�
Fencing to land type and provision of water points to ensure achieve end-of- dry season ground cover targets: Assumed as C class based on grazing workshop run as part of WQIP( Park and Dickson, 2015).
Hillslope and alluvial gullies( noting that ABCD classification is not very helpful for gullies, Andrew Brooks, personal communication):
� Prevention: Most at C class( Park and Dickson, 2015)
� Remediation of gullies: Most gully management is at D class( Park and Dickson, 2015), commonly because of legacy issues. Note also that C class gully practices in the Reef WQ Risk Framework do not involve gully fencing, it is only for B class practices that fencing( where practical) is recommended.
Streambank erosion: �
�
�
Management of stock: The WQIP grazing workshop suggested streambanks on major waterways were split between D and C class as defined in the Reef Water Quality Risk Framework( D being unfenced and C being limited fencing and off-stream water) and acknowledged that most smaller streams were unfenced( Park and Dickson, 2015). Results from the MIP Synthesis report suggest practices are at C-B level( Waterhouse et al., 2017) and so the results from these two sources are conflicting. Overall C class practice is assumed.
Riparian regeneration: Riparian regeneration is tied to stock management. Given that waterways are commonly only partially fenced, there would be limited opportunity for riparian regeneration. Current practice could therefore be assumed as D class because with only partially fenced waterways there is likely to be limited opportunity for riparian regeneration.
Engineering protection: Engineering success will be highly dependent on upstream measures. Given the cost of engineering it is safe to assume most waterways do not have engineering infrastructure. Remediation of major gullies is a feature of the LDC Project, but there are no established‘ average’ practices for this in the BBB.
Current average practices assumed are listed in column 4 Table 1. Minimum acceptable standard A practice below a minimum acceptable standard should not be considered for financial incentives. The minimum acceptable standard can be thought about as the landholders‘ duty of care’( as outlined in the Land Act 1994 2)( Anon., 2017). Duty of care is also termed as‘ general environmental duties’ under the Environmental Protection Act( 1994) https:// www. ehp. qld. gov. au / management / planningguidelines / legislation / general _ environmental _ duty. html. These minimal acceptable standards can be thought of as the expectations a society has in regard to the stewardship of land that a land manager is responsible for. Minimal acceptable standards need to be associated with compliance measures if they are to have practical meaning; without effective monitoring and compliance it is hard to make a compelling case that landholders are maintaining a duty of care.
56 | Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives