Defining metrics of success for feral animal management in (PDF)

Defining metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia Final report Justin Perry, Nathan Waltham, Jason Schafer, Jonathon Marshall, Peter Negus, Alisha Steward, Joanna Blessing, Sara Clifford, Mike Ronan, Katherine Glanville, Peci Lyons, Eric Vanderduys, Stewart Macdonald, Andrew Hoskins, Catherine Robinson, Eric Nordberg, and Shania Wilson  © CSIRO, 2021 Defining metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia is licensed by CSIRO for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia licence. For licence conditions see creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This report should be cited as: Perry J,1 Waltham N,2 Schafer J,2 Marshall J,3 Negus P,3 Steward A,3 Blessing J,3 Clifford S,3 Ronan M,3 Glanville K,3 Lyons P,1 Vanderduys E,1 Macdonald S,1 Hoskins A,1 Robinson C,1 Nordberg E1 and Wilson S1 (2021) Defining metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia. CSIRO, Australia. 1. CSIRO 2. James Cook University 3. Queensland Government Department of Environment and Science Cover photographs Front cover: Time lapse photograph of a waterhole near Peach Creek, Cape York Peninsula, in May demonstrating rapid change in water quality following pig impacts (photo Kalan Enterprises 2016). This report is available for download from the Northern Australia Environmental Resources (NAER) Hub website at nespnorthern.edu.au The Hub is supported through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (NESP). The NESP NAER Hub is hosted by Charles Darwin University. ISBN 978-1-925800-94-4 June, 2021 Printed by UniPrint  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | i Contents Partner organisations ............................................................................................................... x Acronyms and abbreviations ................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xii Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction: Project 2.5 – Defining metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia .............................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Project aim ................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Partnerships and study location ................................................................................. 2 1.3 Background ................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Feral pigs .................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Markets for feral pigs ........................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Diet and breeding biology .................................................................................... 4 1.4.3 Published pig impacts.......................................................................................... 5 1.4.4 Positive benefits of pigs ....................................................................................... 5 1.5 Current feral animal control funding in the study areas and the reporting requirements for those ............................................................................................... 6 1.6 Indigenous-led adaptive management of Cape York's cultural–ecological wetland system ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.7 Project outcomes ........................................................................................................ 8 1.8 Animal and human ethics ......................................................................................... 11 1.9 Project factsheets ..................................................................................................... 11 1.10 Impact stories ........................................................................................................... 12 2. Extensive baseline data set for the Archer River basin for assessing change under future investment strategies ............................................................................................ 13 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Measuring physical disturbance to wetland sediments as indicator of feral pig damage (DES) .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Overview............................................................................................................ 13 2.2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 13 2.2.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Terrestrial invertebrates as indicators of feral pig damage (DES) ............................ 14 2.3.1 Overview............................................................................................................ 14 2.3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 14 2.3.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Diatoms as indicators of current and historic water quality (DES) ............................ 14 2.4.1 Overview............................................................................................................ 14 2.4.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 15  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | ii 2.4.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 15 2.5 Paleo-insights into wetland pig damage from sediment core analyses (DES) ......... 15 2.5.1 Overview............................................................................................................ 15 2.5.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 15 2.5.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 16 2.6 Damage from pigs limits the number of invertebrates and the diversity of invertebrates living on exposed wetland sediments (DES) ...................................... 17 2.6.1 Damage control by fencing wetlands ................................................................. 18 2.6.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 19 2.6.3 Publications (DES) ............................................................................................ 20 2.7 Water quality and limnology processes in fenced wetlands (JCU) ........................... 20 2.7.1 Reducing the risks of breaching thermal tolerance for fish through pig exclusion............................................................................................................ 23 2.7.2 Fish assemblage structure in fenced wetlands .................................................. 24 2.7.3 Simple modification to fences increases freshwater turtle movement on floodplains ......................................................................................................... 26 2.7.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 28 2.7.5 Publications ....................................................................................................... 