May 2024
May 2025
Figure 33. Concrete matting was placed at Site 10 as a trial. Here it was placed at the crest of a spillway.
may benefit sites by promoting fresh plant growth and this is discussed in the previous section— large-scale sites: Site specific grazing plans.
One of the remediated gully sites in Sodosol soil that failed to stabilise was impacted by overgrazing by wallabies. With the benefit of hindsight, this site should only have been remediated when the grazing by wallabies could be much reduced.
Fencing around gullies is one way to restrict cattle but this is often impractical where there are many small gullies. However, there are a number of creative ways in which grazing can be effectively limited and, given Australia’ s history of clever innovation in the bush, there are probably more ideas yet to be devised.
Use low impact remediation techniques for better cost effectiveness and low risk
• Work can be tailored to the site’ s recovery, avoiding costly interventions that may not have been necessary.
• Small gullies that are partially filled or covered with stable material such as fill material, sand, soil or straw can revegetate quickly.
• Gully head works can concentrate on the most active erosion only, achieving high cost effectiveness( Hawdon et al., 2025, p. 37).
• Light works facilitate natural regeneration, and this is more likely to result in a steady increase in gully stability of time.
Refer to Section— large-scale gullies— Consider low impact remediation works and Figure 30.
Light works in the gullies, that do not disturb erodible soil, has many advantages:
• Much reduced risk of exacerbating the erosion compared to earthworks.
• Work can be done in stages, starting with the control of grazing.
NQ DRY TROPICS 51