cochrane).

6.2 Environmental Features and Baseline Information 6.2.1 Topography and Landforms The Project is situated on the northern edge of Gowan marsh, a regional scale swamp which dominates the topography of the area. The base elevation on the Project is approximately 282 metres above sea level. The topography is generally flat, with only a few feet of relief permitting dry clay ridges to rise above the open / forested swampy areas. This Project hosts several of the few outcropping of bedrock in Tully Township.

Meteorological Data The Timmins region is classified as having a sub-humid mid-boreal ecoclimate (Environment Canada, 2005). Climate normals for the period 1971-2000 for the Project area were obtained from Environment Canada (2008). The Timmins Victor Power Airport site (Station ID 6028285) is located approximately 20 km southwest of the site and the data were assumed to be representative for the site. According to these data, the average annual temperature is 1.3°C, and total precipitation is approximately 831 mm, of which approximately 38% falls as snow. The prevailing winds have an average wind speed of 12 km/h, generally from the south from June to December and gradually shifting from west to north between January and May.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 23

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

6.2.2 Terrestrial Plant and Animal Life Communities Resource information was obtained through information requests made to the MNR Timmins District office (Springer, pers. comm. 2009), available mapping, and online database searches. The information collected was confirmed and supplemented through biological field surveys. General information collected included the location of:  Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) (i.e., Life Science Natural Area);  Significant wetlands;  Species at Risk (SAR); and  Habitat of significant species, based on values mapping information [e.g., moose (Alces alces) yard], waterfowl concentration areas, important wildlife habitat, forestry information.

Plant Community Preliminary desktop plant community mapping was conducted by delineating MNR Forest Resource Information (FRI) ecosites onto high resolution satellite imagery. Nine types of plant communities were identified, with black spruce being the dominant tree species, covering 76.4% of the study area (Springer 2009, pers. comm.).

The Project is located within Ecoregion 3Eas identified using the Northeastern Ontario Forest Ecosystem Classification (NEOFEC) (Taylor et al., 2000). Observations recorded during the plant community surveys indicate that the mixed forest habitat was dominated by black spruce, balsam fir, eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), aspen species, and tamarack (Larix laricina).Locations of detailed vegetation inventory plots are shown in Figure 6-1.

A total of 84 plant species were identified during the plant community surveys. This includes seven tree species, 24 species of small trees, shrubs and woody vines, 10 species of ferns and allies, nine species of graminoids, 21 species of forbs, seven species of mosses, two species of liverworts, and four species of lichens. Information provided by the MNR indicated that there are no floral species at risk known to occur in the study area (Springer 2009, pers. comm.). All plant species identified in the study area are considered secure and apparently secure in Ontario (NHIC 2012) with the exception of broad beach fern (Phegopteris hexagonoptera) which has a Provincial rank of vulnerable (S3). Broad beach fern was observed in the Eastern White Cedar – Black Spruce- Species Rich: organic soil (ES13r) ecosite which covers a small proportion of the site (Figure 6-1).

Appendix C provides a description of the 11 ecosites and three wetland types identified through plant community surveys completed for the Project.

Wildlife Existing wildlife information was obtained through a literature review, discussion with agency representatives knowledgeable about the site and searches of available databases. Incidental wildlife observations, including sightings, tracks, and other wildlife sign, and the habitat in which the observation is made were recorded during the plant community surveys.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 24

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

The desktop review revealed that characteristic wildlife of the region includes moose (Alces alces), black bear (Ursus americanus), lynx (Lynx canadensis), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), wolf (Canis lupus) and coyote (Canis latrans) (Environment Canada, 2005). Bird species include sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), American black duck (Anas rubripes), wood duck (Aix sponsa), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) (Environment Canada, 2005).

A list of breeding bird species with the potential to occur in the study area was compiled through searching the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (2006, 2009). Breeding bird surveys were conducted at 41 plots located throughout each of the plant communities identified during the plant community surveys (Figure 6-1). Overall 55 species of birds were identified (Appendix D).

Species at Risk The potential presence of nationally and provincially listed species was determined by searching the Natural Heritage Information Centre database (NHIC, 2009), Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO, 2009), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, 2009), the federal Species at Risk Act - Schedule 1 (SARA, 2009) databases and available range information.

Based on the review of species range information, there is potential for 13provincially listed wildlife species, one federally listed wildlife species, and one species listed as provincially vulnerable known to occur in the study area. The olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) and rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) are assessed as having a moderate-high to high potential to occur within the study area. The olive-sided flycatcher was the only species at risk observed in the study area; it is listed as a species of special concern in the province of Ontario (SARO 2012).

The olive-sided flycatcher was observed in the black spruce – larch – Labrador-tea: organic soil (ES12) ecosite which covers approximately 31% of the study area. Because other ecosites identified in the study area have characteristics similar to those preferred by the olive-sided flycatcher there is potential for this species to occur throughout the study area. The olive-sided flycatcher is most often associated with natural forest openings, forest edges near natural openings (such as wetlands) or open to semi-open forest stands and will use human made openings (such as clearcuts) (COSEWIC 2007). In Ontario, nests are most often placed in conifers, such as white spruce, black spruce, jack pine, and balsam fir and open areas with tall trees or snags for perching are required for foraging (COSEWIC 2007). No nests belonging to olive-sided flycatchers were observed in the study area during the surveys.

6.2.3 Surface Water Information At the regional scale, poorly drained wetland dominates the area (A.C.A Howe International, 2011). The area topography is flat with clay ridges rising above open and forested wetland areas. All streams and rivers in the area are part of the Hudson’s Bay watershed via the Abitibi River and Moose River drainage basins. The property is situated on the northern edge of Gowan marsh, a regional scale wetland which dominates the topography of the area.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 25

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

The Project site is located in the headwaters of the Buskegau River watershed with the West Buskegau River to the east and a tributary of the river running through its western boundary (Figure 6-2). There are no major water bodies in or around the site footprint, and wetlands are prevalent. In addition, beaver activity is high in the area. Baseline surface water flow and quality data was collected at various monitoring locations within the study area in support of optimizing the future effluent discharge location.

Site Streamflow Characteristics Data Sources

The regional streamflow data are defined as those collected by the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) and the flow gauging station(s) in the region. The Porcupine River Station is closest to the site and is the closest in drainage area to the site discharge locations. This station has a drainage area of 401 km2, 18 years of data (1977-1994 and 2008) and is located 25 km southeast of the site.

In addition, a streamflow monitoring program was established in September 2010 to collect local hydrometric data for the Project site. The general locations of the four (4) stream flow monitoring stations shown on Figure 6-2 were determined remotely considering topographical information (including drainage patterns, flow paths, catchment sizes and water bodies) and station accessibility via the existing network of roads and trails. The specific locations of the streamflow monitoring stations were determined during ground reconnaissance where site access and significant beaver activity dictated the final locations. The monitoring program comprised of four site visits representative of each season, during which both instantaneous flow and water level readings and continuous water level readings were recorded at each station.

Flow Data Collected

Station 1 is located on a tributary to the West Buskegau River, approximately 1.5 km north of the mineral concession boundary. There was no evidence of beaver activity up or downstream of the station at the time of the field visits. Measured flows ranged from 0 m3/s (winter) to 1.14 m3/s (spring).

Station 2 is located on the West Buskegau River, approximately 800 m east of the mineral concession boundary. During the November 2011 site visit, a large beaver dam was discovered approximately 130 m downstream of the station. Given the discrepancy in flows and water levels between site visits, it is likely that the dam was built (or at least modified) sometime during the course of the monitoring program. Because of the lack of clear correlation between water levels and flows, neither a rating curve nor hydrograph were derived for this station. Measured flows ranged from 0 m3/s (winter) to 2.22 m3/s (spring).

Station 3 is located on the Buskegau River, approximately 2.5 km east of the mineral concession boundary. There is a beaver dam approximately 130 m upstream of the station. There is also a high level of debris at the station. Measured flows ranged from 0.08 m3/s (winter) to 0.6 m3/s (spring).

Station 4 is located on the West Buskegau River, approximately 7.5 km downstream of the confluence with the Station 1 tributary. During the fall 2011 site visit, a beaver dam was discovered downstream of the station which was not present during the previous visits. Measured flows ranged from 0.05 m3/s (winter) to 5.7 m3/s (spring).

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 26

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Given the brief record, the propensity for beaver dams and the technical difficulties over the length of the hydrology program, the local data was compared to the available regional record. Graph 6-1 shows a comparison of the nominal flows at both the regional station and Stations 1, 3 and 4. It can be observed that, despite the difficulties with the monitoring program, for the periods of record available, the local stations appear to have comparable flow regimes to the regional station. One notable deviation in the flows occurs at Station 4 after the spring visit (after which a beaver dam was constructed at some point).

Low Flow Characteristics

The Ministry of Environment (MOE) requires that the point-source effluent criteria for Ontario waters be established based on the minimum 7-day average flow with 20-year return period (7Q20) flow statistics (MOE, 1994). The 7Q20 characteristics reported for the Porcupine River at Hoyle by the MOE (MOE, 1995) were 0.62 m3/s for the winter season, 0.71 m3/s for the summer season, and 0.58 m3/s for the entire year. However, the MOE study’s visual comparison of average monthly flows at the Porcupine River at Hoyle indicated that the streamflow in summer is occasionally lower than that in winter. The specific 7Q20 characteristics of the final effluent discharge location will be calculated to support the Industrial Sewage ECA application.

Proposed Additional Studies

Based on the low flows outlined previously, it is likely that the future effluent discharge location will be situated in proximity to Station 4. Further studies are planned to optimize the location based on existing right-of-ways, topography, and distance from the water management pond. Low flows and peak flows will be recorded to confirm the results previously presented.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 27

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

0.14 ) 2 Regional Hydrograph 0.12 /s/km

3 0.1 0.08 0.06 Min Discharge: 0.04 0.000085 m3/s 0.02 Nominal Disharge (m 0 Jun-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Apr-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 0.14 ) 2 Station SW-01 0.12 /s/km

3 0.1 Data lost. Potentially to freezing 0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02 Nominal Disharge (m 0 Jun-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Apr-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Nov-11 Dec-11

0.1 ) 2 0.09 Station SW-03 0.08 /s/km

3 0.07 0.06 Data lost. Potentially to freezing 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02

Nominal Disharge (m 0.01 0 Jun-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Apr-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Nov-11 Dec-11

0.14 ) 2 Station SW-04 0.12 /s/km 3 0.1 Beaver dam found 0.08 downstream of station during site visit. 0.06

0.04

0.02 Nominal Disharge (m 0 Jun-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Apr-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Nov-11 Dec-11

Graph 6-1: Regional vs Local Hydrographs

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 28

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Surface Water Quality Characteristics Water and sediment quality data was collected during two consecutive years at the six locations shown in Figure 6-2. Due to seasonal variability, four time periods were sampled throughout each year to determine seasonal trends and changes.Four of these stations were collocated with the flow monitoring stations discussed previously. Samples and field measurements were collected in accordance with recognized standard methods, and samples were submitted for analysis at a certified laboratory.

The surface water monitoring stations include five stations within 3km of the mineral concession boundary, and one reference station (FR-SW4) located approximately 11km northwest (downstream) of the mineral concession boundary. The UTM coordinates (in NAD 83 projection) and summary of sampling occurrence for both surface water and sediment are presented in Table 6-3. Table 6-3: Surface Water and Sediment Quality Sampling Locations and Sampling Occurrences Location Event Station ID 2010 2011 2012 Easting Northing Sept Feb May July Sept Feb May Aug FR-SW1* 484015 5401371 X(S) X X X(S) X X(S) X(S) X(S) FR-SW2* 488244 5398790 X(S) X X X(D,S) X X(S) X(S) X(S) FR-SW3* 490087 5398072 X(S) X X X(S) X X X(S) X(S) FR-SW4* 478079 5407353 X(D,S) X X X(S) X X(S) X(D,S) X(S) FR-SW5 489949 5396788 X(S) X X X(S) X X X(S) X(S) FR-SW6 485015 5397520 X(S) XD XD X(S) XD X(D,S) X(S) X(D,S) Notes: * Collocated with a flow monitoring station. D Denotes duplicate sample was collected. S Denotes sediment sample was collected.

