The EPA is seeking public feedback on Chalice Mining's proposed changes to the Gonneville Project.

This consultation focuses on whether the changes could introduce new or different environmental impacts.

We've prepared practical guides to help residents understand the changes and prepare their own submissions.

Submissions close 5 November 2026.

Submit your comments to the EPA

Your submission. Your concerns. Your words.

The submission guides below are intended to help you identify relevant environmental concerns and prepare your own response. They are not intended to be copied word for word.

Similar concerns may be grouped together when submissions are assessed and summarised. Providing your own observations, circumstances and supporting information helps demonstrate the range of potential impacts associated with Chalice Mining's proposed changes.

How to strengthen your submission:

Use your own words and focus on the issues that genuinely concern you.

Explain how the proposed changes could affect your property, neighbourhood, farming activities or local environment.

Identify specific environmental features, including mature trees, threatened wildlife, habitat corridors, seasonal creeks, wetlands or groundwater-dependent vegetation.

Include relevant personal observations, photographs or supporting evidence where available.

Explain what new or different environmental impacts may arise from the proposed changes and why further investigation is necessary.

Every household has a voice.

Individual household members may make their own submissions, including people living at the same address. Each person should express their genuine concerns and experiences.

You do not need to be directly affected by the infrastructure corridor to make a submission. Members of the wider community can raise concerns about the proposed changes and their environmental consequences.

You do not need to address every issue. A focused submission explaining one or two genuine environmental concerns can be valuable.

The aim is to demonstrate the breadth and seriousness of the environmental concerns being raised across our communities.

Guide 1 – Groundwater, Forests and Wildlife

Chalice Mining is proposing to increase groundwater extraction for construction activities.

This raises important questions about potential additional impacts on Julimar Forest, surrounding bushland, seasonal waterways and the plants and animals that depend on natural water systems.

Points to Consider

Could increased groundwater extraction affect surrounding forests and native vegetation?

Could seasonal waterways and aquatic habitats be affected?

Could changes to groundwater availability place additional pressure on wildlife and ecosystems?

Have the environmental implications of increased groundwater extraction been adequately demonstrated?

What Needs Further Investigation?

The key considerations include the proposed groundwater extraction rates and duration, the aquifers involved, the predicted extent of groundwater drawdown, and whether groundwater-dependent vegetation or waterways could be affected.

Site specific hydrogeological investigations and modelling are important to establish whether the additional extraction could introduce new or different environmental impacts compared with the original proposal.

Please personalise your submission with your own concerns and observations.

Guide 2 – Groundwater and Private Bore Users

Chalice Mining is proposing to increase groundwater extraction for construction activities.

This raises concerns for rural households, farmers and landholders who rely on private groundwater supplies.

Points to Consider

Could increased groundwater extraction lower local groundwater levels?

Could private bore supplies or agricultural water availability be affected?

Have the potential additional impacts on surrounding groundwater users been adequately investigated?

Have alternative construction water supplies been sufficiently considered?

What Needs Further Investigation?

The proposed increase in groundwater extraction raises questions about potential impacts on private bores used by rural households, farmers and agricultural businesses.

Important considerations include the location of proposed extraction bores, the aquifers involved, pumping volumes and duration, predicted groundwater drawdown and the proximity of existing private bores.

Groundwater impacts may differ between properties depending on aquifer connections, bore depths and seasonal groundwater levels. These relationships require appropriate hydrogeological investigations and modelling.

Further investigation should establish:

Whether additional extraction could affect the reliability or quality of existing private groundwater supplies.

Whether cumulative groundwater extraction and seasonal variations have been adequately considered.

Whether alternative construction water supplies or different construction sequencing could avoid the need for increased groundwater abstraction.

What baseline monitoring, ongoing monitoring and response measures would be necessary to identify and address potential impacts on existing groundwater users.

The EPA needs to determine whether the proposed increase in groundwater abstraction could introduce new or different environmental impacts compared with the original proposal.

