Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand Coburn Development and Operations

Strandline Resources Ltd 22-Jul-2020

M09/102, M09/103, M09/104, M09/105, M09/106, M09/111, M09/112, L09/21 and L09/43

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand M09/102-106, M109/111-112, L09/21 and L09/43

Client: Strandline Resources Ltd

ABN: 17 165 036 537

Prepared by

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 3, 181 Adelaide Terrace, Perth WA 6004, GPO Box B59, Perth WA 6849, Australia T +61 8 6230 5600 www.aecom.com ABN 20 093 846 925

In association with Strandline Resources Ltd

22-Jul-2020

Job No.: 60577472

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Quality Information

Document Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Ref 60577472

Date 22-Jul-2020

Prepared by Cassandra House

Reviewed by Cliff Bennison

Revision History

Authorised Rev Revision Date Details Name/Position Signature

Linda Kirchner A 01-May-2020 For review Technical Director - Environment Linda Kirchner B 16-Jul-2020 For review Technical Director - Environment Linda Kirchner C 16-Jul-2020 For final review Technical Director - Environment Linda Kirchner 0 22-Jul-2020 Final Technical Director - Environment

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Table of Contents Mining Proposal Checklist i 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Environmental Group Site details 1 1.2 Mining operation description 1 1.2.1 Phase of Mining 1 1.2.2 Commodity mined 1 1.2.3 Estimated commencement and completion dates 1 1.2.4 Tenements (Figure 2) 1 1.2.5 Tenement holder 2 2.0 Proposal Description 5 2.1 Project Summary 5 2.2 Mining 7 2.3 Processing 9 2.3.1 Wet Concentrator Plant Description 9 2.3.2 Mineral Separation Plant Process Description (MSP) 11 2.4 In Pit Tailings Disposal 16 2.5 Mining Contractor’s Compound 16 2.6 Roads 16 2.7 Water Supply and Dewatering 17 2.8 Process Water Dams 18 2.9 Reverse Osmosis Plant 18 2.10 Power Supply and Fuel Storage Facilities 18 2.11 Workshop, Administration Office and Stores area 19 2.12 Landfill and Sprayfields 19 2.13 Site Accommodation 19 2.14 Workforce Requirements 21 2.15 Logistics and Port Facilities 22 2.16 Borrow Pits 22 3.0 Activity details 23 3.1 Additional details for each key mine activity 31 3.1.1 Off Path Tails Storage Facility 31 3.1.2 In Pit Overburden Storage Facility 34 3.1.3 In Pit Tails Storage Facility 36 3.1.4 WCP Process Water Dams 37 3.1.5 MSP Process Water Dam 38 3.1.6 WCP plant site 39 3.1.7 MSP plant site 39 3.1.8 Mining void 40 3.2 Disturbance Envelope 41 4.0 Environmental Legislative Framework 43 4.1 Legal obligations 43 4.1.1 Commonwealth Legislation 43 4.1.2 Western Australian Legislation 43 4.2 Approvals Status 46 5.0 Stakeholder Engagement 48 5.1 Identification of Stakeholders 48 6.0 Baseline Environmental Data 61 6.1 Climate 61 6.1.1 Meteorology 61 6.1.2 Air Quality 62 6.2 Landscape 62 6.3 Materials Characterisation 65 6.3.1 Overburden 65 6.3.2 Tailings 65 6.3.3 Radiation 66

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

6.3.4 Soils 66 6.3.5 Geochemical and physical characteristics of subsurface materials and mining waste 67 6.4 Biodiversity 67 6.4.1 Vegetation 68 6.4.2 Conservation Significant Flora and Vegetation 70 6.4.3 Vertebrate Fauna 76 6.4.4 Subterranean Fauna and Short Range Endemics 78 6.5 Hydrology 79 6.5.1 Surface Water 79 6.5.2 Groundwater 79 6.6 Heritage 84 6.7 Environmental Threats 85 6.7.1 Weeds 85 6.7.2 Invasive Fauna Species 85 6.7.3 Dust 86 6.7.4 Bushfire 86 6.7.5 Groundwater Mounding and Drawdown 86 6.7.6 Radiation 87 7.0 Environmental Risk Assessment 88 7.1 Methodology 88 7.2 Risk Identification 88 7.3 Identification of risks regulated by other agencies 89 7.4 Risk Analysis 89 7.5 Risk Evaluation 96 7.5.1 Biodiversity 96 7.5.2 Water Resources 97 7.5.3 Land and Soils 98 7.5.4 Rehabilitation and Mine Closure 99 7.6 Risk Treatment 100 7.6.1 Environmental standards, codes and guidance 100 7.6.2 As low as reasonably Practicable (ALARP) 101 8.0 Environmental Outcomes, Performance Criteria and Monitoring 103 8.1 Environmental Outcomes 103 8.2 Outcomes regulated by another agency 103 8.3 Environmental performance criteria 103 8.4 Reporting 106 9.0 Environmental Management System 107 10.0 Mine Closure Plan 108 11.0 References 109 Appendix A Ministerial Statement 723 A Appendix B Legal Obligations Register B Appendix C Soil and Landform Study C Appendix D Interim Off Path Tails Management Plan D Appendix E Licence to take Water 2 July 2019 E Appendix F Drawdown Impact Management Plan F Appendix G Groundwater Mounding Management Plan G

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix H Progressive Rehabilitation Programme H Appendix I Dust Management Plan I Appendix J Bushfire Management Plan J Appendix K Risk Register K Appendix L Mine Closure Plan L

List of Tables Table 1 Changes made in comparison to 2017 Mine Closure Plan 23 Table 2 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/102 24 Table 3 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/103 25 Table 4 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/104 26 Table 5 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/105 27 Table 6 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/106 28 Table 7 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/111 29 Table 8 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/112 30 Table 9 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement L09/21 31 Table 10 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement L09/43 31 Table 11 key mining activity summary of the interim off-path Tails Storage Facility 33 Table 12 Key mine activity Waste Dump or Overburden storage facility summary 34 Table 13 Key mine activity Tailings or residue storage facility summary 36 Table 14 Key mining activity WCP Process Water Dams summary 37 Table 15 Key mining activity MSP Process Water Dams summary 38 Table 16 Summary of the wet concentrator plant key mining activity at the Coburn Sands Mineral sands mining operation 39 Table 17 Summary of the mineral concentration plant key mining activity at the Coburn Sands Mineral sands mining operation 39 Table 18 The details of the planned mining voids at the Coburn Sands mining operation. 40 Table 19 Tenement summary 41 Table 20 Environmental Legislative Framework 44 Table 21 Stakeholder Consultation 50 Table 22 Climatic Data from Hamelin Pool Weather Station 62 Table 23 Priority Flora Species 72 Table 24 Conservation Significant Fauna Species that are Likely to Occur or May Occur within the Project Area 76 Table 25 Heritage surveys conducted within the Study Area 84 Table 26 Objectives for environmental factors 88 Table 27 Key Risks 88 Table 28 Likelihood Definitions 90 Table 29 Consequence Definitions 90 Table 30 Risk Rating Matrix 92 Table 31 Risk analysis for the Coburn Zircon Project 93 Table 32 Risk Assessment Summary 95 Table 33 Coburn Stands environmental performance criteria. 103

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

List of Figures Figure 1 Project location 3 Figure 2 Project Tenure 4 Figure 3 Coburn Project simple WCP-MSP block diagram 7 Figure 4 Dozer and mining unit schematic diagrams 9 Figure 5 Coburn WCP process route and process flow sheet 10 Figure 6 Schematic of the Wet Concentrator Plant (WCP) 11 Figure 7 MSP process flow sheet 15 Figure 8 Schematic of the Mineral Separation Plant (MSP) 15 Figure 9 Location of project features 20 Figure 10 Disturbance Envelope 42 Figure 11 Monthly rainfall for Shark Bay Airport weather station (6105) with rainfall for 2019 included (BoM, 2019a) 61 Figure 12 Land systems 64 Figure 13 Vegetation mapping 71 Figure 14 Threatened and Priority Flora Species 74 Figure 15 Threatened and Priority Species – Regional extent 75

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand i

Mining Proposal Checklist Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N)

Has the checklist been Y Brendan N/A endorsed by a tenement Cummins holder(s) or a senior Exploration representative Manager and 1 authorised by the Chief Geologist tenement holder(s), such as a Registered Manager or Company Director? 2 Are you the tenement Y Strandline Section holder of all tenements Resources holds 1.2.4, associated with the all tenements page 1 Mining Proposal /group associated with the Mining site? Proposal. These Mining Proposals are listed in full in which have not been Section 1.2.4 and submitted by the displayed in tenement holder must Figure 2. include an authorisation from the tenement holder or an explanation of the company linkage to the tenement holder (e.g. for subsidiary companies). 3 For tenements with N/A multiple tenement holders, have all of the other holders consented to this proposal being submitted? Mining Proposals which have not been submitted by the tenement holder must include an authorisation from the tenement holder or an explanation of the company linkage to the tenement holder (e.g. for subsidiary companies).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand ii

Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N)

4 Have contact details for Y N/A Section questions on the Mining 1.2.5, Proposal been page 2. provided? 5 Are all mining Y All tenure is N/A operations within granted granted tenement boundaries or does this Mining Proposal support a lease application? 6 Is this the first Mining N See Section 2 N/A Section 2 N/A Proposal submitted for and 4.1 and 4.1 these tenements? If No, the version number of the revised Mining Proposal must be stated on the cover and a summary of changes included 7 Have all tenement Y Strandline N/A N/A N/A conditions been Resources has reviewed to ensure reviewed all activities proposed in tenement the Mining Proposal are conditions and confirmed that in compliance? activities in this Mining Proposal are compliant. 8 Has a Mine Closure Y Attached as N/A Section N/A Plan been provided? Appendix L, 10, It is a requirement that summary in Appendix Section 10. K every mining proposal include a mine closure plan. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY 9 Are you aware that this Y N/A N/A N/A N/A Mining Proposal is publicly available? 10 Is there any information N N/A N/A N/A N/A in this Mining Proposal that should not be publicly available? If Yes, refer to Appendix B, section 7 of the guidelines for more information.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand iii

Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N) Note: A non-confidential version of all mining proposals will be made available to the public 11 If ‘Yes’ to Q10, has N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A confidential information been submitted in a separate document? MINING PROPOSAL DETAILS 12 Does the Mining Y Provided in N/A Section Strandline Proposal cover page Section 1.1 and 1.1 and Resources Ltd (STA) include: 1.2.5. 1.2.5 ACN 165 036 537 ABN 17 165 036 537 • Environmental EGS Name: Group Site name Coburn 35 Richardson • Environmental Environmental Street, West Perth, Group Site code Group Western Australia, 6005 • company name EGS Code: (including telephone S0225800 Key contact numbers and email representative: addresses) Brendan Cummins • contact details • version number Chief Geologist and • date of submission. Exploration Manager Mobile: 0400 799 756

Phone: (08) 9226 3130

Email: brendan.cummins@s trandline.com.au

13 Has information Y Section regarding the 1.1, 1.2 Environmental Group Site (EGS) been provided in accordance with the requirements of Appendix G of the guidelines? 14 Has a disturbance table Y Section 3 been provided in accordance with the requirements of Appendix G of the guidelines?

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand iv

Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N)

15 Has spatial data for all Y Spatial data N/A Section 3 Spatial data provided Mine Activity Types provided been provided in accordance with the specified properties and allowances (see section 3.5.3)? 16 Has a site plan, Y Figure 9 – N/A Figure 9 Figure 9 consistent with all location of project spatial data and activity features details, been provided?

The site plan must show existing and proposed activities and other relevant information including tenement boundaries and other land tenure (e.g. Reserves and pastoral lease boundaries). 17 Do you have and Y EMS outlined in N/A Section EMS outlined in maintain an Section 9.0 9.0 Section 9.0 Environmental Management System? ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 18 Does the Mining Y Section 4.1 – N/A Section N/A Proposal include a list of Approvals Status 4.1 all relevant environmental approvals that have been sought or are required before the proposal may be implemented? 19 Does the Mining N No referral N/A N/A Section 45c Proposal trigger any required Submitted to EPA to criteria for referral to the update the existing EPA within the MS723 DMP/EPA Memorandum of Understanding? 20 Has the Mining N Not referred to Section 45c Proposal been referred the EPA Submitted to EPA to to the EPA? update the existing MS723

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand v

Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N)

If Yes, indicate date of referral in comments 21 Has the proposal been N The Proposal has N/A Section Ministerial Statement deemed to not warrant been assessed 4.1 723 approved by the formal assessment as a Public EPA in 2006 and under Part IV of the EP Environmental submitted s45c to Review (PER) update submitted in Act, is currently under under Part IV of March 2020 assessment by the the Western EPA, or has been Australian approved via a Environmental Ministerial Statement? Protection Act If Yes, ensure details of 1986. Changes Ministerial Statement, assessed under assessment level and/or S45c. assessment number are provided within the Mining Proposal 22 Is a clearing permit N Clearing N/A N/A N/A required? If ‘No’ then approved under explain why in space MS723 below 23 If ‘Yes’ at Q22 then has N N/A N/A N/A N/A a clearing permit been applied for? 24 Is the Mining Proposal N N/A N/A N/A N/A located on reserve land? If “Yes” state reserve types 25 Is the Mining Proposal N N/A N/A N/A N/A wholly or partially within Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) managed areas? 26 If ‘Yes’ at Q25 has N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DPaW been consulted? 27 Will any threatened or Y Management N/A Section Relevant plans protected flora and/or plans have been 6.4, include: fauna be impacted by implemented to 7.5.1, Declared Rare Flora this proposal? minimise/remove 7.6.2.2, potential impact 8.3 Management Plan to threatened/ Priority Flora, Flora protected flora and Vegetation and fauna. Management Plan Fauna Management Plan Hamelin Skink Management Plan.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand vi

Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N)

28 Have the DAA/DPC Y Four Aboriginal N/A Section Numerous Aboriginal ‘Aboriginal Heritage Due Heritage Survey 6.6 Heritage Surveys Diligence Guidelines’ reports have have been been used to identify been issued for conducted across the site. The the risk of impacts to the Proposal DAA/DPC ‘Aboriginal aboriginal heritage Heritage Due sites? Diligence Guidelines’ have been used to identify the risk of impacts to aboriginal heritage sites.

29 If any aboriginal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A heritage sites will be impacted, has appropriate consent been sought under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972? 30 Does the Mining Y Short term N/A Section N/A Proposal include a tailings storage 3.3 tailings storage facility? facilities are Mining Proposals that outlined in Section 2.4 and include tailings storage 3.3. facilities must include the relevant design reports outlined in the Guide to the preparation of a design report for tailings storage facilities (TSFs), August 2015. 31 Does the Mining Y Section 3.3 Proposal include the outlines strategy backfilling of mine for tailings voids? management and backfilling. If Yes, the Mining Sterilisation Proposal must include a report not Sterilisation Report. required for mineral sands operations.

32 Is the mining proposal N N/A N/A N/A N/A located on pre-1899 Crown Grant lands? (not subject to the Mining Act) 33 Has the construction of N N/A N/A N/A N/A an airstrip been

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand vii

Changes from Q Mining Proposal (MP) Y/N/NA Comments previous Page No. Summary No Checklist Version (Y/N) proposed? If Yes, indicate the date when Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia and the Local Government Authority were advised (in writing) of the proposal to construct an airstrip.

Strandline Resources Limited (Strandline or STA) proposes to develop a mineral sands mine and associated infrastructure at the Coburn Zircon Project, in the Shark Bay district of Western Australia (WA). The Project comprises the excavation and processing of a large tonnage, low grade heavy mineral sand deposit known as the Amy South Zone. The Amy Zone is approximately 35 km long, up to three kilometres wide and between 10 m and 40 m thick. The Amy Zone resource comprises approximately 1600 million tonnes (Mt) of mineralisation averaging 1.2% heavy minerals (HM) hosted in loose, dune sand with a very low clay content. Based on the average HM grade, over three million tonnes of heavy mineral concentrate could be yielded from mining the 20 km long Amy South portion of the deposit that was previously approved for mining in 2014 (Mining Proposal Registration ID 47646). The Project was assessed as a Public Environmental Review (PER) under Part IV of the WA Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). In addition, it was considered to be a “controlled action” under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The environmental assessment was conducted in accordance with the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and WA, meaning that the Commonwealth accredited the WA environmental impact assessment process. The Public Environmental Review (URS, 2005a) was issued in July 2005 for an eight-week public review period. The Report and Recommendations of the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) were published as EPA Bulletin 1211 in December 2005. Environmental approval for the Project was granted by the State Minister for the Environment in May 2006 (Ministerial Statement No. 723, Appendix A) and the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage in July 2006. Following the original Public Environmental Review (PER) and three subsequent amendments, additional exploration work and subsequent pit optimisations have occurred. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources effectively remain unchanged from April 2008, comprising approximately 740mt at 1.3% Total Heavy Minerals (THM). However, ore reserves have increased from 308mt at 1.2% THM to 523Mt at 1.11% THM. Optimal Pit designs have expanded and/ or deepened. Previously the mining schedule called for mining from the south to the north, optimal scheduling is now mining from the north to the south. On 28 February 2020 a Section 45c was submitted to modify Schedule 1 of MS723. An overall reduction of the disturbance footprint has been achieved during this optimisation process. Strandline propose to disturb an additional 540.2 ha of vegetation that hasn’t previously been assessed but will no longer require disturbance of 667.6 ha which is currently approved for disturbance. The net effect of this change will be a 127.4 ha reduction in disturbance.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand viii

This Mining Proposal Mining Proposal 1 was submitted to the DMP on 23 December 2010 under the Mining Act 1978 and was approved on 8 April 2011. Mining Proposal 1 was submitted for the approval of the Project’s access road and support infrastructure. Gunson commenced initial construction work in May 2012, prior to the commencement of mining operations. Mining Proposal 2 was submitted in April 2014. This mining proposal was submitted for the approval of the development of the mine pit, processing and site infrastructure. This Mining Proposal 3 provides a consolidated document that includes the whole project and includes the modifications made due to the updated mineral resource and submitted in in the Section 45c. The new additions and changes are outlined in the table below.

2014 Mining Proposal No. 2 Mining Proposal No. 3 Mine life of 19 years Mine life of 23 years Mining will be at a rate of 23.4 Mt/a Mining will be at a rate of 23.4 Mt/a Ore reserve - - 308mt at 1.2% THM to Total Ore reserve 523Mt at 1.11% THM Heavy Minerals (THM) Disturbance area – 3,695 ha Disturbance area – 3,568 ha (-127.4ha) see Figure 10 and Section 3.2 Mining sequence from south to the north Mining sequence from north to the south Location of WCP and MSP WCP and MSP plant locations altered see Figure 9 Legislation Updates to legislation Section 3.1 Priority species Updates to priority flora species Section 5.1.9.2 Activity areas for mining and processing Updates to areas in Activity tables in Section 3.0 Power generation Inclusion of Solar Farm to supplement power generation see section 2.10 Wastewater treatment subsurface irrigation Sprayfield to disperse WWTP waste to: Village - 38,500m2 (175m x 220m) WCP - 5,625m2 (75m x 75m) Section 2.12 Dry Tails Storage Facility at 3 locations totalling Dry Tails Storage Facility at 1 location totalling 27.7 ha 43 ha

Potential Environmental and Social Issues and Management Since the Project’s inception in 1999 it has undergone a series of rigorous environmental and social assessments, most notably the Public Environment Review (PER) that was approved in 2005, together with subsequent Mining Proposals and Works Approvals, which are detailed in Section 4 of this application. In response to the identified environment and social issues Strandline has developed a comprehensive series of Environmental Management Plans that have been approved by the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority following consultation with the Department of Environment and Conservation and others. In addition, management plans specific to groundwater will be agreed with the Department of Water, prior to mining commencing. The commitments made in these plans will enable the project to be constructed, operated and decommissioned in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. As consequence of the environmental management that will be implemented, this Mining Proposal has not identified any significant environment or social impacts resulting from the operation of Pits A and B within the Project Area.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand ix

Rehabilitation and Closure Environmental management, rehabilitation and closure for the Project will be undertaken by Strandline in accordance with the attached Mine Closure Plan (Appendix L). Strandline adopts the principles of the DMIRS (2020) Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans. In addition, Strandline has prepared the Progressive Rehabilitation Programme, in accordance with Condition 10 of Ministerial Statement No. 723 to describe the rehabilitation strategies that will be implemented for the Project. The Progressive Rehabilitation Programme was approved by the EPA in February 2007.

Environmental Commitments The construction, operation and closure of the Project will be managed in a manner that will ensure the environmental impacts will be minimised. Strandline has prepared a series of management plans which have been reviewed and approved by relevant government authorities. These management plans are as follows: 1. Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan 2. Borrow Pit Management Plan 3. Bush Fire Management Plan 4. Dust Management Plan 5. Fauna Management Plan 6. Hydrocarbon Management Plan 7. Preliminary Mine Closure Plan 8. Flora, Priority Flora and Vegetation Management Plan 9. Flora Declared Rare Flora Management Plan 10. Progressive Rehabilitation Management Programme 11. Radiation Management Plan 12. Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan 13. Hamelin Skink Management Plan 14. Preliminary Closure Plan 15. Groundwater Mounding Management Plan 16. Drawdown Impact Management Plan Strandline will implement these management plans accordingly. In addition, Strandline has made a number of other commitments with respect to minimising environmental impacts associated with the Project. These commitments are outlined in Ministerial Statement No. 723. This Mining Proposal includes the following environmental commitments with regards to rehabilitation and closure: Commitment 1: Strandline will undertake the backfilling of mine pits, progressive rehabilitation and planning for closure in accordance with the DMIRS (2020) Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans, and the Progressive Rehabilitation Management Plan (approved by the EPA in 2020). Commitment 2: Strandline will undertake construction and operation of the Project in a manner designed to minimise impacts on the existing environment such as flora, vegetation and fauna, in accordance with the Project’s approved management plans, and optimise opportunities for rehabilitation

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Environmental Group Site details EGS Name: Coburn Environmental Group EGS Code: S0225800

1.2 Mining operation description 1.2.1 Phase of Mining On site activities commenced in 2012 with the construction of the Mine Access road on L09/21 (Figure 1). This activity was suspended prematurely with the identification of the Hamelin Skink along the clearing corridor until additional Fauna Surveys and a relocation plan could be completed. Since then the Company has been implementing relevant environmental management plans (EMPs) required under MS 723. These included site surveys gathering baseline data in relation to Flora, Fauna and Hydrology. The site is planning to resume construction activities in September 2020. 1.2.2 Commodity mined • Heavy mineral sands – ilmenite, zircon, rutile and leucoxene 1.2.3 Estimated commencement and completion dates • Construction activities are planned to commence H2-2020, target September 2020. • Operations are planned to commence on 1H-2021, target March 2021 • Mine Closure estimate based on the 2019 Definitive Feasibility Study is 22.5 years after commencement or September 2043. There is potential for an additional 15 years mine life based on production targets estimated from the 2019 Scoping Level Study. Further work is a planned to increase the confidence classification of the current Inferred Mineral Resources that underpin the Scoping Study to Indicated and Measured Resources that will be suitable for estimating Ore Reserves. 1.2.4 Tenements (Figure 2) Area Tenement Grant Date Tenement Holder (km2) EL 09/939 37.6 18 June 1999 Strandline Resources ELA 09/2355 55.3 In application Strandline Resources R 09/02 8.74 11 January 2019 Strandline Resources R 09/03 17.10 11 January 2019 Strandline Resources R 09/04 5.04 In application Strandline Resources ML 09/102 9.98 25 October 2004 Strandline Resources ML 09/103 9.99 25 October 2004 Strandline Resources ML 09/104 9.99 25 October 2004 Strandline Resources ML 09/105 10.0 25 October 2004 Strandline Resources ML 09/106 10.0 25 October 2004 Strandline Resources ML 09/111 9.99 14 July 2005 Strandline Resources ML 09/112 9.90 14 July 2005 Strandline Resources L09/21 9.55 8 January 2007 Strandline Resources

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 2

1.2.5 Tenement holder Principal Employer: Strandline Resources Ltd (STA) ACN 165 036 537 ABN 17 165 036 537 35 Richardson Street, West Perth, Western Australia, 6005 Key contact representative Brendan Cummins Chief Geologist and Exploration Manager Mobile: 0400 799 756 Phone: (08) 9226 3130 Email: [email protected]

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 200000 250000

Carnarvon d CARNARVON!(! Gladstone R

N (! o PORT HEDLAND r t h (! W EXMOUTH e s Project

t Co Monkey Mia (! Location (! DENHAM a KALBARRI s (! t a (! l H GERALDTON w y PERTH (!

(! BUNBURY (! ESPERANCE(! ALBANY

Woodleigh Rd

KALBARRI (! Woodleigh East Rd East Woodleigh Northampton (! Mullewa (! Drummond Cove (! (! d GERALDTON! Geraldton Carbla R

7100000 Woodleigh - Byro Rd 7100000

North West Coastal Hwy

Rd k Bay ar h S

R 0900002

R 0900003

Useless Loop Rd Butchers Trk

M 0900102 7050000 7050000 M 0900103 L 0900021 L 0900043 M 0900104 Coburn Rd Meadow Rd

M 0900105 M 0900106 Conservation Area Offset M 0900111

M 0900112

200000 250000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW Project Location APPROVED BY BD Conservation Area Offset 2014 Approved Disturbance Footprint www.aecom.com LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Borrow Pit Shark Bay World Heritage Area Main Access Track Pastoral Lease DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 ´ Retention Tenement Coburn Station 0 2 4 STRANDLINE RESOURCES 1:500,000 Mining Tenement Hamelin Station Kilometres (when printed at A4) Miscellaneous Tenement Access Road MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: Local Distributor 1 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Primary Distributor Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro

Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig1_ProjectLocation_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

AECOM does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. AECOM shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information. 210000 220000 230000 240000 250000 260000 7090000 7090000 7080000 7080000

H a m e l in

d R y a B 7070000 ark 7070000 Sh

R 0900002 7060000 7060000

R 0900003 Calcrete Calcrete Borrow Borrow Pit 2 Pit 1

Butchers Trk M 0900102 Calcrete Clay/Sand 7050000 Clay/Sand Borrow Borrow Pit Clay/Sand 7050000 Borrow Pit Pit 7 Borrow Pit M 0900103 L 0900043 L 0900021 M 0900104 Coburn Rd Meadow Rd

North West Coastal Hwy Calcrete M 0900105 Borrow Pit 6 M 0900106 Clay/Sand 7040000 Borrow Pit Calcrete 7040000 Calcrete Borrow Calcrete Clay/Sand Borrow Pit 5 Borrow Borrow Pit Pit 4.1 M 0900111 Conservation Pit 3 Area Offset M 0900112 Calcrete Borrow Pit 4.2 7030000 7030000 7020000 7020000

210000 220000 230000 240000 250000 260000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW Coburn Sands Mineral Sands Mine APPROVED BY BD Conservation Area Offset 2014 Approved Disturbance Footprint www.aecom.com Project Tenure and Surrounding LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Borrow Pit Shark Bay World Heritage Area 100m buffer Land Uses Main Access Track Shark Bay World Heritage Area DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 ´ Retention Tenement Pastoral Lease STRANDLINE RESOURCES 0 2 4 1:300,000 Mining Tenement Coburn Station Kilometres (when printed at A4) Miscellaneous Tenement Hamelin Station MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: Access Road 2 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Local Distributor Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro Primary Distributor Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig2_CoburnMineralSandProj_A4P_v3.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

2.0 Proposal Description Strandline Resources Limited (STA or the Company) is an emerging heavy mineral sands developer with the 100%-owned Coburn development asset located in the Gascoyne of Western Australia (Figure 1). The Coburn project is situated in the well-established mining focused jurisdiction of WA, 40 km west of North West Coastal Highway, which links the project to the well-established mineral sands export port of Geraldton, situated some 240 km to the south. The Geraldton port has a well established bulk mineral sands infrastructure in place including mineral sands ship-loader facilities. In 2019 Strandline completed a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) on the Coburn Project utilising conventional open pit dry mining (dozers pushing into mining units), Wet Concentrator Plant (WCP) to separate mineral sands from the ore and a Mineral Separation plant (MSP) to produce mineral products comprising ilmenite, zircon, rutile and leucoxene. A zircon concentrate containing mainly zircon and any recoverable monazite which is present throughout the deposit in relatively minor quantities is also produced. Other non-processing supporting infrastructure includes product storage facilities, water treatment plant, waste management facilities, power generation, solar array, fuel storage and dispensary, water services, main 40km access road, site roads, landfill, waste water sprayfield, laboratory, temporary concrete batching plant (construction) workshop, buildings, offices, mining compound, village accommodation, borefields and communications facilities. On site activities commenced in 2012 with the initial clearing of the Mine Access road on L09/21 but was ceased prematurely with the identification of the Hamelin Skink. The implementation of the relevant environmental management sub-plans (EMPs) has commenced, including site surveys related to updating baseline data. In addition to the mining tenements outlined above, Strandline purchased the Coburn pastoral lease 3114/441 in April 2005, which covers most of the proposed mining area and the majority of the previously approved access road linking the mining area to the North West Coastal Highway (NWCH). The total area of the Coburn pastoral lease is 1,007 km2. Approximately 2.5 km of the initial section of the access road joining the NWCH traverses the Meadow Pastoral Lease. An agreement with the previous owner of the Meadow Pastoral Lease was executed in February 2007 and current until March 2020 when the property sold. The new owners of the Meadow Pastoral Lease have been engaged and discussions on access have commenced with a strong expectation the agreement will be renewed.