Surface Water Quality

Fifty-four surface water samples, including one duplicate for each location were collected from six locations at the site. A summary of select water quality results are presented in Table 6-4 with respect to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Freshwater Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME, 2007) and Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) criteria (MOE, 1999). Key results are summarized as follows:  Acidic to near-neutral pH values (ranging from 4.8 to 7.8) were reported, with approximately 37% of measured values lower than the lower CCME and PWQO criteria (6.5) at all stations.  96% of total iron concentrations were greater than both the CCME and PWQO criteria at all stations.  96% of total aluminum concentrations were greater than the CCME criterion, and 100% were greater than the PWQO criterion at all stations.  74% of total cadmium concentrations were greater than the CCME criterion, and 6% were greater than the PWQO criterion at all stations.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 29

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

 48% of total copper concentrations were greater than the CCME criterion, and 7% were greater than the PWQO criterion at most stations (5 of 6, including the reference station).  Total cobalt concentrations were greater than the PWQO criterion in 17% of samples; whereas total lead concentrations were greater than both the PWQO (7%) and CCME (15%) criteria. The trends were observed at all stations except the reference station.  Sporadic concentrations of total selenium (FR-SW4) were greater than the CCME criterion (2%), and total zinc (FR-SW1/2) and Escherichia coli (FR-SW3/6) were greater than the PWQO criteria (4%, 6%) respectively.  69% of total phosphorous concentrations were greater than the PWQO criterion at all stations. Interpretation of phosphorous based on the CCME guideline indicates that 33% and 39% of samples are classified as meso-eutrophic (0.02-0.035 mg/L) and eutrophic (0.035-0.1 mg/L), respectively. The remaining 19% and 9% of samples are classified as mesotrophic (0.01-0.02 mg/L) and oligotrophic (0.004-0.01 mg/L), respectively.  14% and 10% of phenol concentrations were greater than the CCME and PWQO criteria, respectively, at all stations.  7% of free cyanide concentrations were greater than both the CCME and PWQO criteria at half of the stations (including the reference station).  One dissolved oxygen concentration was below the lower CCME criterion (5.5 mg/L) at station FR-SW5 in July 2011.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 30

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 6-4: Statistical Summary of Surface Water Quality Results for Select Parameters

Dissolved Oxygen Escherichia (c) (d) (d) (d) Parameter Temperature pH (Field) Cyanide (free) Phosphorus Phenols Aluminum Cadmium Cobalt Copper Iron (total) Lead Selenium Zinc (Field) coli Units °C — mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l per 100mL mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 0.0000046 – CCME Guideline(a) — 6.5-9 5.5 - 9.5 0.005 Narrative 0.004 — 0.005 — 0.002 0.3 0.001 0.001 0.03 0.000051 PWQO Guideline(b) ±10 6.5-8.5 4 – 8 0.005 0.02 0.005 100 0.015 0.0001 0.0009 0.005 0.3 0.001 0.1 0.02 Count 52 54 49 54 54 49 34 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 Min < 0.43 4.8 5.4 <0.005 <0.009 <0.001 0 0.05 <0.000003 0.000096 0.0006 0.22 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.002 Max 21 7.8 10 0.04 0.17 0.018 400 1.1 0.00017 0.0029 0.0039 2.6 0.0018 0.003 0.021 Average 10 5.8 8.4 0.0087 0.037 0.0027 41 0.46 0.000043 0.00056 0.0022 0.92 0.00057 0.001 0.0082 Median 10 6.7 8.6 0.01 0.027 0.002 10 0.49 0.000042 0.00033 0.002 0.83 0.00043 0.001 0.007 95th Percentile 20 7.7 10 0.013 0.089 0.0076 135 1.0 0.000093 0.0014 0.0036 1.9 0.0015 0.001 0.017 Values not meeting Guideline Criteria CCME — 20 1 4 — 7 — 52 40 — 26 52 8 1 0 PWQO 27 20 0 4 37 5 2 54 3 9 4 52 4 0 2 Notes: ‘—‘ Indicates water quality criterion does not apply. (a) Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Freshwater Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. (b) Ontario Minister of the Environment, Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO). (c) The criteria for aluminum depend on sample pH values. (d) The criteria for some parameters depend on sample hardness.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 31

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Sediment Quality

Twenty-eight sediment samples, including one duplicate sample of station FR-SED4, were collected from six locations at the Site. The results of the grain size analysis generally indicate that sediments at stations FR-SW5 and FR-SW2 endure marginally higher water current force, resulting in sediments of larger grain size, than that of other stations. Depositional conditions in the remaining stations are representative of low flowing water, likely due to flooded wetlands and/or beaver damming.

A summary of select sediment quality results are presented in Table 6-5 with respect to concentrations meeting the CCME Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQGs) and Probable Effect Limits (PELs) (CCME, 2002), as well as the MOE Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG) Lethal and Severe Effect Limits (LELs and SELs) criteria (MOE, 1993). Key results are summarized as follows:  Total Organic Carbon (TOC), cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and nickel concentrations were greater than the PSQG LEL criteria in 11% to 87% of samples.  Concentrations of cadmium, chromium and nickel were greater than the CCME ISQG criteria in 18% to 46% of samples.  Manganese and TOC concentrations were greater than the PSQG SEL criteria in one sample.  All concentrations were below the CCME PEL criteria.

Table 6-5: Statistical Summary of Sediment Quality Results for Select Parameters Parameter TOC Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Manganese Nickel Unit % wt mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg CCME ISQG(a) — 0.6 37 36 — — 18 CCME PEL(b) — 3.5 90 197 — — 36 PSQG LEL(c) 1.0 0.6 26 16 20000 460 16 PSQG SEL(d) 10 10 110 110 40000 1100 75 Count 20 28 28 28 28 28 28 Min 0.65 0.08 11 3.4 5600 150 5.9 Max 16 0.81 44 19 27000 1200 28 Average 4.3 0.37 29 10 16829 586 17 Median 3.3 0.34 30 10 18000 550 18 95th Percentile 9.7 0.68 42 18 23650 1062 25 Values not meeting Guideline Criteria CCME ISQG — 5 5 0 — — 13 CCME PEL — 0 0 0 — — 0 PSQG LEL 19 5 18 3 9 16 17 PSQG SEL 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 32

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Notes: ‘—‘ Indicates sediment quality criterion does not apply. (a) Canadian Council of Environment Ministers (CCME) sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG), Freshwater, 2002. (b) Canadian Council of Environment Ministers (CCME) sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Probable Effect Level (PEL), Freshwater, 2002. (c) Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG): Lowest Effect Level (LEL), 1993. (d) Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG): Severe Effect Level (SEL), 1993.

6.2.4 Aquatic Plant and Animal Communities Background information was obtained through information requests made to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Timmins District office (Springer 2009, pers. comm.) and available mapping. The information collected was confirmed and supplemented through field surveys. Five aquatic sample locations, shown on Figure 6-2 were assessed during two days in June.

Water temperatures recorded during the field program ranged from 14.5°C to 21.7°C, and increased with distance downstream from Sample Location 1 to 5. The temperatures recorded were indicative of thermal regimes for cold (10°C to 18°C) to cool (18°C to 25°C) watercourses (MNR 2004). A similar gradient was recorded for pH and conductivity values while dissolved oxygen concentrations remained consistent and were near saturation at all sample locations.

Fish Habitat Survey Based on information provided by the Timmins District MNR (Springer, pers. comm. 2009), the Buskegau River, to the east of the site is classed as a coolwater fishery, with its headwaters considered cool water streams. No fish spawning areas have been identified on or around the site (Springer, pers. comm. 2009).

Fish habitat mapping consisted of classifying the channel segment types observed and describing the available habitats that may be of importance to fish such as spawning and rearing habitats. Field habitat data was overlain on shape files and ortho-imagery supplied through the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to create habitat maps.

Sample Location 1

Sample Location 1, situated within the upper reaches of the West Buskegau River tributary, upstream and outside of the Project boundary, lies within a broad graminoid marsh type wetland, dominated by sedges (Fam. Cyperaceae) and grasses (Fam. Poaceae) and surrounded by shallow sloped (0 to 5%) forested terrain with black spruce (Picea mariana) as the predominate vegetative cover. Approximately 150 m of river channel were assessed at Sample Location 1.

The upper portion of Sample Location 1 is defined as a “FL”, which is a low gradient, low velocity channel unit with near laminar flow and high channel uniformity. Recorded flow velocity was less than or equal to 0.01 m/s through a channel that varies in width from 3 to 7 m and in depth from 0.11 to 0.8 m. Channel substrate is predominately silt with organic muck and woody debris also present. Cover for fish is relatively abundant with overhanging and emergent instream vegetation being the predominate forms present. The downstream portion

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 33

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

of the channel consists of an impoundment pool (IP3) created as a result of a beaver (Castor canadensis) dam that is currently inactive. This channel unit typically forms as a result of a damming structure such as a beaver dam and tends to accumulate sediment and organic debris. IP3 pools are typically shallow (i.e., less than 1 m deep) and provide low quality instream cover for fish except under high flow events. The dam is approximately 20 to 30 m long and 0.45 m high, but with a partial breach that allows water to flow downstream. The impoundment pool is largely open water with the bottom substrate of silt and organic muck. Shore margins were dominated by floating and emergent vegetation that may provide limited cover for fish. Immediately downstream of the dam, the channel continues as a flat, similar in composition to that assessed upstream.

Sample Location 2

Sample Location 2, situated within the southern corner of the site lies within a broad graminoid marsh type wetland, dominated by sedges and grasses, but with low shrubs, mainly speckled alder (Alnus incana) also prevalent. Beyond the wetland margins the forested terrain is dominated by black spruce. Approximately 260 m of river channel were assessed at Sample Location 2.

Sample Location 2 consists of a slow flowing FL with a recorded flow velocity was 0.01 m/s. Channel width is variable (0.5 m to 8 m) and maximum depth recorded at each of five separate transects ranged from 0.42 to 0.73 m. Channel substrate is predominately silt, organic muck and woody debris underlain by clay. Cover for fish consists of overhanging riparian vegetation, instream woody debris and submergent vegetation with a large proportion of the channel also providing undercut banks. A beaver dam is present at Sample Location 2 and has created an IP3 approximately 0.62 m deep with a small inlet tributary located on the northwest margin of the pool. The dam is approximately 0.40 m in height and although inactive and partially breached, controls the downstream flow of water through this portion of the river. The pool has bottom substrates of silt and organic muck. Open water was observed throughout the pool, except along the shore margins where emergent vegetation is found. Shore margins of the pool were also observed to be undercut in places and may provide suitable cover for fish. Immediately downstream of the dam, the channel unit continues as a flat approximately 1.5 m wide and 0.73 m deep, with undercut banks and a combination of instream and overhead vegetation present.

Sample Location 3

Sample Location 3 is located outside but adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Approximately 100 m of river were assessed at Sample Location 3. The river channel here is a broad FL and very slow moving (recorded flow velocity was less than or equal to 0.01 m/s). Channel width is approximately 5 to 8 m with typical depths of between 0.28 and 0.4 m, although exposed areas of river bank indicate that water levels have been higher in the recent past. The slope along either side of the channel was relatively shallow (0 to 5%). Riparian vegetation consisted of sedges and speckled alder shrubs transitioning to upland vegetation dominated by black spruce forest.

Channel substrates are predominately silt, with some organic muck. Three locations along the channel had woody debris in the form of large weathered tree trunks that have fallen across the channel some time ago and become embedded in the banks and bottom of the river. Apart from instream vegetation along the shoreline margins and select areas of undercut bank, the channel is open and provides limited amounts of cover for fish.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 34

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Sample Location 4

Sample Location 4 is situated within the western boundary of the site, approximately 250 m downstream from Sample Location 3. Approximately 120 m of river were assessed at Sample Location 4. The river channel consists of a broad slow moving FL with a recorded flow velocity of 0.01 m/s. The channel was approximately 6 to 9 m in width and is relatively shallow with depths ranging between 0.20 and 0.24 m. Exposed areas of river bank at this location similar to that at Sample Location 3, suggest that water elevation may have been higher in the recent past. The channel likely formed part of an impoundment pool created by a beaver dam that has recently failed, exposing portions of river bank that were previously inundated. The slope along either side of the channel is relatively shallow (0 to 5%) with riparian vegetation dominated by tussocks of sedges/grasses, transitioning to speckled alder and a mixture of black spruce and larch (Larix laricina).

Channel substrates are dominated by silt and organic muck. Large amounts of woody debris were observed within the channel throughout this reach. The channel consists mainly of open water with sparse instream vegetation along the shore margins and limited amounts of undercut bank.

Sample Location 5

Sample Location 5 is located at the northwest boundary of the site, downstream of an east-west access road that runs through the property. Approximately 110 m of river were assessed at Sample Location 5. The upper portion of the sample location consists of an IP3 formed by beaver activity along the north side of the access road embankment. Two culverts pass water under this roadway although the field crew observed they were partially plugged with woody debris at the time of the field program. Two inactive beaver dams are located at the downstream side of the impoundment pool. Each dam is approximately 0.45 m in height and water flows, unimpeded through both dams. The open water pool created by the beaver dams is less than 1 m in depth and has a bottom substrate consisting of silt.

Below the impoundment, the assessed river channel consisted of two areas of FL, separated by a short section of shallow run (R3). A run channel unit is of moderate to high velocity and has a largely unbroken surface; an R3 run is of the lowest quality in terms of its depth and available instream cover for fish. Channel width within the flats is between 3 to 4 m and with depths in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 m. Flow velocity measurements recorded in each flat were between 0.02 and 0.08 m/s. Substrate is composed primarily of silt. Woody debris, undercut banks and overhanging vegetation consisting of alder shrubs and sedges form the majority of cover within this channel unit type.

The short section of run between flats has a wetted width of approximately 1.5 m and is approximately 0.14 m deep. Flow velocity measurements in the run were recorded between 0.1 and 0.3 m/s. Bottom substrates consist primarily of silt. Woody debris and sparse instream vegetation comprise the main cover forms within this short channel unit.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 35

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Fish Community Survey The fish community assessment was conducted under an MNR Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes (License No. 1063301), obtained from the MNR Timmins District office. The objective of the fish community assessment was to establish what fish species were present at each aquatic sample location and to document the various life history stages present.

