i
INTEGRATED AND ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
MITIGATING CONFLICT WITHIN FOSTER CITY PARKS
Developed for:
City of Foster City
Developed by:
Wildlife Innovations, Inc.
October 7th, 2024
i
This Plan was developed under a professional services agreement with the City of Foster City, and authored by:
Wildlife Innovations, Inc.
11629 Westridge Pl
Lakeside, California, 92040
This Plan and the associated Mitigation Program will be managed by:
Foster City Parks and Recreation Department, Foster City, California Derek Schweigart
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Foster City, CA
650-286-3390
and
Frank Fanara
Parks Maintenance Manager
City of Foster City, CA
650-286-3553
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: FORWORD...............................................................................................................................1 SECTION II: PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN .....................................................................................................1 SECTION III: SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................2 SECTION IV: DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT NEEDS ........................................................................4 SECTION V: CANADA GOOSE BIOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND CONFLICT.............................................10 SECTION VI: PROTECTIONS AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE .......................................................12 SECTION VII: DECRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO MITIGATE CAGO-HUMAN CONFLICT ............14 PUBLIC OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND PARTICIPATION.................................................................................14 HABITAT MODIFICATION.............................................................................................................................16 EXCLUSION TECHNIQUES...........................................................................................................................18 NONLETHAL AVERSIVE CONDITIONING........................................................................................................18 LOCALIZED REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL........................................................................................................25 LETHAL REMOVAL.....................................................................................................................................26 SECTION VIII: SURVEILLANCE TO INFORM EFFECTIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.......................27 SECTION IX: APPROACH FOR CAGO CONFLICT MITIGATION WITHIN FOSTER CITY ....................28 PHASED APPROACH TO PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................29 CONFLICT MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR CITY-WIDE APPLICATION...............................................................32 CONFLICT MITIGATION METHODS FOR PRIORITY PARKS..............................................................................34 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIVE METHODS.......................................................................................36 ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW AND PROGRESS REPORT PREPARATION...........................................................36 SECTION X: RECOMMENDED HABITAT MODIFICATIONS FOR PRIORITY PARKS ..........................36 MARLIN PARK...........................................................................................................................................38 GULL PARK...............................................................................................................................................43 ERCKENBRACK PARK................................................................................................................................47 LEO J. RYAN.............................................................................................................................................51 CATAMARAN PARK....................................................................................................................................57 SEA CLOUD PARK.....................................................................................................................................60 EDGEWATER PARK....................................................................................................................................65 SECTION XI: LITERATURE CITED...........................................................................................................68 APPENDIX A: LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS FOR HABITAT MODIFICATION ...........................................71 APPENDIX B: INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CEQA..................72 iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. LOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA. ............................................3 FIGURE 2. OCCURRENCE OF CAGO AT FOSTER CITY PARKS BETWEEN OCTOBER 2023 AND FEBRUARY OF 2024 BY MONTH...............................................................................................................................................7 FIGURE 3. OCCURRENCE OF CAGO AT FOSTER CITY PARKS BETWEEN OCTOBER 2023 AND FEBRUARY OF 2024 BY TIME PERIOD. .....................................................................................................................................7 FIGURE 4. PHOTO OF CAGO WITHIN BOOTHBAY PARK, TAKEN BY CAGO SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. .....................8 FIGURE 5. CAGO FORAGING AND LOAFING WITHIN ERCKENBRACK PARK, AS DOCUMENTED USING SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. ................................................................................................................................................9 FIGURE 6. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS EXPENDED BY FOSTER CITY ON CAGO MANAGEMENT AND CLEANUP FROM 2015 TO 2021. TRENDLINE DISPLAYS INCREASE IN COSTS SINCE 2015. ............................................................10 FIGURE 7. MAP OF PRIORITY PARKS IDENTIFIED IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA..................................................30 FIGURE 8. MARLIN PARK ON MARLIN AVENUE AND POMPANO CIRCLE WITH THE PRIORITY HABITAT MODIFICATION AREA IDENTIFIED AND LABELED. .............................................................................................................39 FIGURE 9. PHOTOS OF MARLIN PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA................................................................................................................................40 FIGURE 10. MARLIN PARK, WITH RECOMMENDED HABITAT MODIFICATIONS TO DETER CAGO.............................42 FIGURE 11. GULL PARK ON GULL AVENUE WITH THE PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREA INDICATED BY THE NUMBER 1. ............................................................................................................................................................44 FIGURE 12. PHOTOS OF GULL PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA. ...................................................................................................................................................45 FIGURE 13. GULL PARK, WITH RECOMMENDED HABITAT MODIFICATIONS TO DETER CAGO. ...............................46 FIGURE 14. ERCKENBRACK PARK, LOCATED ON NIANTIC DRIVE WITH THE PRIORITY HABITAT MODIFICATION AREA LABELED...............................................................................................................................................48 FIGURE 15. PHOTOS OF ERCKENBRACK PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA................................................................................................................................49 FIGURE 16. GULL PARK, WITH RECOMMENDED HABITAT MODIFICATION FEATURES TO DETER CAGO PRESENCE.50 FIGURE 17. LEO J. RYAN PARK ON HILLSDALE AND SHELL BOULEVARD WITH PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR HABITAT MODIFICATION INDICATED BY THE NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 6. .........................................................53 FIGURE 18. PHOTOS OF LEO J. RYAN PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA................................................................................................................................54 FIGURE 19. CATAMARAN PARK ON CATAMARAN STREET AND SHELL BOULEVARD WITH THE PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREA INDICATED BY THE NUMBER 1...................................................................................58 FIGURE 20. PHOTOS OF CATAMARAN PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA................................................................................................................................59 FIGURE 21. SEA CLOUD PARK ON SEA CLOUD AND PITCAIRN DRIVE WITH FOUR BASEBALL AND SOCCER FIELDS, ALL OF WHICH ARE PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREAS. .................................................................................61 FIGURE 22. PHOTOS OF SEA CLOUD PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA................................................................................................................................62 FIGURE 23. EDGEWATER PARK BETWEEN REGULUS STREET, POLARIS AVENUE, AND EDGEWATER BOULEVARD SHOWING THE PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREA INDICATED BY THE NUMBER 1. ..............................................66 FIGURE 24. PHOTOS OF EDGEWATER PARK, WITH GEOREFERENCED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND CAMERA VIEW DIRECTIONAL DATA................................................................................................................................67 iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. RESULTS OF CAGO POPULATION SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY FOSTER CITY STAFF BETWEEN 2018 AND 2021......................................................................................................................................................4 TABLE 2. CAGO OCCURRENCE AT FOSTER CITY PARKS USING CELLULAR CAMERAS BETWEEN 11 OCTOBER 2023 AND 29 JANUARY 2024. ..........................................................................................................................6 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR FOSTER CITY, CA. ....................34 1 SECTION I: FORWORD
The city of Foster City, California, has 24 parks and other areas that are attractive to Canada Geese (Branta canadensis; CAGO). These parks are used by citizens and visitors for a variety of recreational purposes. The housing and park areas of Foster City make up an urban mosaic in which the presence and use of areas by CAGO often overlap with human recreational activities, leading to conflict, property damage, and threats to human health and safety. This Comprehensive Management Plan (hereafter The Plan) provides management steps for Foster City to reduce conflict between humans and CAGO. It identifies habitat modifications that could be used to make Foster City Parks (FCP) less attractive to CAGO and additional management strategies to exclude, deter, aversively condition, and conduct localized reproductive control for resident CAGO to reduce their use of parks, thereby, reducing conflict with park users.
