• The Bowen sub-catchment has 13 landholders who have all participated in contracted practice change over the last five years indicating extremely high potential to re-engage . An ‘ opt out ’ rather than ‘ opt in ’ approach similar to the Grader Project that achieved the largest portion of landholder uptake ( 30 % of all on ground projects ) ( refer section 4.1 ) could be offered , but instead with streambank outcomes , and this may accelerate both engagement and sediment reduction outcomes within this sub-catchment in a timely manner .
• Landholders have expressed concern that costs were the biggest barrier to them improving streambank practices , and they also identified that government funding was a larger factor in their decision making for streambanks than other practice changes . BBB landholders surveyed had very positive views about streambank practice change improvements , with as many as 90 % stating it is a good thing to do ( refer section 6 ) with around 35 % of landholders wanting to move straight into best practice for streambank management .
• Total area and cost-effectiveness from completed streambank projects is very limited from LDC Project implementation , and additional data would be advantageous . The cost-effectiveness of the limited projects that were completed was comparable to gully remediation projects overall .
Hillslope sediment reduction opportunities are greatest in throughout the Little Bowen subcatchment where the highest fine sediment load is estimated at 42,000 tonnes ( refer Figure 45 ). This accounts for a total area of approximately 147,000ha .
• There are 6 key grazing properties in this sub-catchment , and only half have undertaken contracted water quality practice changes in the past . Many of these landholders have increased engagement significantly in the last few years , so care should be taken not to fatigue these landholders and smooth pathways forward will be required .
• Of the remaining landholders in these sub-catchments , who have not undertaken contracted water quality practice change in the past , engagement with the LDC Project implementation team has been almost non-existent with all but one . A grass roots , participatory design process with these landholders is recommended , to attract landholder interest , buy in and build well-needed trust .
• Improved grazing land management to reduce fine sediment from hillslopes contributed to just under half , or 48 % of fine sediment reductions ( refer 4.1 ) and accounted for almost all , or 95 % of the practice change area . The average cost-effectiveness of these approaches to date is $ 27t / yr using the LDC Cost Effectiveness tool .
• Landholders within the BBB have expressed motivation to further increase best practices in this area by approximately 10 % ( refer 6 ) noting that half of the landholders within the Little Bowen subcatchment have not participated in surveys , so this may be far greater or lower for this area and further communication with these landholders would be advantageous .
• Landholders identified that the main barriers to making these changes were weather and seasonal issues , lack of time and high costs . The motivations of landholders to make further change includes production , profitability , and the environment .
• Suggestions for delivery and implementation include : - Roll out as either one or two cluster style , tailored peer to peer project areas .
- Utilising experienced extension staff and reliable ongoing support to newly engaged landholders in these sub catchments , and where possible , stacking practice changes on land in C and D condition for greatest impact .
109