Two taxonomic families with four representative species in total were captured from the five sample locations in the West Buskegau River tributary (Table 6-6). Fishing effort, catch results and mean length and weight data by species at each sample location is summarized in Tables 6-7 and 6-8, respectively.

Table 6-6: West Buskegau River Tributary Fish Community Composition Taxonomic Group Species Common Scientific Common Scientific Name Name Name Name finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus Minnow Fam. Cyprinidae pearl dace Margariscus margarita common shiner Luxilus cornutus

Sticklebacks Fam. Gasterosteidae brook stickleback Culaea inconstans

Table 6-7: West Buskegau River Tributary Backpack Electrofishing Effort and Catch Results Start Finish Sample Effort Catch Location UTM UTM UTM UTM (m*) (number) (Easting) (Northing) (Easting) (Northing) 1 485646 5396586 485527 5396676 120 brook stickleback (40) pearl dace (1) 2 485178 5397217 485112 5397318 150 brook stickleback (45) finescale dace (6) 3 484625 5398411 484543 5398439 100 pearl dace (8) brook stickleback (44) finescale dace (12) 4 484332 5398697 484393 5398613 103 pearl dace (7) common shiner (1) brook stickleback (71) finescale dace (9) 5 484178 5399419 484169 5399299 140 pearl dace (10) common shiner (1) brook stickleback (29)

Note: * - Electrofishing effort measured as metres of channel sampled.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 36

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 6-8: West Buskegau River Tributary Length and Weight of Captured Fish Fork length Weight Location Species n (mm) (g) min max mean min max mean 1 Brook Stickleback 20 28 52 36 -* - - Pearl Dace 1 98 98 98 10.72 10.72 10.72 2 Brook Stickleback 20 29 53 39.3 0.27 1.87 0.87 Finescale Dace 6 55 86 67.7 1.74 7.23 3.57 3 Pearl Dace 8 66 121 93.3 3.6 17.45 8.96 Brook Stickleback 20 27 55 36.4 0.11 1.56 0.7 Finescale Dace 12 39 63 47.1 0.23 2.42 1.62 Pearl Dace 7 50 68 58.9 1.08 2.81 1.89 4 Common Shiner 1 82 82 82 7.03 7.03 7.03 Brook Stickleback 20 29 50 35.5 - - - Finescale Dace 9 53 91 75.4 2.19 7.45 4.92 Pearl Dace 10 55 104 78.5 1.85 9.93 5.16 5 Common Shiner 1 62 62 62 2.77 2.77 2.77 Brook Stickleback 20 41 53 39.9 0.33 1.78 0.84 Note: *- No weight measurements recorded due to equipment malfunction n = number

Proposed Additional Studies Aquatic ecology field work was focused on a western tributary of the West Buskegau River, with survey locations targeted to collect representative information upstream, within and downstream of the Project area. This tributary drains to the West Buskegau River at a location approximately 4 km north of the northern boundary of the Gowest claim block. The main branch of the West Buskegau River is located over 500 m to the east of the current Gowest claim block. Based on the information collected to date, similar habitat is likely to exist in the West Buskegau River as in its tributary. Once the optimal effluent discharge location is identified, additional assessment work will be completed to confirm the existing data.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 37

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

6.2.6 Ground Water Information A baseline hydrogeological assessment is required to be completed in order to satisfy the requirements of Groundwater Monitoring for the Advanced Exploration Closure Plan Submission (Ontario Regulation 240/00, as amended by O.Reg. 194/06, under Part VII of the Mining Act). The hydrogeological assessment consisted of the following components:  Review of exploration and geotechnical drilling data;  Determination of groundwater monitoring well requirements;  Drilling / installation and development of monitoring wells;  Sampling of monitoring wells; and  Assessment groundwater quality and flow direction and potential groundwater users in the area. Three monitoring well nests (BH10-2A/B, BH10-3A/B and BH10-4A/B) and two single monitoring wells (BH10-1 and BH10-5) were monitored during seven sampling campaigns for all monitoring well locations with the exception of BH10-3B, which was not monitored in one winter due to frozen conditions.

The monitoring well details, UTM coordinates (in NAD 83 projection) and summary of sampling occurrences are presented in Table 6-9.Monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 6-2. Table 6-9: Groundwater Quality Sampling Locations and Sampling Occurrences Location Event 2010 2011 2012 Screened Monitoring Screened Interval

Well Material Easting Northing (m) Oct Feb Feb Aug July May May Sept

(D) BH-10-1 484358 5399192 36.1 – 39.1 Till X − − − − − X X BH-10-2A 5.5 – 8.6 Bedrock X(D) X X X X − X X 486650 5399031 BH-10-2B 2.3 – 3.8 Clay X X X X X − X X BH-10-3A 7.8 – 10.8 Bedrock X X X X X − X X 487046 5398972 Clayey X X BH-10-3B 2.9 – 5.9 X − X X X − Silt/Silt BH-10-4A 12.2 – 15.2 Bedrock X X(D) X X X − X X 486729 5398687 (D) BH-10-4B 6.1 – 9.1 Silt/Sand X X X X X − X X BH-10-5 485625 5398604 15.8 – 18.9 Till X X X X X − X X Notes: D Denotes duplicate sample was collected. ‘−’ indicates sample was not collected.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 38

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Groundwater Flows Regional groundwater flow is interpreted to be northward towards James Bay. Local shallow groundwater flow is anticipated to follow local topography and may be influenced locally by bedrock topography. Shallow groundwater flow in the eastern portion of the site is likely flowing east towards the West Buskegau River and west in the western portion of the site towards a wetland area which flows northwards and eventually reports to the West Buskegau River (Figure 6-2). Water levels were measured on seven occasions to date and are displayed in Table 6-10.

Table 6-10: Groundwater Level Measurements - Meters below top of pipe Monitoring Oct Feb May July Sept May August well 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 BH10-1 Artesian Frozen Artesian Artesian Artesian Artesian Artesian BH10-2A 2.52 3.90 2.22 2.07 2.23 0.920 1.85 BH10-2B 0.50 1.94 0.98 1.49 1.46 0.453 1.25 BH10-3A 1.10 Frozen 0.49 2.47 2.73 1.058 0.68 BH10-3B 1.10 Frozen 0.69 2.62 2.76 0.630 0.83 BH10-4A 2.32 3.25 2.19 3.73 3.17 1.536 2.20 BH10-4B 3.50 3.33 2.17 3.69 3.15 0.946 2.17 BH10-5 8.26 3.67 3.59 6.71 4.03 1.937 3.86 Notes: Artesian: water level above ground surface

Hydraulic conductivities of the screened intervals were estimated by completing rising head tests. Hydraulic conductivities are summarized in Table 6-11. Hydraulic conductivities ranged from 3.3 x 10-7 to 2.1 x 10-5 m/s. The shallow bedrock has a generally slightly higher hydraulic conductivity than the overlying overburden.

Table 6-11: Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Hydraulic Conductivity Monitoring Well Screened Material Estimate (m/s) BH10-3B Clayey Silt/Silt/Till 4.4 x 10-7 BH10-4B Silt/Clay 2.0 x 10-6 BH10-1 Till 3.8 x 10-6 BH10-5 Till 3.3 x 10-7 BH10-2A Bedrock 7.2 x 10-6 BH10-3A Bedrock 1.1 x 10-6 BH10-4A Bedrock 2.1 x 10-5

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 39

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Groundwater Quality A total of sixty groundwater samples were collected to date from eight monitoring wells. The baseline groundwater quality was compared to CCME and PWQO criteria for surface water quality to provide a frame of reference and a point of discussion for groundwater. Although it is not practical to directly compare groundwater quality results to CCME and PWQO criteria, these comparisons provide insights (at a screening level) regarding the magnitude of concentrations present in the groundwater samples and assist with the identification of parameters that may require further consideration. As suspended solids do not travel through the subsurface, the dissolved (filtered) groundwater concentrations, rather than the total concentrations, are compared to the CCME and PWQO criteria.

The groundwater quality results of the sixty samples are presented in Table 6-12, and are summarized with respect to the CCME and PWQO criteria as follows:  pH values were near neutral to slightly alkaline, ranging from 6.8 to 7.9. All of the pH values were within the ranges of both the CCME (6.5-9) and PWQO (6.5-8.5) criteria.  90% of dissolved iron concentrations were greater than both the CCME and PWQO criteria at all stations.  68% of dissolved arsenic concentrations were greater than the CCME criterion, and 25% were greater than the PWQO criterion at most stations.  30% of dissolved aluminum concentrations were greater than the CCME criterion, and 32% were greater than the PWQO criterion at most stations.  Dissolved cobalt and boron concentrations were greater than the PWQO criteria in 40% and 32% of samples, respectively, at five of eight stations.  Sporadic concentrations of dissolved molybdenum (one sample at station BH-10-4B), tungsten (two samples at station BH-10-5), and vanadium (one sample at station BH-10-4B) were greater than the PWQO criterion.  Dissolved copper concentrations were greater than the PWQO criterion on one occurrence at station BH10-1, and greater than both the PWQO and CCME criteria on five occurrences at BH10-4B.  One sample from BH-10-3B had a phenol concentration greater than the CCME criterion.  92% of phosphorous concentrations were greater than the PWQO criterion at all stations. Interpretation of phosphorous based on the CCME guideline indicates that 82% of samples were classified as hyper- eutrophic (>0.1 mg/L). The remaining samples were classified as oligotrophic (0.004-0.01 mg/L), meso- eutrophic (0.02-0.035 mg/L), or eutrophic (0.035-0.1 mg/L).

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 40

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 6-12: Statistical Summary of Groundwater Quality Results for Select Parameters

(c)

(d)

(d)

Parameter Phosphorus Phenols Aluminum Arsenic Cobalt Copper Iron Molybdenum Tungsten Vanadium Boron Cadmium

Units mg/L mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CCME 0.000044– (a) — 0.004 0.005 0.005 1.5 — 0.002 0.3 0.073 — — Guideline 0.00011 PWQO (b) 0.02 0.005 0.015 0.1 0.2 0.0001 0.0009 0.005 0.3 0.04 0.03 0.006 Guideline Count 60 49 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Min < 0.009 < 0.002 < 0.01 0.0006 0.028 <0.000003 0.000069 < 0.0005 0.042 0.00036 0.00013 <0.00003 Max 14 0.005 3.8 1.6 0.26 0.00011 0.013 0.0055 6.3 0.066 0.054 0.0084 Average 0.95 0.0018 0.18 0.24 0.13 0.000013 0.0018 0.0013 1.4 0.0049 0.0047 0.00085 Median 0.099 0.002 0.02 0.014 0.12 0.000003 0.00063 0.0008 1.1 0.0018 0.0019 0.00071 95th %ile 4.2 0.002 0.62 1.5 0.26 0.000043 0.0068 0.0035 3.7 0.025 0.022 0.0015 Values not meeting Guideline Criteria CCME — 1.0 18 41 0 0 — 4.0 54 0 — — PWQO 55 0 19 15 19 0 24 2.0 54 1.0 2.0 1.0 Notes: ‘—‘ Indicates water quality criterion does not apply. (a) Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (b) Ontario Minister of the Environment, Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO). (c) The criteria for aluminum depend on sample pH. (d) The criteria for some parameters depend on sample hardness.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 41

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Groundwater Users A Ministry of the Environment Well Record Request yielded 6 groundwater wells located within 10 kilometres of the center of the site. Table 6-13 summarizes the details of the request. It should be noted that some well locations are approximate. In some cases the township and district data provided do not match the corresponding coordinates (i.e. Waters, Sudbury is not within 10 km of the site) or the coordinates fall outside the specified 10 km radius when mapped. Groundwater use in the vicinity of the site is generally very limited. Of the six wells noted, two wells do not plot within the 10 km radius, one is not located in a township in this area (however the provided coordinates plot southeast of the site), one is an observation well listed as no longer in use, one well is abandoned, and one is representative of the wells that were drilled for this Project. As such, it is unlikely that there are drinking water wells within 10 km of the center of the site. Shallow dug wells are not usually listed in the database; as such there is a possibility that shallow dug wells exist in the area but have not been identified.

Table 6-13: MOE Water Well Information Request Results UTM NAD 83 Zone 17 Final Status, Township, Well Id Date Stratigraphy Use District Easting Northing (m) (m)

0-1 m brown fill, clay layered 1-3 m brown clay layered 3-41m grey clay layered Test Hole, Wark, 1602395 15-Jan-76 476,314 5,388,427 Industrial Use Cochrane 41 m medium gravel, silt, stones 41-44 m brown medium gravel 0-55 m sand Wark, 1605353 15-Nov-99 Not provided 476,555 5,388,191 55-59 m hardpan, boulders Cochrane 59-65 m green rock Observation Wark, 1605672 03-Nov-04 Well, Not 479,078 5,392,571 0-3 m grey clay Cochrane Used

Water Waters, 5902374 15-Aug-70 Supply, 489,134 5,395,228 0-23 m yellow sand, gravel Sudbury Domestic

Abandoned - Hullett, 7131298 15-Sep-09 481,729 5,398,855 0 - 85 m previously drilled Other Huron Well ID associated Tully, 7150165 20-Jun-10 484,358 5,399,122 Not provided with wells for Cochrane this Project

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 42

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

6.2.7 Air Emission Information Under Section 9 of the EPA, an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) is required for any discharges of a contaminant to the atmospheric environment. For the purposes of this type of approval, noise is also considered a contaminant.