28 2.8 Soil propagules (JCU) .............................................................................................. 29 2.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 29 2.8.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 29 2.8.3 Results............................................................................................................... 30 2.8.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 31 2.8.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 31 2.8.6 Publications ....................................................................................................... 32 2.9 Use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to document change in waterhole habitat values over time (CSIRO) ........................................................................................ 32 2.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 32 2.9.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 32 2.10 Impacts of pigs on marine turtles (CSIRO) ............................................................... 38 2.10.1 Intensive nest protection and on-ground surveys .............................................. 38 2.10.2 Large-scale (100 km) beach surveys using artificial intelligence (AI) ................ 41 2.10.3 Publications ....................................................................................................... 45 2.11 Impacts of pigs on terrestrial fauna (CSIRO) ........................................................... 46 2.11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 46 2.11.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 46 2.11.3 Results............................................................................................................... 51 2.11.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 56  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | iii 2.11.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 57 3. Wetland/waterhole typologies for the Archer River basin (DES) ..................................... 58 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 58 3.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 58 3.3 Attributes and attribute categories ............................................................................ 58 3.4 Typology ................................................................................................................... 59 3.5 Refining attributes .................................................................................................... 60 3.6 Applying a typology for feral pigs ............................................................................. 61 3.7 Product specifications .............................................................................................. 62 3.7.1 Source data ....................................................................................................... 62 3.7.2 Attribution .......................................................................................................... 64 3.8 Water permanence in the landscape ........................................................................ 64 3.9 Oceanic influence on waterhole ............................................................................... 65 3.10 Surrounding vegetation as a food source ................................................................. 65 3.11 Available shading ..................................................................................................... 65 3.12 Waterhole typology ................................................................................................... 66 3.12.1 Symbology ......................................................................................................... 67 3.13 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 70 3.14 Product disclaimer .................................................................................................... 70 3.15 Management implications ......................................................................................... 70 3.16 Publications .............................................................................................................. 70 4. A cultural ecosystem service wetland typology to support wetland management on Wik Peoples’ traditional lands. ........................................................................................ 71 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 71 4.2 Methods .................................................................................................................... 72 4.3 Results and discussion ............................................................................................. 72 4.4 Publications .............................................................................................................. 75 5. Cost–benefit analysis of selected control methods for feral pigs. ................................... 76 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 76 5.1.1 Identifying management zones and values ....................................................... 76 5.2 Local management objectives .................................................................................. 78 5.3 External objectives ................................................................................................... 78 5.4 Feral animal targets .................................................................................................. 79 5.5 Seasonal management plan for different zones ....................................................... 85 5.5.1 Seasonal management for zones 1 and 3 ......................................................... 85 5.5.2 Seasonal management for zone 2 ..................................................................... 89 5.5.3 Seasonal management for zones 4 and 5 ......................................................... 91 5.5.4 Seasonal management for zones 10 and 12 ..................................................... 94  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | iv 5.5.5 Seasonal management for zones 7, 8 and 9 ..................................................... 97 5.5.6 Seasonal management for zones 15 and 16 ................................................... 101 5.5.7 Seasonal management for zone 13 ................................................................. 104 5.5.8 Seasonal management for zone 14 ................................................................. 107 5.5.9 Seasonal management for zone 11 ................................................................. 112 5.5.10 Quantifying changes in pig population following control by zone .................... 