Page 642 - Week 02 - Thursday, 24 March 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(4) Was there monitoring or treatment of the water discharged into the stormwater system as required under clause 19 to ensure it complied with the standards specified in Schedule 2 Table 4; if so, can the Minister provide documentation regarding the monitoring/treatment; if not, why not.
(5) Was there approval to locate the silt drying pad close to a house to the west of the pond (on Appel Crescent) rather than to the east of the pond as shown in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
(6) Was there an Environmental Protection Plan (as required in the EMP) completed; if so, can the Minister provide a copy; if not, why not.
(7) What was the rationale for nearly all the vegetation around the pond and on the island being removed.
(8) What type of algae is blooming in Fadden Pond.
(9) How does continuous algal outbreak since the pond cleanout ensure the “best environmental outcome” as stated in the response to question on notice No 443.
(10) Have there been previous algal outbreaks on Fadden Pond; if so, can the Minister provide data.
(11) Did the answer to question on notice No 443 incorrectly identify flow from Fadden Pond to Upper Stranger Pond/wetland into Tuggeranong Weir and then into Lake Tuggeranong; if so, on this basis and assuming no monitoring was undertaken at Fadden Pond, can the Minister provide the evidence that supports the answer to question on notice No 443 that “the works were carried out to ensure the best environmental outcomes”.
(12) Will Fadden Pond be re-stocked with native fish; if so, when and what type and number of fish/fingerlings.
(13) Can the Minister please confirm if there is to be a study of the pond; if so, can the Minister provide details of the study.
Mr Steel: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) Yes, as part of regular inspections conducted by officers from Transport Canberra and City Services (TCCS) and the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (EPSDD).
(2) The volume of Fadden Pond is approximately 2500 cubic metres. Water quality data is not retained.
(3) Water or sediment monitoring was not undertaken because the water quality was observed as acceptable, and the pond was drained prior to commencement of desilting work.
(4) Prior to and whilst draining the pond, the water quality was regularly observed and found acceptable. The pond was dewatered prior to the desilting work therefore testing of water quality during desilting was not applicable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video