For this stage of the Project, the ECA pertaining to Air and Noise would consider, but not be limited to:  Underground mine ventilation;  Drilling and blasting for ramp development;  Crushing and/or screening activities;  Concrete batch operations;  Material handling equipment;  Stationary fuel-powered equipment (comfort heating, generators, compressors, etc.); and  Fugitive emissions such as road dust. Equipment for which an ECA is required must meet the air quality standards, as stated in Ontario Regulation 419/05 (O.Reg.419/05) to document compliance with Section 9. This regulation includes the documentation and dispersion modelling requirements required to be used to demonstrate compliance. For this Project, this is documented in an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report (ESDM Report) and Noise Screening Process Form. ESDM Report Based on the information provided by Gowest, Golder will prepare an ESDM Report which will include maximum emission estimates for the significant emission sources that have been identified for the Project. The estimated emission data will be used to carry out AERMOD dispersion modelling to confirm that the Project will comply with point of impingement standards (POI standards) in Schedule 3 of O.Reg.419/05. All dispersion modelling will be carried out in accordance with the MOE Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario – Version 1.0, dated July, 2005. The results of the dispersion modelling will be documented in the ESDM Report, to be prepared in accordance with the MOE document Procedure for Preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report, Version 2.0, dated July 2005. If it is determined that the Project may not comply with the POI standards, we will immediately notify Gowest and discuss alternative approaches to proceeding with the scope of work, possibly at an additional cost. Noise Screening Process In addition to establishing compliance with the air standards, facilities are also required to demonstrate compliance with the MOE’s noise guidelines. The MOE has developed various Noise Screening Processes (2005 and 2008), in which the nature of the facility and/or the equipment present on-site, and separation distance to sensitive points of reception determines the necessity of a detailed acoustic assessment of the facility (i.e., preparation of an AAR).

Based on information provided by Gowest, the Project is greater than 1 km from any noise receptor. Golder will prepare the MOE’s Primary Noise Screening Process Form for signature by Gowest personnel. If it is

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 43

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

determined that the Project does not meet the minimum required separation distance, Golder will provide Gowest with a separate change of scope including cost estimate, to complete either the Secondary Noise Screening or an Acoustic Assessment Report, whichever is most applicable. ECA for Air and Noise Emissions Application Once we have sufficient information to demonstrate that the Project is in compliance with O.Reg.419/05 and the minimum required separation distance for noise, Golder will provide Gowest with an electronic draft of the ECA application package including: ESDM Report, Noise Screening Process Form, and the required MOE forms. Upon receipt of comments from Gowest, Golder will finalize the above documents and forward them to Gowest for signature and submission to the MOE. Gowest will be required to issue payment (cheque or credit card information) to the “Minister of Finance” for the application fee (as calculated by Golder), and submit it to the MOE along with the application documents.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 44

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

7.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE 7.1 Development Schedule A schedule for the development of the Bradshaw Project Advanced Exploration Phase is presented in Table 7-1. Environmental baseline studies and preliminary engineering of the facilities have generally been completed. Additional studies will be carried out to optimize the effluent discharge location and confirm representativeness of previously collected data. Preparation of permit applications and ministry review and approval is anticipated to last approximately six months. Development of the portal and ramp to the ore for bulk sample extraction is anticipated to last approximately eight to ten months after permit approvals are granted. Bulk sample extraction and metallurgical test work is expected to last approximately 12 months.

7.2 Detailed Construction and Proposed Schedule of Development Due to the location of the site in predominantly wetland environment, excavation of overburden will be required for surface facility foundation preparation. Water management infrastructure will be constructed prior to major excavation activities to capture surface runoff during construction. Excavation for the ramp will commence in winter when the ground is frozen. This will minimize surface disturbance and reduce water handling requirements. Construction of surface facilities is expected to be completed within 2 months of permit approvals. Workforce requirements are provided in Section 5.1.5.4.

7.3 Regulatory Processes and Schedule 7.3.1 Project Regulatory Process Underway Assistance from federal, provincial and municipal regulatory agencies will be required during aboriginal and public consultations, as well as in the granting of environmental permits and authorizations.

Gowest will meet with provincial and federal regulators in March 2014 to confirm permit requirements. Based on the proposed site activities and site plan it is anticipated that Gowest will have to obtain the following main permits:  Ministry of Environment – A Permit to Take Water is required for the taking of water from any water body (surface or ground water) in a volume that exceeds 50,000 litres per day.  Ministry of Environment – An Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for Industrial Sewage Works is required for the discharge of mining related effluent to the downstream environment including all water management facilities such as settling ponds that are associated with the management of effluent.  Ministry of Environment – An ECA for Air & Noise is required for discharges to air including mine ventilation systems and diesel generators.  Ministry of Northern Development and Mines – A Mine Closure Plan is required to be filed with MNDM complete with financial assurance to adequately rehabilitate the mine project to the standards provided in Ontario Regulation 240/00 – Mine Development & Closure (as amended by O.Reg. 194/06 and O.Reg. 307/12).

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 45

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

It should be noted that the above list is not exhaustive as there are other environmental permits or authorizations that may be required from other provincial and federal regulatory agencies. Examples of additional permits and authorizations include:  Ministry of Natural Resources – A Forest Resource License to remove merchantable timber (if any), located in the project development, that is reserved to the crown.  Ministry of Natural Resources – Work Permit(s) are required to do work on crown lands or that requires Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Approval. Examples of when a work permit would be required would be to upgrade a culvert.  Department of Fisheries and Oceans – A Letter of Advice or Fisheries Act Authorization if there are potential impacts to fish and fish habitat that can be mitigated (Letter of Advice) or not mitigated (Authorization).  Natural Resources Canada – An Explosives User Magazine License may be required;  Ministry of the Environment – Registration as a Hazardous and Liquid Industrial Waste Generator may be required;  Ministry of Transportation – An Entrance Permit may be required;  Porcupine Health Unit – A Septic System Permit may be required; and  Municipality of the City of Timmins – A Building Permit may be required. Due to the estimated power generation requirements on site (i.e., 1 kW), it is assumed that only an environmental screening process for electricity projects will be required under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act. As there will be limited waste handling and no waste disposal on site, the Project is assumed to be exempt from the environmental screening process for waste management projects.

7.3.2 Site and Regional Assessment Work Golder Associates Ltd. and Blue Heron Solutions for Environmental Management have completed, on behalf of Gowest, environmental baseline and geotechnical studies to obtain sufficient information to prepare the permit applications required for the Project. The results of these studies are summarized in Sections 5 and 6. Air and noise modelling is currently underway to support the Air and Noise ECA application.

7.4 Public and Aboriginal Consultation Coordination with local First Nations communities was initiated early in the development process and has been on-going. Three Aboriginal communities have identified themselves as being potentially impacted by future Project development: Mattagami, Matachewan and Wahgoshig. Consultation was also initiated with Métis representation and will be on-going. Consultation activities completed to date by Gowest are provided in Section 1.3. Additional consultation with federal, provincial and municipal regulatory agencies, as well as First Nations and MNO and the general public, will be continued in 2014 and throughout the Project.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 46

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Gowest will arrange informational meetings and/or open houses with identified First Nations and Métis communities, as well as other public stakeholders. The intended purposes of the meetings with the Project’s neighbouring communities would be to:  Present the Project Description (including Project location, schedule, gold mining process, social and environmental responsibility practices, regulatory process and anticipated environmental impacts);  Provide opportunities for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal persons to identify their rights, interests and concerns, and document their comments and questions with an intent to avoid or mitigate impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights;  Identify the permitting documentation available for review and comment (e.g., Closure Plan, ECA applications);  Discuss any prior traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and/or traditional land use studies (TLUS) studies that the communities have participated in and the resulting outcomes and information gaps;  Discuss and determine the willingness to share information from previous TEK and/or TLUS;  Determine the level of support for a TEK and/or TLUS for each individual community in any future Project Phases.

Gowest will issue formal notice to alert participants to planned open houses, and of the submission of the ECA applications and Draft Closure Plan. Notification methods will include newspapers, radio and postings at community centres and Band or municipal offices, in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 47

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Table 7-1: Tentative Project Schedule by Main Components 2014 2015 Project Schedule Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Preliminary Engineering Studies Complementary Environmental Studies First Nation Consultation Environmental Permitting Portal/Ramp Development Bulk Sample Collection

Submission of Permit Applications

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 48

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

8.0 REFERENCES A.C.A Howe International, 2011. Technical Report on the Frankfield Gold Project. Tully Township North-eastern Ontario. Report number 947. June 1, 2011.

Bradshaw, R.J., December 2008. 2008 Technical Report on Gowest/New Texmont Property and Exploration and Development Progress on Frankfield Gold Deposit, Tully Township, Timmins Area, Ontario. (SEDAR)

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2002. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (Updated 2002).

CCME, 2007. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Update 7.1 (December 2007).

COSEWIC. 2009. Canadian Species at Risk, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm

Environment Canada. 2005. Narrative Descriptions of Terrestrial Ecozones and Ecoregions of Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Framework/Nardesc/borshd_e.cfm.

Environment Canada. 2008. http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate normals/results e.html.

Gow, N., Montgomery, K. and Peimeng L. November 15, 2012 Updated Mineral Resource Estimate, North Timmins Project, Timmins, ON. Gowest Gold Ltd. (SEDAR)

Harron, G.A., November 2006. Technical Report on Gowest/New Texmont Property, Tully Township, Ontario. (SEDAR)

MEND, 2009, Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials. MEND Report 1.20.1., Mine Environment Neutral Drainage Program, Natural Resources Canada, December, 2009

MOE (Ministry of Environment and Energy), 1993. Ontario Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG).

MOE, 1994. Deriving Receiving-Water Based, Point-Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Waters. Ontario, Canada.

MOE, 1995. Regionalization of Low Flow Characteristics in North-eastern and Northern Ontario. By Cumming Cockburn Limited for the Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ontario, Canada.

MOE (Ministry of Environment), 1999. Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO).

MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources), 2004. Ontario Fish Water temperature Preferences, Queen’s Printer for Ontario 2004.

MTO (Ministry of Transportation), 1997. Drainage Management Technical Guidelines, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Downsview, Ontario.

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre), 2009. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm

NRCan (Natural Resources Canada), 1995. Quantity-Distance Principles User’s Manual, Explosives Regulatory Division.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 49

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, 2006; 2009. Database of bird observations from across Ontario from 2001-2005. Available on-line at http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas.

Price, W., 1997. Draft Guidelines and Recommended Methods for the Prediction of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Minesites in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Employment and Investment (Ministry of Energy and Mines), Victoria, British Columbia.

SARO. 2009. Species at Risk, Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/sar/sar-e.html.

Species At Risk Act. 2009. Species at Risk Act: Schedule 1. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca.

Springer, Eldon. December 15, 2009. Personal communication.