Canada Geese are an important member of California’s native wildlife community and are a publicly managed natural resource. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) follows guidelines developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage CAGO within the state of California. The city of Foster City, CDFW, and other regional partners seek to reduce human-CAGO conflict through a proactive approach. This effort and associated plan will review current conflicts, CAGO biology, legal protections, potential solutions to target conflicts, and a process for testing and applying each. Approaches used in other cities may not be effective or possible at Foster City, and not all mitigation methods may be possible or successful at all properties and parks of Foster City. Therefore, collecting data on CAGO use before, during, and following management efforts will be essential to evaluating the outcome of each of those potential solutions and helping to identify the most effective and cost-efficient solutions for long- term conflict mitigation. This Plan, and program operating under the Plan, will aim to provide effective conflict mitigation between humans and CAGO through an adaptive suite of innovative and nonlethal mitigation methods, while collecting data that allow for sufficient evaluation and reporting of the results of the program to stakeholders and citizens of Foster City. The recommendations provided in this plan will allow Foster City to take proactive measures to reduce the attractiveness of city parks and other properties to CAGO and provide education to park users to further reduce human-CAGO conflict in Foster City.
SECTION II: PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN
This document is a collaborative effort between the Foster City Parks and Recreation Department, the Foster City Public Works Department, and CDFW. The goal of the plan is to provide a working strategy that helps address human-CAGO conflict throughout Foster City, particularly at Foster City Parks. The plan will provide background information on CAGO, their use of urban areas in the city, and methods for mitigating conflict and threats to human health and safety. The plan provides both broad and site-specific recommendations to be considered across the city for areas currently experiencing a high-level of human-CAGO conflict, as of the development of this document. Additionally, this document will offer guidelines to foster education and outreach efforts to include citizens, city staff, and other officials, so that these methods and others developed from them, can be further supported for both the short and long term. The adaptive management strategy will allow for analysis of lessons learned during the early years of this effort to help improve the efficiency of future efforts and help facilitate testing and implementation of innovative new methods as those become available. This process is expected to increase effectiveness and reduce the annual cost of a long-term mitigation program and improve coexistence with CAGO within FCP.
2 SECTION III: SITE DESCRIPTION
Foster City is located approximately 17 miles south of San Francisco, California, on the western shore of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay provides vast amounts of available habitat to be used by CAGO for foraging, roosting, and nesting. Foster City is located approximately 12 miles northwest of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, (managed by the USFWS) and only nine miles from the Eden Landing State Ecological Reserve (managed by CDFW). The network of properties comprising both of those protected wildlife areas provide significant habitat for CAGO, which can be a significant and ongoing source population for CAGO at FCP.
Foster City owns and maintains 24 parks or park areas, consisting of 160 acres, which are used for a diverse set of activities such as tennis, baseball, soccer, basketball, rollerblading, biking, and picnics (Fig. 1; Foster City 2024). Originally designed for recreation and drainage detention and completed in 1971, the Foster City Lagoon is about 200 acres with 16.5 miles of shoreline connecting to seven parks, including three with beach and swimming access (Marlin, Erckenbrack, and Gull Parks). Most of the shoreline within the lagoon system is privately owned by residents and businesses, but water activities, such as paddleboarding, swimming, windsurfing, kayaking, and electric boating are common throughout the lagoon. 3 Figure 1. Locations and distribution of parks in Foster City, California.
4 SECTION IV: DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT NEEDS
Canada Geese are commonly observed within many of the 24 parks in Foster City. Park properties include sports fields and human recreational areas, some of which have been damaged by CAGO grazing, and as a result, are inundated with hazardous CAGO feces. This limits human use of these recreation areas, and cleanup and repair costs associated with CAGO presence are inhibitive to city budgets. Elevated levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) have been repeatedly documented during water testing within the city’s lagoon system, and several of Foster City’s beaches have been included in a list of the ten most hazardous and polluted beaches in the state.
Repeated water quality tests determined that levels of E. coli were high enough to be unhealthy for humans in areas of the city’s lagoon system, forcing the city to place signage recommending that citizens avoid recreational use that includes contact with the water. According to water quality analyses, the most likely cause of E. coli within this water system is feces from waterbirds (e.g., CAGO and gulls). The city has attempted to haze and deter CAGO from FCP during recent years, using dogs, strobe lights, robots, treating grass with an avian repellent, and using vehicles or lawn maintenance equipment (e.g., leaf blowers, lawn mowers, or utility vehicles). Despite these efforts, the high CAGO presence at FCP continues. A science-based plan to mitigate the conflict between CAGO and human uses of FCP is needed.
Foster City CAGO Survey Data—The following data summarize results of CAGO surveys conducted by Foster City personnel between 2018 and 2021. Surveys were conducted using multiple personnel stationed at the locations listed in the table below and counting the number of CAGO visible within proximity of surveyor’s locations at the same time during the same days, to prevent over-estimating the number of CAGO present within those areas. The data reported below support that a large number of CAGO are using FCP and other properties nearby, and that the number of CAGO using those areas may be increasing. With increased use of properties by large numbers of CAGO, the conflicts described in this Plan are likely to increase.
Table 1. Results of CAGO population surveys conducted by Foster City staff between 2018 and 2021.
