❓ The response addresses concerns about vegetation stress potentially caused by the Fimiston TSF, clarifying DEC's role in monitoring KCGM's management plan and reviewing relevant information for future audits, but declines to investigate past events.
AnsweredQoN 1725Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised. (2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised. (2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised. (2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised. (2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised. (2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
26 February 2007
Responded by
Minister for the Environment
Response time
76 days
The Department of Environment and Conservation advises the following;
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised.
(2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
(1) The letter relates to an appeal decision that noted there 'may' have been some indication of stress to vegetation due to the Fimiston TSF in the past but that there was no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case. The question refers to a period of sixteen years and I do not support the use of Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) resources to collect and collate what information may exist. The key issue is that KCGM is required to manage seepage from the TSF such that risk of vegetation stress is minimised.
(2) The appeal decision required that DEC review the information provided by appellants regarding plant root systems, and include this in future considerations of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. DEC will review this and other relevant information for the 2007 audit of KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.