Taylor, K.C., R.W. Arnup, B.G. Merchant, W.J. Parton, and J. Nieppola. 2000. A Field Guide to Forest Ecosystems of Northeastern Ontario: 2nd Edition. Queens Printer for Ontario, Ontario.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4 50

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

FIGURES

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

300000 375000 450000 525000 LEGEND H IG H W .! City/Town A Y C O C H R A N E 11 ^ Kidd Facilities "J Métis Community Northern Lights Existing Powerline Métis Council Contour - 10 m Interval "J ³ Highway

0 0 Railway 0 0 0 0 5 5

2 Taykwa Tagamou 2 River 4 4 5 Nation (New Post) 5 Lake First Nation Municipal Boundary First Nation Community Project Watershed Boundary PROJECT Regional Watershed Boundary SITE Project Site Kidd Mine^ I R O Q U O I S F A L L S

Kidd Metallurgical Site Flying Post First Nation ^ .! PORCUPINE TIMMINS .! "J.! Métis Nation of Ontario - T I M M I N S Hudson Bay Missanabie Timmins M a n i t o b a Cree Nation First Nation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 James Bay 3 3 5 5

Q u e b e c 1 Thunder Bay 0 ! 1 ! Y A Timmins W Lake Superior H IG

H

d Sudbury !

x Matachewan m . First Ottawa e 4 ! l

4 a

1 c Nation Lake S l Y Huron

a A n Toronto W o ! Lake i H Lake g Ontario

e G I Michigan R H Windsor _ ! Lake Erie n a l Mattagami P Chapleau INDEX MAP e U . S . A t i First

S Ojibwe \ n Nation o i First Nation t p i r

c REFERENCE s .! MATTAGAMI e Chapleau Cree

D Base Data - MNR NRVIS, obtained 2004, CANMAP v2008.4 t

c First Nation e Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from j o r Brunswick Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2008 P \ t f House Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N a r D

\ First Nation s

0 0 25 0 25 D 0 0 X 0 0 5 5 M \ 7 7 SCALE 1:875,000 KILOMETRES S 2 2 I 5 5 G \ d l

e PROJECT i f k n a r

F GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT _ 0 1 0 6

- TITLE 8 1 1 1 -

9 SITE PLAN - REGIONAL SCALE 0 \ 9 0 0

2 PROJECT NO. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 \ s t DESIGN CGE 14 Nov. 2008 c e j GIS JO 21 Feb. 2014 o r 300000 375000 450000 525000 CHECK DB 21 Feb. 2014 P

\ FIGURE: 2-1 : Mississauga, Ontario REVIEW DB 21 Feb. 2014 G 472500 480000 487500 495000

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y NOBEL MINERAL

L 6 ower 5 EXPLORATION GLENCORE S 5 turgeo n Dam Road

d

a

o

R

n

y

l

e

v

E

-

t

h ³

g

u

a

n

n

o

C

NOBEL MINERAL

0 EXPLORATION 0 0 0 5 5 2 2 0 0 4 4 5 GLENCORE 5

GOWEST

H

I G

H P501055 P501062 P515807

W

A GLENCORE Y GLENCORE P508390 P508389 P501056 P501061 P501063

6

5 5 P508395 P508391 P508392 P97938 P97939 P508398 P508401 P501060 P501064 P508399 P501057 P508396 GLENCORE P508393 P508394 P97941 P97940 P508397 P508402 P501059 P501065 GOWEST P508400 P501058

P97942 P99286 P99289 P100440 P100442 GLENCORE P100438 GOWEST P97943 P99287 P99288 P100437 P100439

P101372 P97944 P97947 P97948 P97949 P101373 GLENCORE

P97945 P97946 P101375 P101374

GLENCORE d x m . e r u SGX RESOURCES n e T d n a L \ n o i t p i 0 0 r 0 0 c 0 0 s 5 5 e 9 9 D 3 3 t 5 5 c 472500 480000 487500 495000 e j o r P

\ 2,500 0 2,500 t f a r LEGEND D \ SCALE 1:70,000 METRES s D

X Road Current Tenure Situation Access Road M \

S Glencore

I Stream/River Proposed Effluent Discharge Pipeline PROJECT G \

d Gowest l Lake Project Site e i f k Nobel Mineral Exploration GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT n Wetland a r SGX Resources F

_ Gowest Leased Claims 0

1 TITLE 0 6 - 8 1 1 1

- LAND TENURE 9 0 \

9 REFERENCE NOTES: 0

0 PROJECT NO. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 2

\ Base Data - MNR NRVIS, obtained 2004, CANMAP v2008.4 s t DESIGN CGE 14 Nov. 2008 c Site Claim Data - Provided by GOWEST, November 2009 (Claim Maps.dxf); Current Tenure Situation - Digitized from Tully Township General Compilation, 2002 e j GIS CGE 25 Feb. 2014 o r Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2008

P CHECK AL 25 Feb. 2014 \ FIGURE: 3-1 : Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N Mississauga, Ontario

G REVIEW DB 25 Feb. 2014 468500 472000 475500 479000 482500 486000 489500 493000 ³ 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 3 0 0 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 5 d x m . e l a c S y t r e p o r P _ n a l P e t i S \ n 0 0 o 0 0 i t 5 5 p 6 6 i r 9 9 c 3 3 s 5 5 e D t c 468500 472000 475500 479000 482500 486000 489500 493000 e j o r P

\ 2,500 1,250 0 2,500 t f a r LEGEND D \ SCALE 1:75,000 METRES s D

X Road M \ S

I Existing Powerline PROJECT G \ d l Stream/River e i f k GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT n Lake a r F

_ Existing Access Road to Highway 655 0

1 TITLE 0 6

- Proposed Effluent Discharge Pipeline 8 1 1

1 Project Site - SITE PLAN - PROPERTY SCALE 9 0 \

9 REFERENCE 0

0 PROJECT NO. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 2

\ Base Data - MNR NRVIS, obtained 2004, CANMAP v2008.4 s t DESIGN CGE 14 Nov. 2008 c Site Features - Provided by GOWEST, November 2009 (Site Features.dxf) e j GIS SC 21 Feb. 2014 o r Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2008

P CHECK DB 21 Feb. 2014 \ FIGURE: 4-1 : Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N Mississauga, Ontario

G REVIEW DB 21 Feb. 2014 487000 488000

2 80 2 82

Run-off Containment Berm ³

2 8 6

Waste Rock Stockpile Run-off Mine Settling Water Polishing Pond Pond Pond Fuel Storage & 29 Dispensing Station 4

0 2 0

0 8 0

0 Mine Portal 8 0

9 Dry, Administration, Work Shop, 9 9 9 3 3

5 Assay Lab, Washrooms Overburden 5 296 & Clinic Stockpile

290 Explosive Effluent Storage Treatment Facility Plant

Loadout 292 Station Ore Preparation

Plant Run-off d

x Containment Berm m . n o s i r a p m o C _ t

u Mine Access Road o y

4 a

L 8

e 2 t i S t c e j o r P

\ Frankfield Ore Body n o i t p i r c s e D t c 487000 488000 e j o PROPOSED EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PIPELINE r P

\ 150 75 0 150 t f a r LEGEND P D \ ro SCALE 1:5,000 METRES s s s D e

X Contour - 1 m Interval Proposed Infrastructure r C M

\ r e S e I Stream/River Proposed Effluent Discharge Pipeline ³ PROJECT k G \ d l Lake Existing Access Road to Highway 655 e i f k GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT n Wetland Project Site a r F _ 0

1 TITLE 0

H 6

- I G 8

1 H 1 W 1

- PROJECT SITE LAYOUT A 9

Y 0

\ 6 9 REFERENCE 5 0

5 0 PROJECT NO. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 2

\ Base Data - MNR NRVIS, obtained 2004, CANMAP v2008.4 s t DESIGN CGE 14 Nov. 2008 c Site Features - Provided by GOWEST, November 2009 (Site Features.dxf) 2.5 0 2.5 e j GIS SC 21 Feb. 2014 o r Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2008

P Kilometers CHECK DB 21 Feb. 2014 \ FIGURE: 4-2 : Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N Mississauga, Ontario

G REVIEW DB 21 Feb. 2014 2 0 0 - G - 0 0

0

5

8 486800 486900 487000 487100 487200 487300 487400 487500 487600 487700 487800 2 487900 GTP13-07 C DE 2 0 0 0 0

3 5399300 N 3 9 9 9 9 3 3 5 5

GBH13-13 DE 2 86 GTP13-08 DE ³

A 0 0

0 1 A' 0 2 GBH13-01 2 9 GTP13-09 9 9 DE 1 9 3 GTP13-03 3 5 GBH13-05 DE 5 K PILE DE E ROC

WAST DE

2

9 0 R U N

-O

2 9 0 F F W

E A T C E

N 0 9 R

2 ' E B P

: O R L

S E IS

E F H

L 2

E I IN 0 0

R F G

0 2 P 0

1 8 O 1 5399100 N 8 N 9 D 9

9 S 9 3 3 5 5 GBH13-06

DE E EN PIL BURD OVER GTP13-04 290.3 MINE PORTAL DE SC RUB 294 2 B 92

296 2 GTP13-16 GBH13-11 0 9 2 2 DE DE 0 98 0 3

303.4

2 9 5 GBH13-02 0 0

0 DE 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 3 3 5 5

95 2 0 C 9 ' 2 2

SC RUB

$

E

L

I

F

$

0 9

SC RUB 2 0 0 0 0

9 5398900 N . 9

8 N 8 O H 9 I P 9 T T 3 A 3 T 0 SECONDARY & TERTIARY 5 3 5 S - 291.4 0 CRUSHING & SCREENING G 2 IN STATION T @ R S d O R x S E T E m R

. R .

$ O O S H

E H 3 C T A R B A E E . _

D K R FRONTEND LOADER $ C P A V RECLAIM HOPPER

T T N S O ROM STOCK PILE _ C d e s o p o r 0 29

P T

\ R 0 F U 0 n

0 O C 0 R o K FINE ORE 8 8 i T L t 8 R O STOCK PILE 8

p A A 9 9 i N D r S

3 I 3 P N c G 5 O 5 s R /S T T e T O O R D A t R E G c E 486800F 486900 487000 487100 487200 487300 487400 487500 487600 487700 487800 487900 e IN B j E IN o R r Y. P

\ 50 25 0 50 100 150 200 t f LEGEND a r D \ SCALE 1:3,000 METRES s DE Borehole and Testpit Location BOREHOLE ID EASTING NORTHING D

X GBH13-01 487056.50 5399196.80 M \ Topographic Contour (1m Interval) S

I GBH13-02 487155.90 5399007.60 PROJECT G \

d Proposed Infrastructure GBH13-05 487235.20 5399181.60 l e i f k Treeline GBH13-06 487253.00 5399076.40 GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT n a r GBH13-11 487792.20 5399038.40

F Cross-Section _

0 GBH13-13 487162.10 5399265.60

1 TITLE 0 NOTE 6 GTP13-03 487410.00 5399185.00 -

8 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1 GTP13-04 487424.00 5399059.00 1 Based on previous Project layout dated 23 July 2013. 1 -

9 GTP13-07 487563.00 5399334.00 LOCATIONS 0 \

9 REFERENCE DRAFT GTP13-08 487585.00 5399244.00 0

0 PROJECT NO. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 2

\ Base Data - MNR NRVIS, obtained 2004, CANMAP v2008.4 GTP13-09 487622.00 5399192.00 s t DESIGN CGE 14 Nov. 2008 c Site Features and Overburden - Provided by GOWEST, July 2013.

e GTP13-16 487483.00 5399037.00 j GIS SC 21 Feb. 2014 o r Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2008

P CHECK RC 21 Feb. 2014 \ FIGURE: 5-1 : Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N Mississauga, Ontario

G REVIEW DB 21 Feb. 2014 LEGEND (! Plant Community Survey Locations GW27 (! (! Breeding Bird Survey Locations GAB044 (! Local Study Area GW26 GAB034 (! Plant Communities tSB - Black Spruce - Trembling Aspen - Fine Soil GW25 ES6f (! ES8 - Black Spruce - Feathermoss - Sphagnum - Moist Soil ES13p ES11 - Black Spruce - Labrador-tea - Organic Soil (! ³ GAB035 ES12 - Black Spruce - Larch - Labrador-tea - Organic Soil ES13p - Black Spruce - Larch - Speckled Alder - Organic Soil - Species Poor GAB032 GAB011 ES13r - White Cedar - Black Spruce - Organic Soil - Species Rich (! ES11 GAB037 (! (! (! GW16 ES14 - Black Spruce - Leatherleaf- Organic Soil ES13r (! GAB003 (! (! GAB033 GW18 ES5f - Black Sruce - Fine Soil (! (! ES13r lsB - Low Shrub Bog GAB014 ES8 (! (! GW2 tsF - Tall Shrub Fen GAB036 GAB039 (! GAB002 GAB040 (! (! ES11 (! GW1 tsB - Tall Shrub Bog GW14 GAB043 (! GAB001 (! (! ES5f(! (! ES13p lsB/tsF (! GW13 ES6f ES13p (! GAB005 GAB038 (! GW12 (! ! GAB006 GAB031 ( GAB008 (! (! ES12 GAB010 (! (! GAB015 ES12 ES13p GAB004(! (! (! GW10 ! GW23 (! ES11 ES6f( (! GAB007 GAB012 (! (! ES8 GW8 (! GW9 (! GAB042 GAB041 GW4 (! ! (! ( GAB016 ES11 ES13p GAB030 (! (! ES5f GAB013 (! GAB023 GW5 (! (! GAB018 (! ES11 GAB017 ES11 GAB020 (! (! ES14 GAB028 GAB029 GW6 (!(! (! (! lsB/tsF (! GAB019 GW7

REFERENCE GAB022 (! Springer, Eldon. 2009. Personal communications. December 15, 2009. GAB026 (! GW19 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 ! GW22 (! ( ES12 (! GW20 GAB025 (! GAB021 (! (! 260 0 260

SCALE 1:12,500 METRES

GAB027 (! PROJECT GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT

ES13p GAB024 TITLE (! TERRESTRIAL PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE SURVEY LOCATIONS PROJECT No. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN RRD Dec. 2009 GIS SC Feb. 21 2014 CHECK BW Feb. 21 2014 FIGURE: 6-1 Sudbury, Ontario Feb. 21 2014 G:\Projects\2009\09-1118-6010_Frankfield\GIS\MXDs\Draft\ProjectDescription\Terrestrial_Plant_Animals.mxd REVIEW DJ 0 2 8 80 2 LEGEND 2 80 0 280 " 7 2 2 Building 7 0 270 280 28

FR-SW4 280 0 8 0 (! 2 280 Stream/River 280 2 80 290

Contours - 10 m interval 280

280

0 27 0 0 2 280 28 28 80 0 280 Lake 8 2 280 Wetland

280 8

20 ³ 280

2 6 0 West Buskegau Watershed 280 280 280 280 280 2

2 80

2 7 (! 2 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Stations 8 0 0 270 9 2 0 2 8 280 260 2 8 0 280 8 0 280 (! 2 0 2 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Stations 8 80 28 2 280 7 0 2 8 0 0 0 28 0 280 0 2 8 2 2 80 6 0 28 280 28 0 0 2 0 (! 28 8 Surface Water Flow and Quality Monitoring Stations 0 0 9 2 28 80 0 280 2 2 8 90 2 0 2 90 2

60 0 2 7 280 Existing Access Road to Highway 655

290

0 82 28 0 290 0 8 Proposed Effluent Discharge Pipeline 2 8 2 0 280 290 280 290

280 300 290 Aquatic Habitat and Community Survey Locations 290 300

2 90 9 20 290 Mineral Concession Boundary

2 80 2 90

2

9 0 300 90 310 290 2 300 2 0 90 9 2 0

00 0 3 0 3 90 3 2 9 1 2 0

290 290 FR-SW1 300 0 ! 290 2 9 0 ( 30 290 300

29

0 0 3 30 10

280

2

2 290 2 0 0 0 9 0 290 9 90 300 0 0

0 0 290 0 0

30 0 0

0

300 4 3 4 0 5 0 5

1 300 2 90 3 0

0 29 0 BH10-1 (! 290 BH10-2A&B (! BH10-3A&B 290 (! 0 FR-SW2 2 29 (! (! 290

3 BH10-5 (! BH10-4A&B

0 0 3 2 0 29 3 00 90 FR-SW3 300 290 (!