2.1 Project Summary An enhanced DFS completed in 2019 by Strandline shows the project will generate strong financial returns over a long life, with a pre-tax NPV of A$551m (USD:AUD 0.72, 8% discount rate), an IRR of 32%, Life of Mine (LOM) revenue of A$3.9b, LOM EBITDA of A$1.9b (average annual EBITDA of A$86 million) and an attractive revenue-to-operating cost ratio of 2.2, based on TZMI’s (independent minerals sands market expert) commodity price forecast. The Coburn project can be summarised as follows: • The DFS defined a realistic pathway to commercial production; confirming the ability to produce highly marketable zircon-titanium mineral products with first ore to processing plant in a nominal 18-month period. • JORC-compliant Mineral Resources of 1.6Bt @ 1.2% total heavy mineral (THM) (Amy deposit), classified 119Mt (or 7%) Measured, 607Mt (or 38%) Indicated, and 880Mt Inferred (or 55%) provides the geological foundation for the project. • JORC-compliant Ore Reserve of 523Mt grading 1.11% THM for ~5.8Mt of contained heavy mineral, underpins an initial mine life of 22.5 years at a mining rate of 23.4Mtpa - ASX announcement 16 April 2019. • Strong potential to further increase project Reserves and mine life to +38 years through evaluation and conversion of resources extending north and along strike of the current Ore Reserves will provide the basis for an Extension Case in the future.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 6

• Mining study confirms a conventional open pit dry mining operation where free-dig unconsolidated sand is mined using heavy mobile equipment reporting material to three (3) mobile Dozer Mining Units (DMU). The DMU prepares the ore for processing and the ore is pumped in a slurry form to the processing plant (WCP). The third DMU alternates between overburden removal and ore. • Bulk metallurgical testwork of representative samples, using full scale or scalable processing equipment, confirmed conventional processing capable of producing high-quality products with exceptional pit-to-product recovery rates achieved within both concentrate and final product streams. • DFS confirmed a high-grade saleable 95% Heavy Mineral Concentrate (HMC) product from the WCP and final products through further processing by the Mineral Separation Plant MSP. • Engagement with leading global mineral sands consumers confirms the saleability and strong market demand for Coburn’s products in both concentrate and final product form. Approximately 70% of revenue is already contracted long term with leading consumers – ASX announcement 20 April 2020. • The WCP design utilises multiple stages of high-capacity gravity separation and classification to produce a high grade HMC. • HMC will be processed in the MSP, using electrostatic separation, gravity and magnetic fractionation to produce a high-value product suite comprising a premium zircon product (66% ZrO2), zircon concentrate product (28% ZrO2, 11% TiO2 and traces of monazite), rutile product (which combines the rutile and leucoxene minerals to produce a 93% TiO2 blend) and a chloride-grade ilmenite product (62% TiO2). Refer to Figure 3. • Sand tails (including the coarse sands and slimes) from the WCP will be pumped to moveable de-watered deposit sites where the sand is separated from the lower density water and slime. The sand is deposited in the pit and the water and slime are returned for thickening and subsequent co-disposal in the pit amongst the sand. • The sand tails and slime material are then profiled and covered with stockpiled subsoils and topsoils to re-create the planned soil profile and final landform ready for full rehabilitation. • Products produced will be temporarily stored on site before being trucked on a continuous basis from the mine site to a dedicated staging facility located close to port, at Geraldton. • Product inventory will be shipped in bulk form to the existing port of Geraldton. Geraldton port is an established mineral sands export facility, with licences already in place to handle Coburn’s suite of minerals. • Water for operations will be supplied by a combination of sources including recycled tailings water, decant return water, rainwater runoff collection, overflow sumps and raw water top-up from an adjacent bore field. • Power for the operation will be supplied from a site power station operating on LNG (with diesel black start facility) with approximately 25% solar (renewable) penetration for the low voltage stable loads. • Project personnel will reside in a permanent village on site, catering for a drive-in-drive-out workforce. Additional temporary accommodation will be added to account for the peak construction period. • Other non-process infrastructure comprises product storage, water treatment plant, waste management facilities, fuel storage and dispensary, water services, main 43km access road, site roads, laboratory, RO plant, workshop, buildings, offices, gatehouse, emergency services, mining compound, laydown area and communications facilities. A temporary concrete batch plant will be installed at the MSP during construction. • Key environmental approvals in place under MS 723 and subsequent Section 45c updates. Strandline has developed a comprehensive series of Environmental Management Plans that have been approved by the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority following consultation with the Department of Water, Environment and Regulation (DWER formerly DEC) and others.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 7

• Management plans specific to groundwater that include regional drawdown and mounding have been drafted and will be approved with the Groundwater Operating Strategy by DWER. The commitments made in these plans will enable the project to be constructed, operated and decommissioned in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. • The project is a long life, multi decade operation and will generate a host of socio-economic benefits including capital inflows to regional Australia, significant job creation, indigenous engagement, training and job diversity as well local business opportunities and community partnership programs. • Most of the operational supplies, labour and professional services for Coburn will be accessed through Geraldton (the nearest major centre) and other regional communities including Carnarvon. • The project overlays two pastoral leases, Coburn and Hamelin. The Coburn Pastoral lease is 100% owned by Strandline, which covers the first 20 years of Ore Reserves. The Hamelin Pastoral Lease, to the immediate north, is managed by others. • The project is co-located across two native title claims, the Nanda Native Title Claim and the Malgana Native Title Claim. The Company has entered into appropriate formal agreements with the Native title holders.

Figure 3 Coburn Project simple WCP-MSP block diagram A Scoping Study assessment of Amy South Indicated and Inferred material, was also undertaken increasing the total potential mine life to 38 years. Key highlights include: • Scoping Study results confirm the potential to increase the mine life to 37.5 years (↑15 years) and project returns to A$3.7B overall project EBITDA

• Extension Case pre-tax NPV8 of A$710m, when integrated with the DFS Final Products Case • Purpose of the Scoping Study was to ascertain the financial benefits of a longer mine life by scheduling production targets from Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource • Mineral Resources lie north of the DFS Ore Reserves and represent the strike continuation of the same body of mineralisation • Production targets are scheduled from year 22.5 when the DFS Ore Reserves are depleted • No significant capital expenditure is required to access the Extension Case production targets Further, a critical element of the Project is Strandline’s approach and long-term commitment to regional socio-economic benefits, indigenous and stakeholder engagement and Australian Industry Participation. This work is ramping-up as the project moves closer to implementation.

2.2 Mining The planned mining rate is 23.4Mtpa of ore to be mined for 22.5 years from a 523mt Ore Reserve grading at 1.1% THM. Mining will commence in the north of the project on tenement M 09/102 and progressively move to the south at a mining rate of 3100t/h. The LOM waste to ore ratio is 0.72. At the end of mining operations on M 09/112 and after approximately 20 years the remainder of the DFS Ore Reserves will be mined north of M 09/102 on current license R 09/03 for the remaining 2.5 years. This retention license will be converted to a mining license within the required time frame. The pits range nominally from 20 to 50m depth with a width of several hundred metres. The mining units are nominally 100 x 100m with ore thicknesses ranging from 10 to 20m to basement. The ore zone lies significantly above the water table, and consists of relatively dry, free-flowing sand with a relatively low amount of clay (slimes) at nominally 2.6%.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 8

Coburn will be utilising conventional open pit dry mining in free-dig sand using D11 (or similar) dozers feeding mobile DMUs, with in pit tailings deposition and progressive backfill and rehabilitation. The mining and related earthmoving activities will be delivered under a contract mining arrangement. The mining contractor will be responsible for efficiently feeding material to the DMU’s as per the mine plan and also performing the necessary contouring of co-disposed in-pit tails and slimes, subsoil-topsoil replacement, haul road maintenance, bench management and drainage, in-pit dewatering and re- contouring of the completed pit area in readiness for rehabilitation. Topsoil and Subsoil material will be stripped by dozer or scraper and will be either placed in stockpiles in the vicinity of the pit or placed directly on top of recontoured tails areas. Both topsoil and subsoil will be managed to minimize stockpile duration. Overburden, where present, will be removed by large capacity bulldozers or scrapers and placed in the pit void immediately adjacent the ore to be mined out. As there will be occurrences where there will not be a readily available adjacent void, the overburden will be moved to an alternative void or off-path location potentially located a distance away and uneconomic to be handled by mobile machinery. The overburden in this case will be either pumped into position or conveyed using portable conveyors. In the case of pumping the overburden will be pumped at the maximum pumping density possible (nominally 55% solids) and decant water will be recovered and returned to the process water dam for recycling. No drill and blast is required. Ore is pushed nominally by a fleet of D11 (or equivalent) carry dozers to DMUs (dozer mining unit), oversize material is wet screened separated from the slurry undersize which is subsequently pumped to the ore processing facilities. The DMU’s are skid mounted and moved nominally every 6-10 days during the LOM. Two DMUs are operating at any one time with a third DMU being placed into an operational readiness position for when one of the active DMUs completes mining the panel allocated to it. The mining process is summarised in a schematic diagram in Figure 4. Grade control of the ore has been partially defined through mine optimisation and scheduling. Additional detailed pre-production drilling will be undertaken to assist in achieving the target feed head grade to the plant. Operation efficiency of the dozers will be aided by the application of modern GPS tracking and level control technology. Semi-autonomous technology is planned to be applied as the mine matures. Once the pit has been developed and suitably sized voids become available, subsequent “waste” material comprising overburden, dewatered/densified tails and thickened fines/slime (co-disposed with the tails) will be returned to the mine pit. Materials handling in the last stages of mining will be managed in such a way that will minimise any depression remaining. Filling and rehabilitation of the last portion of the mine pit will be achieved by pushing sand downward from a higher hill/ridge at the end of the pit followed by surface contouring to blend in and match the previous landform as closely as practical. Seeds will be collected from vegetation across the orebody prior to the vegetation being cleared by heavy mobile equipment. Collected seeds will be used in the mine rehabilitation process after surface contouring. A Progressive Rehabilitation Plan has been developed and approved and discussed in Section 7.6.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 9

Figure 4 Dozer and mining unit schematic diagrams

2.3 Processing

The processing facility for the Coburn Minerals Sands Project will consist of three main process areas: • Dozer Mining Units (DMU) • Wet Concentration Plant (WCP) • Mineral Separation Plant (MSP) The processing plants for Coburn are designed to process ore to recover four separate products, ilmenite, rutile (includes. rutile-leucoxene minerals), premium zircon and zircon concentrate whilst rejecting waste products to the mining void. Ore will be fed into two of the three DMUs for screening on a horizontal vibrating screen. Screened ore will then be pumped in slurry form to the WCP surge tank. The WCP will then efficiently beneficiate and recover the heavy minerals and reject most of the non-valuable, lighter gangue minerals utilising gravity separation equipment and screens. The circuit is designed to produce a HMC containing nominally 95% heavy mineral (HM). The third DMU will be used for mining ore during periods of DMU moves. As discussed earlier the DMU may also be used to remove overburden for those mining blocks that do not have an adjacent void or sufficient void capacity. The use of the additional DMU is a major advancement over previous generation mining methods adopted for the Coburn project as it allows for flexibility and more efficient operation, especially in the reduction of downtime associated with the DMU moves and its ability to be utilised for accessing uneconomic ore due to sub-optimal overburden removal. . The HMC will be processed in the MSP. The MSP will separate the HM into final saleable products (ilmenite, rutile, premium zircon and zircon concentrate. This will be accomplished by a combination of electrostatic, magnetic and gravity separation. The products will be stored temporarily on site in loadout bins which will be routinely transferred into trucks and transported to third party sheds located in Geraldton in readiness for shipping from the Midwest Port. 2.3.1 Wet Concentrator Plant Description Figure 5 and Figure 12 below shows a schematic of the WCP flow sheet to assist with the description that follows. Combined DMU discharge will be transferred into the WCP surge tank, which will have approximately 20 minutes residence capacity. Fluidising water will be added to the base of the surge tank to allow sufficient consolidation of the solids while still allowing pumping. Slurry at a controlled solids density will be fed to first stage rougher spirals via a series of distribution boxes.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 10

Figure 5 Coburn WCP process route and process flow sheet

Super concentrate and concentrate from the rougher spirals will be directed to the cleaner feed hopper, middlings will report to the middling spiral feed hopper and the tailings streams will report to the WCP tailings hopper from which the tails is then pumped to the mining void as part of the backfill and rehabilitation process. The rougher spiral middlings stream will be combined with the cleaner spiral tailings stream and then pumped through a distributor to evenly feed two banks of ten triple start Middling spirals. Super concentrate and concentrate will be directed to the cleaner feed hopper, middlings will recirculate on itself and the tailings streams will report to the WCP tailings hopper. The rougher spiral and middling spiral super concentrate and concentrate streams will be combined and then pumped through a distributor to evenly feed two banks of ten triple start cleaner spirals. Super concentrate and concentrate will be directed to the up current classifier (UCC) (x2) via its respective feed hopper, middlings will recirculate on itself and the tailings streams will report to the middling spiral feed hopper. A dewatering cyclone will be installed above the UCC to achieve the desired UCC feed density. Fluidising water injected into the UCC will separate and recover the heavy mineral to the underflow, whilst the lighter gangue and fine HM will report to the overflow. The overflow will gravitate to the overflow spiral circuit for recovery of relatively fine HM and the underflow will be directed to the HMC screen feed hopper. Material in the Heavy Mineral Concentrate (HMC) screen feed hopper will be pumped to a Derrick Screen for removal of coarse gangue entrained in the concentrate. Screen oversize (+300 µm) will be directed to a bunker whereas screen undersize will gravitate to the HMC hopper. Overflow from the UCC will be subjected to a three-stage overflow spiral circuit comprising roughers, scavenger and cleaner spirals. Tailings from the overflow scavenger spiral will report to the tailings hopper. Concentrate from the overflow cleaner spiral will report to the HMC hopper. The HMC will then be dewatered via a cyclone and stored in the HMC storage tank. The HMC storage tank provides a buffer between the main gravity separation circuit and the HMC attritioning and filtration operation. HMC will be withdrawn from the HMC storage tank and pumped to a dewatering cyclone to produce the required density for attritioning. Attritioning will occur in two stages. The circuit has been designed to add 300g/t of attritioning aid (nominally Freevis) to ensure sufficient cleaning efficiency. The primary attritioners consists of four attritioner cells followed by a dewatering cyclone stage to direct the fines produced to the slimes thickener and direct the underflow into the secondary attritioners. The secondary attritioners consist of four attritioning cells followed by a dewatering cyclone stage to direct the fines produced to the slimes thickener with the underflow reporting to the HMC filter belt.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 11

The HMC filter belt will remove the salts from the HMC via a two-stage wash process utilising reverse osmosis water and then dewater the HMC. The HMC will then be transferred to the HMC stockpile via a conveyor. The filtrate will be pumped back to the process water pond for recycling. Tailings are combined in the WCP tailings hopper, where all of the tailings streams are combined and pumped to the mining void. Samplers will be installed on the following streams for metallurgical accounting and assist with trouble shooting: • Rougher Feed • HMC Concentrate • WCP Tailings • Desliming thickener underflow

Figure 6 Schematic of the Wet Concentrator Plant (WCP) 2.3.2 Mineral Separation Plant Process Description (MSP) Figure 7 shows a schematic of the MSP flow sheet to assist with the description that follows. In general, HMC is dried, screened to remove any trash material and then passed through an electrostatic rolls separator circuit to separate non-conductor mineral from conductor mineral. Conductive HM proceeds through the conductor circuit via a magnetic circuit to produce rutile and ilmenite final products. Non-conductive HM proceeds through the non-conductor circuit to produce premium zircon and zircon concentrate. The introduction of a zircon concentrate stream (as a co-product to the premium zircon) contributes to the significant increase in overall zircon recovery at the MSP. The MSP is not designed to be relocated and all major mine infrastructure is located at the MSP site, including power generation, administration, workshops, stores and accommodation village nearby.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 12

2.3.2.1 Feed Preparation and Electrostatic Separation Dewatered HMC from the HMC stockpile will be transferred via front end loader into the MSP feed hopper. A variable speed feeder will modulate to transfer HMC at the desired feed rate onto the MSP feed conveyor. This conveyor will discharge into a gas fired fluid bed dryer producing a dry and heated (to 120°C) product suitable for the electrostatic separation. Dried product will report to the trash screen with an aperture of 500 microns to remove any coarse material entrained in the HMC via gravity. The undersize will be fed to the MSP feed bucket elevator, fitted with a surge bin, which will transfer into a rotary vezin MSP feed sampler. Discharge from the MSP feed sampler will be distributed across six parallel high-tension roll (HTR) electrostatic separators (Primary HTR). These machines will have three internal stages with the middlings retreated to produce a non-conductor, middlings and conductor stream. The non-conductor material will report to the non-conductor circuit. The middlings will report to the middlings bucket elevator. The conductor stream from the primary HTRs will be further processed through four parallel conductor cleaner HTRs. These machines will have three internal stages with the middlings retreated to produce a non-conductor, middlings and conductor stream. The conductor stream will report to the conductor circuit for further separation. The middlings and non-conductor will report to the middlings bucket elevator. The middlings bucket elevator is fitted with a surge bin and will transfer material into two parallel primary middlings HTRs. These machines will have three internal stages with the middlings retreated to produce a non-conductor and conductor stream. The non-conductors will report to the non-conductor circuit. The conductor stream will report to the single secondary middlings HTR. The secondary middlings HTR will have three internal stages with the middlings retreated to produce a non-conductor and conductor stream. The non-conductors will be directed to the zircon concentrate. The conductor stream will report to the conductor circuit. A schematic of the MSP showing the location of the MSP, including the conveyer and surrounding infrastructure is provided in Figure 8. 2.3.2.2 Conductor Circuit In the conductor circuit the material will be first cooled and transferred to three parallel conductor rare earth drum magnetic separators (RED). The RED will separate out the majority of the magnetic material and direct it to the ilmenite product bucket elevator. The non-magnetic stream will be directed to three parallel conductor cleaner RER (rare earth rolls) machines. The conductor cleaner RER will have three internal stages with the magnetic material retreated to produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the ilmenite product bucket elevator. The non-magnetic stream will report to the two parallel conductor recleaner RERs. The conductor recleaner RERs will have three internal stages with the magnetic material retreated to produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the conductor mag scavenger bucket elevator. The non-magnetic stream will be directed to the rutile circuit. The conductor scavenger bucket elevator will transfer the material to a single conductor mag RER scavenger to recover some of the mis-reported rutile. This machine will have three internal stages with the magnetic material retreated to produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the ilmenite product bucket elevator. The non-magnetic stream will be directed to the rutile circuit. The ilmenite bucket elevator is fitted with a surge bin and will transfer ilmenite product up to the ilmenite sampler, over the impact weigher and into the ilmenite product bin. The product bin will have load cells to measure the weight in the bin and a pneumatic actuated discharge valve for loading the product trucks. Diversion valves will be included to direct ilmenite away from the ilmenite product bin and back to the surge bin during load out to allow for mass calculation of ilmenite loaded into the trucks.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 13

2.3.2.3 Rutile- Circuit Non-magnetic material from the Conductor Circuit will report to the rutile circuit feed bin which has approximately two hours storage capacity. Material will be drawn from this bin via a valve, combined with water and pumped to the rutile wet table. Light gangue material will be directed to the zircon concentrate whereas the concentrate will be pumped to the rutile filter dewatering cyclone. rutile filter dewatering cyclone underflow will gravitate to the rutile horizontal filter belt to be washed with RO permeate water and dewatered prior to being transferred to the fluid bed dryer. Dried material will then be transferred to the rutile dry circuit feed bucket elevator. Dryer off-gas will be ducted to the dedicated drier baghouse. The bucket elevator will transfer the material to the primary HTR separator. This machine will have three internal stages with the conductors retreated to produce a non-conductor, middlings and conductor stream. The non-conductors will be transferred to zircon concentrate. The middlings stream will report to the rutile secondary HTR and the conductor stream will be directed to the rutile product bucket elevator. This rutile secondary HTR will have three internal stages with the conductors retreated to produce a non-conductor and conductor stream. The non-conductors will report to zircon concentrate and the conductor stream will report to the rutile product bucket elevator. Material from the conductor stream in the two rutile HTRs will be combined with the non-mag from the conductor scavenger RER in the rutile bucket elevator, fitted with a surge bin, and will be transferred up to the rutile sampler, over the impact weigher and into the rutile product bin. The product bin will have load cells to measure the weight in the bin and a pneumatic actuated discharge valve for loading the product trucks. Diversion valves will be included to direct rutile away from the rutile product bin and back to the surge bin during load out to allow for mass calculation of rutile loaded into the trucks. 2.3.2.4 Non-Conductor Circuit Non-conductor streams from the feed preparation circuit will be first cooled and transferred to three parallel conductor RER magnetic separators. The single roll RER will produce a magnetic and non- magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will be directed to a reject bin and the non-magnetic stream will report to the non-conductor wet circuit feed bin. Non-conductor material will be drawn from this bin via a valve, combined with water and pumped to one bank of VHG spirals producing a concentrate, middlings and tailings. The tailings material containing the light gangue material will be rejected to gravity tailings. The middlings stream will be pumped to the zircon concentrate and the concentrate will be pumped to the Up Current Classifier (UCC) dewatering cyclone. Underflow from the cyclone will be transferred to the zircon UCC, which will cut at 106 microns to produce a coarse underflow and fine overflow. The coarse material will be pumped to the coarse zircon circuit whereas the fine material will be pumped to the fine zircon circuit. 2.3.2.5 Coarse Zircon Circuit Coarse zircon feed material will be pumped to one bank of VHG spirals producing a concentrate, middlings and tailings. The tailings material will be transferred to the zircon concentrate. The middlings stream will gravitate to the coarse zircon secondary wet table and the concentrate will be pumped to the coarse zircon filter dewatering cyclone. The coarse zircon secondary wet table will produce a concentrate and tailings stream. The tailings material will be transferred to the zircon concentrate. The concentrate will be combined with the coarse zircon spiral concentrate and pumped to the coarse zircon filter dewatering cyclone. Coarse zircon filter dewatering cyclone underflow will gravitate to the coarse zircon horizontal filter belt to be washed and dewatered prior to being transferred to the fluid bed dryer. Dried material will then be transferred to the coarse zircon dry circuit feed bucket elevator. Drier off-gas will be ducted to a dedicated dryer baghouse.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 14

The bucket elevator will transfer the material to the coarse zircon HTR separator. This machine will have three internal stages with the non-conductors retreated to produce a non-conductor and conductor stream. The non-conductors will report to two coarse zircon primary Induced Roll Magnets (IRMs). The conductor stream will report to the zircon concentrate. The two coarse zircon primary IRMs will produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the zircon concentrate and the non-magnetic stream will be fed to the coarse zircon secondary IRMs. The coarse zircon secondary IRMs will produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the zircon concentrate and the non-magnetic stream will be fed to the premium zircon product bucket elevator. 2.3.2.6 Fine Zircon Circuit Fine zircon feed material will be pumped to one triple start VHG spiral producing a concentrate, middlings and tailings. The tailings material will gravitate to the fine zircon wet table. The concentrate will be pumped to the fine zircon filter dewatering cyclone. The fine zircon secondary wet table will produce a concentrate and tailings stream. The tailings material will be transferred to the gravity tailings. The concentrate will be combined with the fine zircon spiral concentrate and pumped to the fine zircon filter dewatering cyclone. Fine zircon filter dewatering cyclone underflow will gravitate to the fine zircon horizontal filter belt to be washed and dewatered prior to been transferred to the fluid bed dryer. Dried material will then be transferred to the fine zircon dry circuit feed bucket elevator. Drier off-gas will report to a dedicated dryer baghouse. The bucket elevator will transfer the material to the fine zircon HTR separator. This machine will have three internal stages with the non-conductors retreated to produce a non-conductor and conductor stream. The non-conductors will report to the fine zircon primary Induced Roll Magnet (IRM). The conductor stream will report to the zircon concentrate. The fine zircon primary IRMs will produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the zircon concentrate and the non-magnetic stream will be fed to the fine zircon secondary IRMs. The fine zircon secondary IRMs will produce a magnetic and non-magnetic stream. The magnetic stream will report to the zircon concentrate and the non-magnetic stream will be fed to the premium zircon product bucket elevator. Premium zircon produced in the coarse and fine zircon circuit will be combined at the premium zircon bucket elevator, which is fitted with a surge bin, be transferred up to the premium zircon sampler, over the impact weigher and into the premium zircon product bin. The product bin will have load cells to measure the weight in the bin and a pneumatic actuated discharge valve for loading the product trucks. Diversion valves will be included to direct premium zircon away from the premium zircon product bin and back to the surge bin during load out to allow for mass calculation of premium zircon loaded into the trucks. The streams reporting to the zircon concentrate will be combined in the zircon concentrate hopper. This will then be pumped to a dewatering cyclone with the underflow reporting to the zircon concentrate stockpile. The zircon concentrate pad will be fitted with slotted drainage pipe and membrane to capture the water released from the concentrate. The water will be returned to the process water dam for recycling. This drained product will sit on the stockpile for some days to allow some natural drying to take place and eventually be loaded via Front End Loader (FEL) onto trucks and transported to third party storage sheds located in Geraldton, in close proximity to the Midwest port. 2.3.2.7 Major Reagents The Project will utilise two reagents, including a flocculant and an attritioning agent. The processes will use Kemira Superfloc TM A11 (or similar equivalent), an anionic polyacrylamide as a flocculant, which is not classified as hazardous. The attritioning agent Freevis 9934 is an acrylate polymer in an aqueous solution. The major chemical component is Sodium Bisulfite, which is not classified as hazardous according to the criteria of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 15

Figure 7 MSP process flow sheet

Figure 8 Schematic of the Mineral Separation Plant (MSP)

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 16

2.4 In Pit Tailings Disposal The Coburn project requires the waste output (fines/slimes and sand tailings) remaining from the WCP processing of the ore to be placed back in the mined out pit void. The project is designed for dewatered/densified sand tails and thickened fines/slime being co-disposed at the tails pipe discharge point. Both of the densified tailings streams (coarse and fine) are combined at the WCP, prior to pumping at high solids concentration to the mine void as a co-disposed mixture. At deposition the co- disposed slurry mixture solids concentration will typically be 65% by weight (35% water by weight). Recovery of excess water running off the tailings beach that is formed inside the mine void is expected to be between 35% and 77% of that disposed, depending on the conditions of the mine floor. The recovered decant water is collected by a skid mounted pump at the toe of the beach and will be pumped back to the process water dam for reuse. As the co-disposed mixture fills the void and reaches approximately the final targeted contour height the discharge pipe will be relocated to the next location. There are 2 active tails slurry lines in operation at any time with a third being moved into a new location in readiness for when one of the active locations reaches its final fill height. A dozer will be used to push the combined sand/slime deposition into its final contour in readiness for sub soil and top soil replacement. The co disposed mixture will be primarily deposited on top of previously placed sandy overburden, behind the current mining face gradually filling the void. A small sand bund or sumps will be incorporated at the toe of the deposition area (beach) on the pit floor to capture the initial decant water and pumped back to the process plant. The aim is to capture and recycle as much water early in the decant system. An additional series of in pit drains feeding into a strip drain on the western side of the pit will be constructed to capture further decant water from the emplaced sand. Return water pumps will be placed alongside sumps strategically placed along the length of the strip drain. The pumps will be relocated as the tailings beach advances along the pit void. Additional engineered drains may be buried (eg slotted pipe with filter cloth) depending on their effectiveness, the topography of the Toolonga Calcilutite basement and mine geometry. During the operational phase other techniques will be considered in terms of their recycling efficiency and effectiveness at minimising mounding (Groundwater Operating Strategy URS, 2013). The strip drain, buried slotted pipe or other most effective application will remain open/active until the majority of the water mounded in the tails is collected, or the Company can ascertain that trigger levels on groundwater mounding will not be breached in accordance with the Groundwater Mounding Management Plan (URS, 2013b). The management of water within the mine void area is a critical aspect of the design and will be the subject of ongoing continuous improvement to maximise water return. Water within the pit will be managed in order to maximise the recovery of water from the tails stacks, maximise tailings storage volume, maximise embankment stability and to reduce seepage to surrounding areas. Monitoring, critical thresholds and mitigation requirements are outlined within the Groundwater Mounding Management Plan.

2.5 Mining Contractor’s Compound The mining contractor’s compound will initially be located adjacent the first WCP site. The size of the compound will be approximately 100 x 150 m to allow for heavy earthmoving machine parking, light and heavy vehicle maintenance workshops and contractors’ offices and amenities.

2.6 Roads The principal access for the Project remains unchanged from and approved under Mining Proposal 2. Clearing of the mine access road was undertaken in 2012 but was put on hold with the discovery of a population of Hamelin Skink. A baseline study and skink relocation program was undertaken but the continued development of the project was suspended.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 17

Access to the mine site will be gained from North West Coastal Highway approximately 15 km north of the Billabong Roadhouse and approximately 247 km north of Geraldton. The main access road will connect the Coburn MSP processing facility with the NWCH located 43.5 km to the east. This road will be a sealed bitumen installation along the duration of its length, having a design speed of 90 km/h reducing to 70 km/h through an 8 km section of the sand dune area. The road will be capable of taking super triple road trains of up to 36.5 m length, carrying a nominal 100 t payload. Approximately 32.3 km from the intersection, the road enters sand dunes consisting of up to 40 m depth of unconsolidated sands forming an undulating series of ridges. The route is mainly through uncleared bush following ridges or valley as appropriate. The detailed design of this portion of the road minimises the impact on known populations of a Declared Rare Flora (Eucalyptus Beardiana), having a 40 m buffer zone between the road and any occurrences of this plant. A maximum width of 30 m will be cleared for the access road between the NWCH and road chainage 32.3 km. A maximum width of 35 m will be cleared for the access road between road chainage 32.3 km and the commencement of the Eucalyptus Beardiana community. The access road will be reduced to a maximum cleared width of 15 m through the Eucalyptus Beardiana community. Once the road is clear of the Eucalyptus Beardiana community, vegetation clearing for the remaining road through to the mine office will be 35 m wide. Internal roads branching off the sealed main access road will be unsealed surfaces and will be installed as part of the early bulk earthworks with calcrete trucked from one of the 7 borrow pits identified along the mine access road. They will be maintained using calcrete oversize generated from the mining operation.

2.7 Water Supply and Dewatering Water supply and dewatering requirements for the construction and operation of the Project were approved under Mining Proposal 2 and remain unchanged. • Construction water for construction of the main access road will be sourced from CPB 16 which is a water bore located next to the main access road. This bore has been drilled, cased and available for immediate usage. • Water for roadworks in the western areas will be obtained from CPB1 which is located on the village access road, approximately 1.25 km south of the MSP plant. This bore has been drilled, cased and available for immediate usage. • Total water supply for the operations will be sourced from six bores located within the mining licenses namely CPB1 to CPB6. Bores will be spaced to avoid aquifer interference. Each bore pumps from a depth of approximately 120 m at a nominal rate of 360 m³/h (100 litres/sec) for a total production of 2,160 m³/h or a maximum of 17.28 GL/annum, which is below the proposed extraction licence maximum of 18 GL/annum. • Off-takes from the MSP supply bore line will maintain a constant supply to the Reverse Osmosis Water Plant. • The RO plant will produce potable water which supplies a potable water tank at the village, MSP and offices, administration facilities, WCP and mining contractor’s compound. • A 1,200 m³ per hour RO plant will be installed at the MSP and be fed from the raw water stored in a tank located at the MSP. Pumps from this tank maintain constant pressure to the RO plants. Fresh water produced will be stored in a 450 m³ capacity MSP freshwater tank, which supplies the MSP, along with two 32 m3 tanks at the WCP. • Excess water produced by the MSP, including waste brine from the RO plant, will be rejected into the process water dam, where it will be diluted with bore water and reused in the process. The ore zones at Amy South lie above the water table and no in pit de-watering is required other than decant from the tailings backfill process and from direct heavy rainfall.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 18

2.8 Process Water Dams The process water dam was approved under Mining Proposal 2. The process water dam will be constructed within proximity of the MSP complex with top up water supplied from nominally 6 water bores. The dam will be approximately 100m by 100m and will hold approximately 30,000 kL of water. The dam will be excavated to a depth of approximately four metres with four metres above ground and lined with high-density polyethylene (1.5mm HDPE) liner. Smaller process water dams will be installed at the WCP comprising 5,000 kL and 10,000kL with both extending over a 120m x 60m area and will be lined with high-density polyethylene (1.5mm HDPE) liner.

