• This raised the future investment options for a small complex like this . A partial fix or more comprehensive approach with a higher sediment reduction ? Where ’ s the tradeoff - targeting of large gullies or targeting whole of catchment GLM ?
• Bristow opted for GLM improvement as the easiest option as it was large scale . Andrew ’ s view was it was not better , perhaps both was needed .
• Dyan Hughes ( Wentworth ) felt the GLM approach was better for the reef , better for graziers all round , and better for the community . If only aimed at reducing sediment , GLM change could take longer , but could be a big ask for some graziers . We need to find language that speaks to the grazier , teaches them to be more profitable … carrots that entice them .
• Rob noted the reason the field trips were organised was partly to record grazier perspectives . Leanne said the reports need to show the change and difference the grazier had made while Bec suggested that areas of further research for uptake should consider the grazier view .
• Christian asked if graziers were happy with the amount of money being spent on large scale gully remediation compared to GLM allocation ? Dyan ’ s view was that graziers would invest in land and hillslope erosion and programs should invest in larger gullies . Dyan also said if we wanted to engage graziers , then don ’ t discuss what they don ’ t believe . “ Graziers are in for the long haul , therefore partner with us , don ’ t preach to us . Graziers are business people and environmentalists .”
• Bristow suggested additional incentives for graziers willing to engage in gully remediation work aimed at perpetuating change around the gully site .
Discussion :
• The diversion bank and spreader banks were successful in reducing active erosion of gully heads . There was no acceleration of erosion issues at the outlet end of the spreader banks .
• The control head cuts , where there was no or limited reduction in water onto the head cuts , continued to actively erode . Additionally , the head cut at the outlet end of Scald 2 continued to erode .
Figure 24 : Head cut retreat to May 2022 - control ( left ) head cut 2 ( centre ) and 15m at end of Scald 2 ( right ) 63