Property Owner Location 2018 2019 2020 2021
Edgewater Park 0 0 0 0
Boothbay Park 0 0 0 0
Port Royal Park 0 0 0 0
Sea Cloud Park 0 0 0 0
Farragut Park (on Beach Park Blvd.) 0 0 0 0
Catamaran Park (off Shell) 21 0 0 0
Leo J. Ryan Park 21 0 0 115
Erkenbrack Park (via Balclutha &
Niantic) 0 23 0 0
Boat Park (Launch Area) 1 0 25 18
Marlin Park 23 10 54 17
Gull Park 57 25 5 0
Foster City Park
Bridgeview Park 0 0 0 0
City of Belmont Belmont Sports Complex 0 0 0 0
Baffin 0 0 0 0
Shell Bridge (across from
Catamaran Pk) 10 20 44 95City of Foster
City
Vibe Recreation Center 107 8 34 78
5 Table 1 (Continued). Results of CAGO population surveys conducted by Foster City staff between 2018 and 2021.
Property Owner Location 2018 2019 2020 2021
West Point Harbor 0 0 0 0
Pacific Shores 0 0 0 0
Seaport Court 174 66 0 205
Chesapeake 47 90 216 24
Inner Bair 0 6 0 0
City of Redwood
City
Phelps Slough 6 37 20 11
Keynote Plaza 11 34 22 41
Mariner's Island Park & Benoit Field 8 16 18 1
1551 Shoal Dr. 0 0 0 31
Parkside Aquatic 0 0 0 0
Lakeshore Park 0 0 0 0
Hillsdale O/C 0 0 5 0
City of San
Mateo
Poplar Creek Golf Course 0 0 0 5
Lantern Cove 1 19 19 0Equity
Residential Schooner Bay 0 1 0 0
Gilead Sciences Lakeside Dr. 0 0 0 0
Redwood Shores Pkwy - Bridge to
Shell 0 0 0 0
Redwood Shores Pkwy - Shell to
Avocet 0 0 0 0
Redwood Shores Pkwy - Avocet to
Egret 70 31 18 17
Redwood Shores Pkwy - Egret to
Radio Rd. 0 10 0 0
Radio Road Area to Radio Station 0 0 0 9
Shell Pkwy 0 0 6 0
Davit 0 0 18 148
Marlin Park (via Cringle) 0 0 0 0
Bridge Pkwy to Island 0 0 0 0
Shorebird Park off Marine Pkwy 0 0 0 1
Marine Pkwy and Shearwater Pkwy 0 0 35 5
Canvasback to Seabrook Ct. 0 0 11 0
Redwood Shores
Oracle Pkwy 55 0 0 0
TOTAL 372 310 388 498
Digital Camera Surveillance—In response to the conflicts identified above, and to inform 6 development of this Plan, between 11 October 2023 and 29 January 2024, nine cellular- transmission-capable cameras were operated at seven Foster City Parks. Cameras were mounted on trees or light posts, to maximize the field of view for each camera. Not all portions of all parks were able to be surveilled using cameras (e.g., large parks like Sea Cloud Park), but nearly all of some smaller parks, such as Marlin Park, were able to be surveilled. Cameras were set up to take photos every 15 minutes, from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset.
Camera photos were reviewed, and the following data recorded: date, time, camera location and park name, the number of CAGO detected, substrate of detection area (e.g., the beach, turf grass), and behavior (e.g., loafing or feeding). Camera survey effort was summed by days of camera surveillance. Data were summed by month, park, and by time period. Time periods were defined as morning (0600-0959), mid-day (1000-1359), afternoon (1400-1759), and evening (1800-2159).
During 111 days of camera surveillance, 64,432 CAGO were detected. More CAGO were detected at Boothbay Park (31% of total detections) and Gull Park (28% of total detections), than other parks (Table 2). More CAGO were observed in November (34% of total detections) than during other months, and more CAGO were observed during mid-day (43% of total CAGO detected) and afternoon (34% of total detections) than during other time periods (Fig. 2–3).
Table 2. CAGO occurrence at Foster City Parks using cellular cameras between 11 October 2023 and 29 January 2024.
Camera Location October November December January Total Boothbay 4,282 7,805 2,967 5,280 20,334
Catamaran 3,707 2,217 901 1,989 8,814
Erckenbrack 819 2,749 3,205 2,167 8,940
Gull 3,606 6,618 4,656 3,437 18,317
Leo J. Ryan East 63 0 0 0 63
Leo J. Ryan West 0 21 0 0 21
Marlin 1,559 2,436 1,195 1,245 6,435
Sea Cloud North 988 15 0 0 1,003
Sea Cloud South 149 72 95 189 505
Total 15,173 21,933 13,019 14,307 64,432
7 Figure 2. Occurrence of CAGO at Foster City Parks between October 2023 and February of 2024 by month.
Figure 3. Occurrence of CAGO at Foster City Parks between October 2023 and February of 2024 by time period.
20,334
8,814 8,940
18,317
63 21
6,435
1,003 505
0 4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
BoothbayCatamaranErckenbrack
Gull
Leo J. Ryan EastLeo J. Ryan West
Marlin
Sea Cloud NorthSea Cloud South
October November December January
Number of CAGO Detections
0 4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
Morning Mid-day Afternoon Evening
Boothbay Catamaran Erckenbrack Gull Marlin Sea Cloud North Sea Cloud South Number of CAGO Detected
8 Figure 4. Photo of CAGO within Boothbay Park, taken by CAGO surveillance camera.
9 Figure 5. CAGO foraging and loafing within Erckenbrack Park, as documented using surveillance camera.
These camera data indicate regular presence of CAGO at Foster City Parks during this surveillance period (October-January) and lend support to CAGO presence data collected by Foster City personnel during in-person surveys. Few CAGO were detected within Leo J. Ryan Park during the period surveyed by cameras. That is most likely due to the time of year that cameras were operated within City parks. Based on observations made by City staff, Leo J. Ryan is one of the most used parks by CAGO, and CAGO may be most prevalent there during the molt period. Since cameras were not operated during the molt period, camera data reported here does not represent CAGO presence and distribution during all months of the year for all parks.
Additional data are needed to better understand how CAGO presence fluctuates seasonally, particularly during the nesting season and when CAGO molt, cannot fly, and will not be able to leave FCP as a result. Additionally, marking select CAGO with patagial tags, leg bands, or fitting them with satellite transmitters, would help elucidate movements between FCP, non-park areas in the city, and within the region. Satellite transmitters would also help track patterns or differences between CAGO use of nearby cities and state and federal wildlife areas.
Fiscal Cost of CAGO Presence—Within FCP specifically, presence of large amounts of CAGO feces within parks, and associated damage and health risk to humans, has caused Foster City to expend an annual average of $32,000 since 2015 and costs to control and clean-up CAGO feces generally increasing each year, with costs projected to increase more in the future (Fig. 6).