2.9 Reverse Osmosis Plant To effect good mineral separation in the downstream MSP circuits, it is necessary to use desalinated water to remove both the salt from brackish water used in the gravity separation process and the attritioning reagent used. The desalinated water is added in the HMC handling and filtering circuit to wash the concentrate prior to being transported to in the MSP. The use of bore water in this instance would contaminate the particle surfaces, significantly hindering MSP performance and final product. A single large RO water plant with a capacity to produce 1,200 m³/day of fresh water (desalinated water) or approximately 0.4Gl of desalinated water per year will be utilised. Fresh water produced will be stored in a 460 m³ capacity MSP fresh-water tank, which supplies the MSP and a potable water tank of 156 m³ for distribution to the offices and other sites within the MSP. Smaller holding tanks for potable water will be located at the WCP and village accommodation Excess water produced by the MSP, including waste brine from the RO plants, will be rejected into the raw water pond, where it will be diluted with bore water and reused within the process. WCP feed raw water pumps will transfer water from the raw water dam to the WCP over a total initial distance of approximately 8.6 km, to replenish the process water pond located at the WCP. The process water pond allows for 2 hours capacity based upon steady state water consumption

2.10 Power Supply and Fuel Storage Facilities There will be two types of fuel facilities for the project comprising a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) facility for the power station, MSP dryers and diesel storage for dispensing fuel for light vehicles, plant equipment, mining vehicles and for “cold start” diesel generators. The LNG storage and dispensing facility will be operated on a Build Own Operate and Maintain (BOOM) arrangement. The calculated maximum average electrical load is 15.9 MW, with a nominal average load of 11.9 MW. LNG will be delivered by cryogenic road tankers into the on-site LNG Facility where it will be held on consignment and vaporised, odorised and pressure regulated prior to delivery to the power station. In addition to the LNG power supply an array of solar panels will be used in conjunction with a battery energy storage system as part of the power supply arrangement. The power generation components include: • LNG Unloading Storage Vaporisation (USV) facility with 3 x LNG Storage tanks • Gas generator modules comprising 7 x 2.5MW allowing for redundancy and shutdowns • Diesel Generator modules 2 x 1.6MW Diesel Generator modules • The diesel generators will have bunded belly tanks • 4.5MW Battery Energy Storage System contained within 4 x 20 foot sea containers • Solar PV System 5.4MW (AC) and 6.34MWp (DC). There will be two diesel fuel storage facilities on the project site, one that will service mining vehicles/equipment and a second servicing plant equipment and light vehicles. The mining diesel storage facility will be supplied and operated by the mining Contractor.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 19

The owner’s plant diesel fuel and dispensing facility will be located at the MSP plant and controlled used a magnetic card system or equivalent best practice. The owners fuel storage facility will consist of a single 55,000 litre, fuel double contained horizontal tank. Diesel fuel will be delivered to site by road using road tankers. The spatial impact for the LNG power facility is approximately 100x150m for the thermal station and LNG USV facility. The Solar Farm extends over approximately 15a in an area comprising approximately 500 x 300m. During the construction phase several small temporary gensets with self-bunded fuel tanks will be installed at the Accommodation Village, MSP, RO plant and productions bores. Once construction is completed the site’s power will be sourced from the LNG/solar power generation units located at the MSP.

2.11 Workshop, Administration Office and Stores area A workshop, administration office and stores area were approved under Mining Proposal 2. Site buildings will be located at the WCP and MSP processing plant sites. Site buildings include reception, office rooms, crib rooms, control rooms, training area, first aid clinic/medical centre, laboratory, meeting rooms, workshop, warehouse, amenities, data rooms and storage areas. Refer to Figure 9. The communications system is based on configuration of the following, wide area network (WAN), local area network (LAN), intra site microwave communications, IP telephony and unified communications, village entertainment, WI-FI network and two-way radio system. The buildings at the WCP will be transportable and will be of a single module design. The workshop and store at the WCP will consist of dome covered 12 m containers. Sample assaying and assemblage assessment will be performed onsite in a state of the art laboratory containing international standard laboratory equipment and managed by qualified laboratory technicians.

2.12 Landfill and Sprayfields The site landfill was approved under Mining Proposal 2 and both the sprayfield and landfill are granted under Works Approval (W6258/2019/1). The landfill (120m x 150m) will be established to the south of the MSP area for domestic waste such as general refuse, green waste and putrescibles. The landfill area will be fenced to discourage native and feral animals from entering the area. A main sprayfield (175m x 220m) will be cleared so the wastewater discharge from the treatment plant located at the village accommodation can be efficiently dispersed. A second smaller sprayfield (75m x 75m) will be located adjacent the WCP to disperse waste water from a small wastewater treatment plant located at the WCP.

2.13 Site Accommodation Operations personnel will reside in a 200 person permanent village (150m x 250m) located approximately 2.5 km south of the MSP facility. During operations, taking into account rosters etc. the camp is expected to host approximately 116 people. The facilities will be installed progressively in multiple stages to align with the development schedule and manning level. Additional temporary accommodation units will be added to account for peak manning requirements during construction; The permanent rooms are designed ergonomically and to minimise disturbance.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 208000 212000 216000 220000

R 0900003 7052000 7052000

Planned M 0900102 Production Bore

Planned Production Bore 7048000 7048000

M 0900103

Initial Tailings Site

Planned Production Bore M 0900104

7044000 Planned WCP 7044000

MSP location and Powerplant Solar Farm

Production L 0900021 M 0900105 Bore

Landfill Site WWTP Spray Field

Accommodation Village

7040000 M 0900106 7040000 Planned Production Bore

North West Coastal Hwy

rk Bay Rd Sha Planned WCP

M 0900111

Planned Production Bore 7036000 7036000

M 0900112 Planned WCP

208000 212000 216000 220000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW 2014 Approved Disturbance Initial Tailings Site Accommodation Village The Disturbance Envelope for the APPROVED BY BD Footprint www.aecom.com Initial Wet Concentrator Plant Landfill Site Coburn Sands Project LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Latest Proposed Disturbance Mineral Separation Plant WWTP Spray Field Footprint location and Powerplant Retention Tenement DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Bore Location ´ Planned Wet Concentrator Mining Tenement 0 500 1,000 Access Track STRANDLINE RESOURCES Plant Miscellaneous Tenement 1:85,000 Pastoral Lease Metres (when printed at A4) Solar Farm Shark Bay World Heritage Coburn Station Area 100m buffer MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: Hamelin Station Shark Bay World Heritage Area 9 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro

Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig9_ DisturbanceEnvelopeCoburnSandsProject_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

2.14 Workforce Requirements It is currently proposed that the majority of employees will work 2 weeks on, 1 week off (subject to further considerations), Drive in – Drive out (DIDO) roster from towns in the region. Whilst on site, employees and contractors will be accommodated in a village managed by an independent contractor specialising in camp management and operational services. It is envisaged that most of the employees will reside in the major centres of Geraldton, Denham, Kalbarri and Carnarvon or townships and rural areas in the region. As such, most employees would spend on average approximately 90-150 minutes travelling between the mine and their place of residence. Through the recruitment process successful employees will be encouraged to reside in areas that will minimise their travel time as much as possible. The final roster will be designed to minimise risks associated with employee health and safety while also meeting the requirements of the operation. Employee family welfare and social life will also be considerations when deciding on the final roster. In addition to the full-time workforce, additional engineering trades people will be required on a regular basis to carry out scheduled planned maintenance. Professional skills required on an irregular basis will be provided by consultants based in Perth or Geraldton. Daily air services between Perth and Geraldton allow day visits to the operation. During the construction phase of the project activities on site will include: • Bulk earthworks and roads; • Village construction; • EPC Contract for the WCP and MSP; • Water bore and monitoring bore drilling; • Power station and solar farm operated and maintenance under a BOO commercial model; • HV and LV Power supply and distribution system; • Site-wide communications; • Pre-mining activities. The work force will be dominantly contractors with the Strandline Owner’s Team provide supervision and management. The construction teams will average 144 people over a construction period of 90 weeks ending by March 2022 (based on the current schedule). The peak workforce will be above 200 people in weeks 48 to week 77 peaking above 250 in weeks in weeks 65 to 71. The main activity on site at that time will be the construction of the WCP and the MSP. During the construction period, construction activities will only occur during daylight hours, seven days a week. During Operations an average operational direct skilled workforce of 150 has been estimated, which includes mining and other contractor and consultant personnel. Operations personnel will also reside in the 200 person permanent village. The facilities will be installed progressively in multiple stages to align with the development schedule and expected manning level. The Company plans to engage with contractors, consultants and other suppliers to encourage employment from the Mid-West region, including a focus on Aboriginal employment and local business participation during all stages of the project. Based on 24 hours, 365 operational days per year the roles includes but are not limited to management, supervision, trades, engineers, environmentalist, technicians, operators, apprentices, medical professionals, consultants, security, and semi skilled labourer personnel. Strandline’s direct employees for operations are divided in the four main categories, of WCP Operations, MSP Operations, Maintenance and General Management and Administration.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 22

2.15 Logistics and Port Facilities The final mineral products of ilmenite, rutile and zircon will be temporarily stored in product bins at the MSP and discharged into haulage trucks. Storage bins will have capacity for approximately 2 days and will be fitted with weighers. Zircon concentrate will temporarily stored on an outside purpose built drainage pad. All products will be trucked in bulk form. The load will then be covered ready for transport to Geraldton. Transport to Geraldton will require an access road that is well built and maintained so as to allow a road train operation. The plan provides for a sealed access road. The operator will use equipment capable of achieving the WA concessional loading of 86.5 tonnes per trip and subject to main roads approval concessional loading of up to 103 tonnes The final products will be exported from Geraldton port to international customers. Prior to shipping the final products will be stored at a dedicated shed at a location strategically located to the port (currently based on a contractor proposal for a purpose-built BOOM facility at Narngulu).

2.16 Borrow Pits Up to 150,000 m3 of calcrete and 75,000 m3 of clay/sand will be required to construct the access roads. Seven calcrete and four clay/sand borrow pits will be located along the access road within miscellaneous licence L09/21. It is envisaged that the borrow pits will vary between 2.4 m and 4 m in depth and the combined area of disturbance required for all borrow pits is 27.5 ha. Targeted searches for Declared Rare Fauna (DRF) and Priority Flora in the borrow pits, landfill, sprayfield and Village areas have been conducted. A small number of Priority fauna were recorded and will be avoided when practical as per the Priority Fauna Management Plan.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 23

3.0 Activity details This Mining Proposal has been submitted due to the change in the mining footprint of the mine as a result of updated mineral resource calculations and change in the mine plan as per Table 1. Table 1 Changes made in comparison to 2017 Mine Closure Plan

2014 Mining Proposal No. 2 Mining Proposal No. 3 Mine life of 19 years Mine life of 23 years Mining will be at a rate of 23.4 Mt/a Mining will be at a rate of 23.4 Mt/a Ore reserve - - 308mt at 1.2% THM to Total Ore reserve 523Mt at 1.11% THM Heavy Minerals (THM) Disturbance area – 3,695 ha Disturbance Envelope – 3,568 ha (-127.4ha) see Figure 10 and Section 3.2 Mining sequence from south to the north Mining sequence from north to the south Location of WCP and MSP WCP and MSP plant locations altered see Figure 9 Legislation Updates to legislation Section 3.1 Priority species Updates to priority flora species Section 5.1.9.2 Activity areas for mining and processing Updates to areas in Activity tables in Section 3.0 Power generation Inclusion of Solar Farm to supplement power generation see section 2.10 Wastewater treatment subsurface irrigation Sprayfield to disperse WWTP waste to: Village - 38,500m2 (175m x 220m) WCP - 5,625m2 (75m x 75m) Section 2.12 Studies Updates to priority flora species Inclusion of Tailings co-disposal study Dry Tails Storage Facility at 3 locations Dry Tails Storage Facility at 1 location totalling 43 totalling 27.7 ha ha

This 3rd revision of the Coburn Mining Proposal seeks approval for the following activities across the various mining and miscellaneous licenses: • Construction of a bitumen access road approximately 43 km long and 8 m wide from the NWCH to the mine office, with a further 2 km southern branch to the Accommodation Village • Development of seven borrow pits to source calcrete and six clay/sand pits for the construction of the access road and other access roads across the operation • Construction and operation of an Accommodation Village, WWTP and sprayfield • Construction of a limestone-paved road which will be approximately 6.5 km long and 10 m wide from the office and workshop area to the initial WCP site, with a further northern branch approximately 1.5 km long to proposed water bore CPB3 • Construction and operation of the WCP and MSP with associated hardstands • Construction of a 60 m x 120 m WCP interconnected process water dams • Construction of a 75 m x 75 m MSP process water dam • Construction and operation of a workshop, office and store adjacent the MSP • Construction and operation of a landfill site for waste disposal • Construction and operation of water supply bores, access tracks, power lines and pipeline

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 24

• Construction and operation of a RO plant • Construction and operation of a vehicle wash down bay • Construction and operation of a power supply • Construction of a self-bunded diesel storage area at the MSP • Development and operation of Pits with years between 1-5, 6-8, 9-10, 11-12, 13-15, 16-18 and 19-20 • Construction and operation of DMUs and in-pit pumping • Construction and operation of a WCP • Construction and operation of an interim off-path dry tailings storage facility • Construction and operation of a MSP • Construction of WCP-MSP haul roads and minor pit access roads • Development and operation of tailings facilities and pipelines • Construction and operation of the mining contractors’ plant compound. As detailed below by tenement and activity as per the 2020 Mining Proposal Guidance. Negative numbers in the ‘Total Area’ column reflect the reduction in disturbance anticipated to occur in this tenement due to the change in mining area. Table 2 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/102 Tenement M09/102 Mine Current Proposed Area Total Area Activity type activity Approved (ha) (ha) reference area (ha) Key Mine Activities Mining void (depth greater than 5m – above Pits Year 1-5 0 542.298 542.298 groundwater) Other Mine Activities Access road to CBP6 Transport or service infrastructure from the MSP Waste water disposal Sprayfield Land that is cleared of vegetation Other (other cleared land) cleared land Topsoil Topsoil Stockpiles stockpile areas Borefield CBP6 Total other mine activity area 0 178.052 178.052 Total key mine activity area 0 542.298 542.298 Total tenement activity area 0 720.35 720.35

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 25

Table 3 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/103

Tenement M09/103 Current Total Proposed Activity type Mine activity reference Approved Area Area (ha) area (ha) (ha) Key Mine Activities Dam – saline water WCP Process Water Dams 0 0.7 0.7 or process liquor Mining void (depth greater than 5m – Pits Years 6-8 0 285.738 285.738 above groundwater) Plant site Initial WCP 1 Location 0 4.1 4.1 Tailings or residue Initial off-path Tails Storage storage facility (class Facility 0 43 43 1) Other Mine Activities Access road to CBP4 and WCP Transport or service from the MSP. Service corridor

infrastructure from WCP to interim Off path Tails Storage Facility Buildings Mine Contractors Facilities Workshop Mine Contractors Facilities Fuel Storage Facility Mine Contractors Facilities Hardstand Mine Contractors Facilities Land that is cleared of vegetation (other Other cleared land cleared land) Topsoil Stockpiles Topsoil stockpile areas Borefield CPB4 Total other mine activity area 0 250.29 250.29 Total key mine activity area 0 333.54 333.54 Total tenement activity area 0 583.43 583.43

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 26

Table 4 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/104

Tenement M09/104 Current Mine activity Proposed Total Activity type Approved area reference Area (ha) Area (ha) (ha) Key Mine Activities Dam – saline water or WCP Process Water 0 0.7 0.7 process liquor Dams Mining void (depth Pits Years greater than 5m – above 79.21 211.9 132.69 9-10 groundwater) Plant site WCP 2 Location 0 4.1 4.1 Other Mine Activities Access road to CBP3 Transport or service and WCP from the

infrastructure MSP

Mine Contractors Buildings Facilities Mine Contractors Workshop Facilities Mine Contractors Fuel Storage Facility Facilities Mine Contractors Hardstand Facilities Land that is cleared of vegetation (other cleared Other cleared land land) Topsoil stockpile Topsoil Stockpiles areas Borefield CPB3 Total other mine activity area 0.6 260.355 259.755 Total key mine activity area 79.21 216.7 137.49 Total tenement activity area 79.81 477.055 397.245

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 27

Table 5 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/105

Tenement M09/105 Current Proposed Total Activity type Mine activity reference Approved Area (ha) Area (ha) area (ha) Key Mine Activities Dam – saline water or MSP Process Water Dam 0 1.31 1.31 process liquor Mining void (depth greater than 5m – Pits Years11-12 170.4 189.811 19.411 above groundwater) Plant site MSP and Power Generation 23 23

Other Mine Activities Access road to CBP1, landfill, Transport or service sprayfield and

infrastructure Accommodation Village from the MSP Transport or service Mine Access Road (sealed) infrastructure corridor Dam - fresh water Turkeys nest dam CPB1 Land that is cleared of vegetation (other Other cleared land cleared land) Topsoil Stockpiles Topsoil stockpile areas Landfill site Landfill site Waste water disposal Sprayfield Borefield CPB1 Solar Farm Solar Farm Total other mine activity area 22.4 190.233 167.833 Total key mine activity area 193.4 214.121 20.721 Total tenement activity area 215.8 404.354 188.554

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 28

Table 6 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/106

Tenement M09/106 Current Proposed Total Activity type Mine activity reference Approved Area (ha) Area (ha) area (ha) Key Mine Activities Mining void (depth greater than 5m – above Pits Years 13-15 296.96 170.185 -126.775 groundwater) Other Mine Activities Transport or service Access road to CBP2

infrastructure from MSP Mine Access Road Transport or service (sealed) to Village infrastructure corridor Accommodation Land that is cleared of vegetation (other cleared Other cleared land land) Topsoil Stockpiles Topsoil stockpile areas Borefield CPB2 Buildings and Campsite Accommodation Village Total other mine activity area 11.4 99.256 87.856 Total key mine activity area 296.96 170.185 -126.775 Total tenement activity area 308.36 269.441 -38.919

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 29

Table 7 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/111

Tenement M09/111 Current Mine activity Proposed Total Activity type Approved area reference Area (ha) Area (ha) (ha) Key Mine Activities Dam – saline water or WCP Process Water 0 0.7 0.7 process liquor Dams Mining void (depth greater than 5m – above Pits Years 16-18 428.65 323.178 -105.472 groundwater) Plant site WCP 3 Location 9 4.1 -4.9 Other Mine Activities Transport or service Access road to CBP5

infrastructure and WCP 3 location Mine Contractors Buildings Facilities Mine Contractors Workshop Facilities Mine Contractors Fuel Storage Facility Facilities Mine Contractors Hardstand Facilities Land that is cleared of vegetation (other cleared Other cleared land land) Topsoil stockpile Topsoil Stockpiles areas Borefield CPB5 Total other mine activity area 10.9 241.461 230.561 Total key mine activity area 437.65 327.978 -109.672 Total tenement activity area 448.55 569.439 120.889

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 30

Table 8 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement M09/112

Tenement M09/112 Current Total Mine activity Proposed Activity type Approved area Area reference Area (ha) (ha) (ha) Key Mine Activities Dam – saline water or WCP Process Water 0 0.7 0.7 process liquor Dams Mining void (depth greater than 5m – above Pits Years 19-20 5.54 21.46 15.92 groundwater) Plant site WCP 4 Location 0 4.7 4.7 Other Mine Activities Access road to CBP6 Transport or service and WCP 4 location infrastructure from MSP Mine Contractors Buildings Facilities Mine Contractors Workshop Facilities Mine Contractors Fuel Storage Facility Facilities Mine Contractors Hardstand Facilities Land that is cleared of vegetation (other cleared Other cleared land land) Topsoil Stockpiles Topsoil stockpile areas Total other mine activity area 0 11.022 11.022 Total key mine activity area 5.54 26.86 21.32 Total tenement activity area 5.54 37.882 32.342

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 31

Table 9 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement L09/21

Tenement L09/21 Current Total Proposed Activity type Mine activity reference Approved Area Area (ha) area (ha) (ha) Key Mine Activities Mining void (depth Borrow pit or shallow greater than 5m – above Surface Excavation for 40.8 27.5 -13.3 groundwater) road construction Other Mine Activities Transport or service Access road to CBP16 infrastructure corridor Transport or service Mine Access Road

infrastructure corridor (sealed) CPB16 Turkeys nest for Dam - Fresh water road construction Laydown or Hardstand Laydown areas along the

Area Mine access road Borefield CBP16 Total other mine activity area 119.9 193.605 75.305 Total key mine activity area 40.8 27.5 -13.3 Total tenement activity area 160.7 221.105 62.005

Table 10 Project mining activity details and area of disturbance within tenement L09/43

Tenement L09/43 Current Total Mine activity Proposed Activity type Approved area Area reference Area (ha) (ha) (ha) Other Mine Activities Transport or service Mine Access

infrastructure Road (sealed) Land that is cleared of Other cleared vegetation (other cleared land land) Topsoil stockpile Topsoil Stockpiles areas Total other mine activity area 0 1.1 1.1 Total key mine activity area 0 0 0 Total tenement activity area 0 1.1 1.1

3.1 Additional details for each key mine activity 3.1.1 Off Path Tails Storage Facility For the vast majority of the mining and rehabilitation activities at Coburn the disposal of dewatered tailings is reliant upon backfilling into the previously mined pit voids. Upon commencement of initial mining and processing at the project there will be no pit void available for the disposal of initial tailing products.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 32

The solution is consistent with Mining Proposal 2 that also required an interim off-path tails storage facility (TSF). The selected site for the interim off-path storage facility is located about 1500m south of the of the WCP 1 location and comprises a shallow vegetated sand dune depression with a depth range of between 2.5 and 3m. The storage facility is 43ha and forms a semi-circular area with a diameter of approximately 750 to 750m. During the initial mining period (nominally the first month) the sand tails from the WCP will be deposited into the off-path allocated facility until sufficient void space can be developed between the active mining face and the deposited tails. The design capacity of this storage facility is approximately 2.5million m³. Development of the interim Off Path Tails Storage Facility is as follows: The area will be cleared and grubbed of vegetation which will be stockpiled for rehabilitation activities. Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled around the perimeter of the TSF. No lining of the deposit area is required due to the benign nature of the tails composed primarily of co-disposed (mixed) sand and clay that has been processed through the WCP and had the 1% heavy mineral removed, with no crushing, grinding or chemical processing and will therefore likely have similar characteristics to the sand forming the depression. A low bund will be constructed around the perimeter of the disturbed area, using insitu materials for construction, to provide a defined deposition area and to control and contain any associated supernatant or tailings solids runoff. A low embankment will be constructed on the western extent of the facility, within an existing drainage line, to control and contain supernatant runoff. A pipeline corridor, with containment bunds, will be constructed between the process plant and the TSF. A total of two HDPE tailings delivery pipelines will be installed between the process plant and the interim TSF. A series of end discharge locations will be established through the basin / around the perimeter form which the tailings will be discharged into the natural depression. A sump pump will be installed in the low point of the depression to recycle supernatant (and any rainfall runoff) directly back to the process plant. No significant ponding will be allowed to occur within the facility (ie: remains fully drained). Due to the coarse particle size of the tailings, testing has shown that the product will settle and drain quickly. This characteristic will be utilised to allow mechanical reshaping of the outer perimeter of the TSF as the facility develops. Once the outer perimeter has been shaped to the final profile, topsoil replacement and revegetation of the outer batters will commence. Reshaping of the tailings, via controlled deposition and mechanical plant, will be undertaken as the facility operates to develop the final landform. An outer batter slope profile of 6H:1V has been nominated to provide a stable slope during operations and post closure. Once the interim TSF deposition activity is concluded it will have the following characteristics: • The perimeter of the facility will be ~ 4 m above natural surface. • The outer batters will be shaped to an overall slope of 6H:1V. • The upper surface of the area will grade at ~ 1% towards the planned pit voids to the west. • On surface pipework will be removed. Where deposition is through the basin the buried HDPE pipe will remain buried at least 2m below the final rehabilitated surface. • The sump pump will continue to recycle water to the process plant whilst drainage continues. Once discharge stopes, all decant infrastructure will be removed. • Drains and erosion protection will be constructed / installed to reduce the risk of storm erosion and dusting post decommissioning. • A final spillway will be excavated and protected with erosion resistant material, discharging any runoff towards the mining area to the west. • The final landform will be rehabilitated with the stock piled sub and top soil. A Soil Management Plan has been put in place which is contained within the Progressive Rehabilitation Programme, detailed in Section 8.0. Once sufficient voids have been opened from mining activities the Tails Storage facility will no longer be required

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 33

The details of the initial off-path tails storage facility and in pit overburden storage facility are summarised in Table 11 and Table 12 respectively. TSF plans are presented in Appendix D.

Table 11 key mining activity summary of the interim off-path Tails Storage Facility

Activity Type Tailings or residue storage facility (class 1) Mine Activity Interim off-path Tails Storage Facility Reference

Total Area (ha) 43 ha

Area per M 09/103; 43ha Tenement (ha)

Design For the vast majority of the mining and rehabilitation activities at Coburn the Description disposal of dewatered tailings is reliant upon backfilling into the previously mined pit voids. However, upon commencement of mining and processing activities there will be no pit void for the disposal of initial tailing products and an interim off-path storage facility is required. The selected site for the off-path storage facility is located about 1500m south of the of the WCP 1 location and comprises a shallow vegetated sand dune depression with a depth range of between 2.5 and 3m. The multi-purpose storage facility is 43ha and forms a semi-circular area with a diameter of approximately 750 to 750m. The design capacity of this storage facility is approximately 2.5million m³. The area will be cleared and grubbed of vegetation which will be stockpiled for rehabilitation activities. Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled around the perimeter of the TSF. No lining of the deposit area is required due to the benign nature of the tails composed primarily of co-disposed (mixed) sand and clay that has been processed through the WCP and had the 1% heavy mineral removed, with no crushing, grinding or chemical processing and will therefore likely have similar characteristics to the sand forming the depression. A low bund will be constructed around the perimeter of the disturbed area, using insitu materials for construction, to provide a defined deposition area and to control and contain any associated supernatant or tailings solids runoff. A low embankment will be constructed on the western extent of the facility, within an existing drainage line, to control and contain supernatant runoff. A pipeline corridor, with containment bunds, will be constructed between the process plant and the TSF. A total of two HDPE tailings delivery pipelines will be installed between the process plant and the interim TSF. A series of end discharge locations will be established through the basin / around the perimeter form which the tailings will be discharged into the natural depression. A sump pump will be installed in the low point of the depression to recycle supernatant (and any rainfall runoff) directly back to the process plant. No significant ponding will be allowed to occur within the facility (ie: remains fully drained). Due to the coarse particle size of the tailings, testing has shown that the product will settle and drain quickly. This characteristic will be utilised to allow mechanical reshaping of the outer perimeter of the TSF as the facility develops. Once the outer perimeter has been shaped to the final profile, topsoil replacement and revegetation of the outer batters will commence. Reshaping of the tailings, via controlled deposition and mechanical plant, will be undertaken as the facility operates to develop the final landform. An outer batter slope profile of 6H:1V has been nominated to provide a stable slope during operations and post closure. Once sufficient voids have been opened from mining activities then the interim off- path Tails Storage Facility will no longer be required.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 34

Activity Type Tailings or residue storage facility (class 1) Material Fibrous minerals No Characteristics Radioactive material The updated metallurgical testwork undertaken in 2019 on a 23t bulk ore grade sample from across the Amy South deposit produced an HMC product that contained 154ppm thorium and 86ppm uranium. Using an average orebody HM grade of 1.1% then the in-ground orebody contents for thorium and uranium are expected to be 1.7ppm and 0.9ppm Yes respectively. The tailings stream from the WCP that will be pumped to the off-path storage has had the heavy minerals removed from the ore – including monazite. With the removal of monazite the tails will comprise quartz with minor clays and the thorium and uranium contents will be close to zero and considered benign with respect to radioactivity Materials capable of generating acid and/ or metalliferous drainage, No See Section 6.3 including neutral drainage and saline drainage. Dispersive and/or erosive material that is capable of compromising No See Section 6.3 the structure and stability of the activity.

3.1.2 In Pit Overburden Storage Facility Table 12 Key mine activity Waste Dump or Overburden storage facility summary

Activity Type Waste Dump or Overburden storage facility (class 1) Mine Activity In pit Overburden Storage Facility Reference Total Area (ha) 1744.6 ha

M09/102 542.298

M09/103 285.737

M09/104 211.9 Area per Tenement (ha) M09/105 189.8 M09/106 170.2

M09/111 323.18

M09/112 21.46

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 35

Activity Type Waste Dump or Overburden storage facility (class 1) During the life of the mine overburden lying above ore will be removed by dozer pushing into an adjacent void or into the DMU for conveying into a void located with close proximity. On less frequent occasions it may be required to move overburden Design by direct digging and placement (eg scraper). A dozer will be used to push the Description material into and around the void. A small sand bund or sumps will be incorporated at the toe of the deposition area (beach) on the pit floor to capture the initial decant water and pumped back to the WCP. The maximum pit void depth to be filled is approximately 45 to 50m deep. Fibrous minerals No See Section 6.3 The updated metallurgical testwork undertaken in 2019 on a 23t bulk ore grade sample from across the Amy South deposit produced an HMC product that contained 154ppm thorium and 86ppm uranium. Using an average orebody HM grade of 1.1% then the in-ground orebody contents for thorium and uranium are expected to be 1.7ppm and 0.9ppm respectively. These Radioactive material Yes levels are very low for ore grade mineralisation and therefore the lower grade overburden with HM grades of approximately 0.5% are expected to contain even lower amounts of thorium and Material uranium. Therefore, the overburden is expected Characteristics to contain radioactive material but at very low concentrations, considered benign with respect to radioactivity Materials capable of generating acid and/or metalliferous drainage, No See Section 6.3 including neutral drainage and saline drainage.

