This project will evaluate the cost, effectiveness and biophysical processes of gully remediation options in the Burdekin Region. Sub-surface soil erosion is the major source of anthropogenic sediment delivered to the Great Barrier Reef and must be addressed to help meet Reef water quality targets. The Reef Trust Gully Erosion Control Programme is the first to focus on gully remediation. This study will evaluate and communicate the impact of gully remediation options to underpin future investor, stakeholder and public confidence in the impact of erosion control programmes on (i) water quality (ii) project cost-effectiveness and (iii) agricultural production.

Seven paired Control/Treatment gully sites on commercial grazing properties in the Burdekin are presented here as part of the monitoring project NESP TWQ Project 5.9 - Gully Remediation Effectiveness as an extension to the NESP TWQ Project 2.1.4 - Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands (Bartley et al., 2018). Five sites were funded as part of NESP TWQ, with two of these five including Reef Trust 2 Partnership funding, and an additional 2 sites included here are funded by Landholders Driving Change (LDC). The key question being asked is “is there measurable improvement in the erosion and water quality leaving remediated gully sites compared to sites left untreated?” The monitoring approach uses a modified BACI (Before after control impact) design. There are two sites in the Upper Burdekin sites (Virginia Park and Meadowvale) which capitalize on previous research investments looking at rangeland management and water quality response. The Bogie (Strathbogie) and Don (Minnievale) sites are Reef Trust 2 partnership projects. Mt Wickham is a new site that is part of the Burdekin Landholders Driving Change (LDC) project and then NESP funding. Glen Bowen and Mt Pleasant received funding from Landholders Driving Change (LDC). This dataset includes key Gully monitoring localities (headcuts and monitoring instrumentation) and outlines of the properties within which they are located. Methods: Key Gully Localities were extracted from the 2017 or 2018 RTK GPS surveys for each gully site (see Site_Configuration_and_Survey dataset). Property Boundaries were generated by extracting polygons from the 2016 Digital Cadastre Database (DCDB) and simplifying to a single polygon. Area in hectares was calculated and appended to polygon attributes. KMZ’s are exported version of the original ArcGIS shapefiles Format: This data collection consists of two shapefiles (zipped) and two equivalent KMZ files with the following names: NESP_Gully_Key_localities: Key gully localities include the RTK GP location of the instrumentation and the RTK GPS location of the nickpoint in the gully headcut rim. NESP_Gully_Property_Boundaries: Boundaries for the properties on which the paired control/treatment gullies are located. Data Dictionary: Attributes for Property_Boundaries.shp include property NAME and the area in hectares (AREA_HA). Attributes for Key Locations include X,Y (MGA94 Z55) and Z (AHD) Timestamp associated when RTK surveyed Type- HEADCUT, INSTR Survey – type of survey and year, APPROX is best guess from Lidar or GoogleEarth Site_Code – short form code for sites where MIV = Minnievale MV = Meadowvale MW = Mount Wickham SB = Strathbogie VP = Virginia Park MTP = Mount Pleasant GLB = Glen Bowen - Treatment/Control Property – Full name of property Treat_type – Treatment or control References: Bartley, R., Hawdon, A., Henderson, A., Wilkinson, S., Goodwin, N., Abbott, B., Baker, B., Matthews, M., Boadle, D., Telfer, D., Smith, B., Jarihani, B. and Burkin, G., 2017. Quantifying the effectiveness of gully remediation on offsite water quality: preliminary results from demonstration sites in the Burdekin catchment. Project 2.1.4. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (76pp.). Bartley, R., Hawdon, A., Henderson, A., Abbott, B., Wilkinson, S., Goodwin, N. and Ahwang, K. (2020) Quantifying the effectiveness of gully rehabilitation on water quality: results from demonstration sites in the Burdekin catchment. Report to the National Environmental Science Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (146pp.). eAtlas Processing: The data were received as a shapefile and KMZ file, and were published with no changes to the underlying data. Minor changes to the metadata description was made on revision of the metadata collection (11-Oct-2023) to reduce ambiguity around data collected under this project and

This project will develop the partnerships and the institutional framework for implementing large scale innovative rehabilitation works which aim to directly reduce sediment supply from the large alluvial gullies on the lower Bowen River. These gullies are the largest single source of suspended sediment loads into the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The project will work directly with Glencore and Q Coal, who are some of the largest grazing landholders along the section of the Bowen River with the highest concentration of large alluvial gullies. The central premise underpinning the strategy is that alluvial gully rehabilitation is more akin to mine site rehabilitation, and such techniques are more appropriate for tackling this major GBR sediment source than grazing BMPs. The strategy aims to draw upon the mine site rehabilitation experience and expertise within these two major Queensland mining companies, applying and adapting mine rehabilitation approaches to the rehabilitation of alluvial gullies.