10 Figure 6. Total annual costs expended by Foster City on CAGO management and cleanup from 2015 to 2023. Trendline displays increase in costs since 2015.
SECTION V: CANADA GOOSE BIOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND CONFLICT Canada Geese are the most common avian species recorded by wildlife watchers and the second most harvested waterfowl species in North America (Rusch et al. 1995). A large species of waterfowl, CAGO are thought to be more abundant than ever before, with breeding populations within every province and territory in Canada and within 49 United States (Rusch et al. 1995).
The North American resident CAGO population increased from approximately one million birds in 1990 to over 3.9 million in 2008 (Dolbeer and Seubert 2009). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports based on Breeding Bird Survey data that CAGO populations increased by 10.8% per year between 1993 and 2015 (Sauer et al. 2017). Now there may be more CAGO in the Pacific Flyway than at any time during the last 100 years (Pacific Flyway Council 2023). Canada Goose populations around San Francisco have been increasing since the early 2000s, reaching an all- time high within the last three years based on long-term survey data collected by the USGS and National Audubon Society.
Management programs intended to increase CAGO during the last 60 years have been very successful, and CAGO have adapted to suburban and rural areas with agricultural crops that provide abundant food sources (Baldassarre 2014). The increase in CAGO in North America is thought to be due to human-caused modifications to the landscape and associated changes to the availability, crude protein content, digestibility, and extended growing seasons of forage grasses. The increase in number of sports fields, golf courses, and other human recreational areas that are dominated by turf grasses have likely contributed to increased presence of CAGO in urban areas.
Changes in agricultural practices that resulted in increased volume and intensity of production, have increased availability of food items, such as spilled cereal grain, which can provide a calorie- rich food source during a time of year when such resources otherwise would not be available within some geographic areas (e.g., autumn and winter; Fox et al. 2005). Long-distance migratory geese have rapidly exploited these food sources, and as a result, most species have expanded $7,520.50
$17,200.50
$21,741.50
$35,720.50 $32,763.50
$63,072.00
$46,882.00
$86,321
$139,317
$-
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
$60,000.00
$80,000.00
$100,000.00
$120,000.00
$140,000.00
$160,000.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Cost Expon. (Total Cost)
11 in range and population size during the last 50 years (Fox et al. 2005).
Milder temperatures associated with climate change may also play a role in a reduced or complete lack of migration efforts. Growing CAGO populations in the San Francisco Bay Area conflict with a growing human population over use of space and resources, a phenomenon that has also become common in other parts of the country. Traditionally a migratory species, CAGO in California have migrated seasonally between wintering areas throughout the state and breeding grounds in the northeast (Bellrose 1976, Cogswell 1977); however, some populations have adapted to reside year-round in California. This has also been seen in other U.S. states and is largely thought to be driven by climate change and differences in resource availability due to human modifications to the landscape (e.g., addition of agriculture or golf courses). As a result, growing numbers of CAGO reside year-round in urban recreational areas and parks (Cooper 1998).
Removal of natural predators from urban and agricultural areas, to mitigate conflict between wildlife and human use, has reduced or removed control of CAGO populations through natural predation mechanisms. As a part of the North American Model for Wildlife Management, recreational hunting has been used as a method to help control CAGO populations in states and areas where recreational hunting is permitted. However, many town and city ordinances significantly restrict or prohibit recreational hunting due to human disturbance and safety, therefore, developed urban areas like Foster City, most often do not allow hunting within or near city limits, removing that as a potential population control tool.
Canada geese use different areas to forage, rest, and roost daily (Curtis et al. 2016). While molting flight feathers, CAGO cannot fly for four to six weeks. During that time, they are less mobile and more vulnerable to predation. As a result, they typically choose and remain within one area during that period, selecting an area that contains ample forage (e.g., open areas of turf grass), and is also adjacent to water that they can use to escape from predators (Smith et al. 1999). Parks, athletic fields, golf courses, and business parks all provide spring, summer, and fall habitat in proximity (Gosser et al. 1997). The combination of reservoirs, lakes, ponds, lagoons, or other bodies of water adjacent to these areas can provide exceptional nesting habitat for CAGO as well.
Nesting from February through June on California’s coastal slope, CAGO typically incubate four to six eggs, though clutches may reach up to nine eggs (Cogswell 1977). Incubation lasts about 27 or 28 days, with young tended by their parents until the following spring. Young begin to fly between eight to nine weeks after hatching but do not reach breeding age until they are at least two years old (Palmer 1976).
Non-nesting adults move about in loose flocks at that time. Between May and July, goslings hatch and CAGO families group together. During this time, protected water sites, that also contain adequate food resources, are used more heavily by CAGO family groups. Between July and September goslings begin to fly, and flocks start moving larger distances to find food. Between October and January, CAGO typically migrate into the area from farther north and migrations farther south continue depending on food availability, weather, hunting pressure and access to open water sources. The number of geese in urban and developed areas are at their highest during this time of year. As the weather improves, geese will generally migrate back north.
Conflicts between Urban CAGO and Humans—Large, non-migratory or resident populations of CAGO can pose an environmental and human health risk with their year-round presence and increase in population size. Growing CAGO populations can cause damage to turf grass and fecal contamination of water sources used for both human consumption and recreation 12 (Manny et al. 1994, Gosser et al. 1997, Smith et al. 1999, Wehbe 2020). The presence of large flocks of CAGO can conflict with landowners’ and public’s desired use of properties. Canada Geese can damage grass, gardens, and crops by overgrazing, and overgrazing can also contribute to local erosion issues (Gosser et al. 1997, Wehbe 2020). Due to these factors, resident CAGO are in increasing conflict within many public places such as parks, athletic fields, and golf courses. Flocks deposit large amounts of fecal material, with one CAGO able to produce an estimated one to three pounds of fecal waste per day. While the amount of feces left behind by CAGO can be a nuisance, it can also be a threat to human health and safety. Substantial amounts of potentially hazardous feces can accumulate and contaminate waterways quickly (Bedard and Gauthier 1986, Wehbe 2020). The nitrogen present in CAGO feces can contribute to pollution of local water sources and the resulting eutrophication can cause excessive algal growth and reduced water quality (Manny et al. 1994, Gosser et al. 1997, Smith et al. 1999, Wehbe 2020).