Dispersive and/or erosive material that is capable of No See Section 6.3 compromising the structure and stability of the activity.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 36

3.1.3 In Pit Tails Storage Facility Table 13 Key mine activity Tailings or residue storage facility summary

Activity Type Tailings or residue storage facility (class 1) Mine Activity In pit Tails Storage Facility Reference Total Area (ha) 1744.6 ha

M09/102 542.298

M09/103 285.737

M09/104 211.9 Area per Tenement (ha) M09/105 189.8 M09/106 170.2

M09/111 323.18

M09/112 21.46 During the life of the mine the ore will be mined and processed to remove the heavy minerals with the resultant tailings comprising sand, silt and clays being returned to the pit void. The project is designed for dewatered/densified sand tails and thickened fines/slime being co-disposed at the tails pipe discharge point. Both of the densified tailings streams (coarse and fine) are combined at the WCP, prior to pumping at high solids concentration to the mine void as a co-disposed mixture. At deposition the co- disposed slurry mixture solids concentration will typically be 65% by weight (35% water by weight). Recovery of excess water running off the tailings beach that is Design formed inside the mine void is expected to be between 35% and 77% of that Description disposed, depending on the conditions of the mine floor. The recovered decant water is collected by a skid mounted pump at the toe of the beach and will be pumped back to the process water dam for reuse. As the co-disposed mixture fills the void and reaches approximately the final targeted contour height the discharge pipe will be relocated to the next location. There are 2 active tails slurry lines in operation at any time with a third being moved into a new location in readiness for when one of the active locations reaches its final fill height. A dozer will be used to push the combined sand/slime deposition into its final contour in readiness for sub soil and topsoil replacement Fibrous minerals No None detected The tailings stream from the WCP that will be pumped to the mined out pit void has had the heavy minerals removed from the ore – including monazite. With the removal of Radioactive material Yes monazite the tails will comprise quartz with Material minor clays and the thorium and uranium Characteristics contents will be close to zero and considered benign with respect to radioactivity Materials capable of generating acid and/or metalliferous drainage, No See Section 6.3 including neutral drainage and saline drainage.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 37

Activity Type Tailings or residue storage facility (class 1) Dispersive and/or erosive material that is capable of No See Section 6.3 compromising the structure and stability of the activity.

3.1.4 WCP Process Water Dams At the WCP a series of screens and gravity density spirals will be used beneficiate and recover heavy minerals and reject most of the non-valuable, lighter gangue minerals. The reject or tailings will comprise mainly quartz, silt and minor clays that will be pumped to mining voids. The WCP circuit is designed to produce an HMC containing nominally 95% heavy mineral (HM). Table 14 summarises the design and material details of the WCP Process Water Dams. Table 14 Key mining activity WCP Process Water Dams summary

Activity Type Dam - saline water or process liquor Mine Activity Reference WCP process water dams Total Area (ha) 0.7 ha Area per Tenement (ha) M 09/103; 0.7ha Two adjacent process water cells will be located at the WCP. The dams will comprise a 5,000kl settling cell and 10,000kl process pond. In combination the structures are 60m wide and 120m long and will have maximum heights of 8m. Design Description The ponds will be partly excavated to form the dam walls that are to be compacted and then lined with 1.0mm HDPE. The ponds will be subject to regular inspection for leaks or seepage. Clear decant water will gravitate from the WCP and be pumped from the mining void water return to the settling pond which will then overflow to the process water dam for re-use in mining and processing. Additional top up water will be sourced from the MSP raw water dam which is saline and has an expected TDS of 8900 mg/L as determined from analysing pumping test water samples from production bore CPB01. The WCP process water cells are expected to have similar salinities. Recycled water from the WCP may contain particulate sediments and flocculant from thickener treatment. Fibrous minerals No Material Radioactive material Characteristics No Materials capable of generating acid and/or metalliferous drainage, including neutral No See Section 6.3 drainage and saline drainage.

Dispersive and/or erosive material that is capable of compromising the structure and No stability of the activity.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 38

3.1.5 MSP Process Water Dam At the MSP a series of screens and gravity density spirals will be used beneficiate and recover heavy minerals and reject most of the non-valuable, lighter gangue minerals. The reject or tailings will comprise mainly quartz, silt and minor clays that will be pumped to mining voids. The MSP circuit is designed to produce an HMC containing nominally 95% heavy mineral (HM). Table 15 summarises the design and material details of the WCP Process Water Dams. Table 15 Key mining activity MSP Process Water Dams summary

Activity Type Dam - saline water or process liquor Mine Activity MSP process water dam Reference Total Area (ha) 1.31ha Area per Tenement M 09/105 1.31ha (ha) A single process water dame will be located at the MSP. The dam will comprise a single 30,000kl raw water storage pond. The dam is 110 x 110m and will have a maximum height of 4m and 4m below ground. The dam will be partly excavated to form the dam walls that are to be compacted and then lined Design Description with 1.0mm HDPE. The dam will be subject to regular inspection for leaks or seepage. Water from the production bores service the MSP Process Dam. The bores also service the 1,200 m³/day RO plant via a raw water tank. Water from the MSP raw water dam will be pumped to the WCP. Water for the raw water dam will be pumped and filtered for particulates from the 6 deep production bores. The production bore water is to be sourced from the confined aquifers of the Birdrong and Kopke Sandstones with an expected TDS average of 8900 mg/L as determined from analysing pump test water samples from production bore CPB01. RO brine will also be discharged into the raw water dam where it will diluted with additional borefield water top up and re-used back into the process.

Fibrous minerals No Material Radioactive material No Characteristics Materials capable of generating acid and/or metalliferous drainage, including neutral No See Section 6.3 drainage and saline drainage.

Dispersive and/or erosive material that is capable of compromising the structure and No stability of the activity.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 39

3.1.6 WCP plant site The wet concentrator plant will initially be located on ML 09/102 at the edge of the Pit and will be progressively relocated to the south adjacent mining areas in order to optimise pumping distances. The initial design has 4 relocations planned over the initial 22 year mine life. The design and area occupied by the WCP overall and within tenements is summarised in Table 16. Table 16 Summary of the wet concentrator plant key mining activity at the Coburn Sands Mineral sands mining operation

Activity Type Plant site Mine Activity WCP plant Reference Total Area (ha) 16.4 ha (across four locations) Area per Tenement M09/103 WCP Location 1 4.1 ha (ha) M09/104 WCP Location 2 4.1 ha M09/111 WCP Location 3 4.1 ha M09/112 WCP Location 4 4.1 ha Type / Design See Section 2.3.1

3.1.7 MSP plant site The MSP will be a fixed facility located adjacent to the power station, offices, stores and workshops. The design and area occupied by the Mineral Separation Plant is summarised in Table 17 Table 17 Summary of the mineral concentration plant key mining activity at the Coburn Sands Mineral sands mining operation

Activity Type Plant site Mine Activity MSP Plant and Solar Farm Reference Total Area (ha) 23 ha Area per Tenement M09/105 23 ha (ha) Type / Design See Section 2.3.2

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 40

3.1.8 Mining void The mining void will initially commence in the north of the project on tenement M 09/102 and progressively move to the south at a mining rate at a rate of 3100t/h with the final pit planned under this mining proposal finishing on M 09/112. The details of the mining pits planned within the tenements of the Coburn Sands mining operation are summarised in Table 18 Table 18 The details of the planned mining voids at the Coburn Sands mining operation. Activity Type Mining Void (depth > 5m - above ground water Mine Activity Various pits from years 1 to 20 Reference Total Area (ha) 1744.6 ha M09/102 542.3 Pit 1-5 M09/103 285.74 Pit 6-8 M09/104 211.9 Pit 9-10 Area per M09/105 189.8 Pit 11-12 Tenement (ha) M09/106 170.2 Pit 13-15 M09/111 323.2 Pit 16-18 M09/112 21.46 Pit 19-20 Mining at Coburn will generally involve the removal of shallow overburden between 0 and 35m maximum thickness but averaging 10m. Once the overburden is removed Design then the ore is between 25 and 45m thick averaging 15m thickness. The average Description depth of the pits is 23 metres with a maximum pit depth of 62 m. The pits will have 34° deg batter angles, a 20m batter height and 5m berm width for an overall slope angle of 32° at 40m height and 31° at 60m height.

Fibrous minerals No See Section 6.3 The updated metallurgical test work undertaken in 2019 on a 23t bulk ore grade sample from across the Amy South deposit produced an HMC product that contained 154ppm thorium and 86ppm uranium. Using an average orebody HM grade of Radioactive material Yes 1.1% then the in-ground orebody contents for thorium and uranium are expected to be 1.7ppm and 0.9ppm respectively. These levels are very low for ore grade mineralisation due to the low THM grade and low monazite content within the THM. Material Materials capable of Characteristics generating acid and/or metalliferous drainage, No See Section 6.3 including neutral drainage and saline drainage. The pits in the Coburn project are shallow (typically <40 m deep), and mined using a bulk Dispersive and/or tonnage method of strip mining that will rapidly erosive material that is progress the short-term pit excavation before capable of Yes backfilling with overburden from the next pit and compromising the infill with WCP sand/slimes tail. In areas of a pit structure and stability that remain open whilst waiting for back fill then of the activity. there is a low risk of minor dispersion that can be exacerbated by strong drying winds.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 41

3.2 Disturbance Envelope The total Disturbance Envelope for Revision 3 to the Coburn Mining Proposal is approximately 3585ha and is shown in Figure 10. The Disturbance Envelope is smaller than the approved Ministerial Statement 723 Disturbance Footprint of 3695ha and has been amended through the Section 45 C application to the EPA. This disturbance envelope contains all activities to be undertaken for the project. The total areas per tenements are summarised in Table 19 below. Table 19 Tenement summary License License Current Area Proposed Current Approved Total Area Number Area (Ha) Activity (Ha) Area (Ha) area (Ha) (Ha) M09/102 996.2 720.4 0.0 720.4 M09/103 998.0 583.4 0.0 583.4 M09/104 997.5 477.1 79.8 397.2 M09/105 998.9 404.4 215.8 188.6 M09/106 998.2 269.4 308.4 -38.9 M09/111 997.9 569.4 448.6 120.9 M09/112 988.2 37.9 5.5 32.3 L09/21 955.3 60.0 221.1 160.7 62.0 L09/43 69.7 1.1 0.0 1.1 TOTAL 7999.7 60.0 3284.2 1218.8 2067.0

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 208000 212000 216000 220000

R 0900003 7052000 7052000

Planned M 0900102 Production Bore

Planned Production Bore 7048000 7048000

M 0900103

Initial Tailings Site

Planned Production Bore M 0900104

7044000 Planned WCP 7044000

MSP location and Powerplant Solar Farm

Production L 0900021 M 0900105 Bore

Landfill Site WWTP Spray Field

Accommodation Village

7040000 M 0900106 7040000 Planned Production Bore

North West Coastal Hwy

rk Bay Rd Sha Planned WCP

M 0900111

Planned Production Bore 7036000 7036000

M 0900112 Planned WCP

208000 212000 216000 220000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW 2014 Approved Disturbance Initial Tailings Site Accommodation Village Disturbance Envelope APPROVED BY BD Footprint www.aecom.com Initial Wet Concentrator Plant Landfill Site LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Latest Proposed Disturbance Mineral Separation Plant WWTP Spray Field Footprint location and Powerplant Retention Tenement DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Bore Location ´ Planned Wet Concentrator Mining Tenement 0 500 1,000 Access Track STRANDLINE RESOURCES Plant Miscellaneous Tenement 1:85,000 Pastoral Lease Metres (when printed at A4) Solar Farm Shark Bay World Heritage Coburn Station Area 100m buffer MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: Hamelin Station Shark Bay World Heritage 10 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Area Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro

Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig9_ DisturbanceEnvelopeCoburnSandsProject_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

4.0 Environmental Legislative Framework This section identifies the key legal requirements and other obligations that are relevant to the Coburn mineral Sand Project. Some legislation and guidelines that may be pertinent to the environmental regulation of the Project are listed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. A more detailed listing of legal requirements is provided in the Legal Obligations Register in Appendix B Legal requirements associated with environmental requirements can arise from State and Commonwealth Legislation, mining tenement conditions and conditions on environmental approvals. Other obligations arise from consultation with stakeholders, from guidelines and codes of practice to which Strandline subscribes, as well as corporate directives from within the Company.

4.1 Legal obligations The legal obligations and commitments applicable to the Project is summarised in this section, which is updated periodically as obligations change. The legislative requirements under which the Coburn Sand Project currently operate include: • Environmental Protection Act 1986: Ministerial Statement 723 (Part IV), Licenced Premises W6258/2019/1 and W6361/2020/1 (Part V) • Mining Act 1978: Mining Proposals, Closure Plans and Tenement Conditions • Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RIWI Act): Groundwater Abstraction Licence (GWL159157(6)). Environmental impact and management is regulated through a range of legislation in Western Australia, as presented in Table 20, some of which may be, or become relevant to the Project. The Mining Act approval documentation, such as Mining Proposals relevant to the Project are presented in Table 5. A comprehensive Legal Obligations Register has been compiled for the Coburn Mineral Sand Project. The full Register can be found in Appendix B. 4.1.1 Commonwealth Legislation Commonwealth legislation that may be relevant to the Project includes, but is not necessarily limited to: • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. • Native Title Act 1993. 4.1.2 Western Australian Legislation The State legislation that may be applicable to the Project closure activities is listed below: • Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 • Bush Fires Act 1954. • Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. • Contaminated Sites Act 2003. • Contaminated Sites Regulations 2006. • Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004. • Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007. • Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). • Environmental Protection Regulations 1987.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 44

• Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004. • Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. • Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004. • Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002. • Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 2004. • Health Act 1911. • Land Administration Act 1997. • Land Drainage Act 1925. • Litter Act 1979. • Local Government Act 1995. • Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994. • Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995. • Mining Act 1978. • Mining Regulations 1981. • Plant Diseases Act 1914. • Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. • Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. Table 20 Environmental Legislative Framework Environmental factor Relevant approval/ requirement and Relevant legislation regulated/affected status of relevant approval Aboriginal Heritage Act Aboriginal heritage Archaeological and ethnographic surveys 1972 have been conducted over the Project Mining and Miscellaneous licenses. Only ML09/102 requires an archaeological survey that is planned for completion mid 2020. No Section 18 applications have been required to date. Environment Threatened species and Controlled action – listed Protection and communities for the Leipoa threatened species. The environmental Biodiversity ocellata (Malleefowl) assessment was conducted in Conservation Act 1999 accordance with the bilateral agreement (EPBC Act). between the Commonwealth of Australia and WA. EPBC 2003/1221 approved 20 July 2006 Environmental Key environmental factors Ministerial approval 723 Protection Act regulated under Part IV: issued under Part IV of the 1986(Part IV) Flora and vegetation Environmental Protection Terrestrial fauna Act 1986. Conditions set in Terrestrial environmental Ministerial Statement. quality Revised 45C anticipated to be approved Hydrology - Groundwater by the EPA June 2020. Heritage Progressive rehabilitation Bushfires Dust Inland waters

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 45

Environmental factor Relevant approval/ requirement and Relevant legislation regulated/affected status of relevant approval Environmental Emissions and discharges to Works approval / Protection Act 1986 the environment from Registration W6258/2019/1 and (Part V) Prescribed prescribed premises: W6361/2020/1 received for Categories premises categories: Mine Village WWTP 12, 85 and 89. Licenses will be sought at (8) Mineral Sands Pipeline the appropriate time mining and processing Sprayfield Work approval applications will be (12) Screening etc. of Landfill submitted for category 8 and 84. material (84) Electric power generation (85) Sewage facility (89) Landfill site. Rights in Water and Water resources 5C licence (GWL159157(6)) to take 0.6 Irrigation Act 1914 5C licence to take 600ML/ GL/ year of groundwater Pa for construction activities. The Company will apply for an additional 17.4Gl pa amendment for mining and processing operations bringing the total license to 18Gl/pa. 26D licence to construct 5 bores into the Gascoyne Carnarvon – Birdrong Sandstone. Native Title Act 1993 Native Title agreement Strandline has a confidential agreement with the Nanda Aboriginal people, whose native title claim covers the southern part of the Amy Zone Mining Act 1978 Biodiversity, flora, fauna and Reg Id 66095: Mine Closure Plan – ecosystem. Coburn Zircon Project – version 2 Water resources. approved 07/07/2017. Mine closure. Mining Proposal 2 Reg Id 43813 approved May 2014. Mines Safety and Human safety A Project Management Plan has been Inspection Act 1994 submitted and awaiting approval by DMIRS. Radiation Safety Act Radiation safety Radiation safety on mining operations is 1975. co-regulated with (DMIRS and the Radiological Council and is addressed Radiological Council under Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995. A Radiation Management Plan is in an advanced state but yet to be submitted and approved by DMIRS and the Radiological Council. Dangerous Goods The storage, transport and A Dangerous Goods Licence will be Safety Act 2004 use of Dangerous Goods on required for fuel storage on site. The (DMIRS) site license application has not been submitted. Health Act 1911 Treatment of wastewater Operation of an activated sludge bioreactor and associated sprayfield is yet

to be received.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 46

4.2 Approvals Status The Project was assessed as a Public Environmental Review (PER) under Part IV of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986. In addition, the Project is considered to be a “controlled action” under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The environmental assessment was conducted in accordance with the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and WA, meaning that the Commonwealth accredited the WA environmental impact assessment process. The PER was issued in July 2005 for an eight-week public review period and the Report and Recommendations of the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) was published as EPA Bulletin 1211 in December 2005. Environmental approval for the Project was granted by the State Minister for the Environment in May 2006 (Ministerial Statement No. 723) and the Commonwealth Environmental Minister in July 2006. A forty-two (42) square kilometre Conservation Offset Area, south-east of the proposed mine, was agreed with the Western Australian Environment Minister in March 2006. Part of the approval process was the preparation of Management Plans (MPs), which have been prepared by AECOM (formerly URS) Australia and evaluated and approved by regulators. Collectively the MPs are known as the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The purpose of the EMP is to provide measures to prevent or mitigate potential impacts on the environment and heritage values during construction and operation of the Project. The EMP consists of the following MPs: 1. Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan 2. Borrow Pit Management Plan 3. Bush Fire Management Plan 4. Dust Management Plan 5. Fauna Management Plan 6. Hydrocarbon Management Plan 7. Preliminary Mine Closure Plan 8. Flora, Priority Flora and Vegetation Management Plan 9. Flora Declared Rare Flora Management Plan 10. Progressive Rehabilitation Management Programme 11. Radiation Management Plan 12. Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan 13. Hamelin Skink Management Plan 14. Preliminary Closure Plan 15. Groundwater Mounding Management Plan 16. Drawdown Impact Management Plan Current key project approvals include: • Ministerial Statement 723 approved by the EPA in 2004 with associated Environmental Management Plans (EMP) that have been implemented as required • Works Approval W6258/2019/1 – Wastewater Treatment Plant and Landfill • Works Approval W6361/2020/1 – Screening and Crushing • Mine Proposal Number 2. Registration ID: 43813 (approved May 2014). The subject of this updated Mine Proposal 3. Currently approved Mine Closure Plan with Registration ID 66095. (approved July 2017) that is also the subject of this updated Mine Proposal 3

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 47

• Granted Mining and Retention Licences across the Ore Reserve area and Miscellaneous licenses for access to the Northwest Coastal Highway. • Mining Agreement with the Nanda Native Title Claimants in place for the Construction and Operation stages of the Project for the current Ore Reserves • Archaeological and Ethnographic Heritage surveys completed across all of the granted Mining Licenses. • Water License (5C) approved for 0.6 GL pa for initial road construction and camp establishment (GWL159157(6)) • Water bore drilling permit (26D) to drill 5 production bores for Operation requirements Other key approvals required or in process include: • A Section 45c application for a non-substantial change to the approved Ministerial Statement 723 reflecting changes to the Disturbance Footprint due to changes in pit design and sequencing, minor infrastructure changes and installation of a solar array was lodged in early March 2020 with approval expected within 3 months. The is the 4th section 45c application that has been applied to the project. • Amendment to the Water License (GWL159157(6)) to increase the allocation to 18GL pa • Prescribed Premises Work Approval – Category 8 (>5,000t pa) mining mineral sands and Category 84 (10 to 20MW) power generation from Natural Gas. The statutory time frame for such approvals is 60 working days. • Update various EMP’s in relation to water mounding, drawdown management plan and overall Groundwater Operating Strategy for the revised mine plan and once additional data has been received from drilling monitoring bores across the site. The water mounding and drawdown reports and modelling will be updated by July 2020. The Groundwater Operating Strategy will be required to upgrade the current 0.6gig/litre license to 18gig/litre per annum with at least 12 months of water monitoring activity collected from planned monitoring bore sites across the project and greater project site. • Submit and seek approval for the Radiation Management Plan that will also require the engagement of a Radiation Safety Officer. • The Project Management Plan has been submitted in July, 2020 and awaiting approval.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 48

5.0 Stakeholder Engagement

5.1 Identification of Stakeholders During the initial approval phases for the Coburn project Strandline undertook a detailed and comprehensive stakeholder consultation process commencing in 2003 with the Coburn Mineral Sand Project Bankable Feasibility Study. Initially, this process entailed identifying and consulting with stakeholders through a series of presentations and information sessions, prior to submission of the PER in July 2005. During the stakeholder consultation process leading up to 2005, Strandline identified and consulted with the following stakeholders: • SEWPC (formerly DEH). • DBCA (formerly DEC). • EPA. • DMIRS (formerly DMP). • DIA. • Department of Agriculture and Food. • Shark Bay World Heritage Property Scientific Advisory Committee (SBWHP SAC). • Shark Bay World Heritage Property Community Consultative Committee (SBWHP CCC). • Gascoyne Development Commission (GDC). • Mid-West Development Commission (MWDC) • Shire of Shark Bay. • The Wildflower Society of Western Australia. • The Conservation Council of WA. • FESA. • City of Geraldton. • Pastoral Lease Holders. • Yamatji Land and Sea Council. • Nanda Aboriginal Working Group. • Malgana Aboriginal Working Group. • Other Aboriginal people with an interest in the area. A site visit was undertaken by the Commonwealth SEWPC (formerly DEH) and DBCA (formerly DEC) in June 2003. The Nanda Aboriginal people, together with other Aboriginal people with an interest in the area, visited the site in December 2004. The issues identified during that early phase of the consultation process, along with the Proponent’s responses are listed in Table 5.1 of the PER (URS, 2005a). In summary the main concerns that were addressed are presented below: • The potential difficulty in successfully rehabilitating the land after mining • Potential impacts to the SBWHP • Potential groundwater drawdown effects on conservation values and groundwater users • Potential impacts to conservation values due to tailings seepage • Potential disturbance to Aboriginal heritage sites

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 49

• Impacts on Malleefowl, which is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act, due to the removal of breeding mounds within the Project Area • Potential presence of the Hamelin Skink within the Project Area • Impacts to Priority Flora, as nine Priority Flora species have been recorded in the Project Area • Potential dust deposition on the vegetation within the SBWHP. Through the approval process and eventual Ministerial Statement approval (723) the Company developed a series of Environmental Management Plans (refer to Section 4) to address the concerns of the interested stakeholders. Whilst the project had substantially commenced in 2012 with the construction of the mine access road, works were temporarily suspended following the discovery of threatened fauna species Ctenotus Zasctictus (Hamelin Skink) adjacent to the road access. Upon consultation with DBCA (formerly DEC) a Management Plan was developed and approved but with the deterioration of the capital markets further funding for the project was not available to resume site activities. Further stakeholder meetings commenced in 2016 with more engagement in 2019 and 2020. The majority of the more recent stakeholder engagement has been focussed on re-introduction of the project to the following interested groups: • adjacent pastoral station owners – Nerren Nerren, Hamelin, Tamala, • local government organisations – Shark Bay Shire at Denham, Geraldton Port Authority • Service providers – Billabong Roadhouse, Billabong Motel, Overlander Roadhouse, Nanga Resort and Hamelin Caravan Park • Indigenous organisations – Nanda Aboriginal Corporation and Malgana Aboriginal Corporation thought YMAC and directly. • Environmental regulators DWER/EPA • Water licensing – DWER • DMIRS – environment and safety • Regional Development Authorities – Gascoyne Development Commission. A site trip was conducted at the request of the Carnarvon office of DWER to inspect the existing production and take some baseline photographs. Stakeholder consultation will continue as the project proceeds through to financing.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 50

Table 21 Stakeholder Consultation

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions Discussions in relation to access for Discussions around drill program Maps were provided to Bush Heritage AC drill programs and Malleefowl access, clearing tracks for drill rigs and showing the drill site, tracks and that two surveys. if the proposed disturbance would Malleefowl surveys were completed in the impact Malleefowl nesting sites. past. The Company advised it would Hamelin Objections to the Company lodging minimise the clearing required by using Station, Retention Licenses. Discussions concerning the Company existing tracks and a small footprint drill rig. owned by Bush 2016- 2018 lodging retention licenses over mineral Heritage resources defined over Hamelin Station. The objections were lifted once the Australia Bush Heritage Australia had lodged rationale of the Retention license was objections. explained and the Company agreed to a Land Management Protocol with Bush Heritage Australia. Malgana Shark Execution of the Exploration Heritage None identified. No issues to follow up. October Bay Claimant Agreement. Status update of the 2017 Group project. Project update to Shire CEO and Timing of the development - when will it A drive-in, drive-out option is being Shark Bay Shark Bay Board. start, could employees be based at considered for employees to be based in June 2018 Shire Denham and commute to site. The town Denham. was keen to attract more people. General introduction to Malleefowl The discussions were around identifying No financial commitment agreed but Australia, exchange of emails with Malleefowl in the area, LIDAR surveys advised Strandline would keep in touch as National Aug 2018 Malleefowl information. A project and would Strandline Resources be the project develops. Malleefowl update on Coburn. willing to contribute to the cost of a LIDAR survey in the region. Requesting access to Hamelin Station Long term concerns about mining Agreed to keep Bush Heritage informed to survey water and artesian bore encroaching onto the Station that Bush with regular updates. Advised that bore Hamelin sites. Access granted and a quick Heritage is conserving. surveys are likely every quarter. The water Station owned Sept/Oct meeting was also held on site with the The long-term effects of accessing the bore survey data was supplied to Bush by Bush 2018 Station Manager. Strandline Birdrong aquifer on Hamelin station. Heritage. Heritage Resources provided a project update. The long-term effects on Hamelin Pool Australia and fresh water intrusions postulated at Malleefowl are addressed within the Hamelin Bay. Malleefowl Management Plan and surveys

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 51

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions Bush Heritage had already conducted a will be undertaken. The first 20 years of the Flora Survey in the area that would be mine life will be located within Coburn affected by future mining, but nothing Station before accessing the northern declared was identified. The data from Mineral Resources within Hamelin Station. the survey on their property was requested. Station was concerned about Malleefowl habitat destruction. Requesting access to Nanga Station to No direct issues raised. Advised that the No issues to follow up. survey water and artesian bore sites. artesian water was used to supply a Access granted but Strandline were heated pool. Sept/Oct Nanga Station advised the Station was focused on 2018 tourism at the Nanga Bay Resort. A brief project update provided but the managers were busy with guests. Requesting access to both Meadow Very co-operative and had been No issues to follow up. Springs and Nerren Nerren Stations to updated on Coburn site activities in the survey water bore sites. Access past. Curious to learn more of the Nerren Nerren granted. regional hydrology and was able to Station and Sept/Oct provide information regarding the history Meadow 2019 of water drilling on his stations. Station Springs Station owner advised that the Federal Government had capped the artesian wells a few decades ago. He believed his water was improving. Carbla Station Requesting access to both Carbla and Met the owner’s son in law on site. Very No issues to follow up. and Woodleigh Stations to survey water co-operative and did not ask any Sept/Oct Woodleigh and artesian bore sites. Access questions of the survey or project. 2019 Station granted.

Requesting access to Tamala Station Concerns raised regarding drawdown of The owners requested and were supplied a Sept/Oct to survey water bore sites. Access the shallow aquifer at Tamala when the regional location map of the bore sites on Tamala Station 2018 granted. mine proceeds. They had a genuine their property and others in the region. It interest in the regional hydrology. This was explained that the shallow water

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 52

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions would affect the sheep but also tourism supply they rely upon for pastoral activities activities. The manager also drove with was very unlikely to be affected by the Strandline Resources team around drawdown from the Coburn deep the bore sites to show how to get to production bores. The aquifers are not each of them. connected. Overlander Sept/Oct Requesting access to survey their No issues outlined from the store No issues to follow up. Roadhouse 2018 single water bore. Manager. Requesting access to survey their No issues outlined. The owner provided No issues to follow up. The owner was single water bore. a tour of his desalination plant and was advised that any regional drawdown from indicating that the cost of desalination Coburn would be closely monitored and his was high, and people wasted a lot of bore could be affected. The Company water. The owner advised the depth of would work with all affected parties to Billabong Sept/Oct his pump was sitting just above the end ensure their critical water supplies remain Hotel/Motel 2018 of the hole - so there is limited head to unaffected. extract water from. He was very interested to learn more about the project and how he could provide services to the project. Requesting access to survey their No issues outlined. He was very No issues to follow up. A project update Billabong Sept/Oct single water bore. interested to learn more about the was provided. Roadhouse 2018 project and how he could provide services to the Company. Requesting access to survey their No issues outlined. The owner was not No issues to follow up. single water bore. available at the time but during a prior Hamelin telephone conversation she mentioned Telegraph Sept/Oct that she thought the water was getting Station and 2018 saltier from her bore. Her son was met Caravan Park on site and Strandline provided an update on the project. Provided a project update to the CEO No issues raised. Very co-operative and No issues to follow-up. Shire requested Shire of Sept/Oct of the Shire - Paul Anderson and had been updated on Coburn site that project updates continue. Denham 2018 correspondence from the works activities in the past. Strandline Manager - Brian Galvin. Resources were provided with a key to

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 53

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions access the bores of interest to the project. Shire were interested in project start date and how the local community can benefit. Highly supportive of the mine going ahead. Email sent to all local Pastoral A general lack of responses. Response Bush Heritage objected to the Exploration Multiple Stations, road houses, Shark Bay received from Bush Heritage Australia in and Retention License. They are proposing stakeholder Shire and Bush Heritage Australia relation to new exploration and retention an additional Land Management Protocol email around April 2019 advising the results of the Coburn license application over parts of be established before they lift the the Coburn Definitive Feasibility Study. Hamelin Station. objections. The cases are to be heard in project Wardens Court, case deferred to 2020. A very minor overlap of the proposed No issues raised from the DBCA in The DBCA agreed to send out a letter National Park over ML09/102. The relation to the Coburn Project other than stipulating that the National Park overlap opportunity was taken to provide a the conditions of the MS 723 would be would not affect the mining leases and project update to the DBCA and get an maintained. allow mining to commence under MS 723 understanding of how the MS 723 may conditions. This letter was received on 27 DBCA Aug 2019 be affected by the creation of a November 2019. National Park. The concern was if additional buffer zones would be required that could detrimentally affect the economics of the project. A request for Strandline Resources to The Nanda Board advised that their The Nanda Board was advised the Mining discuss the Coburn project with the Claim had recently been determined Agreement was in full effect and would Nanda Board was received on 31 July and they are now a Corporation. The commence once the project was funded. Nanda 2019. The meeting was held on the 13 Project update was well received. The The timing of funding was uncertain, but Aboriginal Sept 2019 September 2019 and a project update Nanda Aboriginal Corporation wanted to the Company was actively seeking funding Corporation was provided with the results of the know likely timing of the project solutions. A copy of the presentation was Definitive Feasibility Study. development and discuss the Mining emailed to their nominated representative. Agreement that was signed in 2004. Ongoing discussions throughout 2018 None identified None required Midwest Port 2018 and and 2019. Cooperation Agreement Authority 2019 Executed between the parties signifying each party’s commitment

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 54

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions towards shipping of Coburn product through the Geraldton port. Strandline provided a Coburn project None identified None required Midwest update. A high level of interest was 2019 Development expressed by the Development Agency. Strandline provided a Coburn project None identified None required Gascoyne update. A high level of interest was 2019 Development expressed by the Development Agency.