This dataset contains Vegetation and Biomass monitoring data collected for the NESP TWQ Project 5.9, formally NESP TWQ 2.1.4 - Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands and Landholders Driving Change (LDC) contracts LRP17-003 and LME17-009. Data is from control and treatment gully sites on commercial grazing properties in the Burdekin. BOTANAL files describe the biomass, species composition and species attributes such as basal area and cover for hillslope areas above gully erosion sites. PATCHKEY files describe the landscape condition (proportional) of vegetation patches for hillslope areas above gully erosion sites. GULLY_VEG describes the biomass, species composition and species attributes such as percent cover for locations within the Gully. Seven paired Control/Treatment gully sites on commercial grazing properties in the Burdekin being monitored as part of NESP Project 5.9 and NESP Project 2.1.4 (Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands) and Landholders Driving Change (LDC) contracts LRP17-003 and LME17-009. The key question being asked is "is there measureable improvement in the erosion and water quality leaving remediated gully sites compared to sites left untreated?" The monitoring approach uses a modified BACI (Before after control impact) design. The aim of the vegetation monitoring in relation to this project is to track change in land condition and vegetation over time on hillslope areas above, and within gullies within control and treatment sites (treatments vary). Linking to changes in downstream water quality. Methods: Vegetation metrics were measured on the hillslope above and within each of the monitored gullies at the Pre-wet or end of the dry season ('EOD', October–November) and then again at the post-wet or end of the wet season ('EOW', April). Measurements were initiated in November 2016 at all sites except Mt Wickham which started in August 2018 and at Mt Pleasant and Glen Bowen that began in November 2019. For BOTANAL and PATCHKEY, Landscape and vegetation condition transects were installed upslope of the uppermost head section on both the treated and control gullies at all sites. Transects were run along slope contours and varied in length and spacing for each site depending on gully-head catchment size. Four to five transects were used at each treatment and control location. Each transect has a fixed beginning and end to facilitate repeat measures. Length and spacing of transects varied between sites dependant on hillslope size. 6 to 8 x 1m quadrats were sampled along each transect at equal spacing giving 30 to 32 samples per site (this may vary due to some changes in study sites over time – eg. New fence placements or inaccessibility due to weather). See "Interactive map of this dataset" in the online resources for layouts at sites. BOTANAL data was collected along each transect using a 1m² quadrat using the methods of Tothill et al., (1992), with placement of quadrats dependent on transect length at each site (30 quadrats were sampled for each treatment/control area). Metrics included the main pasture species and/or functional group composition and frequency, above-ground pasture biomass (DMY), total cover, litter cover, basal-area %, defoliation level and key soil surface condition metrics (Tongway and Hindley, 1995). In addition landscape condition was calculated along each transect using PATCHKEY (Abbott and Corfield, 2012). The condition assessments were aggregated to reflect ABCD landscape condition as used across grazed landscapes in the GBR catchments (Aisthorp and Paton, 2004; Chilcott et al., 2005; Bartley et al., 2014). Cover and biomass estimates were calibrated against standard quadrats taken at each site using classified quadrat photographs. Biomass standards were oven dried to attain dry matter yield, removing vegetation

Alluvial gully erosion contributes 20-40% of fine sediment from the three largest sediment contributing catchments to the GBR, yet there has been limited effort to manage this major sediment source. Cost effective reduction of sediment from these alluvial gullies requires data on effective management strategies. We will take advantage of a ‘natural experiment’ that occurred when Cyclone Ita passed over existing trial management sites in the Normanby catchment. The project will evaluate the effectiveness of different management strategies to reduce erosion from alluvial gullies. To complement this, we will collect baseline data at additional sites in the Normanby and Burdekin catchments.

Five paired Control/Treatment gully sites on commercial grazing properties in the Upper Burdekin and Bowen catchments are being monitored as part of NESP Project 2.1.4 (Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands) (Bartley et al., 2018). The key question being asked is: "Is there measurable improvement in the erosion and water quality leaving remediated gully sites compared to sites left untreated?" The monitoring approach uses a modified BACI (Before after control impact) design. This record acts as an aggregation point for the datasets produced by NESP TWQ Project 2.1.4. for Gully Remediation at sites Meadowvale, Virginia Park, Strathbogie, Minnievale and Mt Wickham Station. These sites are located in the Burdekin Region of Queensland. The time series established in this project is being extended by NESP TWQ Project 5.9. Updated versions of this dataset will be linked to from this record when they become available. There are two sites in the Upper Burdekin sites (Virginia Park and Meadowvale) which capitalize on previous research investments looking at rangeland management and water quality response. The Bogie (Strathbogie) and Don (Minnievale) sites are Reef Trust 2 partnership projects. Mt Wickham is a new site that is part of the Burdekin Landholders Driving Change (LDC) project. Each contributing datasets has been described in specific dataset records linked as child records. Datasets include Key Localities, Loads Runoff, Site Configuration and survey types, TLS Scans and Analysis, Vegetation Survey, Water Quality survey. The data can be downloaded from each of the child records.

This dataset contains RTK GPS Data collected between April, 2017 and March, 2018 for 5 paired Control/Treatment gully sites being monitored as part of NESP Project 2.1.4 (Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands). The key question being asked is “is there measurable improvement in the erosion and water quality leaving remediated gully sites compared to sites left untreated?” The monitoring approach uses a modified BACI (Before after control impact) design. The data in presented in this metadata are part of a larger collection and are intended to be viewed in the context of the project. For further information on the project, view the parent metadata record: Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands (NESP TWQ 2.1.4, CSIRO). Monitoring of these sites is continuing as part of NESP TWQ Project 5.9. Any temporal extensions to this dataset will be linked to from this record. Methods: RTK (Real time kinematic) GPS system (Ashtech, ProMark 200), set with a tolerance of +/- 12mm in the horizontal plane and +/- 15mm in the vertical, was used to survey the monitored gullies. The initial location of the base station was determined using a 10-minute average. All permanent infrastructure such as survey markers, fences, and instrumentation. Gully features such as headcut rims, long sections and cross sections (at key locations such as near instrumentation) were captured. Raw GPS data files were converted to text, imported to Excel for attribute assignments, and then imported to ArcGIS for conversion to shapefile format. Format: This data collection consists of 5 zip files (one for each paired gully monitoring site). Zip files are named according to the property on which they are located. Each zip file contains two shapefiles with detailed RTK GPS survey data from either 2017 or 2018 for the Control and Treatment gullies. Survey point types include Reference markers, gully cross sections, long sections and the gully headcut. Data Dictionary: Attributes for each point include Easting (E) and Northing (N) location info (MGA94 Z55, AHD), descriptive text (Comment), horizontal accuracy (HRMS), vertical accuracy (VRMS), RTK Fix or Float status (STATUS), Number of satellites (SATS), 3D position dilution of precision (PDOP), horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP), Vertical dilution of precision (VDOP), time and date of survey point(Timestamp), and Point type (Type). More information on Dilution of Precision can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilution_of_precision_(navigation) Point Types include REF and BASEREF - Reference markers include permanent survey markers XSREF - Cross Section Transect markers VEGREF - vegetation transect markers STRUCTREF) - Structure markers INSTRREF - location of instrumentation TLSREF - Laser scanner permanent markers gully cross sections (XS) LS - long sections RIM - headcut rim RIMNICK - headcut nickpoint Site_Code used for file names is as follows: MIV = Minnievale MV = Meadowvale MW = Mount Wickham SB = Strathbogie VP = Virginia Park - Treatment/Control References: Bartley, Rebecca; Hawdon, Aaron; Henderson, Anne; Wilkinson, Scott; Goodwin, Nicholas; Abbott, Brett; Baker, Brett; Matthews, Mel; Boadle, David; Jarihani, Ben (Abdollah). Quantifying the effectiveness of gully remediation on off-site water quality: preliminary results from demonstration sites in the Burdekin catchment (second wet season). RRRC: NESP and CSIRO; 2018. csiro:EP184204. Data Location: This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\nesp2\2.1.4 Gully-remediation-effectiveness