2

8 03 0 3 0 0 29 0

0 0 03 0 290 31 0 90 30 FR-SW6 (! 2 290

4 0

0 3

d x 2 290

9 m . 0 300 s

n 5 (! 0 FR-SW5 30 o i t 290 310 290 0 a 31 c 290 o 0

9 L 3 00 2 y

e 0 v 1 290 0 r 3 300 2 30 0 3 u S

r 2 3 e 2 9

t 0 9 300 0 a 0 90 00 0 0 0 3 32 29 2 0 W 9 300 REFERENCE \ 2 n 2 o 9 0 i 0 t 9 Base Data - MNR NRVIS, obtained 2004, CANMAP v2008.4

2

p 3 i

40 r 3 3 Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from c 40

s 290 403 e 30 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2008 350 D t 2 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N c 9 0 e

j 3

32 50 0 0 43

o 0 r 2 90 29 P

\ 320 34 0 t 33 3 f 0 350 3 a

r 0

0 00 32 D 290 3 3 1,000 0 3,000 \ 50

s

303 2 34 0 D 0 3 0

X 0 3 METERS 2 3 30 SCALE 1:75,000 M 90 \

S 300

I 2 340 9 3 0 3

G 20

\

2 20 9 3 d l 340 3 3 e 50 0 PROJECT i 290 0 f 0 1 k 3 n

a 3 r 50 290

F GOWEST BRADSHAW PROJECT _ 0 1 0 6

- TITLE

0 8 30 00 3 1

1 3 3 2 1

0 - 300 0 0

9 0 0 3 WATER SURVEY LOCATIONS 0 \ 0

3 0

9 300 0

3 0

0 0 310 2 PROJECT NO. 09-1118-6010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0.0 \ 00 s 3 t 300 300 DESIGN CGE 14 Nov. 2008 c e j GIS JO 21 Feb. 2014 o r CHECK AC 21 Feb. 2014 P

\ FIGURE: 6-2 : Mississauga, Ontario REVIEW DB 21 Feb. 2014 G PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

APPENDIX A Record of Consultation and Aboriginal Consultation Report Form (completed)

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminary Record of Consultation - Aboriginal Communities Bradshaw Project Initiated by: Date Type To: Organization Organization Communication Summary Wabun Tribal Council Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council discussing the Project. Wabun Tribal Council suggested alternate contacts for work on behalf October 4, 2010 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest of communities. Also discussed working on communication planning. Phone call with Wabun Tribal Council to inquire about First Nation communities that may have an interest in the Frankfield Project. Wabun October 7, 2010 Phone call Wabun Tribal Council Golder Tribal Council referred Golder to an alternate contact because of a conflict of interest.

Phone call with Wabun Tribal Council to discuss communities for the Project. Wabun Tribal Council requested a Project Description along with October 7, 2010 Phone call Wabun Tribal Council Golder a map. They indicated they could then ascertain the potentially impacted First Nation communities who also belong to Wabun Tribal Council. Phone call and October 22, 2010 follow-up email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Follow up phone call and email with Wabun Tribal Council to introduce the Project. Gowest sent an email requesting exploration agreement template. Wabun Tribal Council provided exploration agreement template indicating November 12, 2010 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council there were updates that had not been made to the template but it would give a good idea of what to expect. Phone call to inquire about the consultation protocol. Gowest inquired about which groups they should be dealing with. Wabun Tribal Council indicated Flying Post and Mattagami First Nations. Wabun Tribal Council also indicated the other communities not included were out of the jurisdiction. Wabun Tribal Council indicated Beaverhouse First Nation is not a member of Wabun Tribal Council since they did not sign a treaty. Wabun Tribal Council indicated they would confirm which First Nations Gowest would deal with and that the Chiefs would likely want November 12, 2010 Phone call Gowest Wabun Tribal Council correspondence to occur through Wabun Tribal Council. Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council discussing a meeting date. Meeting was confirmed for December 13, 2010 at the Wabun December 1, 2010 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Tribal Council office. Wabun Tribal Council December 13, 2010 Meeting Flying Post First Nation Gowest & Golder Introductory meeting held with Wabun Tribal Council and Flying Post First Nation to introduce the Project and the Project team. Gowest emailed Wabun Tribal Council following up on the meeting that occurred earlier in the month with regards to exploration agreements. Gowest indicated it is important they receive community input in order to arrive at an agreement. Gowest also inquired about a recent graduate December 20, 2010 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest who would be interested in the community relations officer position.

Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council discussing community relations officer position and Gowest also indicated there may be an January 4-6, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest opportunity for the person to manage their claims. Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council to inquire about Mattagami First Nation as a potentially impacted community. Also indicated they would be in Timmins the following week and would be available to meet. The community responded and indicated the Tribal Council would January 10, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest be available the following week. Meeting with Wabun Tribal Council to provide an update on the Project. Wabun Tribal Council outlined the regional area software system and indicated that Crown land cannot be used for other things. Also indicated they would check if there were any revisions to exploration template January 17, 2011 Meeting Wabun Tribal Council Gowest and send a list of companies they work with that may be able to help with the Project.

McKay Consulting Meeting with Wabun Tribal Council to discuss the Project. Wabun Tribal Council indicated that 3 communities (Flying Post, Matachewan, and Wabun Tribal Council Mattagami First Nations) should be involved in the Project. Gowest discussed the opportunity for a community relations person and provided a January 18, 2011 Meeting (recent grad) Gowest copy of the job description.

Wabun Tribal Council Gowest sent an email with thanks for the meeting earlier in the day. Gowest indicated they look forward to receiving confirmation of the primary January 18, 2011 Email McKay Consulting Gowest communities involved in the Project and any comments related to the impacts on territorial lands. Meeting with Wabun Tribal Council to discuss resources for the Project and who would be used as a resource. Wabun Tribal Council indicated they would speak to the Chiefs to seek approval. Wabun Tribal Council indicated that jobs should be in the community. Also discussed drawing March 7, 2011 Meeting Wabun Tribal Council Gowest up an agreement to work together.

Gowest sent an email with agreement for current and future exploration activities in traditional territories. Also indicated that all new text has March 21, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest been underlined. Gowest sent an email acknowledging that Flying Post First Nation will not be a party to the Exploration Agreement given the Project no longer April 13, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest falls within their traditional territories and indicated that MNDMF needs to be in agreement. Gowest sent an email requesting confirmation that the email sent on April 13, 2011 was received. Gowest stated that they would like to move April 18, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest forward with the Exploration Agreement and inquired about the timeline to complete.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 1 / 7 March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminary Record of Consultation - Aboriginal Communities Bradshaw Project Initiated by: Date Type To: Organization Organization Communication Summary Wabun Tribal Council (continued) Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council indicating they had received the email from April 13, 2011 and identified that the agreement sent in November 2010 clearly sets out the standard fees for benefit of the First Nations. Wabun Tribal Council indicated availability to discuss the April 26, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council matter to come to a workable solution between Gowest and Wabun Tribal Council.

Gowest sent an email indicating they were under the impression that the original agreement sent was just a template and that community April 28, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest funding requirements would be modified. Gowest indicated a meeting would be best to discuss what funding will be required by the community. Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council to set up a meeting to discuss community funding. Wabun Tribal Council indicated that although the template was a draft, this is the standard position of the community and has been accepted by a number of proponents. Gowest May 4, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest indicated that they are available either in the afternoon of the following morning for a discussion. May 10, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest sent an email with agenda for meeting for May 17, 2011.

Wabun Tribal Council May 17, 2011 Meeting Matachewan First Nation Gowest Meeting with Wabun Tribal Council to discuss community funding. May 18, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council with thanks for meeting to discuss community funding. Gowest sent an email with thanks for the meeting to discuss standard community funding. Gowest indicated it would be discussed with the May 19, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Board the following week. Gowest sent an email indicating the issue of Traditional Territorial participation with Gowest properties was brought forward to the Chiefs. They determined Gowest will deal directly with communities of Matachewan and Mattagami First Nations. Gowest indicated a letter is forthcoming May 31, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest from Flying Post First Nation clarifying their position. Gowest sent an email discussing the proposed community funding. Gowest would like confirmation of the communities Wabun Tribal Council is June 3, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest required to negotiate on behalf of.

Phone call with Wabun Tribal Council on June 8, 2011 to follow up on an earlier email. Wabun Tribal Council returned the phone call on June 9, 2011 and indicated the email was sent to the group and comments were requested by June 10, 2011. Wabun Tribal Council indicated that once June 8-9, 2011 Phone call Wabun Tribal Council Gowest comments were received they would forward them to Gowest and suggested a meeting the following week. June 13, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest sent an email to set up meeting with regards to receiving feedback from the communities. June 15, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council indicating they heard back from the communities on funding requirements. Gowest sent an email outlining suggested edits to the community funding proposal. Gowest requested confirmation of potentially affected June 21, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest communities.

Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council indicating the previous email (June 21, 2011) was forwarded to the group. The email identified June 22, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council they were working toward a resolution for impacted First Nations and understand it is a necessary component of the agreement. Discussed the terms of the Exploration Agreement and Wabun Tribal Council indicated the last terms set out would be accepted. Wabun Tribal Council also indicated they would provide Gowest with a letter indicating Gowest is to consult with Matachewan and Mattagami First Nations. June 29, 2011 Phone call Wabun Tribal Council Gowest The letter would be signed by the Chiefs. An agreement would be provided the following week. Received the draft Exploration Agreement via email from Wabun Tribal Council. Gowest responded with thanks and indicated they would review July 4, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council the draft language in relation to employment and business opportunities and advise of any concerns. Gowest sent an email with attached comments and suggested edits for the draft Exploration Agreement. Gowest outlined that the community July 11, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest funding was significantly different than earlier drafts. Received an updated version of the draft Exploration Agreement with minor changes from Wabun Tribal Council who indicated they are willing August 23, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council to discuss the changes. Gowest forwarded final amendments on the draft Exploration Agreement. Once agreed upon an executable copy would be prepared. Gowest September 6, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest suggested a meeting on September 26, 2011 to execute the agreement in person. Gowest sent an email and attached the final Exploration Agreement with corrections. Gowest requested that Wabun Tribal Council review the September 20, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest document and advised that copies would be made and forwarded for signature. Gowest sent an email and attached the final Exploration Agreement. Gowest advised once feedback was received the resolution would be sent September 22, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest to the Board to execute the agreement.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 2 / 7 March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminary Record of Consultation - Aboriginal Communities Bradshaw Project Initiated by: Date Type To: Organization Organization Communication Summary Wabun Tribal Council (continued) Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council indicating the final Exploration Agreement was acceptable. Also indicated they are looking September 23, 2011 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council forward to receiving a copy for signature.

Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council confirming receipt of the signed copy of the final Exploration Agreement and indicated it would be September 28, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Wabun Tribal Council presented to Gowest the following week at the Wabun Tribal Council Annual General Meeting (AGM) for consideration and endorsement. Gowest sent an email confirming receipt of the original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Gowest requested that the Chief sign page 10 October 17, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest and forward it once completed. Wabun Tribal Council indicated there was a signed version and they would forward it. October 18, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest sent an email confirming receipt of the signed Exploration Agreement.

October 19, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest sent an email providing a press release indicating they would like to disseminate later in the week. Gowest requested any comments. October 31, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest sent an email regarding community funding. Email correspondence with regards to the Mattagami Band Council Resolution. Wabun Tribal Council provided a copy and Gowest December 21, 2011 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest acknowledged receiving the Resolution. Gowest also advised they would like to meet with the communities in early 2012. Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council confirming the meeting for February 22, 2012 between Matachewan and Mattagami First Nations February 8, 2012 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council and Gowest.

Received an email from Wabun Tribal Council advising that the meeting planned for February 22, 2012 would be cancelled due to unavoidable personal circumstances. Also indicated the meeting would be rescheduled for the week of PDAC in Toronto with a subsequent meeting in February 21, 2012 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council Timmins if necessary.