The Commonwealth Government’s None identified Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) has completed its North Strategic Assessment of Strandline’s Australian 2019 Coburn Mineral Sands Project in WA. Infrastructure NAIF has advised Strandline that Fund (NAIF) Coburn will now proceed to the detailed due diligence phase of the NAIF assessment process A progress update meeting was held Timing of the process was discussed The Company would review the previous with the EPA. A presentation was with a potential 3-month timeframe. Stygofauna surveys. provided outlining the project status, Interest was shown in the area of recent flora and fauna surveys and stygofauna and when the last surveys A Section 45c request to modify document non-substantial changes to the were completed. would be submitted for assessment. disturbance footprint. The update was DWER/EPA October well received with some positive Joondalup 2019 suggestions by the EPA such as removing some of the elements of the MS723 such as mine life and 18GL pa water extraction because this overlapped with DWER water licensing.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 55

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions A project update was initiated by The Radiation Management Plan will Meeting confirmed to discuss the Radiation Strandline to advise that a request to need to be reviewed by the DMIRS Management Plan with Martin Ralph - the modify would be submitted to the EPA. Mines Safety Officer. DMIRS was Regional Inspector of Mines. In the meeting DMIRS advised that requested to supply the contact details they will review the closure plans for of the relevant Officer to discuss the November DMIRS each domain and the Radiation Radiation Plan for Coburn. 2019 Management Plan. They also advised that the guidelines were being updated and from 2020 only applications complying with the updated guidelines would be accepted. Discussions were held during 2019 in The site trip was well received. DWER The collar positions of the holes in question relation to water licensing (5C) and Officer advised there were some will be provided to Strandline and then they applications to drill water bores (26D). uncertainties in relation to the number of can be validated. DWER requested a site trip to confirm drill holes that were drilled as opposed the locations of boreholes and to get to those that were planned in addition to an appreciation of the site. water level monitoring bores. DWER DWER - November committed to reviewing their database Carnarvon 2019 and provide a tabulation of the holes that require validation. DWER were able to observe the drill collars on location and note that none of the boreholes were artesian and there were no substantial headworks. General introduction to what is Amongst other things he mentioned if Nothing to resolve but follow up the State happening in the region and schemes we had been in touch with the State Cabinet if it is required. (not required - being discussed the improve business Development Office regarding Coburn NAIF will look after this) Gascoyne investment. Mentioned trying to get the and NAIF funding. Apparently Cabinet January Development road upgraded - $250m capital project. needs to approve the Funding from the 2020 Commission Feds coming into the State. There seems to have been some conflicts in the past regarding liability of the loans if the lender defaults

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 56

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions A presentation was provided to the The main issue was the age and Concluded that an amendment could be Nanda Board and 3 members of content of the 2004 agreement - lacking drafted to the 2004 agreement. The YMAC. It was initially about the project certain feature of more recent foundation of the 2004 agreement was still but quickly moved to a discussion agreement and more firm commitments solid all there it just needed refreshing. Nanda around an amendment to the Mining to contractor opportunities, Employment Discussed a full 1 day meeting to engage January Aboriginal Agreement. There is still no Nanda opportunities, procurement more fully on the project and the amended 2020 Corporation Trustee - this has never been set up opportunities. Requested copies of Agreement. Propose to undertake a and so the shares were never issued. previous Heritage Surveys that were Heritage Survey in April, 2020. STA to completed and a copy of the Cross provide maps etc. Discussed the Cultural presentation. engagement of a Liaison officer - not sure how that person would be engaged. Nerren Nerren January Emails with new owners of Nerren General introduction Station 2020 Nerren Bush Heritage A general catch up and discussion Provided Ken the pressure reading for March 2020 Group around water bore survey monitoring Spinifex Bore A general introduction to the status of Discussed issues in relation to Agreed that Strandline will keep in contact the project and reinforcing the accessing the adjoining boundary regarding project status and when funding Companies commitment to Schedule 2 between the Shark Bay World Heritage might be available. Consider a site trip with of the Ministerial Statement 723 to Property and the Coburn project. There the DBCA so fencing options and access provide funding for scientific research is no easy access to install fencing. The knowledge can be shared to these areas. DBCA - March 2020 into the ecology of the Shark Bay lack of access could also prevent the Denham World Heritage Property, improve ability to respond to bushfires and stock fencing and discussed the firebreaks should be considered. Dog Conservation Offset. baiting was also discussed with numbers of dogs observed changing during the year. Discussion regarding the Section 45c None Confirm a follow-up meeting once the EPA Application and general approval has reviewed and assessed the S45c EPA-DWER March 2020 process and project status with application financing

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 57

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions Various discussions on seeking After assessment of the POW Further liaison between DMIRS and the approval to dig an exploration test pit application DMIRS had the requirement EPA was required so the approvals existing at Coburn and what was the to rehabilitate within 6 months. The between the 2 department was could be appropriate means to seek the implication was that the main access correlated. Strandline was required to approval as either a Mine Proposal or track would need to be rehabilitated. provide addition GIS data to DMIRS. April-June DMIRS as a POW. It was eventually agreed Between the MS 723 and the approved 2020 the POW was appropriate Mine Proposal it was determined that the main access tracks would not need to be rehabilitated post the test pit excavation. Rehabilitation would apply to any new or altered track and the test pit Discussion regarding the Section 45c Key issues discussed were the Project STA to provide further information on the Application and additional queries life, Flora and Vegetation that was key issues EPA-DWER April 2020 received from the EPA with various unmapped and the impact of the team members present from STA and changes to 3 Priority Flora species the EPA (7/05/2020) Phone calls and emails to Chair and keen to mobilise and undertake the Make sure the conditions are safe for the YMAC in relation to timing of the Heritage survey once COVID related Nanda who suspectable and at risk of Heritage Survey travel restrictions allowed travel to site. serious illness associated with COVID. Nanda April-June Ensure the appropriate procedures are Maintain safe distancing during the site trip Aboriginal 2020 followed to minimise the risk of infection Corporation and transfer. Check suitable accommodation options at Billabong Roadhouse Various discussions on the s45C The P2 species with limited known Continue to provide further information as application range and how the s45C disturbance requested or consider modifying the footprint may affect the impact on that footprint to exclude the impacted species EPA-DWER June 2020 species

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 58

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions Meeting with the new owner of Nerren Progress update was well received. The No issues to resolve but continue with Nerren and the adjacent Meadow Mine Closure Plan and rehabilitation progress updates Nerren Nerren Springs discussing the Mine Closure process was presented with no June 2020 Station plan and more specifically the comments or issues raised rehabilitation process and ongoing monitoring requirements

Meeting with the Manager of Hamelin Progress update was well received. The Provide the locations of future drill locations Station discussing the Mine Closure Mine Closure Plan and rehabilitation and continue with regular project updates. plan and more specifically the process was presented with no Continue discussions on collaborations Hamelin rehabilitation process and ongoing comments or issues raised. Also Station/Bush monitoring requirements. Discussions discussed future drill access plans for June 2020 Heritage for potential collaborations in the future exploration and ongoing hydrology Australia and data sharing in relation to confined aquifer monitoring. Agreed that Malleefowl and the Hamelin Skink also Strandline and Bush Heritage should discussed via video meeting consider a collaborative approach and how that might be structured.

Meeting with the Owners of the Progress update was well received. The No issues to resolve but continue with Billabong Roadhouse discussing the Mine Closure Plan and rehabilitation progress updates Mine Closure plan and more process was presented with no Billabong June 2020 specifically the rehabilitation process comments or issues raised. How their Roadhouse and ongoing monitoring requirements. business may be able to assist the A general project update was also Company once construction and given operations commence

Meeting with the Owners of the Progress update was well received. The No issues to resolve but continue with Billabong Motel discussing the Mine Mine Closure Plan and rehabilitation progress updates Closure plan and more specifically the process was presented with no rehabilitation process and ongoing comments or issues raised. How their Billabong Motel June 2020 monitoring requirements. A general business may be able to assist the project update was also given Company once construction and operations commence

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 59

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions Meeting with two representatives from Progress update was well received. Continue with the project updates and the DBCA in Denham discussing the Timing of firebreaks to be installed was notify DBCA of timing for construction Mine Closure plan and more important prior to summer a activities so the firebreaks can be efficiently specifically the rehabilitation process consideration. No issues with the Mine timed. Plan for a site trip with the DBCA and ongoing monitoring requirements. Closure Plan but some suggestions in from the Coburn side so an understanding DBCA June 2020 A general project update was also relation to stockpiling vegetation matter of access issues can be understood. given with other topics covered - (<2m height) and estimated period of firebreaks, weed management, vermin time that topsoil or vegetative matter and imported species such as the would be approximately 6 months. Asian Gecko

Progress update presented to the full Comments around the potential to No issues to resolve but continue with Shire Council including the funding attract new residents to Denham that progress updates announcement by North Australian would allow some of the towns facilities Shire of June 2020 Infrastructure fund (NAIF) to be upgraded. A northern access road Denham as proposed by NAIF was welcomed. Some questions around the mining method of trucking versus pumping

Informal discussions around mine The detailed explanation of the mining Questions were resolved as part of the closure and rehabilitation and rehabilitation process was discussions. The information in relation to welcomed by the group including 2 the Eucalyptus Beardiana and Hamelin Nanda Aboriginal Corporation board Skink was provided. members. Questions were raised Nanda around the Malleefowl to confirm the Aboriginal area is cleared for live mounds prior to Corporation - June 2020 clearing. Similarly, echidna tracks were Heritage also observed and how they would be Survey Group affected by mining. More information was requested on the Hamelin Skink and photos of Eucalyptus Beardiana

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 60

Stake holder Month/Year Nature of Discussion Issues Resolutions Phone conversation Required more updates and wanted Strandline to provide further updates and direct contact in addition to advising initiate discussions/meetings YMAC. I had advised that in 2017 an Exploration Heritage Agreement had Malgana June 2020 been signed for the northern tenements. representative Raised environmental concerns in relation to hydrology and the proposed Northern access route through Malgana Land

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 61

6.0 Baseline Environmental Data

6.1 Climate 6.1.1 Meteorology The Shark Bay district is located within a transitional climatic region that experiences an overlap of tropical and temperate zones, resulting in hot dry summers and mild winters. The area is classified as a Hot Grassland (summer drought) by the Bureau of Meteorology (2003). The area is affected by the winter circulation of the south, and the monsoonal summers of the north (Wyrwoll et al., 2000). Climate data for the Project Area has been provided from the Hamelin Pool weather station, which is located north of, but close to, the Project Area. The maximum temperature is high for most of the year, and extreme in summer. Summer can bring thunderstorm activity, significant rainfall, rare tropical cyclones, strong wind, low levels of cloud cover, extended sunshine duration and high levels of incident solar radiation (Wyrwoll et al., 2000). The average rainfall, temperatures and evaporation rates of the Shark Bay district are presented in Table 22 . Rainfall in the region is sporadic, with annual precipitation ranging from 200 mm to 400 mm (DEP, 2001). The timing and magnitude of rain is highly influenced by cyclonic and thunderstorm activity. Average annual rainfall is about 212 mm at Hamelin Pool, although rainfall at the Project Area is likely to be significantly higher (Hamelin pastoral lease owner/manager, pers. comm.). The majority of rain falls between May and August. The project area is not prone to flooding due to the elevation and high infiltration rate of water into the sand dunes. An ombrothermic diagram for the Shark Bay Airport weather station is provided in Figure 11.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Rainfall(mm) 15 10 5 Field Survey Field 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

2019 Mean (2000-2020)

Figure 11 Monthly rainfall for Shark Bay Airport weather station (6105) with rainfall for 2019 included (BoM, 2019a) Evaporation is high, ranging from 3,000 mm per annum in the east to 2,000 mm per annum in the west. This is largely attributed to the lack of cloud cover, low humidity and medium to strong winds (CALM, 1998).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 62

The area is influenced by southeast trade winds, which generate southerly winds for the majority of the year. During summer, southerlies consistently blow over 25 km/hr for several days. Cyclones generating wind gusts up to 180 km/hr occur periodically over summer and autumn (CALM, 1998). Table 22 Climatic Data from Hamelin Pool Weather Station Mean Mean Daily Mean Daily Mean Mean Mean Daily Mean Wind Monthly Maximum Minimum Monthly Relative Month Evaporation Speed Rainfall Temperature Temperature Evaporation Humidity (mm) (km/hr) (mm) (°C) (°C) (mm) (%) January 7.9 36.9 20.5 13.4 415.4 18.8 34.0 February 14.4 36.7 21.2 13.9 392.7 17.9 37.0 March 14.7 34.8 20.1 11.6 359.6 16.2 37.0 April 13.1 30.4 17.0 7.1 213.0 14.3 42.0 May 32.3 25.2 13.2 5.2 161.2 13.0 48.0 June 46.9 21.5 10.6 3.4 102.0 12.7 56.0 July 38.7 20.7 9.2 3.4 105.4 13.9 54.0 August 20.9 22.2 9.2 4.7 145.7 14.3 47.0 September 8.21 25.4 11.1 6.5 195.0 17.3 39.0 October 5.0 28.2 13.0 10.0 310.0 19.8 36.0 November 3.6 31.8 15.8 11.0 330.0 20.5 34.0 December 2.2 34.9 18.3 12.5 387.5 19.3 34.0 Annual 210.0 29.1 15.0 - 3,117.5 16.5 42.0 Source: Adapted from Bureau of Meteorology (2020; 2004)

6.1.2 Air Quality Existing air quality is good due to the remote nature of the area and the absence of other facilities, except for the pastoral infrastructure. On occasion, suspended and deposited particulate levels may be elevated on a seasonal basis due to bush fires or strong winds laden with dust blowing from the north.

6.2 Landscape A land system is defined as an area or group of areas throughout which there is a recurring pattern of topography, soils and vegetation (Burnside et al. 1995). Land systems consist of smaller land units. The land units, and their spatial arrangement relative to each other, form characteristic patterns that can readily be identified on aerial and satellite photographs (Pringle, Van Vreeswyk & Gilligan 1994). Whilst there is some correlation between vegetation types and land units, individual land systems support a range of vegetation communities that are not necessarily restricted to one land system. Payne et al., (1987) in their survey of the rangelands of the Carnarvon Basin included the survey area in the Nanga Land System. This was described as “Undulating plains of aeolian sand supporting diverse assemblages of South-West Botanical Province vegetation, mostly scrub heath and tree heath dominated by proteaceous and myrtaceous species.” The Nanga Land System corresponded closely, but not exactly, with Vegetation Association 368. Due to the lack of palatable perennial species and paucity of watering points Payne et al., (1987) assessed the Nanga Land System as having very low pastoral value. As a consequence, it has remained almost entirely uncleared. A map of the land systems in the Shark Bay area is presented as Figure 12.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 63

The area to the north and east of the northern portion of the Amy Zone is dominated by the Nerren, Sandplain, Snakewood and Toolonga land systems, with smaller areas of the Yaringa land system (see Figure 12). Most of these systems comprise sandy plains vegetated by Acacia species. The main mine access track will traverse the Snakewood, Nerren and Yarninga systems. The coastline to the north of the Project Area comprises the Coquina and McLeod land systems. Both of these land systems are restricted to coastal areas. The mining and processing domains of the project is situated within a north-trending system of longitudinal, accurate and parabolic dunes formed from unconsolidated windblown sand of Nilemah Sand that overlies the Peron Sandstone. The landform is typically undulating with dunes 40 to 60m high and generally stabilised with vegetation. The proposed pits and WCP locations straddle a 2 to 3km wide series of eroded dunes that form a central area of slightly increased elevation. The process plant, solar array and supporting infrastructure are located within less undulating dunes in order to reduce cut and fill requirements. The initial dry stacker fed tails storage facility has been located close to the initial WCP within a natural depression to assist with containment. The mine access road extending from the North West Coastal Highway where the landform is very gently undulating to flat but becomes increasingly dunal towards the west as it approaches the project site. In terms of Western Australian biogeography, Beard (1976, 1990) included the project area in the Irwin Botanical District (aka Northern Sandplains Region) of the South-western Botanical Province. Using physiographic parameters Beard divided the Irwin District into several natural vegetation systems, each of which included one or more vegetation units. The area was included in the Tamala Vegetation System, which occupies the Toolonga Plateau from the Geraldton and Ajana districts northwards to the shores of Shark Bay. Beard (1976) describes the soils of the Tamala System as “...an incoherent and structureless red-brown sand becoming red at depth...”.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 225000 250000

Foscal Land System

Snakewood Land System 7075000 7075000

Coquina Toolonga Land Land System System MacLeod Land System

Yaringa Land System 7050000 7050000

Sandplain Land System

Nerren Land System

Nanga Land System

Tarcumba Land System 7025000 7025000

Cooloomia Land System

225000 250000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW Latest Proposed mu_name Sandplain Land System Land Systems APPROVED BY BD www.aecom.com Disturbance Footprint Cooloomia Land System Snakewood Land LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Retention Tenement Coquina Land System System DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Mining Tenement ´ Foscal Land System Tarcumba Land System Miscellaneous STRANDLINE RESOURCES 0 3 6 Toolonga Land System 1:300,000 Tenement MacLeod Land System Kilometres Yaringa Land System (when printed at A4) Coburn Pastoral Lease Nanga Land System MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: Boundary Nerren Land System Shark Bay World 12 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro Heritage Area

Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig12_LandSystems_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

6.3 Materials Characterisation Materials characterisation studies relevant to the Coburn Sand Project include: • Soils and Landforms of the Amy Zone Orebody, Blandford and Associates 2004 (Appendix C) • Coburn HMS Project – Tailings Physical Testing, Knight Piesold Consulting 2018 (Appendix D). 6.3.1 Overburden Overburden is defined as low grade mineralised sand beneath the subsoil and above the ore zone. The geotechnical components in the pits comprise four major sub-horizontal layers including topsoil, overburden, economically mineralised sand ore and basement. The overburden comprises variable thickness of red-brown free flowing sands, often with higher slimes content than the ore, up to 20% but averaging 4%. It also contains occasional calcrete horizons between 2-10 m thick. The proposed mining method is a dozer push for both ore and overburden. Ore will be pushed into a dozer trap and overburden will be pushed directly into previously mined voids. The overburden will be direct placed by earthmoving machinery (eg scraper) or conveyed into place for overburden that is mined with the aid of the DMU 6.3.2 Tailings Prior to there being sufficient volume in the mined out pit voids, tailings will be stored in the interim off path storage facility comprising a depression bounded by sand dunes (Figure 9). The selected site for the off-path storage facility is located about 1500m south of the of the WCP 1 location and comprises a shallow vegetated sand dune depression with a depth range of between 2.5 and 3m. The storage facility is 43ha and forms a semi-circular area with a diameter of approximately 750 to 750m. Once sufficient mine void is available the tail will be deposited in these open spaces and the interim off path facility will no longer be required. This is further discussed in Section 3.1.1. Tailings from the WCP will be pumped as a slurry at a density of 65% solids by weight form the concentrator and discharged via an open pipe. Tailings comprising sand, water and clay fines will be disposed of into mined out pit voids. The Sand Tails consisted of 99% sand and 1% silt (Knight Piesold, 2018). Clay slimes from the WCP and MSP will be deposited into the mined out pit as a co-deposition of the tailings or in the case of MSP slimes within the tails as a direct dump. Slimes consist of 12% sand, 52% silt and 36% clay. Particle size distribution tests undertaken on potential waste have indicated that the soils are dominated by a coarse fraction with over 80% of the soils of the sample falling within the sand fraction. The gradings suggest that the risk of tailings liquefaction is high enough to require assessment in design if considered an issue i.e. high embankments or critical foundations but as only backfilling of shallow pit voids is occurring in a dry and drained environment, the risk is likely to be low (Knight Piesold, 2018). The pH of soils from five representative sites (Blandford 2004) were measured and found to be variable, with a pH from 7.5 to 9.5 or slightly to strongly alkaline. Based on Hazen’s permeability approximation for sands, the estimated permeability of Sand Tails is expected to be in the order of 2 x 10-4 m/s. The results indicate the Blend Tails sample should be considered slightly compressible but will consolidate rapidly with loading. It is noted the majority of this is from the top layer slimes component being well drained by the sand component below, which would have low compressibility. The co-disposed tails/slimes will be deposited at a high solids density of approximately 65%. The co- disposed mixture will form a low angle beach before the discharge pipe is moved to the next location. Once the stack is sufficiently dry the original land surface contours will be completed by bulldozers ahead of resurfacing with subsoil and topsoil. Covering the tailings and overburden with subsoil and topsoil will reduce the risk of dispersive material. Soil management is further discussed in Section 6.3.4.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 66

6.3.3 Radiation The mineral most likely to pose a risk from radiation is monazite. The level of monazite in the Coburn deposit is low, as detailed in the PER. As no crushing or grinding will take place in the process circuits, the risk of radiation exposure is very unlikely. Monazite will be processed into heavy metal concentrate (HMC) in the WCP. Monazite will be recovered into the zircon concentrate product at the MSP and therefore very little will return to the void. Radiation will be monitored and controlled via the Radiation Management Plan, as detailed in Section 8. The tailings generated within the MSP are volumetrically insignificant compared to the WCP and contain very low levels of Uranium (<10 ppm) and Thorium (nominally 10ppm) due to the process recovering the low level of monazite into the zircon concentrate product stream. The MSP tails are planned to be direct dumped onto mine void and spread by dozer, before being combined and covered by WCP tails and then contoured into final landform. The level of radioactivity is expected to be well below statutory limits and in any case no greater than background levels Radiation monitoring will be undertaken to confirm that background levels are not exceeded in the final rehabilitated tailings. The pre-operational environmental gamma survey showed very low levels (less than two nanosieverts per hour) of above-ground radiation, consistent with local sandy soils containing very low levels of uranium, thorium, and potassium. Radiation baseline background levels were analysed in 2004 with ranges of 0.22 - 5ppm for uranium and 1.6 to 4.4ppm Th which are considered to be very low. Surface locations were also targeted that contained higher grades of heavy minerals showed gamma radiation dose-rates that were essentially no more than the cosmic ray component. This was due to the very low monazite content (and hence uranium and thorium content) in the heavy mineral suite. The expected monazite concentration in the HMC is expected to be 0.1 to 0.2%, an order of magnitude higher than the concentration in the ore of 0.002% The ore contains very low levels of monazite 0.002% which has been derived from back calculating the monazite content in the heavy mineral fraction which varies between 0.1% and 0.2%. The metallurgical testwork undertaken in 2019 on a 23t bulk ore grade sample from across the Amy South deposit produced an HMC product that contained 154ppm thorium and 86ppm uranium. Using an average orebody HM grade of 1.1% then the in-ground orebody contents for thorium and uranium are expected to be 1.7ppm and 0.9ppm respectively. These levels are very low for ore grade mineralisation and therefore the lower grade overburden with HM grades of approximately 0.5% are expected to contain even lower amounts of thorium and uranium. The tailings stream from the WCP that will be pumped to the off-path storage or pit voids has had the heavy minerals removed from the ore – including monazite. With the removal of monazite, the tails will comprise quartz with minor clays and the thorium and uranium contents will be close to zero. More information on off path tailings in pit overburden and in pit tails storage is provided in Section 3.1.1,Section 3.1.2 and Section 3.2.3 respectively. 6.3.4 Soils The Project area is situated within the Gascoyne Platform of the southern Carnarvon Basin. The Carnarvon Basin is an extensive sedimentary structure that extends along and off the coast of Western Australia comprising numerous sub-basins, shelfs and platforms. The three Palaeozoic Sub- basins are the Gascoyne Platform to the west and the Merlinleigh and Byro Sub-basins to the east (Mory, Iasky & Ghori 2003). All sub-basins have mainly Palaeozoic fill with a thin cover of Mesozoic (mostly Cretaceous) and Cainozoic strata that extends across the Gascoyne Platform and into the Merlinleigh Sub-basin (URS, 2005a). As determined by site soil investigations (Blandford 2004, 2007), the soil is sandy throughout the profile and may contain colour changes, weak textural changes, some fabric development and weak horizonation. The sands are typically reddish brown (2.5 YR4/8) to dark red (7.5 R3/6) in colour. The majority of the soil profiles had a surface layer of highly mobile sand. The thickness of this surface layer varied across the Project Area, ranging from 1.0 cm to 15.0 cm. This indicates that the surface layer is quite unstable. The Particle Size Distribution (PSD) tests indicated that the soils were dominated by the coarse fraction (coarse and medium-grained sands), with over 80% of the sample falling within the sand fraction.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 67

It is unlikely that acid sulphate soils are present within the Project Area. Based on the results of the soil survey conducted by D.C. Blandford & Associates, the soils within the Project Area are typically calcareous and sandy. These soil types do not tend to contain sulphate. Also, the pH of the soils at a depth of 0.1-1.2 m ranged between 7.5-9.5, which is slightly to strongly alkaline. Some soils found at depth have also been characterised as dispersive. These finer particles (i.e. clay and silt) are also known as slimes when formed as part of the processing method. Slimes will be co- disposed into the mine void along with the sand tailings. Dispersive soils can readily erode and cause tunnelling or gullying which can concentrate flows and move large quantities of sediment off a rehabilitated surface, causing failure of the final landform. As the slimes will be deposited throughout the backfilled pit void profile and will be co-disposed with the sand tailings the combination will reduce the dispersive properties of the sand. 6.3.5 Geochemical and physical characteristics of subsurface materials and mining waste The Amy Zone ore body consists of an accumulation of mainly aeolian sands deposited over a Cretaceous basement of clays, clayey sands and limestone. In the southern part of Amy Zone, the basement units are often capped by a hard silcrete layer, which is thought to represent a palaeo weathering surface or duricrust on the underlying Toolonga Calcilutile (Strandline, 2010). Three phases of sand dune formation have been identified. Mineralisation is associated with all of the dune formations, the lower dunes containing higher grade sheet like concentrations that are moderately continuous between sections and strike north-north-easterly. Above these, the second dune formation is more sporadically mineralised and generally lower grade and may merge with the third dune mineralisation. The third dune contains a continuous body of mineralisation associated with the back slope of the ridge in the north and migrating to its fore slope in the south. Where the dune bifurcates, it spreads across the entire section and is better developed in the front slope, although still present on the back slope. Sporadic pockets of mineralisation are also associated with the parabolic dunes of this formation (Strandline, 2010). The waste materials will be comprised predominantly of sand tailings and a smaller percentage of slimes (silts and clays) and calcrete. Due to the non-chemical separation method used for processing the ore, waste materials will have undergone no significant geochemical changes. An attritioning agent will be applied at the front end of the MSP to remove iron oxide coatings from heavy mineral grains. The attritioning agent Freevis 9934 is an acrylate polymer in an aqueous solution. The major chemical component is Sodium Bisulfite, which is not classified as hazardous according to the criteria of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC). Therefore, geochemical characteristics of the waste materials are likely to be similar to the natural soil material detailed in Section 6.3.4 Sand tailings and slimes are expected to increase slightly in salinity after processing due to the use of abstracted brackish groundwater. However, as the overburden and tailings will be progressively backfilled into the pits and then covered with subsoil and topsoil, the risk from dispersion of these materials is mitigated. The small amount of tailings to be stored in the off path storage area will also be characterised for dispersion potential and covered with subsoil and topsoil and therefore dispersion is not considered a significant risk (calcium sulphate could be added if dispersive characteristics indicated by testing, Blandford 2004). Saline soils have the potential to impact on the growth of plants. As the rehabilitated areas will be covered with previously stockpiled topsoil and subsoil, the brackish nature of the reworked material is likely to minimally negatively to affect deeper rooted vegetation. However, as the salinity of the groundwater used to transport and process the ore is between 8000 and 10,000 TDS (brackish), Strandline believes that deeper rooted trees such as eucalypts are also unlikely to be adversely affected if their roots come into contact with this water (Strandline, 2010). 6.4 Biodiversity Numerous studies have been undertaken in order to ascertain the biodiversity of the Survey Area since the Project’s inception in 1999. These have included both detailed and targeted threatened flora, fauna and vegetation surveys, along with desktop assessments.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 68