114 5.6 Recommendations for strategic management activities for APN to maximise benefits ................................................................................................................... 125 5.6.1 Aerial control.................................................................................................... 125 5.6.2 Baiting ............................................................................................................. 125 5.6.3 Exclusion fencing ............................................................................................. 125 5.6.4 Strategic hunting and trapping to protect key species or habitats ................... 126 5.7 Recording effort and participation .......................................................................... 126 6. Development of a reporting system for assessing the impact of feral pig management on aquatic systems ........................................................................................................ 128 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 128 6.2 Creating a digital dashboard .................................................................................. 130 6.3 Results ................................................................................................................... 131 6.3.1 Waterhole typology .......................................................................................... 132 6.3.2 Impact assessment .......................................................................................... 134 6.3.3 Freshwater ecology ......................................................................................... 139 6.3.4 Terrestrial fauna .............................................................................................. 142 6.3.5 Feral pig management ..................................................................................... 144 7. General discussion ........................................................................................................ 148 7.1 Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................................... 149 7.2 Using what we have learned .................................................................................. 150 References ........................................................................................................................... 152 Appendix 1: Papers in preparation ....................................................................................... 165  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | v List of tables Table 1. Showing differences in sites based on factors. ........................................................ 52 Table 2. Quantile regression analysis results (tau=0.85) for a) taxon richness and b) square root (x + 1) transformed taxon abundance. ........................................................... 53 Table 3. Attributes of waterholes and attribute categories that correlate with pig presence and density. ....................................................................................................................... 58 Table 4. Waterhole typology compiled using attributes of waterholes that correlate with pig presence and density......................................................................................................... 59 Table 5. Attributes of waterholes and attribute categories that correlate with pig presence and density. ....................................................................................................................... 60 Table 6. Attributes of waterholes, attribute categories, spatial delineation guidance and source data. ....................................................................................................................... 62 Table 7. Source data. ............................................................................................................. 63 Table 8. Attribute of waterholes, field name, attribute category, and field value. ................... 64 Table 9. Type of waterholes, working description and summary. .......................................... 66 Table 10. Wetland typology categories and examples of services, care and factors that affect delivery of service and care for each wetland type. ................................................. 72 Table 11. Examples of the types of factors that affect delivery of cultural ecosystem service and care for each wetland typology category. ....................................................... 73 Table 12. Table of zones and objectives. ............................................................................... 81 Table 13. Shooting data highlighting in green events with verified data. ............................. 115 Table 14. Total costs for aerial culling at APN. .................................................................... 119 Table 15. Example of spreadsheet to be maintained for tracking effort, costs and local participation. .................................................................................................................... 127 List of figures Figure 1. Research was undertaken in the Archer River basin, Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. ........................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Impacts of feral pigs, sheep, goats and cattle on different elements of the ecosystem............................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3. A more detailed conceptual model of feral animal impacts on waterholes. .............. 9 Figure 4. Impacts of feral animals on in-stream habitats. ....................................................... 10 Figure 5. Intact vs degraded systems. ................................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Picture of the wetland core and wetland from where it was extracted. ................... 15 Figure 7. Results from the sediment core sample extracted from a study site wetland on Cape York Peninsula. ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 8. Examples of the physical damage caused by feral pigs to exposed wetland sediments .......................................................................................................................... 17  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | vi Figure 9. Map of the sampling sites in the Archer River catchment, Queensland, Australia. . 18 Figure 10. Appropriately designed pig fences can effectively prevent physical pig damage to wetlands but only if they are properly maintained. ......................................................... 19 Figure 11. Conceptual model representing the main findings of this report. .......................... 