Additionally, large amounts of CAGO feces can result in high levels of fecal coliforms (e.g., Escherichia coli) and other pathogens in the water, including Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lambia, Legionella pneumophila, Aeromonas hydrophila, Vibro spp., Camplylobacter spp., and Salmonella spp. (Schlater et al. 1981, Liu et al. 1989, Buck 1990, Manny et al. 1994, Feare et al. 1999, Smith et al. 1999, Clark 2003, Converse et al. 2001, Woodruff et al. 2004, Wehbe 2020).
The abundance of E. coli in fecal matter is positively correlated with ambient temperature, meaning that potential for E. coli contamination of areas from CAGO feces is highest during the warmer summer months, during the time of year when human recreation, especially water sports, in public parks is also higher (Kullas et al. 2002). A study in Colorado examined E. coli in CAGO feces and isolated bacterial strains associated with human illness in 24.5% of fecal samples collected (Kullas et al. 2002). In Chesapeake Bay, a study found that overwintering CAGO increased coliform counts in the estuarine waters, degrading the water quality (Hussong et al. 1979). Another serious pathogen known to cause respiratory illness in humans, L. pneumophila, was isolated in 6-23% of CAGO feces samples (Liu et al. 1989). Humans can also develop “swimmers itch” (CDC 2023) when swimming in goose-occupied waters, and other stomach illnesses and skin irritations are known to occur when humans contact goose feces. Swimmer’s itch is caused by a parasite that utilizes geese as hosts and results in a short-term immune reaction that causes mildly itchy spots to form on the skin. As a source of environmental contamination in the form of these pathogens, CAGO may be of general epidemiological concern in areas where they are densely populated (Clark 2003). In addition to human health risks, CAGO have been linked to transmission of disease to cattle from Salmonella spp. (Warnick et al. 2001), which may also be a threat to domestic pets (e.g. dogs walking in city parks). Bacteria that cause respiratory disease in poultry, Bordetella avium, has also been isolated in CAGO (Raffel et al. 2002).
As a result of growing CAGO populations and such conflicts with humans, USFWS issues MBTA depredation permits to landowners and local governments to remove some resident CAGO and destroy their nests to mitigate human health and safety issues. As such, several thousand CAGO are annually relocated to areas where harvest through hunting is possible, or they are euthanized, and hundreds of nests are destroyed to mitigate those conflicts within the Pacific Flyway (Pacific Flyway Council 2023). To address such conflicts local CAGO Management Plans are needed (Pacific Flyway Council 2023).
SECTION VI: PROTECTIONS AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
At the federal level, CAGO are generally classified as migratory birds, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and are managed and protected by the USFWS. 13 However, the USFWS has classified CAGO that nest within the lower 48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or that reside within the lower 48 States in the months of April, May, June, July, and August as resident CAGO, which are regulated differently than migratory CAGO.
The USFWS is also responsible for issuing Depredation Permits, when needed, to control CAGO and mitigate conflict with other wildlife or with humans. It is illegal for anyone to cause harm to birds protected by the MBTA without a depredation permit. Additionally, the USFWS is responsible for application and oversight of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as it may apply to CAGO management, and has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in response to growing impacts from the subsidized and unnatural populations of resident CAGO.
Alternatives were fully described and evaluated in the Final EIS (FEIS), and a Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Rule were published by the USFWS on August 10, 2006 (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 154: 45964- 45993). To control resident CAGO and protect property, natural resources, and human health and safety, the USFWS developed 50 CFR 21.49 (Airport Control Order), 50 CFR 21.50 (Nest and Egg Control Order), and 50 CFR 21.52 (Public Health Order), all of which allow for the lethal removal of CAGO, and their nests, to curtail reproduction and remove threatening individuals to mitigate identified threats posed from a growing resident CAGO population.
In California, the CDFW regulates CAGO as a game species in cooperation with the USFWS.
California Title 14, Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 503, Department of Fish and Game Code (DFG Code) Section 355, recognizes federal depredation orders and management initiatives for CAGO, and no additional permitting is necessary from the state to haze or manage CAGO in accordance with federal requirements.
The California Fish and Game (DFG) Commission has set the hunting season for CAGO from October to January, with daily bag and possession limits. The CDFW issues hunting licenses for both resident and non-resident hunters to take birds or mammals. Canada Geese are protected under DFG Code outside the hunting zones established within California, but CDFW allows for hazing or harassment of geese from private property using non-lethal methods to prevent or reduce property damage. A permit is not required for harassment of CAGO unless it involves harming or killing individuals.
California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Subsection 503, states that in accordance with the provisions in Section 355 of DFG Code and pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Fish and Game Commission approves federal orders and permits regarding management of CAGO.
Those include all orders or permits issued by the federal government authorizing the herding or take of migratory game birds to alleviate crop depredation, the Airport Control Order (50 CFR
21.49), and the Nest and Egg Control Order (50 CFR 21.50). The Nest and Egg Control Order requires an additional permit from CDFW, unless within a subset of California Counties, which includes San Mateo County.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local public agencies to complete a review process before approving and beginning a project. The review process is intended to identify and evaluate all potential impacts of proposed actions within each project and then disclose any potentially significant impacts to the public. Included within the CEQA process are steps intended to enhance public participation and improve interagency coordination through project development and approval phases, with the State Clearinghouse process being the final stage of approval. Compliance with CEQA can be met by determining whether a project is exempt from CEQA or by preparing an environmental analysis, typically a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR; CDFW 2024). MNDs 14 and EIRs identify and contain an analysis of a project's significant environmental effects and discuss feasible steps to avoid or mitigate those effects (CDFW 2024). EIRs also analyze a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or substantially lessen the projected significant effects from the project.
The CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, and native plants and is, as a result, California's Trustee Agency for those resources within the state. In support of the CEQA process, CDFW must provide biological expertise, when possible, during public agency environmental review efforts focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. To comply with CEQA, the Foster City CAGO management program must be reviewed and have potentially significant impacts described, with measures included to mitigate or avoid them.
SECTION VII: DECRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO MITIGATE CAGO-HUMAN
CONFLICT
Effective management of resident CAGO is important to reduce conflict, threats to human health and safety, and property damage. Developing a comprehensive, integrated, and adaptive management plan which provides guidance to an effective management program are important steps to support successful mitigation of conflicts. Comprehensive management of CAGO should include a well-balanced combination of tactics, and the methods and deployment strategies should be selected, tested, and thoroughly evaluated for effectiveness, to ensure that those employed best support the needs of the program. The most effective methods should be continued, with less effective or ineffective methods discontinued. This process is described as adaptive management, and the methodologies and deployment strategies identified and described below have been used with varying levels of success within other CAGO conflict mitigation programs.