6.4.1 Vegetation Studies undertaken determine the presence of conservation significant flora and vegetation, as well as detailed flora and vegetation surveys, have been conducted since 2003. Surveys conducted to date by Mattiske include: • August 2003 - A spring survey that covered the northern portion of the Amy Zone and the northern access route • April 2004 - An autumn survey in which 56 permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established and a 5km southern extension of the Amy Zone was mapped • September 2004 - A spring survey to collect annual species that covered the entire Amy Zone • November 2004 - A survey of the southern access road and the construction camp and two additional extensions of the survey area (Area 3 and 4) • August 2005 a. A survey to examine the distribution of Eucalypt communities to the east of the lease area b. A survey of vegetation inside the adjacent World Heritage Property that may be impacted by changes in the water table through mine processing • July/August 2006 a. Mapping of the boundaries of Communities S5 and S10, as earlier work indicated these communities had restricted distributions b. Detailed mapping adjacent World Heritage Property that could be impacted by hydrological changes caused by mineral sand processing c. Establishing 18 permanent vegetation monitoring plots in the World Heritage Property to detect any vegetational changes that may result from future groundwater mounding d. Establishing 16 additional permanent vegetation monitoring plots within the lease areas to act as benchmarks for assessing future rehabilitation e. Mapping of a proposed haul road running from the south-eastern part of the lease. AECOM completed flora and vegetation surveys in September 2018 and 2019 in the southern half of the Project: a. To conduct appropriately timed surveys for Threatened and Priority flora in all areas to be disturbed prior to the development of each pit and associated infrastructure as per MS723. b. determination of the presence of Threatened and/or Priority Flora c. determination of the presence of Threatened and/or Priority Ecological Communities d. definition and description of vegetation community composition e. to improve current understanding of flora and vegetation values with increased survey effort in areas not previously targeted. 6.4.1.1 Regional Vegetation Beard (1976, 1990) included the survey area in the Irwin Botanical District (aka Northern Sandplains Region) of the South-western Botanical Province. Using physiographic parameters Beard divided the Irwin District into several natural vegetation systems, each of which included one or more vegetation units. The survey area was included in the Tamala Vegetation System, which occupies the Toolonga Plateau from the Geraldton and Ajana districts northwards to the shores of Shark Bay. Beard (1976) describes the soils of the Tamala System as “...an incoherent and structureless red-brown sand becoming red at depth...”. Mapping for the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA v7) program largely retained Beard’s botanical districts, vegetation systems and vegetation units renaming them as ‘bioregions’, ‘systems’ and ‘vegetation associations’ respectively. IBRA v7 did produce some boundary changes however, with some systems being modified and/or re-allocated among the bioregions, and

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 69

some changes being made to the boundaries of bioregions themselves. One major change was the creation of the Yalgoo Bioregion from parts of the Carnarvon, Murchison and Northern Sandplains Regions. This re-drawing of boundaries moved the Tamala System from the Northern Sandplains Bioregion into Edel Subregion of the newly created Yalgoo Bioregion. The Tamala System supports six vegetation associations, some of which are also found in other systems. The occurrence of a vegetation association within a system is defined as a ‘system association’. The survey area lies within System Association 368.1, i.e. ‘Shrublands tree-heath between sandhills; Banksia ashbyi, Grevillea gordoniana, Acacia spp., Melaleuca and mallee within the Tamala System’. Vegetation Association 368 is restricted entirely to the Tamala System, and accounts for 90% of the system’s area. The preservation and conservation status of an area may be assessed by considering the extent of the association, the amount that has been cleared since European colonisation and the area that is preserved within the DBCA reserve system. According to the State Vegetation Statistics, there is 100% of System Association 368.1 system remaining in the State, for which 73.62% is within DBCA- managed land (Government of WA, 2019). The preservation and conservation status of System Association 368.1 remain high. It remains essentially the same as it would have been before European settlement and is well represented in the DBCA reserve system. 6.4.1.2 Vegetation within the Survey Area Mattiske (2005) stated that within the total survey area (which extended well beyond the disturbance footprint), 14 plant communities may be considered to be regionally significant. Nine of these plant communities also occur in the Shark Bay World Heritage Park or adjacent pastoral areas and therefore the severity of the impact to these communities is reduced. Of the five remaining regionally significant communities, none would be cleared during development of the proposal and associated infrastructure. The S5 plant community is locally significant as it is restricted to deep valleys, which are a locally and regionally unusual landform, and the S10 plant community which is endemic to the Shark Bay region. To ensure that communities S5 and S10 are not disturbed by mining operations, the Ministerial Statement includes condition 8-9 “The proponent shall not disturb vegetation communities S5 and S10” and “shall leave an undisturbed buffer of at least 50 metre width around the vegetation communities.” (EPA 2005). The vegetation communities anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed mining activities in the project area are (Mattiske, 2006a, and Figure 13): 1. Plant Community S1 – Tall Shrubland of Calothamnus formosus subsp. formosus and Hakea stenophylla subsp. notialis with occasional emergent Eucalyptus selachiana, Eucalyptus roycei and Eucalyptus mannensis subsp. vespertina with Banksia ashbyi over Acacia ligulata and Lamarchea hakeifolia var. brevifolia over Triodia danthonioides. 2. Three Priority 3 species (Grevillea rogersoniana, Physopsis chrysophylla and Pityrodia glutinosa) and one Priority 4 species (Jacksonia dendrospinosa) were recorded within this plant community in the Project area. 3. Plant Community S2 – Tall Open Shrubland of Calothamnus formosus subsp. formosus, Hakea stenophylla subsp. notialis and Acacia ligulata with occasional emergent Eucalyptus selachiana, Eucalyptus roycei and Eucalyptus mannensis subsp. vespertina with Banksia ashbyi over Lamarchea hakeifolia var. brevifolia and Baeckea sp. Nanga (pn) over Triodia danthonioides. 4. Two Priority 2 species (Acacia subrigida and Eremophila occidens (ms) and one possible new species (Scholtzia sp.2 (BT88;SR19)) were recorded within this plant community in the project area. 5. Plant Community S3 – Low Open Shrubland of Acacia ligulata and Hakea stenophylla subsp. notialis with occasional emergent Eucalyptus selachiana and Eucalyptus roycei over Baeckea sp. Nanga (pn) and Stenanthemum complicatum over Triodia danthonioides. 6. No priority flora species were identified within this plant community in the Project area.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 70

7. Plant Community S10 – Tall Open Shrubland of Physopsis chrysophylla (P3) and Acacia rostellifera over Calothamnus formosus subsp. formosus and Mirbelia sp. Denham (pn) over Triodia danthonioides. 8. No priority flora species were identified within this plant community in the Project area. However, Physopsis chrysophylla (P3) was identified in Community S1. 6.4.2 Conservation Significant Flora and Vegetation Results conceded are: 1. One species, Eucalyptus beardiana, listed as a DRF pursuant to subsection (2) of section 23F of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, and as Endangered pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, has been recorded previously within the surveyed area. 2. Seventeen Priority species (one Priority 1 [P1] species, seven Priority 2 [P2] species, seven Priority 3 [P3] species and two Priority 4 [P4] species) were recorded in the survey area. However, only six Priority species are anticipated to be impacted by mining activities in the Project area (see Section 6.4.1.2 below). 3. Nineteen plant communities were defined and mapped during the surveys, comprising seven Eucalyptus Woodlands, eleven Shrublands and one Mosaic Community. None of these plant communities are considered Threatened Ecological Communities pursuant to Schedule 2 of the EPBC Act or according to English and Blyth (1997). 4. Fifteen of the 19 plant communities described and mapped may be considered regionally significant, as they are endemic to the southern fringes of Shark Bay. One of the communities (S5) is particularly significant, as it is restricted to deep valleys, which are an unusual landform both locally and within the region. However, only four plant communities are present within the Project area. 5. A number of plant communities in which Priority species were recorded are classified as locally significant. Plant communities S5, S8, S9, S10 and S11 are of particular local significance, as priority species constitute a dominant element of the species composition. The Communities S2 and S3 are also significant as they have a mature, open structure, which is important for the establishment of the late successional Priority species Jacksonia dendrospinosa (P4) and Scholtzia sp. Folly Hill (P2)), and may also be important for maintaining high reptile diversity (as found in S3, Ninox Wildlife Consulting 2004)). There is also a high diversity of vertebrate fauna in the northern section of the survey area, which may be associated with the diverse mosaic (M1) communities (Ninox Wildlife Consulting 2004).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 208000 212000 216000 220000

S1 R 0900003 S5 7052000 7052000

S2 S2 S4 S2 S2 S1 S2 S6 S4 S1 E7 M 0900102 S2 S2 E7

S2 7048000 7048000 S1 E7 M 0900103

E7 S1

S1 S2 E7

M 0900104

S1 7044000 7044000 S1 S1

S1 S12 S1 L 0900021 M 0900105 S3

7040000 S3 S2 7040000 S10 M 0900106

S1 S2 S2 S3 M 0900111 S2 S10

S1 7036000 7036000 S2 M 0900112

208000 212000 216000 220000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW Vegetation Mapping APPROVED BY BD Latest Proposed Disturbance Shark Bay World Heritage S11 www.aecom.com LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Footprint Area 100m buffer S12 Retention Tenement Shark Bay World Heritage DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 S2 ´ Mining Tenement Area STRANDLINE RESOURCES 0 500 1,000 S3 1:85,000 Miscellaneous Tenement Vegetation Community Metres S4 (when printed at A4) (Mattiske, 2006) Coburn Pastoral Lease MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: S5 Boundary E7 S1 S6 13 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro S10

Map Document: \\Auper1fp001.au.aecomnet.com\projects\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig13_VegetationMapping_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

6.4.2.1 Threatened and Priority Flora A Priority Flora, Flora and Vegetation Management Plan (URS 2007a) was drafted in 2007 in compliance to condition 8-5, which is required should any species be identified within the project area. The conditions require that the management plan include detailed information with regards to the habitat which the species were found and the proposed management strategy for the protection of the species. This management plan was informed by eight surveys conducted between August 2003 and November 2006. Since the 2007 Priority Flora Management Plan was drafted two additional surveys have been conducted and the disturbance footprint has been changed by previous amendments. • Threatened and Priority flora species identified within the current approved disturbance footprint include the following: • 14 priority flora species: • Four of the priority species, identified within the pre-2007 surveys again identified within the post- 2007 surveys. • The post-2007 surveys have identified a further eight priority species which were not identified during the pre-2007 surveys and the original assessment. • One threatened flora species, Eucalyptus beardiana. • One of the pre 2007 priority species is no longer listed as a priority species. • Two of the priority species identified within the pre 2007 disturbance areas are not located within the current approved disturbance areas due to previous changes to the disturbance footprint. A summary of the threatened and priority flora species identified within the approved and proposed disturbances areas along with their conservation codes are included as Table 23. The locations of all priority species identified over the life of the project in relation to the current approved disturbance footprint and the proposed disturbance footprint are included as Figure 14. Given the homogeneity of the vegetation and landforms and that all priority flora populations were considerable in size and extent they are likely to be well represented outside the survey area (AECOM, 2020a). Table 23 Priority Flora Species Located Located Located Identified within New within within New Conservation within Proposed Priority Species Approved Proposed Code Original Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Assessment Areas Area Areas (08/6/20) Acacia Priority 3 Yes No No Yes drepanophylla Adenanthos Priority 2 No No Yes 59 Yes 3 plants acanthophyllus plants Chthonocephalus Priority 2 No Yes No Yes tomentellus Dasymalla Priority 3 No Yes Yes Yes glutinosa (formally Pityrodia glutinosa) Eremophila Priority 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes occidens Eucalyptus Threatened Yes Yes No No beardiana Grevillea Priority 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes rogersoniana

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 73

Located Located Located Identified within New within within New Conservation within Proposed Priority Species Approved Proposed Code Original Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Assessment Areas Area Areas (08/6/20) Grevillea No longer listed Yes No No No stenostachya Hemiandra sp. Priority 2 No No Yes No Kalbarri (D. Bellairs 1502) (P2) Jacksonia Priority 4 No Yes Yes Yes dendrospinosa Macarthuria Priority 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes intricata Physopsis Priority 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes chrysophylla Scaevola Priority 2 No Yes Yes Yes chrysopogon Scholtzia Priority 2 No No Yes Yes corrugata Scholtzia oleosa Priority 2 Yes No No Yes Rye (formally Scholtzia ?sp. Eurady (J.S. Beard 6886)) Scholtzia sp. Folly Priority 2 No Yes Yes Yes Hill (M.E. Trudgen 12097) Scholtzia sp.1 Undescribed No Yes No Yes (DJM13, DJM18, DJM50, SC073) Triodia bromoides Priority 4 No Yes Yes Yes Verticordia Priority 3 No Yes No Yes dichroma var. syntoma

In compliance to the ministerial statement conditions, a Declared Rare Flora Management Plan (URS 2007b) was drafted for the species Eucalyptus beardiana. Within this plan, a buffer of at least 40 m around each plant was proposed to keep project activities at a distance (URS 2007b). The pre-2007 surveys restricted the plants to the S12 community on red or yellow sand dunes. The 2019 surveys (AECOM 2020a) confirmed Eucalyptus beardiana are not located within the proposed mining areas and have previously only been identified along the main access road to the east of the mining area, where the proposed road was realigned to avoid the Eucalyptus beardiana populations. 6.4.2.2 Threatened and Priority Ecological Communities No Threatened or Priority Ecological Communities have been identified during field surveys undertaken across the site. Vegetation communities are not considered to represent regionally significant vegetation as defined in the EPA Flora Survey Technical Guide (2016) and are well represented in DBCA managed lands.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 208000 212000 216000 220000

S1 R 0900003 S5 7052000 7052000

S2 S2 S4 S2 S2 S1 S2 S6 S4 S1 E7 M 0900102 S2 S2 E7

S2 7048000 7048000 S1 E7 M 0900103

E7 S1

S1 S2 E7

M 0900104

S1 7044000 7044000 S1 S1

S1 S12 S1 L 0900021 M 0900105 S3

7040000 S3 7040000 S10 S2 Priority Flora M 0900106 Acacia drepanophylla Adenanthos acanthophyllus Chthonocephalus tomentellus S1 Dasymalla glutinosa Eremophila occidens S1 Eucalyptus beardiana S2 Grevillea rogersoniana S2 S3 Hemiandra sp. Kalbarri (D. Bellairs 1502) (P2) M 0900111 S2 Jacksonia dendrospinosa S10 Macarthuria intricata Physopsis chrysophylla Scaevola chrysopogon Scholtzia corrugata Scholtzia oleosa Rye S1

7036000 Scholtzia sp. Folly Hill (M.E. Trudgen 12097) 7036000 S2 Scholtzia sp.1 (DJM13, DJM18, DJM50, SC073) M 0900112 Triodia bromoides Verticordia dichroma var. syntoma

208000 212000 216000 220000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW Threatened and Priority Flora APPROVED BY BD Latest Proposed Disturbance Footprint Vegetation Community (Mattiske, 2006) S5 www.aecom.com Species LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 2014 Approved Disturbance Footprint E7 S6 Retention Tenement S1 S10 DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 ´ Mining Tenement S2 S11 STRANDLINE RESOURCES 0 500 1,000 1:85,000 Miscellaneous Tenement S3 S12 Metres (when printed at A4) Coburn Pastoral Lease Boundary S4 MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: Shark Bay World Heritage Area 14 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro

Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig14_ThreatenedPriorityFlora_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

Priority Flora Acacia drepanophylla Adenanthos acanthophyllus Chthonocephalus tomentellus Dasymalla glutinosa Eremophila occidens Eucalyptus beardiana Grevillea rogersoniana Hemiandra sp. Kalbarri (D. Bellairs 1502) (P2) Jacksonia dendrospinosa Macarthuria intricata 7080000 7080000 Physopsis chrysophylla Scaevola chrysopogon Scholtzia corrugata Scholtzia oleosa Rye Scholtzia sp. Folly Hill (M.E. Trudgen 12097) Scholtzia sp.1 (DJM13, DJM18, DJM50, SC073) Triodia bromoides Verticordia dichroma var. syntoma Latest Proposed Disturbance Footprint Coburn Pastoral Lease Boundary 7070000 7070000

R 0900002 S8 E6 M1

E2 S7 7060000 7060000 R 0900003 S1

M 0900102 7050000 7050000 S1

M 0900103 S2

L 0900043 L 0900021 M 0900104 E2

S1 M 0900105

M 0900106 7040000 7040000

M 0900111

S2 M 0900112 S1 S3 7030000 7030000 7020000 7020000

210000 220000 230000 240000 250000 260000

PROJECT ID 60577472 LEGEND CREATED BY KW Threatened and Priority Flora APPROVED BY BD Main Access Coburn Pastoral Lease E3 S1 S8 Species www.aecom.com Boundary LAST MODIFIED 11 JUN 2020 Latest Proposed E3(d) S2 S9 Disturbance Footprint Shark Bay World Heritage DATUM GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 E4 S3 S10 Area ´ 2014 Approved Disturbance STRANDLINE RESOURCES 0 4 8 E5 S4 S11 1:300,000 Footprint Vegetation Community Kilometres (Mattiske, 2006) E6 S5 S12 (when printed at A4) Retention Tenement MINING PROPOSAL Data sources: E1 Mining Tenement E7 S6 E2 15 Base Data: (c) Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian M1 S7 Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2010).Geoscience Australia, Streetpro Miscellaneous Tenement

Map Document: P:\605X\60577472\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\14_MiningProposal\G60577472_Fig15_ThreatPriorityFlora_FullExtent_A4P_v1.mxd (WyattK2) A4 size

6.4.3 Vertebrate Fauna Fauna surveys have now been completed across the survey area in Spring 2019 (AECOM), Spring 2018 (AECOM), Autumn 2012, Spring 2006, Spring 2004 and Autumn 2004 (Ninox): • Ninox Wildlife Consulting, 2005. Vertebrate Fauna Survey Coburn Mineral Sand Project. • Ninox Wildlife Consulting, 2007. Vertebrate Fauna Survey Spring 2006 Coburn Mineral Sand Project. • Ninox Wildlife Consulting, 2012. Vertebrate Fauna Survey Autumn 2012 Coburn Mineral Sand Project. • AECOM Spring 2018 Vertebrate Fauna Monitoring Program. Coburn Mineral Sands Project. • AECOM Spring 2019 Vertebrate Fauna Survey. Coburn Mineral Sands Project. • Knott, B. and Goater, S. 2005, Coburn mineral Sand Project, Amy Zone Operation, Stygofauna Pilot Survey. From those surveys a total of eight mammals, six bats, one amphibian, 81 birds and 54 reptiles have been recorded across the survey site. The 2018 sampling trip was undertaken for baseline monitoring in accordance with the Hamelin Skink Management Plan. The combined Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST), DBCA threatened species database, Atlas of Living Australia (AoLA) and NatureMap search results returned a total of 95 conservation significant fauna species that may potentially occur within the project area. Of these, 18 pelagic fauna species were initially eliminated from the desktop assessment due to the terrestrial location of the study area. A further 56 fauna species were also determined to be unlikely to occur due to their restricted distributions and habitat requirements; consisting of coastal, wetland and shore-dwelling species. These habitats do not occur within the study area and therefore these species are unlikely to occur. Of the remaining 21 conservation significant fauna species: • one species is ‘likely to occur’ • eight species ‘may occur’ • twelve species are ‘unlikely to occur’. The nine species that are likely to occur or may occur in the study area include five bird and four reptile species. These species, their conservation status, likelihood of occurrence and actual recordings within the project area are listed in Table 24. Table 24 Conservation Significant Fauna Species that are Likely to Occur or May Occur within the Project Area Recorded Western Australia Desktop Assessment Commonwealth within Species BC Act / DBCA Likelihood of EPBC Act Project Code Occurrence Area Birds Amytornis May occur. Suitable - Priority Four – Rare, textilis textilis habitat probably Near Threatened Western or - occurs within the study and other species in Thick-billed area and several need of monitoring Grasswren recent records occur. Chrysococcyx Marine - May occur. Suitable osculans (Species - habitat may occur Black-eared established within the study area. Cuckoo under s248) Falco May occur. Recent - peregrinus Other specially records exist in - Peregrine protected species proximity to the study Falcon area.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 77

Recorded Western Australia Desktop Assessment Commonwealth within Species BC Act / DBCA Likelihood of EPBC Act Project Code Occurrence Area Likely to occur. Known Yes Leipoa ocellata records within the Vulnerable Vulnerable Malleefowl study area and suitable habitat exists. Merops ornatus Yes Migratory & Other specially Rainbow Bee- May occur. Marine (JAMBA) protected species eater Reptiles Lerista Yes humphriesi May occur. Northern Taper-tailed Priority Three – limit of distribution with West Coast - Poorly Known no recent records, slider Species however suitable (Murchison habitat is present. River) Aprasia haroldi P1 Priority One – May occur. Suitable - Shark Bay - Poorly Known habitat is within the worm-lizard Species study area. Delma concinna - major Priority One – May occur. Suitable Javelin Legless - Poorly Known habitat may occur Lizard (Shark Species within the study area. Bay) Egernia stokesii May occur. Marginally - badia Endangered suitable habitat may Vulnerable Western Spiny- Species occur within the study tailed Skink area.

The results of these surveys highlighted the following: 1. Most of the vertebrate species recorded during the surveys have a widespread distribution throughout the semi-arid region and are not restricted to individual habitats. 2. A predominant issue of concern is the presence of Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata), and possible presence of the Hamelin Skink (Ctenotus zasticus) within the Project area. These species are listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act and ‘Threatened’ under the Wildlife Conservation Act. The Malleefowl and Hamelin Skink were not seen during all of the surveys, although distinctive Malleefowl footprints and old nesting mounds were encountered. 3. Malleefowl were once common and widespread in the semi-arid zone, mainly in mallee and Acacia shrublands, especially north and east of the mulga-eucalypt line (Johnstone and Storr, 1998). 4. The Hamelin Skink is only known to occur on Hamelin and Coburn Stations where it appears to favour eucalypt woodlands with spinifex (Triodia) on red sands – a habitat which occurs at the northern section of the Project area (Ninox, 2007). 5. The Thick-billed Grasswren (Amytornis t. textilis) is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act Previously widespread in the southern arid zone; it is now only located in the Shark Bay area. This bird is commonly found in the northern portion of the Peron Peninsula and is moderately common at Woodleigh Station and north-east of Hamelin Station. It was not recorded during any of the surveys covering the Project area and is unlikely to inhabit the study area (URS, 2005a).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 78

6. The S3 shrubland plant community in the southern section of the Project area appears to be of local significance in that they support a large variety and substantially higher population of reptiles than other vegetation communities (Ninox, 2007). 7. Five species of introduced or feral animals were recorded by signs such as footprints (tracks), scats or diggings during the spring 2006 survey. Recorded feral animals included the following: House Mouse, European Rabbit, Cat, Red Fox and Feral Goat (Ninox, 2007). 8. The project area does not contain suitable roosting and nesting habitat the Night Parrot, and is outside of the area in WA where night parrots and their habitat should be considered as illustrated in the Western Australian DPaW (2017) Interim Guidelines for Night Parrot surveys https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants- animals/animals/interim_guideline_for_night_parrot_survey.pdf. It is also outside of the Night Parrot’s distribution as mapped by the Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment distribution area. Therefore, specific targeted surveys were not required. 9. During the spring 2018 sampling trip (AECOM 2019), the baseline monitoring event was undertaken in accordance with the Hamelin Skink Management Plan. This monitoring event resulted in the capture of 31 individuals of the target species, Hamelin Ctenotus, along with 25 other reptile species and one mammalian species (Pseudomys hermannsburgensis). 36 captures of the target species were recorded during this monitoring period; of these, five were identified as recaptures. Since the original EPA assessment, a Fauna Management Plan and the Hamelin Skink Threatened Fauna Management Plan have been developed. The Fauna Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with conditions 9-1 and 9-5 of the Ministerial Statement, focussing on the loss of habitat due to vegetation disturbance, clearing of Malleefowl nesting sites, the forced relocation of individual animals and the risks of process water ponds or open seepage interception trenches to fauna. Malleefowl were not sighted during the original PER fauna surveys, however, fresh footprints were noted, and abandoned nest mounds were evident. Post PER assessment surveys have been conducted with additional Malleefowl fresh tracks recorded along with active and inactive Malleefowl nest mounds. The project proposed the following mitigation measures to minimise the impacts on Malleefowl: • avoiding nests not in the direct mine path • diverting the proposed haul road to avoid nests • the staging of clearing (to allow for local migration of Malleefowl into adjacent properties) • reducing the impact of introduced predators and competitors through baiting programmes and destocking of the pastoral property • establishing permanent fauna monitoring sites in order to monitor the rate of return of this species to the rehabilitated areas. During a vertebrate fauna survey programme conducted for the project by Ninox Wildlife Consulting in May 2012, the Hamelin Skink (Ctenotus zastictus) was recorded adjacent to the proposed mine access road (URS 2014). In compliance to the ministerial statement conditions a Hamelin Skink Management Plan has been developed. The management plan focuses on the recorded locations, description of habitat, the degree of impact of the proposed works, a management strategy for protection and a post activity monitoring plan. The Hamelin Skink has only been identified along the mine access road and not within the mining areas of the disturbance footprint. 6.4.4 Subterranean Fauna and Short Range Endemics A 2004 stygofauna survey of the northern end of the project area did not identify any stygofauna (URS 2005). The southern end of the project area was not surveyed at that time due to the lack of suitable bores. The EPA (2005) assessment noted that the presence of stygofauna is not considered likely due to the lack of shallow groundwater, but further surveys were recommended.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 79

An additional Stygofauna survey was completed in October 2006, after the original proposal was assessed. No stygofauna were found in the samples collected within the project area during this additional survey (URS 2007c). The lack of stygofauna is not unexpected, as Knott and Goater (2005) state the saturated sediments near Coral Bay, sampled in similar geomorphological conditions to the Coburn Mineral Sand Project Area and also close to the coastline, failed to yield any stygofauna. The major occurrence of stygofauna within the Carnarvon Basin occurs in karst formation in limestone, of which no such geological features occur in the project area. Stygofauna (Harpacticoid copepods) were only found during the 2006 URS study within the Natta Outcamp Bore, more than 20 km away from the project area.

6.5 Hydrology 6.5.1 Surface Water The Project Area, which is internally draining, has previously been determined to have no surface water features due to low rainfall, high evaporative conditions and high infiltration rates. The region is characterised by low rainfall, high evaporative conditions, and high infiltration capacity of the dunal soils. The Project area is likely to produce little runoff during storm events. Most rainfall typically ponds in depression areas and quickly infiltrates or evaporates (URS, 2005a). 6.5.1.1 Local Hydrology The Project area has no defined watercourses, permanent fresh-water bodies, or birridas (seasonally inundated, saline lakes). Therefore, there are no known sensitive surface water features within the Project area (URS, 2005a). The project area is internally draining and has no surface water features due to low rainfall, high evaporative conditions, and high infiltration rates. During the operational phase, runoff from roads and other hardstand areas is likely. Discharge from these areas will be managed according to the site Environmental Management Plan. The fate of these areas after closure will need to be considered in terms of managing runoff volumes and velocities in order to achieve a stable and sustainable post-closure landform. It will be important that the reconstruction of the final landform be designed to minimise erosion and to re-establish natural water infiltration regimes. Strandline is committed to rehabilitating the final landform to a state that is safe, stable, non-erodible and compatible with that of the surrounding undisturbed areas.