20 Figure 12. a) example of wetland fenced preventing pig access (photo taken November 2016); b) wetland without fencing and consequent pig disturbance (photo taken November 2016). ............................................................................................................... 22 Figure 13. The 3 wetland typologies – (a) pig-impacted wetlands that are shallow, typically <0.5 m deep, without submerged aquatic vegetation, turbid and eutrophic; (b) permanent wetlands that are deeper (typically <2 m deep), steep sides limiting pig access, clear with submerged aquatic vegetation present; and (c) fenced wetlands preventing pig access that are deeper (typically <2 m deep), clear with submerged aquatic vegetation present – dominant in the Archer River catchment (d); (e) frequency distribution for surface (0.2 m) water temperature logged in the 3 wetlands between 12 and 22 November 2017. Threshold lines are minimum acute effects temperature for subset of freshwater fish present in wetlands to illustrate percentage of time above the water thresholds. ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14. Conceptual diagram of wetland ecosystem conditions during (a) wet season, and (b) late-dry season. ..................................................................................................... 25 Figure 15. Left: female C. rugosa found in situ on the exterior side of an exclusion fence installed around a wetland on the lower Archer floodplain ................................................ 27 Figure 16. Experimental design for assessing turtle interaction with fences. ......................... 28 Figure 17. Location of wetlands. Map shows major river channels and Archer River catchment boundary .......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 18. DroneDeploy survey software automatically develops a flight plan. ..................... 33 Figure 19. Upload screen in DroneDeploy. ............................................................................ 34 Figure 20. Side-by-side slider visualisation in DroneDeploy software comparing May 2017 survey to October 2018 survey. ......................................................................................... 35 Figure 21. Healthy Country AI software architecture. ............................................................. 36 Figure 22. A simple Power BI dashboard visualising the predicted habitat variables. ........... 37 Figure 23. Screenshot of the Nestor iPad application used to systematically collect consistent turtle depredation and nesting data. ................................................................. 39 Figure 24. Summary of plastic mesh protection success and failure for dingos, pigs and goannas. ............................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 25. NAILSMA project officer Raphael Clarke fitting the Garmin Virb action camera to the custom-designed camera rig. .................................................................................. 42 Figure 26. APN ranger Gareth Kerindun receiving training from NAILSMA project officer Raphael Clarke to conduct the aerial survey. .................................................................... 42 Figure 27. Power BI dashboard used to visualise automated AI analysis from large-scale turtle nest survey. .............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 28. Map showing locations of wetland fauna monitoring sites on Cape York Peninsula. .......................................................................................................................... 47  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | vii Figure 29. All nMDS plots, square-root transformed data, using Bray-Curtis similarity index; all fauna, both seasons, standardised by number of surveys per site (top left). ..... 52 Figure 30. Quantile regression results for (a) fauna taxon richness and (b) fauna square root (abundance + 1) in relation to pig damage intensity. .................................................. 53 Figure 31. Example of late dry-season state of waterhole type 1 (left) and waterhole type 2 (right) without feral pig exclusion fencing. ....................................................................... 54 Figure 32. Terrestrial vertebrate abundance and richness for waterhole type 1 (left) and waterhole type 9 (right). ..................................................................................................... 54 Figure 33. Bird abundance and richness in type 1 (left) and type 9 (right). ............................ 55 Figure 34. Mammal abundance and richness in type 1 (left) and type 9 (right). .................... 55 Figure 35. Amphibian abundance and richness in type 1 (left) and type 9 (right). ................. 55 Figure 36. Reptile abundance and richness in type 1 (left) and type 9 (right). ....................... 55 Figure 37. Early dry-season terrestrial vertebrate abundance and richness for waterhole type 1 (left) and waterhole type 9 (right). ........................................................................... 56 Figure 38. Hierarchical application of attributes for the waterhole typology of northern Australia to support feral animal management. ................................................................. 61 Figure 39. Proposed symbology. ............................................................................................ 67 Figure 40. Detailed colour mapping for the product. .............................................................. 68 Figure 41. The spatial mapping product for the Archer River basin with a close-up illustrating the waterhole typology resolution with multiple waterhole types. ..................... 69 Figure 42. Example of how the typology can be applied at sites. .......................................... 74 Figure 43. Data collection at different sites to collect cultural typologies. .............................. 74 Figure 44. An example of a different cultural typology where values of family business, hunting, ancestors and spirits and story place are scored low by Traditional Owners. ..... 75 Figure 45. APN management area (yellow polygon, right) in the Archer River basin, Cape York Peninsula (left). ......................................................................................................... 76 Figure 46. Wik operational seasonal calendar indicating the Wik seasons in the context of major management activities and seasonal indicators. ..................................................... 77 Figure 47. Overview of feral animal management zones in the APN operational area. ......... 80 Figure 48. Zone 1 details. ....................................................................................................... 