Accurately mapping gullies at high resolution and quantifying their key attributes is the critical first step in the process of prioritising and designing rehabilitation solutions. At least 40% of the accelerated erosion that is contributing to poor water quality in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR)Lagoon is sourced from gully erosion, demanding effective management and rehabilitation of these features. Current gully maps across the GBR are low resolution and overly simple,providing no differentiation between gully type. Airborne Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) is now widely recognised as being the best way to accurately map gullies at a landscape scale at a suitable resolution for management planning. Given the large volume of LiDAR data now becoming available, this project will develop and apply automated tools to enable the location of gullies to be extracted from LiDAR Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), along with key attributes of the gullies enabling them to be grouped into classes of similar gully types to aid prioritisation, management and catchment modelling.

The current tools used to estimate the contribution of bank erosion to the Great Barrier Reef (i.e. SourceCatchments model), are based on empirical relationships using little or no data from tropical river systems. This project proposes to develop a revised methodology for estimating (a) the natural or bench-mark rates of bank erosion in tropical rivers (b) how this information can be coupled with improved data sets on channel morphology, site connectivity and sediment particle size to develop a more robust approach for identifying sites amendable to remediation and (c) where riparian restoration has occurred, evaluate the effectiveness of the remediation.

This dataset contains Vegetation and Biomass monitoring data collected for the NESP Project 2.1.4 (Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands). The aim of the vegetation monitoring in relation to this project is to track change in biomass and species composition over time on hillslope areas above gully erosion within control and treatment sites (treatments vary), linking to changes in downstream water quality. Data is from control and treatment gully sites on commercial grazing properties in the Burdekin being monitored as part of NESP Project 2.1.4. The data in presented in this metadata are part of a larger collection and are intended to be viewed in the context of the project. For further information on the project, view the parent metadata record: Demonstration and evaluation of gully remediation on downstream water quality and agricultural production in GBR rangelands (NESP TWQ 2.1.4, CSIRO) Monitoring of these sites is continuing as part of NESP TWQ Project 5.9. Any temporal extensions to this dataset will be linked to from this record. BOTANAL files describe the biomass, species composition and species attributes such as basal area and cover for hillslope areas above gully erosion sites. PATCHKEY files describe the landscape condition (proportional) of vegetation patches for hillslope areas above gully erosion sites. And BIOMASS files describe the cover and biomass within the gully. Methods: Vegetation metrics were measured on the hillslope above each of the NESP gullies at the end of the dry season (‘EOD’, October–November) and then again at the end of the wet season (‘EOW’, April). Measurements were initiated in November 2016 at all sites except Mt Wickham which started in August 2018. Landscape and vegetation condition transects were installed upslope of the uppermost head section on both the treated and control gullies at all sites (Figure 8). Transects were run along slope contours and varied in length and spacing for each site depending on gully-head catchment size. Four to five transects were used at each treatment and control location. Each transect has a permanent marker at the beginning and end to facilitate repeat measures. Pasture metrics were recorded along each transect using a 1m2 quadrat based on the methods of Tothill et al., (1992), with placement of quadrats dependent on transect length at each site (30 quadrats were sampled for each treatment/control area). Metrics included the main pasture species and/or functional group composition and frequency, above-ground pasture biomass (DMY), total cover, litter cover, basal-area %, defoliation level and key soil surface condition metrics (Tongway and Hindley, 1995). In addition landscape condition was calculated along each transect using PATCHKEY (Abbott and Corfield, 2012). The condition assessments were aggregated to reflect ABCD landscape condition as used across grazed landscapes in the GBR catchments (Aisthorp and Paton, 2004; Chilcott et al., 2005; Bartley et al., 2014). Cover and biomass estimates were calibrated against standard quadrats taken at each site using classified quadrat photographs. Biomass standards were oven dried to attain dry matter yield, removing vegetation water retention error between treatments. A real time kinematic (RTK) survey ran from upslope of the vegetation survey to the valley section for each gully system. Gully vegetation cover and biomass were also measured within each gully, on the gully walls and gully floor. Sampling was initiated at the end of the first wet season (April 2017) for all sites except Mt Wickham which started in August 2018. The sampling methodology was very similar to the hillslope survey. A minimum of three transects were measured across each gully, representative of the head, middle and valley sections. At each transect, % cover, biomass and dominant cover type was assessed using 0.25 m2 (0.5 x 0.5m) quadrats. Three