Site specific grazing plans
Current advice around grazing of remediated sites is that grazing needs to be carefully considered and monitored to ensure treatments are not compromised( Bartley et al., 2025 in draft, p. 35; Landloch Pty Ltd, 2024, p. 3). The results of this project support this advice and, in addition, recognize the need for more investigation around maximizing the benefits while minimising the detrimental effects of grazing remediated sites.
The landholders with large-scale sites followed the advice in the Gully and Stream bank Toolbox guidelines— fencing around the site, excluding cattle in the initial years and then grazed lightly. However, what‘ light grazing’ looks like varies between graziers. At Site 1 grazing each year tended to be two lots of two months by around 100 light cattle( weaners) as part of a larger paddock. Impacts by cattle were noted by the contract engineers, was discussed by( Bartley et al. 2025, p. 35) in relation to dips in biomass and ground cover data and is believed to have contributed to the dip in LCAT scores in this project, due to increased erosion along cattle tracks( Figure 7. 2023-2024). Sites 2, 3 and 4 were grazed for shorter periods than Site 1( e. g. 1 week). Given the negative impact of cattle padding at these large-scale sites it is recommended that grazing is for shorter periods so that no cattle tracks are created.
There is no single grazing regime that will suit all remediated sites. Furthermore, given the intended progression towards stability and landscape functionality there will be no one grazing schedule that suits the same site every year. Each gully site has a unique suite of characteristics: soil, history, treatment, land type, slope, land use objectives, and management. Grazing can be employed to boost soil development and therefore, soil stability through the interactions of plant growth and soil biological activity.
Decisions around grazing are complex and require considered thought. Grazing, as a tool to improve land condition, needs to be adapted to the specific needs of the site at a point in time. It is recommended that grazing specialists be engaged to assist in managing grazing at large-scale remediated sites and that a written grazing plan is maintained as a‘ living’ document; grazing plans, site monitoring and adaptations to the plan for the next graze are recorded. Landloch Pty Ltd( 2024 p. 2) suggest that such plans include:
• Specific target levels for vegetation cover / biomass and,
• Subsequent agreements with landholders based on the provision of appropriate management to maintain these targets into the future, 20 or more years.
Continue to address maintenance requirements early
The large-scale gullies that were intensively remediated, Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4, required maintenance after the first wet season and at least once more in the following four years. The initial maintenance at all sites was primarily repairs to rilling on the recently reshaped areas; for some more gypsum was applied, and some reseeding, including hydromulching at Site 2. At Site 1 maintenance activities included repairs to reoccurring slumping / tunnelling, particularly around rock chutes, while Sites 2, 3 and 4 maintenance involved adding bunds and extending or adding rock check dams. Without this timely maintenance, these large-scale sites would mostly likely be unstable and not on their positive trajectory toward stabilising.
Consider low impact remediation works
Site 5’ s low impact remediation works in the upper gully scarps and channels of the‘ badlands’ were relatively successful and should be considered for the remediation of similar sites( Figure 30). It is likely to be a cost-effective and practical alternative on old gully sites where rates of soil loss are diminishing and therefore costs need to be kept relatively low.
Such light approaches focus on facilitating natural regeneration and therefore, it suits for work to be carried out in stages; utilising an adaptive plan, tailored to the site and responding to the progress achieved in previous stages. It is anticipated that if Site 5’ s southern section had another one or two stages, it may have been‘ mostly stable’ in five years with a diverse, primarily native, cover of vegetation.
44 GULLY MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING TECHNICAL REPORT