87 Figure 49. Zone 3 details. ....................................................................................................... 88 Figure 50. Zone 2 details. ....................................................................................................... 90 Figure 51. Zone 4 details. ....................................................................................................... 92 Figure 52. Zone 5 details. ....................................................................................................... 93 Figure 53. Zone 10 details. ..................................................................................................... 95 Figure 54. Zone 12 details. ..................................................................................................... 96 Figure 55. Zone 7 details. ....................................................................................................... 98 Figure 56. Zone 8 details. ....................................................................................................... 99 Figure 57. Zone 9 details. ..................................................................................................... 100 Figure 58. Zone 15 details. ................................................................................................... 102  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | viii Figure 59. Zone 16 details. ................................................................................................... 103 Figure 60. Aerial shooting counts from 2014 to 2017 in the zone 14 high pig density zone.104 Figure 61. Zone 13 details. ................................................................................................... 106 Figure 62. Zone 14 details. ................................................................................................... 108 Figure 63. Close-up of pig movement in the late dry season indicating significant reliance on three waterholes with two driving most of the late dry-season activity. ...................... 109 Figure 64. Widespread wet-season movement in zone 14. Note one pig moved into the coastal zones (bottom left) during this period indicating high connectivity in the landscape. ....................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 65. Restricted movement recorded in the late dry season in zone 14. ..................... 111 Figure 66. Zone 11 details. ................................................................................................... 113 Figure 67. All available shoot paths and culling data 2014 to 2020 for the APN study area. ................................................................................................................................ 117 Figure 68. Close-up of flight paths in one of the high-density pig control areas demonstrating the concentration of effort in some areas. ................................................ 118 Figure 69. Total kilometres flown (effort) verses number of pigs shot for eight culling events at APN. ................................................................................................................. 120 Figure 70. Zone 7 culling data. ............................................................................................. 121 Figure 71. Zone 8 culling data. ............................................................................................. 122 Figure 72. Zone 16 culling data. ........................................................................................... 123 Figure 73. Zone 13 high-density feral pig zone. ................................................................... 124 Figure 74. Population growth model for feral pigs predicts populations would recover annually, and could become denser, with 15% annual culling. ....................................... 124 Figure 75. Example of the interactive dashboard displaying the location and timing of pig depredation of nests in the 2018 nesting season. ........................................................... 126 Figure 76. Screenshot of the interactive effort summary example that could be used by ranger groups to track their investment. .......................................................................... 127 Figure 77. Landing page with links to data categories. ........................................................ 131 Figure 78. Waterhole typology page. ................................................................................... 132 Figure 79. Demonstration of pop-up summary information about a waterhole that is displayed when the user hovers over a point on the map. .............................................. 133 Figure 80. Pig damage score metrics for our study area. .................................................... 134 Figure 81. Conceptual models of pig fence impacts are displayed in a full screen. ............. 134 Figure 82. Terrestrial invertebrate metrics. .......................................................................... 135 Figure 83. Sediment core summary page. ........................................................................... 135 Figure 84. Diatom summary page. ....................................................................................... 136 Figure 85. Field water quality metrics for each site. ............................................................. 137 Figure 86. Lab-based water quality metrics for each site. .................................................... 138 Figure 87. Fish richness and abundance compared with fencing treatment. ....................... 139  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | ix Figure 88. Freshwater turtle morphometrics compared with fence gaps on commonly used pig exclusion fencing. ...................................................................................................... 140 Figure 89. Thermal gradients and critical temperature thresholds for common fish in the study area. ....................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 90. Terrestrial fauna summary by wetland type and season. Here we display the difference between type 1 and type 19 in the late dry season ......................................... 142 Figure 91. Just reptile data displayed. .................................................................................. 143 Figure 92. Feral pig control calculator. ................................................................................. 144 Figure 93. Feral pig shooting data 2016–2019, Aak Puul Ngantam. Management zone 13 has been selected illustrating that pig numbers have remained relatively constant ........ 