6.5.2 Groundwater The superficial formations beneath the Project area are predominantly formed of dune sand of the Peron Sandstone. The sand is typically medium to fine grained. Calcrete bands are sometimes present in the upper sand profile, representing palaeo-sols, and are generally covered by recent dunes. The superficial formations beneath the Project Area are above the water table and dry. Below the superficial sand lies an aquitard known as the Toolonga Calcilutite, which is characterised as predominantly silty clay or clay with a thin sandy clay bed in the upper three to nine metres, representing possibly weathered and re-worked sediment (URS, 2005b). Discontinuous pockets of transmissive calcrete/silcrete are sometimes found within the Toolonga Calcilutite. The water table occurs within the Toolonga Calcilutite beneath most of the Project area and within the superficial formations beneath low-lying areas north of the Project area. In these low-lying areas, unconfined aquifers occur in the bottom of palaeovalleys, or in coastal and shallow marine deposits beneath areas such as the Nilemah Embayment. These aquifers are likely to be of low transmissivity as they are either thin or clayey (URS, 2005b). The unconfined Superficial Aquifer is recharged by both rainfall infiltration and in low-lying areas by upward leakage from the confined aquifers at depth. Most rainfall probably does not reach the water table, but is lost to evaporation and/or evapotranspiration. Rainfall recharge that does pass through the soil profile is probably brackish due to the mobilisation of the stored soil salts and becomes increasingly saline as it flows down gradient towards Hamelin Pool (URS, 2005b).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 80

Groundwater level data from the site investigations show water table elevations in the range from 0.7 m AHD (north of Amy Zone) to 29.6 m AHD (south of Amy Zone). The water table occurs within the Toolonga Calcilutite beneath most of the Project area and within the superficial formations beneath low-lying areas north of this area. Further south, including the Project Area, the water table occurs within the Toolonga Calcilutite at about 54 m AHD. Groundwater flow is inferred to the north-west, through the Toolonga Calcilutite and Superficial Formations discharge to low-lying areas such as the Nilemah Embayment and offshore areas of Hamelin Pool. The hydraulic gradient is about 0.002 Groundwater flow is inferred to the north-west and Hamelin Pool under a hydraulic gradient of about 0.002 (dimensionless, URS, 2005b). The groundwater is generally saline, with salinity increasing further down gradient. Salinity ranges from about 11,000 to 67,000 mg/L TDS. The groundwater in the unconfined flow system is typically weakly acidic to near-neutral (URS, 2005b). Regionally, several aquifers lie beneath the Toolonga Calcilutite and are confined by the overlying aquitard unit. Regional confined aquifers in the project area include, from shallowest to deepest in the hydrostratigraphic profile (URS, 2005b): 1. Windalia Radiolarite. 2. Windalia Sand Member of the Muderong Shale. 3. Birdrong Sandstone. 4. Kopke Sandstone. 5. Tumblagooda Sandstone. Several regionally-extensive aquifers are present beneath the thick Toolonga Calcilutite aquitard in the Project area. Another aquitard, the Muderong Shale, is present above the Birdrong Sandstone beneath the site, but pinches out east of Coburn Homestead. The Windalia Radiolarite and Sand Member are stratigraphically contiguous and are most commonly used by local pastoralists and businesses as source aquifers. Where present, the Muderong Shale limits vertical groundwater flow between the Windalia units and the underlying Birdrong Sandstone due to its high clay content. Groundwater flow within these aquifers is generally to the west. The Windalia Sand Member ranges in salinity between approximately 5,000 and 9,000 mg/L total dissolved solids. The Birdrong Sandstone is the most commonly used aquifer in the Carnarvon Basin, due to its regional distribution and capability to yield large groundwater supplies. Typically, the hydraulic conductivity of the Birdrong Sandstone is between about 5 and 10 m/day. The only published storage coefficients for this aquifer were derived from the Project Area during field studies for the Coburn PER (URS, 2005). The derived value (5.8 x 10-3 - dimensionless) is typical for confined aquifers. Static groundwater level measurements in non-flowing bores reported by McWhae, (1958) indicate the Birdrong Sandstone has a westerly-dipping hydraulic gradient of about 5 x 10-4 (dimensionless). The Kopke Sandstone underlies the Birdrong Sandstone. Where the formation is shallow, it is utilised as a lower salinity groundwater source in preference to the Birdrong Sandstone. Apart from the large volume of groundwater in storage in the Kopke Sandstone, it is possible that this formation is in hydraulic connection with the Tumblagooda Sandstone beneath the Ajana Ridge. The Kopke Sandstone formation has been investigated during petroleum exploration drilling with hydraulic conductivities of about 4 m/day. The hydraulic gradient is in the order of 1 x 10-4 (dimensionless) to the west (Figure 6). Large upward hydraulic gradients occur within the Windalia Radiolarite, interpreted to be linked to strong vertical anisotropy in the transmissivity of fractured flint beds. Upward hydraulic gradients are also extrapolated within and between the Windalia Sand Member, Birdrong Sandstone and Kopke Sandstone. These upward hydraulic gradients indicate a restricted rate of vertical discharge into the overlying confining layers formed by the Alinga Formation and Toolonga Calcilutite and also the superficial formations. The Birdrong Sandstone overlies and is in hydraulic connection with the Kopke Sandstone. Shale beds within the Kopke Sandstone limit vertical flow within this formation. Piezometric levels measured from Project test bores and private bores are detailed in the URS

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 81

Groundwater Impact Assessment (2005). In a regional context, the interpreted groundwater level contours show westerly-dipping hydraulic gradients and groundwater flow, with discharge inferred offshore beneath Hamelin Pool and the Indian Ocean (Figure 6). Groundwater salinity in the Gascoyne Platform varies across the area as well as with depth. Lower salinities in deeper formations in the region are thought to relate to recharge in prehistoric time when the climate was less arid and did not accumulate salt. In the local confined aquifers, the salinity increases with depth from 3,500 to 8,000 mg/L in the Birdrong Sandstone, and from 1,500 to 12,000 mg/L in the Kopke Sandstone. Potential impacts to groundwater have also been identified which have been split into two components; drawdown and mounding. 6.5.2.1 Drawdown A large volume of water is required for the proposed mining operation, primarily to provide process water. Up to 18 GL per year of water would be required when the mine is at full operation (URS 2005). This water would be abstracted from the Birdrong Sandstone and Kopke Sandstone aquifers of the Carnarvon Basin. Groundwater is to be abstracted from regional confined aquifers, including the Birdrong Sandstone and Kopke Sandstone, to meet process water supply demands. As the abstraction rate is likely to be greater than the recharge rate, regional drawdown impacts are anticipated. Groundwater abstraction will lead to upward and outward propagation of drawdowns which could affect the surrounding environment and water supplies of other users. The main impacts would be to groundwater bore users that may be affected by a lowering of the piezometric level and/or artesian pressure in their bores. The then Department of Water (now Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER)) stated that the quantity of water requested by the project (18GL/yr) was available. Licence to Take Water (LTW - GWL159157(6)) has been issued for the project, and currently allows a maximum abstraction of 600,000 kL/yr. It incorporates several conditions including: • installation and maintenance of flow meters on each water draw-point in accordance with the DWER document: Guideline for Water Meter Installation 2009 • recording of the volume of groundwater drawn each month • measurement of bore static head pressure and electrical conductivity (at 25oC) at three-monthly intervals • capping all wells to prevent surface entry of contaminants – free-flowing wells to be equipped with a control valve and fitting to enable the hydraulic pressure to be measured) • submit all monitoring data to DWER every 12 months. The original LTW was issued subject to a Staged Development whereby the licensed annual allocation was to be increased in line with defined development stages of the project. Recently however, the DWER has rescinded the Staged Development policy. The current annual allocation of 600,000kL will be increased to 18GL/yr once Strandline has passed its Financial Investment Decision (FID) and demonstrated to the DWER it has the financial capacity to develop the project. The DWER required Strandline submit applications for Section 26D Licence to Construct or Alter Well licences (CAW203575(1)) prior to constructing the borefield and submit applications to amend the existing Section 5C LTW along with hydrogeological reports as the bores are completed (Appendix E). Supporting the LTW was a DWER requirement to develop a Groundwater Operating Strategy (GOS) to detail how groundwater related impacts from the project including abstraction, drawdown and mounding were to be managed. The GOS has been revised several times since the inaugural version dated January 2007. The current version will be revised after Strandline has completed their FID along with the application for the full 18GL/year allocation.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 82

The Ministerial Statement required a Drawdown Impact Management Plan (DIMP) to be prepared and approved before the commencement of large-scaled abstraction i.e. when abstraction for ore processing commenced. The DIMP has been in preparation since 2008 and following discussions with the DWER, will be implemented as a management plan as part of the GOS (Appendix F). Drawdown will be monitored and managed in accordance with the DIMP. The programme and contingency plans will be reviewed once sufficient monitoring data are available. After closure, almost complete recovery of the confined aquifer systems is predicted within five years of the cessation of process water supply abstractions. Recoveries in all private bores are predicted to be relatively rapid in the initial 3 to 5 years after the cessation of abstraction, with most bores predicted to recover fully (less than 0.5 m drawdown) four to six years after the completion of mining (URS, 2005b). Due to the ability of the DWER (then the Water & Rivers Commission) to place conditions on the proposal that would meet the environmental requirements, the EPA did not consider it necessary to recommend any Ministerial Conditions relating to this issue (EPA 2005). 6.5.2.2 Mounding The disposal of sand and slimes tailings in slurry form during mining operations is expected to cause mounding of the water table to accumulate on top of the Toolonga Calcilutite as a groundwater mound. The residual volumes and associated mound heights are anticipated to dissipate down gradient over time. Modelling results for the Project area show that: • Without substantial controls, the mounds are predicated to propagate laterally distances in the order of 1,5000 m during the initial five years after cessation of local mining • After 50 years, the leading edges of the mounds are predicted to reach distances of up to 2 km from the pits. The height of the mounding at distance of 1 to 2 km from the pits is predicted to be typically less than 21.0 m. Water mounding may be significant where the depth to water is less than about 5 m from the surface, with the potential to affect the roots of local native vegetation. This is likely to be a concern in areas where the thickness of superficial formations is less than 10 m, including some areas west and east of Pits A and B. The EPA considered that mounding of groundwater requires management to prevent the loss of vegetation. In order to manage groundwater mounding, the following mitigation strategies were proposed: • mapping of the vegetation and typical depths of root penetration • installation of multipiezometers to characterise thickness of the superficial formations and depths to the groundwater • monitoring of actual groundwater mounding • development of a predictive groundwater mounding model • where appropriate, maintenance of active drains in the pit(s) adjacent to areas at risk in order to intercept and abstract tailings water locally contributing to the mounding • where appropriate, review of the mining plans to increase the duration of mining and reduce the height of residual mounding. Monitoring bores would be located between the mine and sensitive areas to provide early warning of the need for remedial action. The EPA further noted in 2005 that in some area’s seepage may enter the root zone, and there may be localised loss of plant condition and plant deaths. It was the view of the EPA that it is unacceptable for the operations to cause the death of any vegetation outside the project area.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 83

Ministerial statement condition 7 which requires the development and implementation of a Groundwater Mounding Management Plan (GMMP). This Plan is based on the development of ‘threshold’ and ‘limit’ criteria for both groundwater levels and vegetation health. Management responses are defined for implementation in the event that the ‘threshold’ criteria were not met. If at any time the ‘limit’ criteria are exceeded all mining that is contributing to the ‘limit’ criteria being exceeded must be ceased. Due to the proximity of the project to the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, a 100-metre buffer zone along the boundary of the Shark Bay World Heritage Property (SBWHP) is required by the Ministerial Statement conditions. No mining activities are permitted within this boundary, except for disturbance associated with the monitoring of groundwater within the buffer as defined by the management plan. This allows of the early detection of any groundwater mounding impacts on the SBWHP. Groundwater mounding will be monitored and managed in accordance with the GMMP. Although the GMMP is a stand-alone document and Ministerial Statement requirement, it was linked to and referenced extensively in the GOS. The GMMP is provided in Appendix G.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 84

6.6 Heritage Four comprehensive surveys and associated reports have been completed for the Project, which have included consultations with the Nanda Native Title claim representatives. These surveys encompassed the following: Table 25 Heritage surveys conducted within the Study Area

Report Summary of Findings Eureka Archaeological Research and One scatter site (Coburn AS04-01) and two isolated Consulting UWA April 2005 - Report on the artefacts were recorded. The site was deemed to be results of an Archaeological and characteristic of sites known within the region. Ethnographic Survey of Mining Leases No archaeological material was found within the M09/111 and M09/112 and associated mine leases and the southern access track was access tracks, Coburn Station, Western offset by 20m to avoid disturbing the site. This Australia southern access track was eventually abandoned in favour of the central access track that was surveyed in January 2007. Eureka Archaeological Research and No sites or materials were identified at M09/105 and Consulting UWA August 2005 - Report on M09/106. The southern section of M09/104. the results of an Archaeological and M09/104 was determined to require further survey. Ethnographic Survey of Mining Leases M09/102, M09/103, M09/104, M09/105 and Time constraints did not allow for the surveys to be M09/106, Coburn Station, Western completed within M09/102, M09/103. Australia Possibility of finding burial sites was noted, as similar locations within the region have previously had these types of sites located. Ethnographic Survey of Mining Leases M09/102, M09/103, M09/104, M09/105 and M09/106 – no findings were identified. Eureka Archaeological Research and Recorded a new archaeological site named QAS Consulting UWA July 2006 - Report on the 0601 located on the NW corner of M09/104 results of an Archaeological Work Area comprising a scatter of stone artefacts No Clearance Survey M09/104, M09/103 and archaeological materials were found within the main M09/102, five haul road amendments, access road, calcrete borrow pits. associated borrow pits and proposed camp site. Coburn, Western Australia (addendum report to 2004 and 2005) Eureka Archaeological Research and No sites were identified, nine isolated artefacts were Consulting UWA, January 2007 - Report on located. the results of an Archaeological and Ethnographic Survey of Proposed Mine Access Road and Borrow Pits, Coburn Locations were determined to be suitable. Station, Western Australia Eureka Archaeological Research and No sites were identified, nine isolated artefacts were Consulting UWA May 2007 - Report on the located. results of an Archaeological Work Area Clearance Survey of Proposed Mine Access Road and Borrow Pits, Coburn Station, M09/104 and M09/103 Western Australia (addendum report Archae-Aus June 2020 Heritage survey No artefacts recorded at the conclusion of the within ML09/102 survey

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 85

The Shark Bay World Heritage Property (SBWHP) is also adjacent to the Project, with a 100m buffer zone in place along the boundary of the Property required by the Ministerial Statement conditions. No mining activities are permitted within this boundary.

6.7 Environmental Threats Environmental threats are identified risks that may further impact environmental factors as a result of proposed mining activities (e.g. weeds, pests, dieback, soil pathogens, wildfires, light, hydrocarbon spills from vehicles etc.). The following subsections outline existing environmental threats that have been identified as relevant to the Project. 6.7.1 Weeds Mattiske (2005) recorded 17 introduced species within their survey area, of which most were restricted to small, often disturbed sites. Additional surveys have not identified any further introduced species. The EPA (2005) noted regarding rehabilitation activities that weeds may out-compete native species, affecting the growth and recruitment of native species, and decreasing the success of rehabilitation. A monitoring programme is therefore required in order to determine whether weed species are a positive or negative attribute to rehabilitation, and if negative, the methods required to decrease their effect (EPA 2005). The then Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) (now Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions DBCA) advised that the mining area could act as an ongoing source of weeds, and potentially invade the adjacent World Heritage Property. Increased weed management may be required in the SBWHP and conservation estate adjacent to the proposed mining area. Therefore, as a part of the Progressive Rehabilitation Programme, a Weed Management Plan was developed in compliance to condition 10-3 and 10-6 (Appendix H). The EPA (2005) recommended a condition that all mining equipment and vehicles entering the site be subject to appropriate hygiene measures to prevent the introduction of soil borne plant diseases. While the EPA (2005) noted that dieback (Phytophthora cinnamomi) has not been observed in this area, the EPA considered that this precaution is necessary given the high environmental values of this area. 6.7.2 Invasive Fauna Species Five introduced mammal species were recorded within the survey area during the Spring 2019 survey. The species and their status under the BAM Act are listed below: • Dog (Canis familiaris) (Feral) – Declared Pest – s22(2) (C3 Exempt) • Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (Feral) – Declared Pest – s22(2) (C3 Exempt) • European Wild Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) (Feral) – Declared Pest – s22(2) (C3 Exempt) • Cat (Felis catus) (Feral) – Declared Pest – s22(2) • Camel (Camelus dromedarius) (Feral) – Declared Pest – s22(2). These species are listed as Declared Pests under the BAM Act. Generally, these species were recorded sporadically throughout the survey area, and were identified by tracks, scats and / or diggings. It is to be hoped that the impact of these species, particularly the introduced predators such as the Red Fox, Cat and Dog, will be reduced given the feral animal control program that will be continued as the project progresses. This control program, including the deployment of 1080 baits was being conducted on the outskirts of the Project area during the survey. In addition, the potentially more widespread habitat damage from introduced herbivores such as the European Wild Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus should also be reduced if these animals are included in the management of feral species.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 86

6.7.3 Dust Detrimental environmental effects for air quality will be comparable to the original proposal. Dust is expected to have the greatest potential to affect air quality. As stated in the original proposal dust will be generated from: • clearing of vegetation • topsoil removal and replacement • subsoil removal and stockpiling • excavation of overburden and ore • wheel generated dust from machinery and vehicle movements on-site • dust pick-up (wind erosion) from exposed areas, including the operational pit, areas cleared for the concentrators and offices, access roads, stockpiles and the accommodation camp. Given that the total disturbance footprint is decreasing and that materials handling methods are remaining the same, dust from the proposed change is expected to be less than or comparable to the original proposal. The potential for dust deposition on the Hamelin Pool stromatolites due to the implementation of the project was already low, however based on stakeholder consultations during the initial PER period the proponent removed a proposed Pit (Pit 10) to the north of the current approved disturbance footprint. Dust from the proposed Pit 10 posed a potential risk of adverse impacts to the stromatolites of Hamelin Pool. Modelling of dust generated by the mining operations when they ceased at the current northern boundary, approximately 22.7 km from Hamelin pool, showed no impact on the stromatolites (URS 2006c). The proposed new cleared areas are no further north than the original proposal and no closer to Hamelin Pool. In the EPAs 2005 assessment the objective with regard to dust was to ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values, or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards. The EPA noted that dust management would be an integral component of site environmental performance. The original proposal and the associated Dust Management Plan (URS 2006c) have detailed a range of preventative measures to minimise fugitive dust sources and committed to ongoing monitoring of deposited dust levels (Appendix I). 6.7.4 Bushfire The EPA also recommended a Bush Fire Management Plan (URS 2006e). The EPA stated the purpose of the Management Plan is to facilitate effective fire management practices during construction and operation of the Project. The plan aims to manage site operations in a way that prevents fires and protects life, property and the natural and cultural values of the area. Due to the low population densities adjacent to the project area, management strategies are centred on residential operational staff, surrounding landholders and associated infrastructure. The plan has been drafted to be consistent the Midwest Gascoyne District Wildfire Response Plan, State Government fire management policy and Shire of Shark Bay by-laws and requirements. The plan includes management actions, monitoring and contingencies (Appendix J). 6.7.5 Groundwater Mounding and Drawdown 6.7.5.1 Groundwater Mounding The potentially sensitive ecological receptors continue to be deep-rooted vegetation. The change associated with this proposal arising from the altered direction of mining and sequence of tailings emplacement is not expected to change the footprint or risk profile of potential mounding impacts. The mitigation measures, implementation of triggers and management responses defined in the current GMMP remain valid because the methods of mining, tailings emplacement, and proximity to the potential receptors have not changed (Appendix G).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 87

The MMP will be updated and submitted for assessment by DWER prior to the commencement of mining and include locations of all monitoring bores and seepage recovery infrastructure based on the prevailing mine plan. 6.7.5.2 Groundwater Drawdown The potentially sensitive receptors to drawdown continue to be existing groundwater users and stromatolite and algal mat communities in Hamelin Pool. The change associated with this proposal arising from the altered bore locations, direction of mining, sequence of tailings emplacement is not expected to significantly change the project water balance or drawdown footprint from groundwater abstraction. The mitigation measures, implementation of triggers and management responses that will be defined in the Drawdown Impact Management Plan (DIMP) remain valid because the volumes and methods of groundwater abstraction and proximity to the potential receptors have not changed (Appendix F). 6.7.6 Radiation Radiation is naturally associated with mineral sands, principally due to the presence of thorium in the heavy mineral monazite. Naturally-occurring background radiation levels are typically low and would only present a radiological hazard when in concentrated form. The expected heavy mineral concentrate (HMC) of the ore to be mined is quite low compared with typical WA mineral sand operations, and the heavy mineral suite is in turn very low in monazite content. As a result, the HMC to be produced in the wet concentrator is much lower in radionuclide content than the typical HMC produced at other Western Australian sites. The pre-operational environmental gamma survey showed very low levels (less than two nanosieverts per hour) of above-ground radiation, consistent with local sandy soils containing very low levels of uranium, thorium, and potassium. Even locations which had been identified as containing higher grades of heavy minerals showed gamma radiation dose rates that were essentially no more than the cosmic ray component. This was due to the very low monazite content (and hence uranium and thorium content) in the heavy mineral suite (URS 2006d). Due to the presence of thorium in monazite, there is a potential for the formation of radiation ‘hot spots’ when the sand tailings are returned to the mine void. If material containing monazite is deposited in a confined area of rehabilitation and not distributed over a larger area, then an area of increased radiation levels could occur. However, it should be noted that monazite is recovered into product combined with the zircon concentrate and therefore if anything lower radiation of the project area is a planned outcome. Despite the plan monitoring will take place and if any ‘hot spots’ are detected, the relevant area will be re-worked (URS 2006d) Within Appendix 3 of the EPA 2005 original proposal assessment the appendix noted “there are no major off-site risks that are associated with the mine site, with the exception of transport.” (EPA 2005) The EPA in 2005 did not consider the public health and safety to be a relevant factor of their assessment, noting “Objectives of the Radiation Management Plan to meet requirements of the Radiological Council” and “Further consultation and approvals from the State Mining Engineer and the Radiological Council on return of waste material to mine void is required”. In accordance with the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995, a “Radiation Safety Officer with relevant qualifications and experience will be employed to monitor and manage all aspects of naturally occurring radiation for the Project. A Mine Manager will also be employed, and responsibility for radiation management will lie with these two (statutory) roles” (URS 2006d). A Radiation Management Plan (RMP) must be submitted to the Department of Mines, Industry Resources and Safety prior to operations commencing. The RMP is currently being prepared.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 88

7.0 Environmental Risk Assessment 7.1 Methodology An environmental risk assessment has been conducted for the proposed construction and operation of the Coburn Zircon Project. The Project is required to be designed, constructed, operated, closed and rehabilitated in a manner so as to manage all potential risks, in order that they are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). DMIRS has specified four environmental factors in the Environmental Objectives Policy for Mining (2020) which are relevant to all phases of the life of the mine and are outlined below (Table 26). Any potential risk pathways which may impact these environmental factors has been identified, including those which may arise from unexpected or emergency conditions. Table 26 Objectives for environmental factors

Factor Objective Biodiversity To maintain representation, diversity, viability and ecological function at the species, population and community level. Water Resources To maintain the hydrological regimes, quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water to the extent that existing and potential uses, including ecosystem maintenance, are protected. Land and Soils To maintain the quality of land and soils so that environmental values are protected. Rehabilitation and Mining activities are rehabilitated and closed in a manner to make them Mine Closure physically safe to humans and animals, geo-technically stable, geo- chemically non-polluting/noncontaminating, and capable of sustaining an agreed post-mining land use, and without unacceptable liability to the State. Each identified environmental risk associated with the Project has had a risk ranking applied, based on likelihood and consequence, with these risks and their management strategies outlined below. 7.2 Risk Identification Baseline data (Section 6.0) was used to inform the identification of potential risks that may occur as a result of the construction, operation and closure of the Project. The plausible risk pathways and their potential impacts on environmental values are detailed in Sections 7.4 and 8.0. The key risks (those with an inherent risk rating of moderate or above) identified during the risk assessment are listed in Table 27. Rehabilitation and closure key risks are described in detail in the Project MCP. Table 27 Key Risks

Potential Risk Impact Biodiversity Impacts on groundwater systems and mounding Vegetation Clearing of Threatened or Priority species and/or Community, vegetation and fauna habitat communities or habitat Impacts on Shark Bay World Heritage Property Conservation area

Water Resources Seepage contamination of soil, surface water Nearby groundwater dependent vegetation and groundwater - possible brackish plume Impacts on groundwater systems and mounding Nearby groundwater dependent vegetation

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 89

Potential Risk Impact

Land and Soils Erosion of landform as a result of dispersive Vegetation, landforms soils, wind and/or high intensity rainfall events. Lack of adequate topsoil Rehabilitated areas Potential to expose radioactive materials Community

Compaction Revegetation Potential contamination from spills & leaks Potential soil & groundwater contamination occurring during operations

Rehabilitation and Mine Closure Mine pits - safety Community

Failure of rehabilitation, insufficient topsoil Revegetation and loss of fauna habitat Weeds lead to inability to meet revegetation Revegetation criteria Inadequate closure material Vegetation Portable plant causes site compaction Revegetation

7.3 Identification of risks regulated by other agencies

7.4 Risk Analysis Potential risk pathways for the Coburn Zircon Project have been identified, with the consequence and likelihood of each risk assessed. Strandline Resources utilise the mitigation hierarchy in order to manage identified risks: • Avoid – avoid impacts where possible • Minimise – if impacts cannot be avoided, minimise and manage appropriately • Rectify – repair, rehabilitate and restore affected areas as soon as possible after disturbance • Reduce – reduce affected area by preservation and maintenance throughout life of mine • Offset – where negative impacts still occur, develop an offset package to achieve a net environmental benefit. In undertaking the risk analysis component of the overall assessment, the approach focussed on quantifying the risk using a combination of its likelihood (Table 28) and consequences (Table 29 ) to determine the risk rating (Table 30). The likelihood and consequences are rated for both the inherent risks (i.e. before the application of risk mitigation measures) and residual risks (i.e. after consideration of the change in likelihood and/or consequence that the risk mitigation measures). The definitions used to determine the likelihood of an event occurring are provided in Table 28. These range from Almost Certain to Remote.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 90

Table 28 Likelihood Definitions

LIKELIHOOD DEFINITIONS Rating Qualitative Descriptor Frequency 1 The event is not expected At least once in 100 years Remote 2 The event may occur only in exceptional At least once in 50 years circumstances Rare 3 The event could occur at some time At least once in 25 years Unlikely 4 The event should occur at some time At least once in 10 years Possible 5 The event will probably occur in most At least once in 2 years circumstances Likely 6 The event is expected to occur in most At least once per year circumstances Almost Certain

Table 29 Consequence Definitions

Impact on Rehabilitation and Biodiversity Water Resources Land and soils Objectives mine closure Nil or little Alteration or Negligible change Clean-up by site Site is safe, stable a impact on disturbance to an to hydrological personnel, rectified non-polluting. objectives isolated area with no processes, water immediately. Post mining land (insignificant) effect on habitat or availability or water Confined to use is not adversely -1 ecosystem. quality. immediate area affected. Loss of an individual around source. plant / animal of conservation significance Minor impact Alteration or Short-term Clean-up by Site is safe, all major on objectives disturbance to modification of site personnel, landforms are (Minor) -2 <10% of a habitat or hydrological remediation within stable, and any processes, water stability or pollution ecosystem resulting 1 year. Confined to issues in a recoverable availability and quality operational area. impact within 2 within project tenure, are contained and years. but no change in require no residual Loss of multiple beneficial use. management. plants / animals Post mining land of conservation use is not adversely significance. affected. Moderate Alteration or Medium-term Clean-up by Site is safe, and any impact on disturbance to 10- modification site personnel, stability or pollution objectives 40% of a habitat or of hydrological remediation within 1- issues require minor, (Moderate) - ecosystem resulting processes, water 3 years. ongoing 3 maintenance by end in a recoverable availability and water Minor impact outside land-user. impact within 2-5 quality within project disturbance years. Loss of <50% envelope or minor Post mining land use known cannot proceed

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 91

Impact on Rehabilitation and Biodiversity Water Resources Land and soils Objectives mine closure local population of tenure, but no change impact to soil without some plant / animal of in beneficial use. stockpiles. management. conservation Short-term significance. modification of hydrological processes, water availability and water quality outside project tenure, but no change in beneficial use. Inability to Alteration or Long-term Clean-up requiring Site cannot be meet some disturbance to 40- modification of external specialist, considered safe, objectives 70% of a habitat or hydrological remediation within stable or non- (Major) - 4 ecosystem resulting processes, water 3-10 years. polluting in a recoverable availability and water Impact has without long-term impact within 5-15 quality within project migrated outside the management or years. tenure, but no change disturbance intervention. in beneficial use. Loss of >50% known envelope or Post mining land Medium-term contamination of local population of use cannot proceed modification of plant / animal soil stockpiles. without ongoing hydrological species with management possible loss of processes, water entire local availability and water population. quality outside project tenure, with change in beneficial use. Inability to Alteration or Long-term or Clean-up requiring Site is unsafe, meet most, or disturbance to permanent external specialist. unstable and/or all objectives >70% of a habitat or modification of Remediation >10 causing pollution or (Severe) - 5 ecosystem resulting hydrological years, or permanent contamination that in a recoverable processes, water residual impact. will cause an impact >15 years. availability or water Impact outside the ongoing Local loss of quality outside project tenement boundary. residual affect. conservation tenure, with impacts to Post mining land use significant or listed a water-dependent cannot be achieved. species. Extinction environmental value of a species. and/or change in beneficial use.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 92

Once a consequence and likelihood have been determined for a hazard, the Risk Rating Matrix as illustrated in Table 30 below calculates a risk rating for the hazard being assessed. Table 30 Risk Rating Matrix

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 93

Table 31 Risk analysis for the Coburn Zircon Project

INHERENT RISK RESIDUAL RISK Components of Overall Overall Potential Risk Likelihood Likelihood Residual Residual Risk Domain Environment Consequence Risk Risk Rank Controls Consequence Issue Risk Rank Affected Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative

Poor revegetation Trials to commence early in mine Revegetation, outcomes due to life to facilitate successful Acid drainage, 2-Minor 2-Rare Low 4 1-Insignificant 1-Remote Low 1 saline soils from progressive rehabilitation Groundwater processing Erosion of landform Concave slopes, sandy soils, soil as a result of characterisation, progressive dispersive soils, rehabilitation, designing & Off path storage Vegetation 3-Moderate 4-Possible Medium 12 1-Insignificant 4-Possible Low 4 facility for tails wind and/or high implementing drainage systems intensity rainfall events. Clearing of Site inspections, baseline Threatened or documentation, physical Priority species Community 3-Moderate 4-Possible Medium 12 demarcating threatened species, 2-Minor 3-Unlikely Low 6 and/or communities no clearing unless approved or habitat Seepage Water extracted prior to contamination of Nearby deposition using sand soil, surface water groundwater densification (dewatering), 2-Minor 4-Possible Medium 8 2-Minor 3-Unlikely Low 6 and groundwater - dependent additional recovery at the beaches possible brackish vegetation and in pit using trenches and plume sumps Management process to manage Potential to expose radioactive materials. Radioactive radioactive Community 3-Moderate 2-Rare Low 6 2-Minor 2-Rare Low 4 minerals (monazite) removed as materials Tails Storage part of the processing Facility (mine void High infiltration rate sandy soil, deposition) soil characterisation, progressive rehabilitation, designing & Erosion of landform Vegetation 3-Moderate 4-Possible Medium 12 1-Insignificant 4-Possible Low 4 implementing drainage systems

The need for future actions would be identified on the basis of Dust deposition to Vegetation 1-Insignificant 4-Possible Low 4 monitoring results, progressive 1-Insignificant 4-Possible Low 4 environment rehabilitation minimising exposed sand Possible localised Monitoring and containment Water/slurry soil contamination Vegetation, ponds, dams, resulting from 1-Insignificant 3-Unlikely Low 3 2-Minor 2-Rare Low 4 groundwater turkey's nest leakage during operations. Progressive backfilling of pits so pits are not left open for a long Safety Community 5-Major 2-Rare Medium 10 5-Major 1-Remote Low 5 period of time, appropriate geotechnical pit wall design Soil management describes the Mine Pits removal of vegetation and 10cm Inadequate closure of topsoil and then 90cm of Vegetation 2-Minor 4-Possible Medium 8 2-Minor 2-Rare Low 4 material subsoil. These are stockpiled and returned to areas require final rehabilitation.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 94

Failure of Manage as progressive rehabilitation, Revegetation 3-Moderate 4-Possible Medium 12 rehabilitation plan. Compare with 2-Minor 3-Unlikely Low 6 insufficient topsoil reference sites. Seed collection Impacts on Monitoring and manage as per groundwater GW licence Vegetation 3-Moderate 3-Unlikely Medium 9 2-Minor 3-Unlikely Low 6 systems and mounding Impacts on Shark Monitoring and manage as per Conservation Bay World Heritage 4-Significant 2-Rare Low 6 GW licence 1-Insignificant 2-Rare Low 2 area Property Potential Treat contaminated soils prior to contamination from Potential soil & disposal. Effective containment, Wet concentrator spills & leaks groundwater 2-Minor 3-Unlikely Low 6 self-bunding or bunding and 1-Insignificant 2-Rare Low 2 plant, mineral occurring during contamination effective drainage, collection and separation plant operations separation system diesel storage, Manage as progressive power plant, Failure of rehabilitation plan. Compare with stores, rehabilitation, Revegetation 2-Minor 4-Possible Medium 8 reference sites. Seed collection 2-Minor 4-Possible Medium 8 workshops, insufficient topsoil village, Solar farm, Landfill and Portable plant Deep rip compacted areas. Sprayfield causes site Revegetation 2-Minor 5-Likely Medium 10 Reprofile. 1-Insignificant 1-Remote Low 1 compaction Deep rip compacted areas and Compaction Revegetation 2-Minor 5-Likely Medium 10 reprofile. 1-Insignificant 1-Remote Low 1

Interruption to No major drainage lines regional drainage Revegetation 1-Insignificant 3-Unlikely Low 3 1-Insignificant 2-Rare Low 2 Services corridor, lines and / or haul road erosion Manage as progressive rehabilitation plan. Compare with Failure of Revegetation 2-Minor 4-Possible Medium 8 reference sites. Seed collection 2-Minor 4-Possible Medium 8 rehabilitation