Email correspondence advising Wabun Tribal Council that Gowest had received the draft version of the Environmental Baseline Report and March 20, 2012 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council were reviewing it and would provide a copy of the final report when available. Wabun Tribal Council indicated they look forward to its receipt. March 21, 2012 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest sent an email inquiring whether it would be possible to meet with Wabun Tribal Council Chiefs on March 26, 2012. November 2, 2012 Meeting Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Meeting with Wabun Tribal Council to present an overview of the Project of exploration.

Gowest sent an email indicating they are aware a site visit is planned with representatives from the communities. Gowest also indicated they November 13, 2012 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest would like to discuss next steps including meeting with the communities and beginning discussions on an Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA). Field visit to Mattagami First Nation November 14, 2012 Project site Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest conducted a field visit to the Frankfield east gold deposit site and gave an exploration overview of the Project. Field visit to Matachewan First Nation November 15, 2012 Project site Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest conducted a field visit to the Frankfield east gold deposit site and gave an exploration overview of the Project. Gowest sent an email with the environmental section from the preliminary Economic Assessment to provide information about environmental November 19, 2012 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest baseline work conducted up until the end of 2011.

Phone call with Wabun Tribal Council to discuss updates on the project. Discussed steps to begin discussions on an IBA, scheduling a meeting December 6, 2012 Phone call Wabun Tribal Council Gowest to provide an update and overview of the Project. Gowest also requested information on new staff and their positions and roles. Gowest sent a letter to Wabun Tribal Council to request assistance in arranging a meeting in Timmins with Chiefs and representatives of Matachewan and Mattagami First Nations on either January 30 or 31, 2012. Gowest advised they would like to meet with the communities to December 18, 2012 Letter Wabun Tribal Council Gowest provide them with an update on the Project. Phone call with Wabun Tribal Council to follow up on a letter sent on December 18, 2012 regarding a meeting with the community. Wabun Tribal Council indicated the letter was received and passed along to organize meetings with the elders and Chiefs. The meeting was arranged January 13, 2013 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest for February 2013. Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council discussing meeting dates. Wabun Tribal Council inquired about availability for February 16, January 28-29, 2013 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council 2013 (advising it would be an all day session) and Gowest replied indicating they would check availability with the team.

Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council indicating a meeting was scheduled for February 26, 2013 to discuss Gowest's plans for January 30, 2013 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council exploration. Gowest responded with thanks for coordinating a visit and advised they are looking forward to seeing the Chief and Council.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 3 / 7 March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminary Record of Consultation - Aboriginal Communities Bradshaw Project Initiated by: Date Type To: Organization Organization Communication Summary Wabun Tribal Council (continued) Phone call with Wabun Tribal Council indicating a meeting would occur with Mattagami First Nation Chief and Council on February 26, 2013. January 30, 2013 Phone call Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Wabun Tribal Council indicated a meeting date is still being discussed for Matachewan First Nation. Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council to reschedule meeting with Matachewan First Nation to either February 27 or 28, 2013 as February 5-6, 2013 Email Gowest Wabun Tribal Council Gowest would be in Timmins for a meeting with Mattagami First Nation. Gowest sent an email with thanks for assisting in the organization of meetings in Mattagami and Matachewan First Nations on February 26 and February 28, 2013 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest 27, 2013. Gowest requested that any feedback received from the meetings be forwarded. Gowest provided a copy of the press release with regards to signing of Letter of Intent with Glencore Xstrata. Gowest requested that it be May 29, 2013 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest circulated internally and indicated it is a major milestone for the company and all interested persons. Email correspondence with Wabun Tribal Council to inquire about contacts to hire for beaver removal and road repairs. Wabun Tribal Council June 10, 2013 Email Wabun Tribal Council Gowest indicated they would provide pricing for the road work. Matachewan First Nation

Wabun Tribal Council May 17, 2011 Meeting Matachewan First Nation Gowest Meeting with Wabun Tribal Council to discuss community funding. Mattagami First Nation November 7, 2012 Fax Gowest Matachewan First Nation Received letters via fax from the Chiefs of Mattagami and Matachewan First Nations to authorize site visits. Field visit to Matachewan First Nation November 15, 2012 Project site Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest conducted a field visit to the Frankfield east gold deposit site and gave an exploration overview of the Project.

Meeting with Matachewan First Nation to introduce and provide information about the Project. Following the presentation, there was a question February 27, 2013 Meeting Matachewan First Nation Gowest and answer period. Received a letter from Matachewan First Nation with thanks for the initial visit to the community. The community requested a copy of the February 27, 2013 Letter Gowest Matachewan First Nation environmental baseline study and advised they trust it would be the beginning of a fully informed process. Gowest sent an email with thanks for the meeting on February 27, 2013. Gowest provided a copy of the presentation and indicated they were February 28, 2013 Email Matachewan First Nations Gowest looking forward to working closely with Matachewan First Nation. Email correspondence discussing inquiries with respect to community funding for Matachewan First Nation for audit purposes. Gowest provided June 13-17, 2013 Email KPMG Gowest all information related to funding for Matachewan First Nation. Mattagami First Nation Mattagami First Nation November 7, 2012 Fax Gowest Matachewan First Nation Received letters via fax from the Chiefs of Mattagami and Matachewan First Nations to authorize site visits. Field visit to Mattagami First Nation November 14, 2012 Project site Wabun Tribal Council Gowest Gowest conducted a field visit to the Frankfield east gold deposit site and gave an exploration overview of the Project. Meeting with Mattagami First Nation to introduce and provide information about the Project. Following the presentation, there was a question February 26, 2013 Meeting Mattagami First Nation Gowest and answer period. Gowest sent an email with thanks for the meeting on February 26, 2013. Gowest provided a copy of the presentation and indicated they were February 28, 2013 Email Mattagami First Nation Gowest looking forward to working closely with Mattagami First Nation. Flying Post First Nation Wabun Tribal Council December 13, 2010 Meeting Flying Post First Nation Gowest & Golder Introductory meeting held with Wabun Tribal Council and Flying Post First Nation to introduce the Project and the Project team. Received a letter from Flying Post First Nation indicating their territorial interests in the Project area are secondary to those of Matachewan and Mattagami First Nations and as such their interests will be accommodated through the Exploration Agreement. Flying Post First Nation also June 29, 2011 Letter Gowest Flying Post First Nation indicated they did not require further consultation or accommodation with regards to the Project.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 4 / 7 March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminary Record of Consultation - Aboriginal Communities Bradshaw Project Initiated by: Date Type To: Organization Organization Communication Summary Taykwa Tagamou First Nation

November 12, 2010 Phone call Taykwa Tagamou First Nation Gowest Phone call to Taykwa Tagamou First Nation to introduce the Project. The Chief was unavailable at the time. Planned meeting for face-to-face introductions with Taykwa Tagamou First Nation, but the meeting was cancelled due to bad weather. November 22, 2010 Meeting Taykwa Tagamou First Nation Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest sent an email indicating it was a pleasure to meet community contacts at the Big Event in Timmins the week before. Gowest indicated a May 24, 2011 Email Wagoshig First Nation Gowest letter was sent to introduce the company. The letter sent to the community was attached. December 20, 2011 Email Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest Gowest sent a letter to introduce the company and schedule a meeting to discuss environmental and social issues. May 31, 2013 Email Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation Received an email from Wahgoshig First Nation with regards to scheduling a meeting to discuss Gowest's Frankfield property. Received an email from Wahgoshig First Nation providing a territory map and indicated the Project falls within their traditional territory. June 10, 2013 Email Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation Wagoshig First Nation advised that the community members would have to be notified of the Project. June 11, 2013 Email Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest Gowest sent an email requesting clarification on map details and use of the territory map provided.

Email correspondence with Wagoshig First Nation with regards to inquiries about territory map. The Wagoshig First Nation provided clarification on details of the map and indicated it is used for historical purposes. They also indicated they would make some inquiries at a community June 13-19, 2013 Email Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation meeting. Gowest indicated they would be willing to meet with Chief and Council and suggested meeting dates of July 22 or 23, 2013. Email correspondence with Wahgoshig First Nation with regards to organizing a site tour. Gowest indicated they were available any time after June 26, 2013 Email Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest the Canada Day long weekend. Gowest sent an email to follow up on scheduling a site tour for Wahgoshig First Nation. Gowest advised they would not be available around the July 16, 2013 Email Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest August long weekend and between August 19 and September 3, 2013.

January 8, 2014 Meeting Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest Information meeting with Wahgoshig First Nation to introduce Gowest, the Project and exploration activities. January 9, 2014 Meeting Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest discussed protocol agreement with Wahgoshig First Nation. January 15, 2014 Email Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation Received draft negotiation protocol from Wahgoshig First Nation. February 23, 2014 Email Wahgoshig First Nation Gowest Gowest sent email requesting clarification on draft negotiation protocol. February 24, 2014 Email Gowest Wahgoshig First Nation Received email from Wahgoshig First Nation clarifying issues on draft negotiation protocol. Mushkegowuk Council November 12-18, 2010 Phone call Mushkegowuk Council Gowest Introductory phone calls were attempted with Mushkegowuk Council and messages were left. Métis Nation of Ontario Email correspondence to inquire about Regional Métis Council consultation protocol. Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) provided consultation September 24, 2010 Email Métis Nation of Ontario Golder protocol for Abitibi, Temiscamingue and James Bay territories. Introductory meeting with MNO to introduce the Project and the Project team. MNO indicated they would like to be kept up to date on the December 13, 2010 Meeting Métis Nation of Ontario Gowest & Golder Project. December 12, 2011 Letter Gowest Métis Nation of Ontario Received a letter via email from MNO outlining the preferred consultation approach with the Métis in the Project area. Sent a letter via email to MNO in response to letter received via email on December 12, 2011 regarding Gowest's consultation approach. Gowest indicated they intended to consult with all Métis community members and discuss the potential for a meeting in the new year to discuss December 23, 2011 Email Métis Nation of Ontario Gowest plans and seek input. March 21, 2012 Phone Call Métis Nation of Ontario Gowest Phone call to MNO to set up a meeting for March 26, 2012. Contact was not in the office. Email correspondence discussing scheduling a meeting. MNO indicated Gowest's message was received but they were unable to meet when suggested. MNO indicated they would contact Gowest when available. Gowest identified their plan to be in Timmins during the week of April March 21-22, 2012 Email Gowest Métis Nation of Ontario 16, 2012 and would contact MNO prior to that date. November 13, 2012 Email Métis Nation of Ontario Gowest Gowest sent an email with an attached news release to inform MNO that it was disseminated on November 12, 2012. Gowest received a letter indicating MNO has Aboriginal rights within the Project area. Letter outlined that meaningful consultation needs to December 11, 2012 Letter Gowest Métis Nation of Ontario occur with MNO and that funding is needed for consultation to occur. Email correspondence with MNO with regards to the Meet and Greet Forum at Cedar Meadows. Gowest responded indicating they would be February 25, 2013 Email Gowest Métis Nation of Ontario unable to attend the Meet and Greet. MNO expressed thanks for the quick response. Meeting with MNO to provide update on the Project. MNO informed of the Métis community structure in Ontario. Gowest indicated they would April 25, 2013 Meeting Métis Nation of Ontario Gowest like to meet with the group and MNO indicated they do not ask for exploration agreements, only an IBA if there is an impact. Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 5 / 7 March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminy Record of Consultation - Regulatory Agencies Bradshaw Project To: Initiated by: Date Type Organization Organization Communication Summary MOE MNR MNDMF Ministry of Meeting with Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry and Ministry of June 14, 2010 Meeting Labour Gowest Labour to introduce the Project and present the Project Definition to government representatives. Received an email from MNDMF with attached Aboriginal Consultation section of the Closure Plan for Lake Shore Gold's Timmins West January 18, 2011 Email MNDMF Gowest Complex.

July 12, 2011 Email MNDMF Gowest Gowest forwarded a copy of the letter received from Flying Post First Nation indicating they are not a primary community.