145 Figure 94. Feral pig culling data with a remote management zone selected (zone 16) demonstrating an increase in effort over time for very limited returns and no prescribed value. ............................................................................................................................... 145 Figure 95. Marine turtle depredation by week at APN. ......................................................... 146 Figure 96. The mobile application used to collect the data and a summary of key results are displayed when users click on images in the bottom left of the page. ....................... 147 Figure 97. Infographic showing suggested use of the methods discussed in this report. .... 151  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | x Partner organisations Kalan Enterprises Tim Jaffer, Dion Creek, Jenny Creek, Naomi Hobson, Gabriel Creek, Dylan Creek, Jamey Cash, Stephen Peter, Rodger Paii, Shaka Bero, Edline Creek, Dallas Harold, Bradley Creek, Lucretia Huen, Douglas Huen, Terrence Creek, James Clarmont (deceased), Walter Peter, Tom Pratt, Shahmin Pratt. Aak Puul Ngantam Sandy Whyte (D), Celia O’Rourke, Robbie Weedon, Melissa Sinclair Walgnal trip Marybelle Pamtoonda (D) Sammy Kerindan Alistair Pamtoonda Vernon Marbendinar Archer River trip Dawn Koondumbin Neville Thompson/Woolla Travern Pemuggina Rhinna Pemuggina Phyllis Pemuggina Current APN board Keri Tamwoy Dawn Koondumbin Anthony Yunkaporta Neil Hector Peinkinna Delys Yunkaporta Past board Mavis Ngallamatta (D) Clarence Peinkinna Johnathon Korkatain Bruce Martin Phyllis Yunkaporta Current rangers Aaron Woolla Dion Koomeeta Murray Korkatain Edmond Woolla Garreth Kerindun Jim Pootchemunka Ben Upton Steven Marpoondin Past rangers Wilton Woolla Bryce Koongoteema Horace Wikmunea Alistair Pamtoonda Gary Namponan Lloyd Yunkaporta  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | xiii Acronyms and abbreviations APN ............... Aak Puul Ngantam CES ............... Cultural ecosystem services CSIRO ........... Commonwealth Science Industry Research Organisation D .................... deceased DAWE ........... Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment DES ............... Department of Environment and Science (Queensland) ESS ............... Ecosystem services JCU ............... James Cook University Kalan ............. Kalan Enterprises MDS .............. Multidimensional scaling NAILSMA ...... North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance NESP ............. National Environmental Science Program NRM .............. Natural resource management QILSR ........... Queensland Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger program SEEA ............. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting TO ................. Traditional Owner UAS ............... Unmanned aerial systems  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | xiii Acknowledgements This project builds on a long-term feral animal management and monitoring program developed by Kalan Enterprises (Kalan) and Aak Puul Ngantam (APN) and their partners (CSIRO and Balkanu). Kalan and APN have developed their feral animal management research and management agenda to meet the objectives of Traditional Owners in the region and have invited science organisations (CSIRO, James Cook University and the Queensland Department of Environment and Science) to contribute to the outcomes. APN and Kalan have conducted systematic feral pig (Sus scrofa) control and monitoring in the Archer River basin for the past six years. Kalan Enterprises built and maintained pig and cattle exclusion fencing around eight waterholes and APN has excluded pigs and cattle from three waterholes. These fenced waterholes provide a basis for conducting more in-depth scientific assessment of feral animal impacts in the region. Kalan and APN have worked with their partners to build a baseline dataset which includes surveying pig activity transects, setting up pig feeders and traps to measure pig density, setting up and maintaining time lapse cameras, flying unmanned aerial systems to take photographs of water holes and regular culling activities. Rangers have conducted regular aerial surveys which have supported the development of a comprehensive systematic population dataset that is informing the project activities. Rangers from Kalan and APN have worked with researchers to collect detailed terrestrial fauna, limnology, and water quality data. The aim of this research is to better understand the impacts of feral animals on elements of biodiversity so that rangers can measure and report on the impact of management actions to their members (Traditional Owners) and to funders of land management activities. Microsoft contributed to the development of novel analytical methods and technology solutions that have underpinned much of the impactful work completed in this project. Key Microsoft staff include Steve Van Bodegraven, Tianji Dickens, Michael Keane and Nejhdeh Ghevondian. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity staff provided valuable input into the preliminary development of data dashboards to support planning for marine turtle protection. Jens Froese (CSIRO) contributed to the conceptual framing of habitat values that supported the development of the water hole typology product.  Metrics of success for feral animal management in northern Australia | 1 Executive summary Project 2.5 has delivered research outcomes that have led to direct changes in the way feral pigs and cattle are being managed across millions of hectares on Cape York Peninsula. Research partners have increased the baseline knowledge of feral pig impacts and management through the production of technical mapping products, software, monitoring tools and peer reviewed journal articles. The team has communicated these impacts through a variety of media and has delivered presentations and advice to a broad cross-section of organisations including government policy departments, land management organisations and conservation entities. Project outcomes are supporting national initiatives for feral animal control. Project highlights include: • 51 Indigenous participants • 5 journal articles published • 8 journal articles in preparation or in review • 1 Queensland Government mapping product • 1 software product (HealthCountryV2 – Turtle Trackers) • 1 digital dashboard • 2 iPad applications • substantial media interest • 2 award nominations, finalist in both (NT NRM Awards, i-Awards – merit award) • 1 award winner (Mumbrella, Best use of owned media) • 3 national committees using project data (African Swine Fever taskforce, national feral pig management strategy – development, national feral pig management implementation). Project 2.5 has developed real-world solutions that can be practically implemented by land managers.