Guide 3 – General Community Submissions

Residents may wish to focus on the proposed changes to the mine development footprint, associated infrastructure and the addition of a solar farm.

Points to Consider

Could the revised mine development layout introduce environmental impacts in different locations?

Does a reduction in native vegetation clearing necessarily mean the overall environmental consequences have been reduced?

Could the new solar farm and associated infrastructure introduce additional environmental impacts?

Have the consequences of the revised development footprint been adequately investigated?

What Needs Further Investigation?

Chalice Mining's proposed changes include a revised mine development footprint, the relocation of some infrastructure and the addition of a solar farm.

Although the amendments are presented as reducing environmental disturbance, a smaller overall development envelope does not necessarily mean environmental impacts have been reduced in every location.

The EPA needs to examine how the revised layout differs from the original proposal, particularly where disturbance could affect areas not previously proposed for development.

Important matters requiring investigation include:

The location and environmental significance of vegetation affected by the revised development footprint.

Whether relocated infrastructure could introduce new impacts on wildlife habitats, ecological connectivity or natural drainage systems.

The potential environmental consequences of constructing and operating the proposed solar farm and its associated infrastructure.

Whether environmental surveys adequately cover areas affected by the revised layout.

Whether the claimed reduction in overall disturbance accurately reflects changes in environmental impacts at individual locations.

A reduction in the development envelope does not, by itself, demonstrate that the revised proposal will have fewer environmental impacts. The location and ecological significance of the disturbance are equally important.

Please personalise your submission with your own concerns and observations.

Guide 4 – Infrastructure Corridor

Chalice Mining proposes to consolidate its water pipeline, power infrastructure and associated access roads into a revised infrastructure corridor.

This raises serious questions about whether the changed alignment could introduce new or different environmental impacts, particularly through Chittering's semi-rural landscape.

Points to Consider

Could the revised corridor introduce additional impacts on native vegetation, wildlife habitats or environmentally sensitive areas?

Could the changed alignment affect waterways, natural drainage systems or ecological connectivity?

Could co-locating the underground powerline and water pipeline require a larger construction disturbance area than the individual trenches suggest, including excavated soil stockpiles, machinery access and cable-jointing areas?

Does removing alternative routes genuinely reduce environmental impacts, or simply reduce the overall development envelope?

Have infrastructure options that avoid Chittering been adequately investigated?

Have environmental considerations been given sufficient weight in selecting the preferred alignment?

What Needs Further Investigation?

Chalice Mining proposes to consolidate its water pipeline, power infrastructure and associated access arrangements into a preferred corridor.

Although the company presents this as reducing the overall infrastructure development envelope, the original proposal contained alternative routes that were not intended to be constructed simultaneously.

Removing unused alternatives does not necessarily demonstrate an equivalent reduction in actual environmental disturbance.

Concentrating infrastructure along the selected alignment raises important questions about the combined environmental consequences of construction, excavation, vegetation clearing and ongoing maintenance access.

The full construction footprint must also account for underground cable and pipeline trenches, separate topsoil and subsoil stockpiles, heavy machinery, access tracks and cable-jointing areas. These activities may disturb a considerably wider area than the trenches themselves. The actual temporary and permanent disturbance widths need to be established to determine whether the revised corridor introduces new or different impacts on mature trees, root systems, wildlife habitats and waterways.

Important matters requiring investigation include:

Whether the environmental consequences of the preferred alignment have been adequately established through on-ground flora, fauna and other relevant investigations.

The potential impacts on mature native vegetation, hollow-bearing trees, root systems and established Tree Preservation Areas.

Whether the revised corridor could affect seasonal waterways, natural drainage systems, wildlife movement and ecological connections between important habitats.

The combined construction and operational impacts of locating multiple infrastructure components within the same corridor.

Whether a proper environmental comparison has been undertaken between the selected alignment and alternative infrastructure solutions.