September 6, 2011 Email Gowest MNDMF Received a letter from MNDMF with regards to contacting and consulting with Aboriginal communities with respect to mining claims. Received a letter from MNDM indicating the exploration permit application was received and provided to the list of Aboriginal communities on February 5, 2013 Letter Gowest MNDM February 5, 2013 and that MNDM would make a decision whether to issue the permit within 50 days of that date. Phone call with MNDM to discuss the letter received with regards to exploration permit. MNDM indicated 50 days is the maximum amount of time for a decision and with the amount of work already completed the decision should be quicker. Gowest confirmed understanding of communities February 6, 2013 Phone call MNDM Gowest required to consult. Received an email from MNDM with exploration permit valid for 3 years. MNDM encouraged Gowest to have ongoing discussions with Aboriginal March 12, 2013 Letter Gowest MNDM communities in the Project area and advise them of future exploration plans. January 8, 2014 Letter Gowest MNDM Received a letter via email from MNDM with an amended exploration permit valid for 3 years. Email correspondence discussing permitting and Aboriginal consultation. MNDM also suggested providing a Notice of Project Status and the Project Description and they would circulate to other ministries to develop one comprehensive list of Aboriginal communities that should be January 13-22, 2014 Email MNDM Gowest consulted about this Project. MNDM MOE February 27, 2014 Meeting MTO Gowest Meeting with MNDM, MOE and Ministry of Transportation to present the updated Project definition.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 6 / 7 March 2014 Appendix A 09-1118-6010 (10000) Preliminary Record of Consultation - General Public Bradshaw Project Initiated by: Date Type To: Contacts Organization Communication Summary (None to date)

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2009\1118\09-1118-6010 Gowest Amalgamated\Phase 6000_Permitting Phase II\2. Project Definition\Appendices\Appendix A Record of Consultation 7 / 7

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

APPENDIX B Site Photographs

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

Appendix B – Site Photographs Bradshaw Project

Photo 1: Existing access road Photo 3: Flooded test pit from historical overburden investigations Photo 5: Typical forest vegetation

Photo 2: Existing trail Photo 4: Bedrock outcrop at proposed portal location Photo 6: Typical fen vegetation

Project No.: 09-1118-6010 Page 1 of 2 Date: March 2014 Appendix B – Site Photographs Bradshaw Project

Photo 7: West Buskegau Tributary at Access Road crossing (west of property boundary) Photo 9: West Buskegau River downstream (north) of property boundary Photo 11: Typical winter conditions on West Buskegau River

Photo 8: West Buskegau River east of property boundary Photo 10: Buskegau River east of property boundary and West Buskegau River Photo 12: Typical ice thickness at West Buskegau River

Project No.: 09-1118-6010 Page 2 of 2 Date: March 2014 PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

APPENDIX C Ecosites in the Project Area

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Ecosite Vegetation Type Description Black Spruce: fine soil The canopy and sub-canopy includes black spruce, tamarack (Larix laricina), balsam fir, and white birch (Betula papyrifera) and were estimated to provide 25 to 50% cover and 25 to 75% cover, respectively. Shrub stage species observed in the understorey include balsam fir, black spruce, white birch, speckled alder and willow species (Salix sp.).

ES5f V20/V27 Dominant species in the ground layer included sphagnum species, schreber’s moss (Pleurozium schreberi), stair-step moss (Hylocomium splendens), plume moss (Ptilium crista-castrensis), Canada blue-joint (Calamagrostis canadensis) Labrador-tea, and twinflower (Linnaea borealis) and provide 75 to 100% cover.

Soil within this ecosite is characterised by 10 to 42 cm of organic soil over clay textured soil with a total greater than 120 cm in depth over bedrock. Black Spruce – Trembling Aspen: fine soil The canopy and sub-canopy include black spruce, balsam fir, trembling aspen, white birch, eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and willow species and were estimated to provide 25 to 50% cover and 50 to 75% cover, respectively. Shrub stage species observed in the understorey include eastern white cedar, speckled alder, black spruce, and balsam fir. ES6f V16/V24 Dominant species in the ground layer provide 75 to 100% cover and include Shreber’s moss, sphagnum species, stair- step moss, sweet blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), eastern white cedar, and creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula).

Soil within this ecosite is characterised by 50 to 90 cm of organic soil over clay or sandy clay loam textured soil that is greater than 120 cm in depth over bedrock. Black Spruce – Feathermoss – Sphagnum: moist soil The canopy within this ecosite variable and lacked a canopy layer at many locations. Where the canopy is present, it is ES8 V24 dominated by black spruce and provides 25 to 50% cover. The sub-canopy includes black spruce and tamarack and provides 50 to 75% cover. Shrub stage species observed in the understorey include speckled alder, black spruce, red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and willow species.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Ecosite Vegetation Type Description Dominant species in the ground layer included Shreber’s moss, sphagnum species, stair-step moss, dwarf raspberry (Rubus pubescens), creeping snowberry, stiff clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum), and violet species (Viola sp.). The ES8 ground layer was estimated to provide 75 to 100% cover. (cont.) Soil within this ecosite is characterised by 25 cm of organic soil over clay textured soil that is greater than 120 cm in depth over bedrock.

Black Spruce – Labrador-tea: organic soil The canopy, sub-canopy, and shrub layer are dominated by black spruce and provide 10 to 25%, 25 to 75%, and 50 to 75% cover, respectively.

ES11 V26 Dominant species in the ground layer provide 95 to 100% cover and include sphagnum species, Labrador-tea, creeping snowberry, leatherleaf, wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus).

Soil within this ecosite is a deep organic that is greater than 120 cm over bedrock. The moisture regime is classified as wet and the drainage is classified as very poor.

Black Spruce – Larch – Labrador-tea: organic soil The canopy provides 25 to 50% cover and is dominated by black spruce. The sub-canopy includes black spruce and balsam fir and provides 60 to 75% cover. Shrub stage species observed in the understorey include black spruce, balsam fir, and speckled alder.

ES12 V20/V23/V24/V27 Dominant species in the ground layer provide 75 to 100% cover and include Schreber’s moss, sphagnum species, stair-step moss, creeping snowberry, dwarf raspberry, Labrador-tea, sweet blueberry, bunchberry, and plume moss.

Soil types present within this ecosite are variable. The soil was characterised by 45 to 65 cm of organic material over mineral soil. The mineral soil has a fine loamy to clayey texture. The total soil depth is greater than 120 cm over bedrock. The soil has a fresh moisture regime and is moderately well to well drained. Eastern White Cedar – Black Spruce- Species Rich: organic soil ES13r V14 The canopy is dominated by black spruce and provides 5 to 10% cover. The sub-canopy and shrub stage species in the understory provide 50 to 75% cover and includes black spruce, eastern white cedar, speckled alder, and balsam fir.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Ecosite Vegetation Type Description Dominant species in the ground layer provide 75 to 95% cover and include electrified cat tail moss (Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus), dwarf raspberry, sweet scented bedstraw (Galium triflorum), and broad beech fern (Phegopteris ES13r hexagonoptera). (cont.) Soil within this ecosite is characterised as 50 cm of organic soil over a clay textured soil. The total soil depth is greater than 120 cm over bedrock. Soil in this ecosite is considered to be moderately well drained. Black spruce – Larch – Speckled Alder – Species Poor: organic soil The percent cover of the canopy varies between 10 to 75%. The canopy is dominated by black spruce and tamarack. The sub-canopy provides approximately 50 to 75% cover and includes black spruce and willow species. Shrub stage species observed in the understorey include balsam fir, black spruce, speckled alder, and eastern white cedar.

ES13p V24/V25 Dominant species in the ground layer provide 75 to 100% cover and include sphagnum species, Schreber’s moss, plume moss, creeping snowberry, Labrador-tea, dwarf raspberry, and bunchberry.

Soil within this ecosite is a deep fibric and mesic organic soil. Fibric organic soils have a depth greater than 120 cm over bedrock, while mesic organic soils have a 100 cm organic layer over clay textured soils that are greater than 120 cm depth over bedrock. Soil in this ecosite is considered to have very poor drainage. Black Spruce – Leatherleaf: organic soil The canopy was absent, however, the sub-canopy and shrub stage species were dominated by black spruce and provided 25 to 50% cover and 50 to 75% cover, respectively.

ES14 V26 Dominant species in the ground layer provided 95 to 100% cover and include sphagnum species, leatherleaf, three leaved Solomon’s seal, and Labrador-tea.

Soil within this ecosite is a deep mesic organic soil that is greater than 120 cm in depth over bedrock. Soil in this ecosite is considered to have very poor drainage. Tall Shrub Bog No canopy was present in this ecosite. The sub-canopy was dominated by black spruce and tamarack that provided a Bog - 25 to 50% cover. The shrub stage species provide 50 to 75% cover and include black spruce, speckled alder, dwarf birch (Betula pumila), and willow species. The ground layer provides 95 to 100% cover and includes sphagnum species, Labrador-tea, leatherleaf, Canada blue-joint, creeping snowberry, sweet blueberry, and dwarf raspberry.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Ecosite Vegetation Type Description Soil is a deep organic with a depth greater than 120 cm over bedrock. The moisture regime is classified as wet and the drainage is classified as very poor. Low Shrub Bog No canopy was present in this ecosite. The sub-canopy and understory were dominated by black spruce and provided 10 to 25% cover and 25 to 50% cover, respectively. The ground layer provided 95 to 100% coverage and was Bog - dominated by sphagnum species, leatherleaf, bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia), and sedge species (Carex sp.).

Soil is observed to be deep organic that is greater than 120 cm over bedrock. The moisture regime is classified as wet and the drainage is classified as very poor. Tall Shrub Fen No canopy was present in this ecosite. The sub-canopy was dominated by black spruce and tamarack and provides 10 to 25% cover. Shrub stage species provide 50 to 75% cover and include black spruce and dwarf birch. The ground Fen - layer provided 95 to 100% cover and include sphagnum species, leatherleaf, wool grass, and bog laurel (Kalmia polifolia).

Soil is a deep organic that is greater than 120 cm over bedrock. The moisture regime is classified as wet and the drainage is classified as very poor. Test Pit - ES1p - Black Spruce - Jack Pine – Species Poor: very shallow soil The canopy provides 25 to 50% cover and is dominated by black spruce and trembling aspen. The sub-canopy provides 50 to 75% cover and includes black spruce, balsam fir, and white birch. Shrub stage species present in the ground layer also provide a 50 to 75% cover and include balsam fir and white birch. The ground layer includes Shreber’s moss, bunchberry, stiff clubmoss, and sweet blueberry and provides 75 to 95% cover.

The soil is a very shallow soil on bedrock with very rapid drainage. A 5 cm deep surface organic layer covered a Test Pit V15/V19/V20 medium textured sand with an approximate depth of 5 cm.

Test Pit - ES5f - Black Spruce: fine soil The canopy is absent in this ecosite. The sub-canopy provides 50 to 75% cover and includes balsam fir and speckled alder. Shrub stage species in the understory provide 25 to 50% cover and include balsam fir and black spruce. Ground layer species provide 50 to 75% cover and include Schreber’s moss, pyrola species (Pyrola sp.), bunchberry, and blue- bead lily.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

Ecosite Vegetation Type Description The soil was identified as a stratified soil with approximately 8 cm of surface organic material over 32 cm of medium sand over a clay texture soil that is greater than 60 cm in depth over bedrock. The fresh soil is moderately well to well drained.

Test Pit - ES10 - Trembling Aspen – Black Spruce – Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera): moist soil Test Pit The canopy layer provides 25 to 50% cover and is dominated by trembling aspen and balsam poplar. The sub-canopy

(cont.) is dominated by black spruce and the shrub stage species in the ground layer are dominated by black spruce and balsam fir. The ground layer was dominated by Schreber’s moss, Labrador-tea, stair-step moss, and sweet blueberry and provides 75 to 95% cover.

Soil within this ecosite is approximately 25 cm of organic soil over 40 cm of sandy loam over a clay textured soil. The total depth of the soil is greater than 120 cm over bedrock. The fresh soil is moderately well to well drained.

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

PROJECT DEFINITION - BRADSHAW PROJECT GOWEST GOLD LTD.

APPENDIX D Breeding Bird Observations

March 2014 Report No.09-1118-6010 GAL-RPT_008_V4

March 2014 Appendix D 09-1118-6010 Breeding Bird Species Observations Bradshaw Project

Common Name Scientific Name ONTARIO STATUS¹ tsB lsB/tsF testpit ES5f ES6f ES8 ES11 ES12 ES13r ES13p ES14 Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 x x Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris S5 x American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus S4B x x Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus S5B x Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis S5B x x Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5B, S5N x Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca S4B, S4N x x x x Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria S4B x Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia S5 x Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata S5B x x x Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia S4B, S4N x Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 x Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus S5 x Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4B x x x Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis S4B x Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris S5B x x x x x x Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum S5B x x Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus S4B x x Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius S5B x x x x x x Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S5B x x x Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis S5 x Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 x American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5B x x Common Raven Corvus corax S5 x x x Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris S5B x Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla S5 x x Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus S5 x x Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis S5 x x x Winter Wren Troglodytes hiemalis S5B x x x x x x x x Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa S5B x x x x x x Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula S4B x x x x x x x x x Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus S4B x x x Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus S5B x x x x x x American Robin Turdus migratorius S5B x x x x x Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina S5B x x Nashville Warbler Oreothlypisa ruficapilla S5B x x x x x x x x Chestnut-sided Warbler Setophaga pensylvanica S5B x Magnolia Warbler Setophaga magnolia S5B x x x x x x x x x Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata S5B x x x x x x x x x Palm Warbler (western) Setophaga palmarum palmarum S5B x x x Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea S5B x Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia S5B x x x American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla S5B x x x Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis S5B x Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas S5B x x x x x x Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla S4B x x x Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S5B x x Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5B x Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii S5B x x x x Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana S5B x White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis S5B x x x x x x x x x x Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis S5B x x x x x Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5B x x Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus S4B x x x American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis S5B x Notes: ¹ Based on Provincial ranking definitions: S1 – Critically impS3 – Vulnerable in Ontario S5 – Secure in Ontario S#B – Breeding individuals

S2 – Imperiled in S4 – Apparently secure in Ontario SZN – Non-breeding migrants

Prepared by: JT 1 / 1 Golder Associates Reviewed by: BW

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