Public Outreach, Education, and Participation
Engaging with, informing, and encouraging participation from members of the public are important facets to
support success within any conflict mitigation program
involving humans and wildlife. The following areas are
described and should be considered for public
engagement.
Educational Signage—Public feeding of wildlife is
problematic and counterproductive within areas where
human-wildlife conflict and mitigation occur, and
therefore, should be minimized. Signage describing the
conflicts between CAGO and human use of areas can be
developed and installed within commonly used public
areas. Signage could reinforce the importance of no-
feeding policies in mitigating conflict with CAGO and
identify any city, state, or federal policies, ordnances, or laws pertaining to feeding wildlife. Efforts could be made to update ordinances to include fines for feeding wildlife, if possible. Additional signage could be developed and
placed within parks that describe some of the efforts
being undertaken to mitigate the conflicts with CAGO, so
15 that the public is informed of the CAGO management techniques that they may observe.
Prospective poster ideas should be drafted, evaluated, and approved by the appropriate program representatives.
Websites—A local web page or website for the management program/area, could include a CAGO information page or tab that provides helpful information where members of the public may access it. The page could comprise information on conflicts between CAGO and human use of areas, importance of no-feeding policies, local, state, or federal policies, ordnances, or laws pertaining to feeding wildlife, and some management techniques that may be observed within treatment areas. All information should be reviewed for congruency with this plan and the integrated adaptive management program, once it is initiated, to ensure maximum public engagement, participation, and support.
Media Events and Social Media Pages—Periodic updates of the efforts and success within the CAGO conflict mitigation program could be published on Social Media pages to keep the public engaged as the program develops. Photos or videos may greatly assist information conveyed within these posts, although all proposed content should be reviewed by designated program representatives prior to posting to ensure that those photos and/or videos shared accurately portray the methods and efforts being utilized.
Public Participation and Engagement—One potential means of garnering support for the CAGO conflict mitigation program is to create and develop a public reporting program, with a phone number that can receive text messages and pictures from cell phones. The phone number could be posted on park signage, social media outlets, and/or the city webpage. The public reporting program could encourage members of the public to report interactions with CAGO (whether positive or negative) and include the location and a brief description of the interaction.
An option to attach a photo to reporting submissions could be added with the text to support the statements made within each report. Pictures would also allow the CAGO conflict mitigation team to verify claims made within reports and to better understand the nature of reported conflicts. This type of reporting may greatly increase the number of people that participate and submit reports and better inform the program and the CAGO conflict mitigation team. Additionally, questionnaires could be developed and made available for completion on the program’s webpage to attempt to further engage and involve residents in CAGO management efforts. Using reports received, data may be entered manually in a spreadsheet and photos uploaded where they may be easily accessed and used to inform formal and detailed evaluation of success or to identify needs for program adaptation.
There may be additional opportunities to engage the public through citizen science projects.
These projects could help supplement or replace surveys performed by park staff. This may increase the frequency of CAGO surveys that could be performed each year and help collect more data on CAGO activity and numbers within and outside the project site. As CAGO may utilize areas both within and outside project boundaries, and CAGO active within the project site are likely contributing to conflict in neighboring areas, efforts should also be made to encourage regional participation and engagement. This could be accomplished through a larger citizen science project or by meeting with other local town and/or city representatives to discuss potential low-effort surveillance or public outreach initiatives. Such data would benefit both the program and neighboring areas by providing information on a more regional scale.
Another potential public engagement opportunity is to invite citizens to assist with habitat modification efforts. The city could organize a planting day, where members of the public are invited to come help with planting of plants to help change the structure and layout of project 16 properties to deter presence and use by CAGO. This type of event could be scheduled on a weekend to garner maximum public participation, and if organized well, could also help reduce the cost of completing habitat modifications for the program through volunteer labor. An education and engagement booth or table could be set up at this type of event, where members of the CAGO conflict mitigation team are present to answer questions and discuss efforts to manage project properties to reduce conflict with CAGO.
Habitat Modification
Wildlife will move into areas that offer
attractive habitat features which support their
needs, and there are several common
elements within modern urban landscapes
that are attractive to CAGO. Geese prefer
open spaces for foraging and loafing where
they can see long distances to detect
predators. Large expanses of mowed turf
grass, particularly when near water, attract CAGO due to the combination of high-quality forage within areas where they can safely observe predators approaching from long distances. Programs could evaluate the need for large expanses of mowed grass which are attractive to CAGO, on a per-property basis. Landscapes could be designed or modified to reduce the attractiveness by reducing the amount of suitable habitat provided for CAGO. Where possible, existing large expanses of turf grass could be removed or modified, and areas with management programs should avoid creating more of those features within project boundaries when planning new park or other public areas, to minimize potential to attract CAGO and thereby prevent future conflicts.
There are many ways to make habitat less attractive to CAGO without reducing the aesthetic or negatively affecting the recreational use for which they were designed. Common practices include discontinuing mowing within areas to create un-mowed vegetative buffers or replacing turf grass with native prairie strips, butterfly gardens, native shrub rows, or landscaping designs that utilize ornamental rock piles or similar features to break up sightlines for CAGO. Riprap or other features can also be placed on shorelines to inhibit walking-access for CAGO between water and turf grass areas to forage.
Canada Geese prefer thin-bladed turf grasses, such as Kentucky Blue Grass (Poa pratensis), with the new shoots with fresh growth being most desirable. If grass can be left un-mowed or mowed to longer lengths (i.e., 5-6”), it may be less attractive and palatable to CAGO. Canada Geese observed feeding during one study, spent more time feeding in plots of Kentucky bluegrass, and less time feeding in plots of tall fescue (Festuca araneidae cv. K-31), and would not feed on common periwinkle (Inca minor), Japanese pachydermum (Pachydermum terminals), or English ivy (Headnotes helix; Conover 1991). In another study, captive CAGO selected Kentucky bluegrass, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), and fine fescue sods, over centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), and zoysia grass (Zoysia japonica), for foraging over other grasses (Washburn and Seamans 2012). To reduce foraging by CAGO, large expanses of turf grass could be left un-mowed or replaced by less palatable grasses to reduce conflict between CAGO and human use of areas, if possible, to do so without negatively affecting human use of those areas.
