Table i . Summary of sub-catchment characteristics that may assist in future prioritisation of investment in the BBB catchments .
Area ( km 2 )
Number of properties participating in LDC practice change projects to date
Estimated fine sediment load ( kt / yr ) and % contribution to Burdekin load
Sediment generation rate ( t / ha )
Gully
Erosion types
Hillslope
BBB subcatchment
Streambank
Dominant land use
Dominant project type to date ( by area )
Sediment reduction achieved to date ( t )
Bogie River 2,273 15 107 ( 3 %) 0.54 85 5 10 Grazing GLM 2.2
Bowen River ( lower reaches )
1,148 13 292 ( 9 %) 2.89 61 3 36 Grazing GLM 4,935
Broken River 2,285 8 100 ( 3 %) 0.52 49 32 18 Grazing GLM 136
Potential dominant actions for optimal fine sediment reduction
GLM , Gully remediation
Gully remediation , streambank
Gully remediation , GLM
Glenmore Creek 1,599 3 191 ( 6 %) 1.69 95 4 1 Grazing Gully 1,893 Gully remediation
Little Bowen River 1,466 3 252 ( 8 %) 2.20 85 13 2 Grazing GLM 10.5 Gully remediation
Pelican Creek 1,481 6 215 ( 6 %) 1.64 83 13 4 Grazing GLM 244 Gully remediation
Rosella Creek 1,466 2 165 ( 5 %) 1.89 97 2 1 Grazing GLM 8.6 Gully remediation Total BBB 11,718 51 1,322 ( 40 %) 1.44 81 9 10 Grazing 7,230
* Highlighted red cells have sediment generation rates ( t / ha ) larger than the top quartile range ( 1.2-1.6 t / ha ) identified in the earlier prioritisation of Burdekin subcatchments for TSS export ( Source : Waterhouse et al ., 2016 ). ** Includes all properties undertaking practice change , including 6 properties < 200ha ( there are a total of 70 properties in the BBB > 200ha )
13