Whether options that avoid Chittering's semi-rural residential areas and environmentally sensitive landscapes have been adequately investigated.

Alternative infrastructure solutions that avoid unacceptable environmental impacts through Chittering should remain open for investigation, even where those options may involve additional costs to the proponent.

The EPA needs sufficient evidence to determine whether concentrating infrastructure along the preferred corridor could introduce new or different environmental impacts compared with the original proposal.

The removal of alternative routes should not, by itself, be treated as evidence that the selected alignment represents a better environmental outcome.

Please personalise your submission using your own concerns and observations.

ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN – ACID SULFATE SOILS

The WA Environmental Protection Authority identified potential impacts from disturbing acid sulfate soils when it determined the original Gonneville Project required environmental assessment in April 2024.

Acid sulfate soils contain naturally occurring sulfide minerals. Where these soils are present, excavation, drainage or lowering groundwater levels can expose the minerals to oxygen, generating sulfuric acid and potentially releasing metals into surrounding soils, groundwater and waterways.

Acid sulfate soils are known to occur in parts of Western Australia's coastal plains. However, their presence and the level of risk must be established for individual locations along the proposed infrastructure corridor.

What Needs Further Investigation?

Whether the revised infrastructure alignment crosses mapped or otherwise potentially affected acid sulfate soil areas.

Whether the proposed pipeline trenches, other excavation or groundwater-lowering activities could disturb these soils.

Whether appropriate soil investigations have established the depth, extent and acidity-generating potential of relevant soil materials.

Whether the proposed changes could create additional risks of groundwater acidification or contamination of nearby waterways.

Whether alternative construction methods or alignments could avoid disturbing affected areas.

Whether adequate prevention, management and monitoring measures have been identified.

The EPA needs to determine whether the revised infrastructure arrangements could introduce new or different acid sulfate soil disturbance risks compared with the original proposal.

The absence of confirmed acid sulfate soils in a particular location should be established through appropriate investigation rather than assumed.

WA Government – Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Maps

Guide 5 – Farmers and Agricultural Landholders

Chalice Mining's revised infrastructure corridor raises concerns about potential additional environmental impacts on productive farmland and established agricultural properties.

Points to Consider

Could the revised alignment fragment productive farmland and working pastures?

Could construction cause additional disturbance to soils, natural drainage or waterways?

Could the corridor result in the loss of workable agricultural land?

Could the changed alignment interfere with established farming activities and long-term land management?

Have the environmental consequences for affected agricultural properties been adequately investigated?

What Needs Further Investigation?

The environmental consequences of constructing infrastructure across established farmland extend beyond the area permanently occupied by the pipeline, power infrastructure and associated access arrangements.

Excavation, heavy machinery and construction access can disturb productive soils, alter natural drainage, introduce weeds and affect the long-term condition of agricultural land.

The fragmentation of paddocks and pastures can also interfere with existing fencing, livestock movement, machinery access and established farming practices.

Important matters requiring investigation include:

The actual construction footprint across individual agricultural properties, including temporary work areas and permanent infrastructure.

The potential for soil compaction, erosion, changes to drainage and loss of productive soil quality.

Whether construction and maintenance access could fragment workable paddocks and interfere with established agricultural operations.

How disturbed farmland would be rehabilitated and whether productive land could be returned to its previous condition and use.

Whether permanent infrastructure arrangements could restrict future agricultural land management and long-term farming plans.

Whether alternative alignments could avoid or substantially reduce disturbance to established farms.

A reduction in the overall infrastructure development envelope does not necessarily mean less disturbance to individual agricultural properties.

The EPA needs to determine whether the revised alignment introduces new or different impacts on agricultural soils, drainage systems, existing land uses and associated social surroundings compared with the original proposal.

These impacts need to be understood at the individual property level, particularly where productive farmland and established livelihoods could be affected.

Please personalise your submission with your own farming circumstances and concerns, particularly how the revised alignment may affect your land and its established agricultural use.