Reducing CAGO access between water bodies and foraging sites will help restrict their use of such areas. New forb and grass growth sites, which are typical of freshly mowed areas provide great feeding conditions for CAGO, especially if water is easily accessible nearby. Such areas
LIMITATIONS OF HABITAT MODIFICATION
•Optimal habitat modification may conflict with
intended public recreational use
•Modifications and maintenance could
increase costs
17 are preferred by CAGO during the molting process and while raising goslings in the summer months. If access to water can be inhibited or removed, CAGO presence can be significantly reduced or may be eliminated completely.
Vegetative buffers adjacent to waterbodies, sidewalks, or other areas where CAGO congregate could be modified to include strips of taller native shrubs which reduce the sightlines for geese and therefore reduce the attractiveness of areas to CAGO. Portions of properties that have large expanses of turf grass could be modified to break up such expanses with strips of native prairie, or “islands”, composed of circular or square shrub plantings inserted into the middle of large spans of turf grass to form a barrier through which CAGO cannot easily see or walk through. This is especially important within areas of turf grass adjacent to waterbodies. Vegetation islands should be large enough in diameter, tall enough in height, and dense enough to occlude seeing through the vegetation island. Natural visual obstructions created by native shrubs or other structures, should be at least 30 inches tall and 24 inches wide, and a minimum of four appropriately placed visual obstructions should be placed per acre of turf grass to breakup visual sightlines within those areas. Tall plant buffers (e.g., native prairie strips), shrub rows, or other native vegetation could be used to break up the access between manicured lawn and waterbodies as well as impede sightlines and sight distance. The wider the buffers are, the more effective they typically are for deterring CAGO presence. A minimum of 20 yards is recommended where possible (Smith et al. 1999), but smaller buffers or islands may also be effective.
Strips or islands which contain native shrubs have the added benefit of increased ecological function, including increased water storage, providing favorable habitat for native pollinators, birds, and butterflies, and often require less maintenance and watering than non-native decorative shrubs that may not be adapted to the local environment. Other habitat features, such as large diameter riprap (>2 ft diameter), retaining walls, or landscaped steps create an obstacle to CAGO and reduce their ability to easily walk from water to foraging areas.
Islands within waterbodies are attractive as nesting locations and protected island structures can result in multiple successful CAGO nests. Successful nesting results in large numbers of goslings which will support continued growth of the local CAGO population and may increase the level of conflict rather than reducing it. As a result, islands should be minimized in areas where CAGO are prevalent.
Some strategies to deter CAGO from using waterbodies include:
• Adding large diameter riprap along steep banks will impede goose movement along those areas.
• Incorporating aquatic vegetation in the littoral zone (shallow areas) of ponds will help impede the movement of CAGO to and from the water and is less desirable than non- vegetated waterbodies.
• Modifying future pond building or stormwater retention area plans to include native prairie or native shrub buffers will discourage CAGO use.
• Refraining from building islands or peninsulas into waterbodies where CAGO are not wanted will reduce the potential for CAGO nesting in the area. If possible, removing any existing islands or managing the vegetation to deter nesting by CAGO would further assist conflict mitigation efforts.
18 Exclusion Techniques
Fences could be placed around water features
to deter nesting CAGO and family groups from
moving freely from the water to the land
surfaces. Fencing materials are highly variable
and could be designed based on the area but
should be a minimum of 18” tall, have >3”
strand gaps, and be tight and sturdy enough to
prevent goslings from squeezing through small
gaps or holes. If more permanent structures
are not possible, temporary fencing could be used from March through May to discourage nesting and prevent use by family groups of CAGO.
Electric fencing could be used in some locations to provide an additional deterrent to CAGO. If used, at least two wires should be placed at 6” and 18” from the ground to be effective. The fence would be electrified via solar charger with on/off switch mounted in protective cover and accessible only by designated staff. A variety of chargers with different voltage outputs are available with low impedance energizers which deliver a short electrical pulse (once every second) that are safe and effective in excluding CAGO. Vegetation under and around the fence should be maintained to prevent it from inhibiting function and transfer of electricity through the fence wires. Cautionary signage could be placed on and near the fencing to alert humans using the area to the presence of an electrified fence to prevent safety issues. Although, this would provide an additional level of effectiveness for exclusionary fencing, this technique may not be an option in some areas due to the elevated risk of shock to humans and their dogs, regardless of signage.
Habitat alterations, such as vegetative buffers composed of native shrubs or coarse riprap, may be more effective in the long-term than fencing. A combination of these deterrent structures can create an impermeable barrier and may be more aesthetic in some situations than fencing.
Temporary exclusion fencing or floating mats can be installed relatively quickly and removed if site-use needs change.
Fencing or other exclusion methods could be installed outside of bird nesting season to reduce conflicts with other protected avian species, and this work could be conducted by personnel that are not trained in wildlife management and conflict mitigation methods. This may increase the feasibility and possibly reduce the cost of applying this method as a part of conflict mitigation programs.
Nonlethal Aversive Conditioning
The application of aversive actions which produce a negative auditory, visual, olfactory, or other sensory stimulation to deter targeted species or individuals from using areas, is called hazing.
Hazing can reduce presence and activity of targeted species within the areas or during the time frame where those methods are applied. One of the most effective forms of hazing is to simulate the presence, behavior, or scent of a natural predator, which triggers an innate fear and amplifies the behavioral avoidance response. Effective hazing has been shown to reduce the number of CAGO within a treatment area, both immediately and over time, when used as part of a
LIMITATIONS OF CAGO EXCLUSION
•May not be aesthetically pleasing
•May restrict some public use of areas within
parks
•Some devices may negatively impact other
wildlife species, humans and pets
19 comprehensive management program (Fairazl 1992, Hadidian 2002). Lasers, radio controlled (RC) devices, and dogs have all been used to effectively haze CAGO from areas where conflict exists (Gorenzel et al. 2010). A study in western New York, using a combination of border collies and remote-controlled boats to haze geese, effectively deterred over 90% of geese from treatment areas during 97% of hazing events (Holevinski et al. 2007). The use of lasers at night reduced the number of CAGO using an area by 90%, during 64% of hazing events (Holevinski et al. 2007).
Combining techniques (e.g., hazing, habitat modification, and removing anthropogenic food sources) have provided the greatest results at deterring CAGO for extended periods of time (Gosser et al. 1997). A management program that includes hazing and habitat modification, at a minimum, has been shown to decrease CAGO presence within treatment areas, and as a result, reduced their impact on water resources and conflict with humans.
