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

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

This dataset contains Water Quality monitoring data collected at the project gully sites for the three reporting wet seasons 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. 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: A description of the water quality sampling procedures for this project is outlined in Baker et al.,(2016). An automatic monitoring station was installed at each of the treatment gullies (See Key Localities). The monitoring station recorded rainfall, stage height, turbidity and water temperature at 1-min intervals during runoff events. The station also housed an ISCO auto-sampler that collected 1-L water samples at programmed intervals across the hydrograph (samples were processed as described below). A camera was installed at the treatment sites to capture photos during runoff events. Each of the control sites were fitted with a simpler tripod monitoring station that measured rainfall, stage height and turbidity. Bulk water quality samples were collected manually after each (accessible) event using poly-pipe rocket structures. Data from both the treatment and control sites had telemetered communications to allow remote access of data. Unidata Starflow QSD ultrasonic doppler was installed above the turbidity sensor at each site in 2017. The sensor measures the velocity of particles or bubbles in the water (presumed to be the same velocity as the water) using the doppler shift between transmitted and received ultrasonic signals. The sensors are mounted facing downstream to reduce the impact of particles damaging the sensor face and debris build up on measurement. The sensors require reconfiguration from factory default settings to capture data in gully systems. A description of the water quality sampling procedures for this project is outlined in Baker et al., (2016). In brief, following significant runoff events that triggered the samplers, the ISCO bottles were collected and the samples were filtered and frozen if collected within 24 hours of the event. These samples were analysed for TSS and the full suite of nutrients (total nitrogen, total dissolved nitrogen, NH3, NOx, total phosphorus, total dissolved phosphorus, FRP) at the JCU TropWater Laboratory, Townsville. Samples that were not collected within 24 hours were analysed for TSS only. A sub-set of the samples collected were also sent for particle size analysis. The samples were processed on a Malvern Mastersizer which is a laser diffraction analyser with a lens range of 0.02 – 2000 µm. Telemetered data from the loggers was captured to a fileserver and subsequently extracted, checked and combined with lab sample results in Excel. The files in this data collection represent the final combined dataset of all water quality and rainfall data from each site. Linear relationships between TSS and TN sample concentrations and coincident turbidity data were derived for all sites (Table 6). Turbidity data was not used when (i) the instrument exceeded the instrument calibration threshold; (ii) turbidity sensor readings were erroneous due to damage or sensor malfunction, or when the sensors were buried. 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 six MS Excel spreadsheets representing 3 years of water quality monitoring and rainfall data for both the Control and Treatment gully sites. MS Excel files contain tabs representing the following: Notes Rainfall Stream data

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.

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

There is significant Government investment in water quality improvement focused on reducing gully erosion (~$50M), however, there is limited measured data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation approaches. This project is collected land condition, terrain and water quality data from five gully remediation trial sites in the Burdekin catchment. The data demonstrated whether the on-ground investment programs are actually improving measured water quality, and quantified the cost-effectiveness of the various approaches. The measured field data was extrapolated using Lidar, supporting the prioritisation and evaluation of future remediation sites over larger (whole of property) scales. Communication products were developed to provide the evidence needed to increase landholder engagement in remediation programs that are focused on improving water quality runoff to the GBR. This project is a continuation of NESP TWQ Round 2 - Project 2.1.4.

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.

In this project we will compile a database of gullies from across Queensland as a tool for communicating the diversity of gullies that exist in the landscape, but also the sommon elements from within this diversity, where they exist. Using this database we will develop a gully classification system to ensure that there is a common language used by researchers, land holders, land managers and practioners when identifying gullies for management intervention. This will also form the basis for subsequent automated gully mapping according to gully type. We will also develop a first order decision tool to guide land managers towards the sorts of management options that may be appropriate for the gullies in question. Whilst this will not be a design guideline, it will help to ensure that the range of management options are narrowed down by managers before specialist advice is sought. A checklist of design considerations will also be developed that will ensure that managers undertake the appropriate level of design work for the required intervention. To some extent this project will document and formalise the knowledge and decision making processes that are currently undertaken by the specialst technical advisory team to the Reef Trust Programme.

This dataset contains Riegl terrestrial laser scanner scans and their derived 5 cm gridded digital elevation models (DEMs) collected for up to 4 years between 2016 and 2019 for 4 paired Control/Treatment gully sites being monitored as part of NESP Project 2.1.4. Data collection also contains the DEMs of difference used to estimate changes in gully volume. 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: Riegl terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) scans were collected for up to 5 years between 2015 to and 2019 for 4 paired Control/Treatment NESP gully sites. The fifth site, Mount Wickham, is not scanned. Each site was scanned once a year at the end of the wet season (generally April) using a Riegl terrestrial laser scanner. The TLS instrument used in this study was the RIEGL VZ400. The TLS was registered using five ground control points at each site. The control points consisted of a 50 cm star picket driven flush into the ground with a concrete collar. Survey bipods with reflectors were then placed over these marks to establish consistent xyz locations between scanners and for repeat surveys. To link RIEGL scans collected on the same day, additional ‘mobile’ reflectors were placed strategically around the sites. Registration was then performed by matching distances between reflector pairs (see Goodwin et al., 2016 for details). The RIEGL has an inbuilt fine-scan option to accurately locate reflector locations and is used to register separate scans into the same coordinate system with errors typically < 1 cm. These datasets are then projected into real world coordinates using the internal GPS and digital compass. The number of scans captured between sites varies due to differing morphological complexity and area to be mapped. Note that TLS scanning has not occurred at Mt Wickham. The georeferenced point clouds from each scan position are bundled as ZIP files by site and date. Naming conventions are explained in the data dictionary. The point clouds for each site and year were combined and converted into 5 cm digital elevation models (DEMs) by determining the minimum Z (elevation) value within a 5 cm grid pattern limited to an area covering the gully headcut and immediate downstream vicinity. A 3x3 grid cell median filter was used to remove spurious elevation values. Minimum Z is assumed to represent ground level. These DEMs are provided in TIFF format for each survey. Difference of DEMs (DoDs) were created by subtracting one DEM from another. Common extents were required for comparison of the DoDs. For the gully, a modified region grow approach was applied to an unclipped RIEGL DEM. This approach utilises a difference from mean elevation (DFME) (Evans and Lindsay, 2010) and a slope layer to detect the gully edges. A 50 cm buffer was then applied to ensure full capture of the gully edges. This dataset also includes hillshading derived from the DEMs. The original point cloud data is not available for download from the eAtlas (due to its large size), but is available on request from the Point of Contact. The DEMs are available for the following years and sites: Meadowvale: 2017, 2018, 2019 Minnievale: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Strathbogie: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Virginia Park: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 The DoDs correspond to the difference between the current year and the base year. Limitations of the data: Minimum Z DEM’s for representation of geomorphology ignore the possibility of overhangs. The raw DEMs provided include an area larger than the mapped gullies. These areas contain many

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.