Guide 6 – Mature Trees and Tree Preservation Areas

Chalice Mining’s revised infrastructure corridor raises concerns about potential new or different environmental impacts on mature native trees, including those within or adjoining established Tree Preservation Areas.

Points to Consider

Could the revised corridor affect mature Wandoo, Jarrah or Marri trees?

Could trenching, excavation or heavy machinery damage tree roots, even where trees are not directly cleared?

Could the changes threaten hollow-bearing trees used by black cockatoos, owls and other native wildlife?

Could the revised alignment introduce disturbance into areas previously protected from development?

Has Chalice demonstrated that the changed alignment will avoid additional impacts on significant trees?

What Needs Further Investigation?

Mature native trees provide important ecological functions that cannot be measured simply by the number of hectares proposed for clearing.

Large Wandoo, Jarrah and Marri trees can provide nesting hollows, feeding habitat and important connections for native wildlife. These ecological values may have developed over many decades and cannot be readily replaced.

Even where mature trees are not directly cleared, excavation, trenching, heavy machinery and changes to surrounding ground conditions can damage root systems, affect tree stability and contribute to long-term decline.

Important matters requiring investigation include:

Whether comprehensive on-ground surveys have identified mature, significant and hollow-bearing trees along the revised infrastructure alignment.

The location of proposed trenches, construction access and other disturbance in relation to individual trees.

Whether appropriate arboricultural assessments have identified Tree Protection Zones and Structural Root Zones.

Whether excavation or ground disturbance could compromise the stability, health or long-term survival of retained trees.

The potential consequences for threatened black cockatoos and other wildlife that depend on mature trees for nesting, feeding and shelter.

Whether the revised alignment could introduce new disturbance within or adjoining established Tree Preservation Areas.

Whether alternative construction methods or alignments could avoid impacts on environmentally significant trees.

The environmental consequences of damaging mature trees extend beyond the immediate construction footprint.

The EPA needs to establish whether the revised corridor could introduce new or different impacts on significant trees, habitat values and ecological connections compared with the original proposal.

A reduction in overall vegetation clearing does not necessarily demonstrate that mature trees and their associated wildlife habitats will be adequately protected.

Please personalise your submission with your own observations and concerns.

Guide 7 – Wildlife and Bushland

Chalice Mining's proposed amendments could introduce new or different impacts on native wildlife and bushland habitats through changes to the mine development footprint, infrastructure corridor and associated access roads.

Of particular concern is the potential disruption of ecological connections between Julimar State Forest, surrounding native vegetation and the wider landscape.

Points to Consider

Could the revised development areas affect wildlife habitat that was not previously proposed for disturbance?

Could additional access-road clearing near Julimar State Forest fragment existing bushland?

Could the changed infrastructure arrangements interfere with wildlife movement between Julimar State Forest and surrounding habitats, including towards Moondyne Nature Reserve?

Could threatened species, including black cockatoos, experience additional loss or disturbance of breeding and foraging habitat?

Could construction activity and ongoing infrastructure maintenance create barriers to wildlife movement?

What Needs Further Investigation?

The environmental significance of vegetation clearing depends not only on the area affected, but also on its location and ecological function.

Even relatively small areas of clearing can have important consequences where they interrupt established wildlife movement routes or separate connected habitats.

Key matters requiring investigation include:

Mapping of existing wildlife habitat and ecological connections across the revised development areas.

Appropriate fauna surveys to identify threatened species and important breeding, feeding and movement habitats.

The potential for additional access roads and infrastructure to fragment native vegetation.

The combined effects of construction disturbance, vegetation removal and ongoing infrastructure use on wildlife movement.

Whether the revised alignment introduces new impacts on ecological connections that were not identified under the original proposal.

The EPA needs to determine whether the proposed changes could introduce new or different impacts on wildlife habitats and ecological connectivity, particularly where clearing or construction disturbance affects environmentally significant connections between areas of native bushland.