Use previously stockpiled topsoil Lack of adequate Rehabilitated and subsoil as per Rehabilitation 3-Moderate 3-Unlikely Medium 9 3-Moderate 2-Rare Low 6 topsoil areas management plan and soil management plan Lease Set agreement with final General, roads Post land use 2-Minor 2-Rare Low 4 1-Insignificant 2-Rare Low 2 relinquishment landowner Undertake weed management as Weeds lead to per weed management plan inability to meet 3-Moderate 5-Likely High 15 2-Minor 3-Unlikely Low 6 revegetation criteria Revegetation

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 95

Based on the risk table the risks with a moderate or greater Inherent risk are outlined in Table 32. Table 32 Risk Assessment Summary Inherent Residual Control Risk Pathway Control Measures Risk Risk Documents Erosion of landform as a Concave slopes, sandy Progressive result of dispersive soils, soils, soil Rehabilitation wind and/or high intensity characterisation, Programme Medium Low rainfall events. progressive rehabilitation, designing & implementing drainage systems Clearing of Threatened or Site inspections, no Declared Rare Flora Priority species and/or Medium clearing unless approved Low Management Plan communities or habitat Seepage contamination of Water extracted prior to Groundwater soil, surface water and deposition Operating Strategy Medium Low groundwater - possible brackish plume Potential to expose Management process to Radiation radioactive materials Low manage radioactive Low Management Plan materials Erosion of landform High infiltration rate Progressive sandy soil, soil Rehabilitation characterisation, Programme Medium Low progressive rehabilitation, designing & implementing drainage systems Mine pit safety – fall risk Progressive backfilling of Mine Closure Plan pits, appropriate pit wall Medium Low angles, short term open voids Inadequate closure Soil Management Plan Soil Management Medium Low material Plan Failure of rehabilitation, Manage as progressive Soil Management insufficient topsoil rehabilitation plan. Plan Medium Low Compare with reference sites. Seed collection. Impacts on groundwater Monitoring and manage Groundwater systems and mounding as per GW licence Mounding Medium Low Management Plan Drawdown Impact Management Plan Impacts on Shark Bay Monitoring and manage Drawdown Impact Medium Low World Heritage Property as per GW licence Management Plan Potential contamination Treat contaminated soils Hydrocarbon from spills & leaks prior to disposal Management Plan Low Low occurring during

operations Portable plant causes site Deep rip compacted Progressive compaction Medium areas. Reprofile. Low Rehabilitation Programme Lack of adequate topsoil Uncertainty - need Soil Management and failure of Medium Topsoil Management Medium Plan rehabilitation Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 96

Inherent Residual Control Risk Pathway Control Measures Risk Risk Documents Weeds lead to inability to Undertake weed Weed Management meet revegetation criteria High management as per Low Plan weed management plan

7.5 Risk Evaluation The inherent risk and the residual risk have also been assessed against DMIRS’ environmental factors to determine if they are acceptable. 7.5.1 Biodiversity The DMIRS objective for this factor is “to maintain representation, diversity, viability and ecological function at the species, population and community level”. Identified biodiversity risks for the Project are: • Construction and operational activities (incl. ground disturbance) resulting in introduction of new weeds and spread of existing weeds into new areas • Ground disturbance impacting on groundwater systems and mounding, resulting in impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems • Ground disturbance, spillage, dust or noise impacts upon surrounding vegetation and habitat, particularly within the Shark Bay World Heritage Property • Clearing of Threatened or Priority species and/or communities or habitat. Direct impacts from the Project will be from clearing of native vegetation within the Project Disturbance Envelope. Direct disturbance of native vegetation will be adjacent to, and incidental with existing disturbed areas wherever possible. The proposed area for clearing of native vegetation does not represent conservation significant fauna habitat or contain communities that are threatened or protected. In relation to the Coburn Zircon Project, the following characteristics mean that the overall inherent risk to the DMIRS objective would be high. This is based on the following characteristics: • The Shark Bay World Heritage Area is adjacent to the Project Disturbance Envelope • The Flora surveys detected 12 Priority flora species and one threatened within the current approved disturbance footprint • The vegetation communities are considered regionally significant. However, the impact of the mining operation will not significantly detrimentally impact the communities due to their wide representation across the adjacent Shark Bay World Heritage Area and surrounding pastoral areas • Nine conservation significant vertebrate fauna species are likely to or may occur within the study area • Two conservation significant fauna species have been identified within or adjacent to the current approved disturbance footprint, the Hamelin Skink and the Malleefowl. The above suggests that the consequences of the Project being implemented without any risk measures would be moderate. The proposed clearing of vegetation will result in the loss of some individuals from the local area; however, the impact will not be great enough to remove whole communities or populations. Individuals of the Threatened species, Eucalyptus beardiana, are required under the Declared Rare Flora Management Plan for the Project (URS 2007b) to have a buffer of a minimum 40m around each plant to keep the project activities at a distance. The majority of the species and communities recorded are widespread throughout the surrounding region and adjoining regions, and therefore the loss of a small proportion from this area will not be significant.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 97

The application of the following risk management measures will ensure that approvals are in place and activities are compliant with limits to native vegetation clearing: • Undertaking ground disturbance works in accordance with Strandline Resource’s Vegetation Clearing Procedure • Implement the Declared Rare Flora Management Plan (2007a), Fauna Management Plan and the Hamelin Skink Threatened Fauna Management Plan • Any disturbance/clearing be minimised as much as practicable to reduce the loss of individuals and impact on populations • Weed control measures should be implemented/followed during and post construction activities • Driving restrictions, ensuring that off-road driving is minimised • All staff to be educated on the importance of fire prevention, and equipment provided for use in the event of fire • Annual reporting to Mine Rehabilitation Fund (MRF) and Annual Environmental Report (AER) • Where practicable the project will avoid clearing vegetation • Prior to undertaking any clearing authorised the area to be cleared shall be inspected by an environmental specialist who shall identify occupied Leipoa ocellata (Malleefowl) mounds. Indirect disturbance to native vegetation could also be caused by the uncontrolled release of chemicals/ brackish water/ tailings/ process water, dust which could smother plants, the introduction of new weed species, and by runoff events spreading sediment downslope from any Project activities. These unplanned events and their associated risks will be managed at an acceptable level due to the implementation of identified mitigation and monitoring measures which have been outlined in the Risk Register (Appendix K) and in Section 7.6. The overall residual risk to this factor therefore has a consequence of Minor, a likelihood of Unlikely and a risk rating of Low. 7.5.2 Water Resources The DMIRS objective for this factor is “to maintain the hydrological regimes, quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water to the extent that existing and potential uses, including ecosystem maintenance, are protected”. Water for the Project will be sourced under licence (RIWI Act). Licences to construct or alter a well (CAW203575(1)) and a licence to take water (GWL159157(6)) have been obtained for the Project. The Project is currently licensed to abstract 600,000kL/yr for construction. An amendment will be sought from DWER to increase this to 18GL/yr once mining and processing commences. Copies of these licences are provided in Appendix E. The Project groundwater source is brackish. Neighbouring pastoral and private groundwater users are predicted to be impacted by the Project if the full 18GL per annum abstraction rate is continually drawn upon, with varying drawdown impacts ranging from <0.5 m in distant bores to 8.9 m in proximal sites. A network of monitoring bores will be constructed to monitor regional drawdown. Remediation measures are proposed to address these potential impacts. No other sensitive features such as GDEs are noted within the Mining Lease. Potential impacts will be managed in accordance with the LTW conditions, GOS and DIMP. Surface water flows are episodic, with no surface water features intersected by proposed disturbance. Without risk management measures, the above risk pathways are considered to represent a consequence of Moderate and a likelihood of Unlikely, giving an inherent risk rating of Moderate. Risk measures applicable to groundwater are: • Compliance with groundwater abstraction licence conditions, including monitoring and reporting • Commissioning and pumping of the interception bores (trenches and drainage system) around the TSFs (backfilled voids) when required

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 98

• Manage the Landfill in accordance with the Project Landfill procedure, positioned more than 9m above the groundwater table and stormwater will be directed away. The Groundwater quality and levels will be monitored regularly, to ensure seepage and mounding from TSF loading is not impacting the SMWHP in accordance with the GMMP. Risk management measures applicable to surface water are: • Progressive rehabilitation and clearing of vegetation • Hydrocarbon bunding facilities • Cleaning and maintenance of stormwater drains on an annual basis • Retention of sediment in stormwater dam until sediment loads have stabilised • Groundwater monitoring • TSF operating manual and the TSF Design which are components of the progressive rehabilitation program • Daily inspections. The residual risk to the objective for this factor is assessed to have a consequence of Minor, a likelihood of Unlikely and a risk rating of Low. 7.5.3 Land and Soils The DMIRS objective for this factor is “to maintain the quality of land and soils so that environmental values are protected”. Land and soil degradation risks identified for the Coburn Zircon area: • Inappropriate management of liquid and solid waste disposal • TSF Seepage/mounding • Processing water dam overflow or failure • Failure of processing plant/pipes/pumps • Chemical spills and leaks • General erosion and sedimentation from operational or rehabilitation area • Project activities trigger a site fire • Hydrocarbon spills/leaks • TSF overflow (only applicable for the initial off path storage facility) • Bunding failure. Without risk management measures, the above risk pathways are considered to represent an overall consequence of Moderate and a likelihood of Possible, giving an inherent risk rating of Major. Risk management measures relating to water erosion are outlined in Section 9. Additional risk management measures proposed for this factor are: • All hydrocarbons are to be retained in self‐bunded or double skinned tanks • Disturbance areas will be progressively rehabilitated • Management Plans and Procedures • TSF Monitoring/interception trenches and bores will be commissioned and pumped at an appropriate rate • Annual vegetation monitoring downstream of the TSF’s • TSF design and operating manuals • Diversion drains, bunds and stormwater dam will be constructed to control runoff

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 99

• Water will be applied to cleared and traffic areas to control dust • Vehicle fleet will be managed to ensure fuel efficiency and noise controls are maintained. The residual risk to this factor has a consequence of Minor, a likelihood of Possible and a risk rating of Low. 7.5.4 Rehabilitation and Mine Closure The DMIRS objective for this factor is that “mining activities are rehabilitated and closed in a manner to make them physically safe to humans and animals, geo-technically stable, geo-chemically non- polluting/noncontaminating, and capable of sustaining an agreed post-mining land use, and without unacceptable liability to the State”. A Mine Closure Plan (MCP) has been prepared by Strandline Resources for the Coburn Zircon Project (Appendix L) in order to address the Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMIRS, 2020). The MCP provides details relevant to the mine closure including background information, stakeholder consultation, post-mining land use, closure objectives and completion criteria, identification and management of closure issues, and closure implementation. These details help to ensure that all areas disturbed as part of the Project are made physically and environmentally safe, as well as ensuring that they are able to be utilised post-mining. Relevant risks identified for mine closure include: • Potential for saline waste material, which will require management to ensure that they do not inhibit plant growth in revegetation areas • Lack of rehabilitation materials • Mined pits not left in safe condition • Failure of rehabilitation • TSF seepage contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater – possible brackish plume • Design. Without risk management measures, the above risk pathways are considered to be Possible to occur, with consequences that would be Moderate, giving an overall risk rating of Major. Appropriate risk management strategies which have been identified include suitable landform design and progressive rehabilitation to ensure stability and suppression of dust/erosion. In summary, the following risk management measures are identified: • Waste Characterisation (physical, chemical) • Landform design (drainage, slope angle, height) • Progressive rehabilitation • Clearing Vegetation Procedure • Experienced operators • Rehabilitation earthwork supervision • Drainage control • Topsoil and Wood mulch recovery, management and application • Effective seed collection prior to clearing • Reputable seed supplier with an appropriate native seed mix. It is anticipated that the final land use of the Project area will be pastoral and consistent with pastoral activities in nearby active pastoral lease areas. All areas disturbed by mining will be rehabilitated to a condition considered suitable for pastoral use and compatible with identified analogue sites within the current Coburn pastoral lease. The residual likelihoods of the above risk pathways are ‘Unlikely’, giving a risk rating of Medium.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 100

7.6 Risk Treatment 7.6.1 Environmental standards, codes and guidance Environmental standards, codes and legislative guidance which are relevant to the Coburn Zircon Project are outlined below. The legislative requirements under which the Project currently operate include: • Environmental Protection Act 1986: Ministerial Statement 723 (Part IV), Licenced Premises W6258/2019/1 and W6361/2020/1 (Part V) • Mining Act 1978: Mining Proposals, Closure Plans and Tenement Conditions • Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RIWI Act): Groundwater Abstraction Licence (GWL159157(6)). 7.6.1.1 Commonwealth Legislation Commonwealth legislation that may be relevant to the closure of the Project includes, but is not necessarily limited to: • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. • Native Title Act 1993. 7.6.1.2 Western Australian Legislation The State legislation that may be applicable to the Project closure activities is listed below: • Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 • Bush Fires Act 1954. • Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. • Contaminated Sites Act 2003. • Contaminated Sites Regulations 2006. • Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004. • Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007. • Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). • Environmental Protection Regulations 1987. • Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004. • Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. • Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004. • Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002. • Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 2004. • Health Act 1911. • Land Administration Act 1997. • Land Drainage Act 1925. • Litter Act 1979. • Local Government Act 1995. • Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994. • Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995. • Mining Act 1978.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 101

• Mining Regulations 1981. • Plant Diseases Act 1914. • Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. • Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. 7.6.2 As low as reasonably Practicable (ALARP) The Project is required to be designed, constructed, operated, closed and rehabilitated in a manner so as to manage all potential risks, in order that they are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). ALARP is defined as any measure which is practicable and the implementation cost (money, time, effort) is not grossly disproportionate to the benefit, the measure is considered “reasonably practicable” and implementation is expected. The criterion is not “reasonably affordable”; justifiable cost, time and effort is not determined by the financial constraints or viability of the project. Coburn Zircon Project has determined that all residual risks meet the principle of ALARP, with the residual risk demonstrated to meet all relevant DMIRS environmental objectives in Section 7.6. Further details regarding risk treatments, which address key residual risks, are outlined below. 7.6.2.1 Weed Management Based on previous records, database searches and site surveys specifically for weed identification and distribution studies, there are weed species evident in disturbed areas that require control to ensure that they do not interfere with site rehabilitation or spread into surrounding native vegetation. In addition, there is a risk of introducing new weed species to the site if hygiene practices are not adopted to ensure clean ground engaging equipment is used for ground disturbing works. The EMS includes a vehicle hygiene standard along with a weed mapping and control procedure. The measures to be implemented are included in the EMS and are consistent with the existing commitments for the Coburn Zircon Project. 7.6.2.2 Native Vegetation Native vegetation clearing will be minimised wherever possible, with planned ground disturbance work occurring in accordance with Strandline Resource’s Vegetation Clearing Procedure and within the MS 723 approved disturbance footprint. The Priority Flora, Flora and Vegetation Management Plan will also assist The implementation of the Declared Rare Flora Management Plan (2007a) will ensure that individuals of the Threatened species, Eucalyptus beardiana, are protected. Weed management will also be implemented during and post construction activities in order to minimise the establishment and spread of introduced plant species. 7.6.2.3 Topsoil Management Topsoil removed during project activities will be stored and utilised throughout the operation of the Project. A Soil Management Plan will be implemented as a part of a Progressive Rehabilitation Programme, which will occur continuously throughout the lifecycle of the project as each stage advances. 7.6.2.4 Bushfire Fire triggered by project activities has the potential to burn native vegetation and spread to surrounding pastural stations or the SBWHP where it could threaten life and property. For this reason, it has been identified as having a high raw risk. The EMS provides for a fire management standard that outlines the on-site requirements to minimise the risk of fire being caused by project activities. A Bushfire Management Plan has also been developed to address this risk. The plan aims to manage site operations in a way that prevents fires and protects life, property and the natural and cultural values of the area. Due to the low population densities adjacent to the project area, management strategies are centred on residential operational staff, surrounding landholders and associated infrastructure. The plan has been drafted to be consistent the Midwest Gascoyne District Wildfire Response Plan, State Government fire management policy and Shire of Shark Bay by-laws and requirements. The plan includes management actions, monitoring and contingencies (Appendix J).

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 102

7.6.2.5 Mine Closure A detailed Mine Closure Plan (MCP) is attached as Appendix L, with a summary provided in Section 10.0. The MCP addresses the planned closure and rehabilitation of the Project, including all disturbed areas, plant and other built infrastructure that will be constructed. It also addresses contingencies for temporary suspension of operations and unplanned closure. The purpose of the MCP is to demonstrate that progressive rehabilitation and ongoing mine closure planning will be undertaken to ensure there is an effective process in place to enable the Project to be decommissioned, closed and rehabilitated in an environmentally acceptable manner consistent with post-mining outcomes and land uses, and without unacceptable liability to the State. The MCP will be a living document, regularly updated through the life of the Project and post-closure to ensure changes in areas such as the regulatory environment, stakeholder expectations and developments in technical closure planning are captured and incorporated into decision-making until the ultimate relinquishment of the Project tenements is accomplished.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 103

8.0 Environmental Outcomes, Performance Criteria and Monitoring

8.1 Environmental Outcomes Environmental outcomes have been set for the Coburn Sand project based on the risks identified in the risk assessment process. These are defined as an acceptable level of impact which must not be exceeded, or a desired outcome which must be achieved in order for the Project to be considered compliant (DMIRS, 2020). As such, the outcomes are consistent with DMIRS’ environmental objectives and are realistic and site specific. 8.2 Outcomes regulated by another agency The Groundwater Management is under the jurisdiction of the DWER and Environmental Impacts are regulated by DWER EPA Services for compliance. The landfill and waste treatment part are regulated under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. These obligations are set out in Section 4.0. 8.3 Environmental performance criteria Environmental performance criteria have been developed by Strandline Resources specifically for the Coburn Zircon Project. These criteria follow the SMART principle; specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time limited (Table 33). Table 33 Coburn Stands environmental performance criteria.

Risk Pathways Performance Criteria Environmental Outcome Monitoring Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems

Impacts on Shark Bay Impacts due to the project All site activities are - Monthly environmental World Heritage will not occur beyond the undertaken within approved inspections Property project area. project disturbance - Annual flora monitoring boundaries. Outside of the

100m buffer zone at the

Shark Bay World Heritage Property boundary to the project

Clearing of - No clearing to occur - No reduction in local - Conduct pre-clearance Threatened or Priority outside the project populations of threatened surveys for threatened flora species and/or disturbance footprint. and priority species and priority flora. communities or - No exceedances of - Compliance with MS 723 - Monthly environmental habitat clearing of priority flora. inspections - Annual flora monitoring - Incident reports

Clearing of - No clearing to occur - No reduction in local - Conduct pre-clearance Threatened or Priority outside the project populations of threatened surveys for Hamelin fauna species and/or disturbance footprint. and priority species Skink and Malleefowl communities or mounds - No exceedances of - Compliance with MS 723 habitat clearing of fauna habitat. - Monthly environmental inspections - Incident reports

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 104

Risk Pathways Performance Criteria Environmental Outcome Monitoring

Introduction or spread - No new Declared Plant - No increases to weed - Vehicle and equipment of weeds species under Section 22 species diversity, hygiene of the Biosecurity and extent and abundance due to inspection logs. Agriculture Management project - Annual site wide weed Act 2007 become activities. established within project inspections. related disturbed areas. - Extent of weeds within - Monthly environmental Development - No increases to weed audit species diversity, extent Envelope does not increase inspections. as a result and abundance due to - Incident reports. project activities of project activities.

Impacts on groundwater systems and mounding

Groundwater - Comply with requirements All licence requirements met. - Annual compliance mounding and performance indicators Mounding does not spread report containing relevant within the Groundwater beyond project boundaries monitoring data Mounding Management

Plan. - Groundwater Mounding - Comply with all licence Management Plan water monitoring requirements.

Groundwater quality – - No contamination of Contamination from - Monthly environmental seepage groundwater as a result of hydrocarbons is minimised inspections. contamination tailings seepage. and actively remediated if - Incident reports. - Groundwater quality occurs consistent with background water quality in monitoring bores. - Groundwater levels consistent with background levels in TSF monitoring bores. - Groundwater quality and levels within DWER licence limits in monitoring bores.

Potential Treat contaminated soils Contamination from - Monthly environmental contamination from prior to disposal hydrocarbons is minimised inspections. spills & leaks and actively remediated if - Incident reports occurring during occurs operations

Landforms and soils

Erosion of landform All constructed landforms - There is no significant - Soil Management Plan as a result of and disturbed areas are erosion occurring on - Annual compliance dispersive soils, wind stable, and any erosion is rehabilitated areas. report containing relevant and/or high intensity comparable to that - Erosion from rehabilitated monitoring data rainfall events. naturally occurring in the surfaces is comparable to area analogue sites and will not adversely affect the stability of the landform

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 105

Risk Pathways Performance Criteria Environmental Outcome Monitoring

Potential to expose No radioactive materials - Radioactive materials - Radiation Management radioactive materials exposed without correct managed as per Radiation Plan management Management Plan

Portable plant causes No compaction remaining - Plant sites will be - Annual compliance site compaction after plant moved to new progressively rehabilitated - report containing relevant site Ripping of compacted areas monitoring data on progressive rehabilitation

Rehabilitation and Mine Closure

Mine pit safety – fall - Progressive backfilling of Restrict access to site - Annual compliance risk pits report - Install gates/signage at - Incident reports access points

Inadequate closure Rehabilitation on alternate Rehabilitated areas are - Monitoring as per material/topsoil growth medium sufficient revegetated to a self- Progressive sustaining condition Rehabilitation Plan - Compliance with closure completion criteria

Failure of Manage as progressive Rehabilitated areas are - Monitoring as per rehabilitation, rehabilitation plan. revegetated to a self- Progressive insufficient topsoil Compare with reference sustaining condition, capable Rehabilitation Plan sites. Seed collection. of withstanding the - Compliance with anticipated grazing pressure closure completion and the agreed closure criteria criteria are met.

Weeds lead to Initial weed species Weed species become - Monitoring as per inability to meet provide some protection scarcer with time and as Progressive revegetation criteria from erosion and do not native species become more Rehabilitation Plan impede re-establishment of dominant. - Compliance with native vegetation. Achieve Achieve performance closure completion performance indicators as indicators as per Year 5 criteria per Year 1 targets set in targets set in Table 5.2 of Table 5.2 of Progressive Progressive Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Programme. Programme.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 106

8.4 Reporting Existing regulatory approvals have stipulated reporting required for each government agency. These include the following: • DMIRS reporting requirements include: - An Annual Environmental Report (AER). - Accident and incident reporting. • DAWE reporting requirements include: - National Pollution Inventory Report. - National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting. • DWER reporting requirements include: - An Annual Audit Compliance Report and AER. - Annual Compliance Assessment Report (CAR). - Report of known or suspected contaminated sites.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 107

9.0 Environmental Management System Strandline Resources has developed an EMS in order to appropriately manage potential environmental impacts relevant to the Coburn Zircon Project. This EMS is based on current best practice standards and is aligned with the ISO14001 standard for environmental management systems. It enables Strandline Resources to identify, prioritise and manage the relevant environmental risks.

The EMS includes information on: • the history of past development related to the domain • information and resources available that relate to closure of the domain • information relating to potential land use planning • other information including: • spatial data • design and construction information • operational reports • details of any changes to operational strategies that may affect closure outcomes (e.g. spills and environmental incidents) • monitoring information.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 108

10.0 Mine Closure Plan A Mine Closure Plan (MCP) has been developed by Strandline Resources for the Coburn Zircon Project in accordance with the Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMIRS, 2020). The complete MCP is attached in Appendix L. The MCP addresses the planned closure and rehabilitation of the Project, including all disturbed areas, plant and other built infrastructure that will be constructed. It also addresses contingencies for temporary suspension of operations and unplanned closure. Strandline has addressed the Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMIRS, 2020) (the Guidelines) in preparing the MCP. In complying with this requirement, the MCP details relevant background information, stakeholder consultation, post-mining land use, closure objectives and completion criteria, identification and management of closure issues, and closure implementation. In-line with the adaptive management approach recommended by the Department of Mines and Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS), the MCP will be a living document, regularly updated through the life of the Project and post-closure to ensure changes in areas such as the regulatory environment, stakeholder expectations and developments in technical closure planning are captured and incorporated into decision-making until the ultimate relinquishment of the Project tenements is accomplished. The purpose of the Coburn Sand Project MCP is to demonstrate that progressive rehabilitation and ongoing mine closure planning will be undertaken to ensure there is an effective process in place to enable the Project to be decommissioned, closed and rehabilitated in an environmentally acceptable manner consistent with post-mining outcomes and land uses, and without unacceptable liability to the State. This includes ongoing stakeholder consultation, with the MCP updated as necessary. The MCP seeks to identify potential rehabilitation methods appropriate to the Project and determine rehabilitation outcomes for areas disturbed as part of the Project to facilitate agreed closure requirements.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 109

11.0 References AECOM (2020a), Detailed Flora and Vegetation Assessment, Amendments to Coburn Heavy Mineral Sand Project Area, Prepared for Strandline Resources, February 2020 AECOM (2020b), Level 2 Vertebrate Fauna Survey, Coburn Mineral Sands Project, Prepared for Strandline Resources, February 2020 Australian Government. 2013. Australia’s Bioregional Framework, Accessed June 2020. http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/land/national-reserve-system/science-maps-and-data/australias- bioregions-ibra%C2%A0/australias-0. Commonwealth of Australia. Beard, J.S. (1976), Vegetation Survey of Western Australia - Murchison. University of Western Australia. Beard J., S. (1990), Plant Life of Western Australia. Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, NSW. Blandford, D.C. (2004), Soils and Landforms for the Amy Zone Ore Body. Coburn Mineral Sands Project. Prepared for URS Australia Pty Ltd. Burnside, D., Holm, A., Payne, A., & Wilson, G. (1995), Reading the rangeland: a guide to the arid shrublands of Western Australia, Department of Agriculture, South Perth, Western Australia. Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) (1998), Shark Bay World Heritage Property 1998-2008 Draft Strategic Plan. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia. Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) (2020), Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans. Department of Mines, Industry Regulations and Safety, Perth, Western Australia, March 2020. DMIRS (2020), Statutory Guidelines for Mining Proposals. Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, Perth, Western Australia. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2005), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Report and Recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Bulletin 1211, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia EPA (2014), Coburn Mineral Sand project (Ministerial Statement 723)- Application to Change Proposal, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia EPA, (2016), Technical Guidance – Terrestrial flora and vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment. EPA, Western Australia. EPA (2018), Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia Govt. of WA (2019), 2018 Statewide Vegetation Statistics incorporating the CAR Reserve Analysis (Full Report). Current as of December 2018. WA Dept. of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth WA. Johnstone, R.E. and Storr, G.M. (1998), Handbook of Western Australian Birds Volume 1 - Non- passerines (Emu to Dollarbird). Western Australian Museum. Knight Piesold (2018), Coburn HMS Project– Tailings Physical Testing REV 1. Unpublished report prepared for Strandline Resources Limited. Knott, B. and Goater, S. 2005, Coburn mineral Sand Project, Amy Zone Operation, Stygofauna Pilot Survey. Prepared for Gunson resources LTD, M092 Zoology, The University of Western Australia, April 2005. Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2005) Flora and Vegetation in the Proposed Coburn Mineral Sand Mine, Coburn, Hamelin and Meadow Stations, Shark Bay. Prepared for URS Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of Gunson Resources Ltd. October 2005.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand 110

Northcote, K.H. (1971) A Factual Key for the Recognition of Australian Soils. Rellim Technical Publications, Glenside, South Australia. Mory, A. J., Iasky, R. P., & Ghori, K. A. R. (2003), A summary of the geological evolution and petroleum potential of the Southern Carnarvon Basin. Western Australia. Geological Survey of Western Australia. Payne, A. L., G.F. Spencer, P.J. (1987), An inventory and condition survey of rangelands in the Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia. Technical Bulletin 73, 478p. Pringle, H. J., Gilligan, S. A., & van Vreeswyk, A. M. E. (1994), An inventory and condition survey of rangelands in the north-eastern Goldfields, Western Australia. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Technical Bulletin, no. 87. Stephens, C.G. (1961) The Soil Landscapes of Australia. Soil Publication No 18, CSIRO. Melbourne, Australia. URS (2005), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Public Environmental Review. Report prepared for Gunson Resources Limited (July 2005). URS (2006a), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Progressive Rehabilitation Programme, Report prepared for Gunson Resources Limited (December 2006). URS (2006b), Proponent’s Response to Submissions. Public Environmental Review for the Coburn Mineral Sand Project. Prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd for Gunson Resources Ltd. URS (2006c), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Environmental Management Plan, Dust Management Plan. Prepared for Gunson Resources Ltd. November 2006 URS (2006d), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Radiation Management Plan, Report prepared for Gunson Resources Limited (December 2006). URS (2006e), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Bushfire Management Plan, Report prepared for Gunson Resources Limited (November 2006). URS (2007a), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Priority Flora, Flora and Vegetation Management Plan. Prepared for Gunson Resources Ltd. February 2007 URS (2007b), Coburn Mineral Sand Project, Declared Rare Flora Management Plan Eucalyptus beardiana. Prepared for Gunson Resources Ltd. February 2007 URS (2007c), Stygofauna Survey of the Coburn Mineral Sand Project Area. Prepared for Gunson Resources Ltd. February 2007 URS (2012), Final Report, Coburn Zircon Project, Groundwater Mounding Management Plan. Report prepared for Gunson Resources Limited (June 2012). URS (2014), Final Report Threatened Fauna Management Plan Hamelin Skink (Ctenotus zastictus). Report prepared for Gunson Resources Limited (January 2014). Strandline Resources Limited (2010), Coburn Zircon Project Definitive Feasibility Study. April 2010. Wyrwoll K. H., Courtney J & Sandercock P. (2000), The Climatic Environment of the Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia. In: AH Burbidge, MS Harvey & NL McKenzie (eds), Biodiversity of the Southern Carnarvon Basin. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 61.

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix A

Ministerial Statement 723

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix B

Legal Obligations Register

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix C

Soil and Landform Study

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix D

Interim Off Path Tails Management Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix E

Licence to take Water 2 July 2019

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix F

Drawdown Impact Management Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix G

Groundwater Mounding Management Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix H

Progressive Rehabilitation Programme

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix I

Dust Management Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix J

Bushfire Management Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix K

Risk Register

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Appendix L

Mine Closure Plan

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537 AECOM Mining Proposal 3 2020 Coburn Sand

Revision 1 – 22-Jul-2020 Prepared for – Strandline Resources Ltd – ABN: 17 165 036 537