The effectiveness of multiple deterrents, used both concurrently and in succession, could be evaluated to improve hazing efforts at priority sites over time. Hazing techniques and duration should be adaptive and based on CAGO response, with the types of devices and/or techniques, duration, and their placement varied to help prevent CAGO from becoming desensitized and habituated to them. Also, when possible, it is beneficial, especially in areas with high human use, to try and associate hazing tactics with all humans (e.g., citizens or maintenance personnel that are regularly present) and not just CAGO management personnel. This may be accomplished by having general city/park staff and CAGO management staff wear similar or identical pieces of clothing (e.g., bright vests, or colored bandanas) while conducting CAGO hazing or deterrence work. Additionally, once CAGO management is initiated, efforts should be made to prevent any lapse in aversive conditioning on CAGO within priority sites, to maintain an uncomfortable atmosphere in these areas and encourage CAGO to seek alternative foraging areas.
Methods and/or techniques used could be employed on foot or from a motorboat and would be dependent on the ability of CAGO management personnel to administer them efficiently and safely. When feasible, hazing tactics on land should be used consecutively with marine-based techniques. This is to prevent the natural behavior of CAGO to retreat from sources of danger on land into the water, by taking away the water as a safe place to retreat to. As such, hazing should continue into the water as CAGO retreat, so bodies of water are not able to be used as a safe haven from applied hazing methods.
Physical Harassment—This method could involve CAGO management specialists or park staff aggressively and repeatedly walking or running toward CAGO until they flush and leave the area or retreat to the bodies of water. Incorporating additional stimuli, such as clapping hands or blowing whistles, could help to amplify the
reaction of CAGO. The addition of more
negative stimuli, such as the use of water
guns or air canisters, could be used in
concert with the methods identified above
to further enhance the effect. This type of
harassment, when applied regularly and
repeatedly, should cause CAGO to move
to areas in which they are not being harassed. However to accomplish that, may require multiple personnel working simultaneously to effectively cover treatment areas. Other program staff may be able to help support these efforts by opportunistically applying some of these techniques, if feasible, in between their normally assigned tasks, if conducted in coordination with and under the direction of trained wildlife management specialists.
LIMITATIONS OF PHYSICAL HARRASSMENT
•Time-intensive and would likely require multiple
personnel to implement effectively.
•Could draw negative attention from the public.
20 Trained Dogs—Trained conservation
dogs, especially border collies, taught to haze
but not attack geese, can be used in concert
with other techniques to effectively reduce the
number of CAGO using conflict-prone areas. A
team of dogs can be used, rather than a single
dog, to increase effectiveness, especially on
larger flocks of geese. Border collies are bred as
herding dogs and are commonly used to gather
and move groups of livestock. When working to
herd targeted animals, they naturally do so with
their head low and tail tucked. This body posture
is especially alarming to CAGO, as it mimics
natural canid predators such as foxes, coyotes,
or wolves, and elicits a more innate and ingrained reaction in CAGO than a foreign or newly introduced method or predator may, including being chased in a less organized manner by other breeds of domestic dog. The reaction of CAGO is amplified as this type of herding induces the entire flock to leave the area. This may prolong the impact on CAGO and increase the likelihood of them not returning. In areas with high human use, dogs may be more advantageous than other methods of hazing, such as auditory deterrents, because trained dogs may cause less disturbance to people using the park, and CAGO may start to be more wary of other dogs following exposure to trained CAGO-hazing dogs. Spring and late summer months may be the most effective times to utilize dogs for hazing CAGO, as this will help prevent nesting during a period right after molting when adults regain flight. Although the use of dogs for aversive conditioning of CAGO is not without limitations (Castelli and Sleggs 2000); when used in combination with other hazing techniques and habitat modification it can provide a more effective and longer-term deterrence for CAGO from conflict-prone areas.
One limitation using dogs for hazing is that they
typically do not pursue CAGO into the water,
allowing CAGO to retreat while the dogs are
present, then return to land once the dogs have
left. Dogs can be trained to pursue CAGO into
the water; however, CAGO can easily avoid the
dogs when in water. In addition, groups of
CAGO have been reported to attempt to drown
dogs that pursue them into the water. Another
limitation of using dogs is that the costs can be
high, as this method requires both a trained
handler and a dog or a team of dogs along with
regular presence and possibly long hours to be successful. In addition, having dogs available for hazing CAGO when they are present can create logistical challenges. The presence of unleashed pet dogs can also interfere with the effectiveness of hazing dogs.
Remote-controlled Devices—The use of remote-controlled devices that can haze CAGO on both land and in the water, is another management tool that could be used to reduce CAGO presence and use of areas. Some devices have wheels for pursuing CAGO at high speeds on land and a floating hull that allows for water access. Alternatively, drones can be used to chase CAGO from the air, over both land and water. Unlike when using hazing dogs, CAGO are unable
LIMITATIONS OF HAZING WITH DOGS
•Cannot pursue CAGO effectively in water
•Frequency and duration required to be
effective can be expensive
•Public use of parks may restrict dog use to
specific times of day or night
•Dog use during the molting period may be
prohibited by permits
•Large parks may require the use of multiple
dogs simultaneously
21 to escape these threats by retreating to the water, ultimately forcing them to leave the area entirely. If operated correctly, the remote-controlled device can mimic the behavior of natural predators, thereby increasing effectiveness as a hazing technique.
An animal-shaped decoy or speaker playing
a unique or recognizable sound may be
attached to some remote-controlled devices,
which can further increase the success of
this technique. If CAGO return to the area
where they were previously hazed, decoys
intended to mimic the hazing may prolong its
impact.
A potential drawback of using remote-
controlled devices is that they may be
expensive due to the labor costs associated
with a trained operator and device costs.
Additionally, battery time may be limited
depending on the device, forcing frequent
battery recharging or additional batteries to
be purchased to support effective operation.
Remote-controlled devices functionality may
be affected by wind and other environmental factors, rendering them ineffective or unusable during some conditions. When considering drone use, FAA regulations may restrict usage at certain areas or times. Depending on the layout of CAGO-hazing areas, the operator of amphibious remote-controlled devices may also have to manually transfer the device between land and water. If mimic devices are placed in CAGO hazing areas, they should be repositioned often to attempt to prevent desensitization of CAGO to their presence and maintain effectiveness.
In addition, devices left in place for prolonged periods and unguarded or protected may be vulnerable to theft and vandalism.
Lights—Visual deterrence devices, such as
flashing or strobe lights, have been used to disperse
CAGO. The effectiveness of these devices is likely
situationally specific. Lights can typically be purchased for relatively low costs, deployed quickly, and placed in areas where other techniques may not be feasible. In addition, they could be easily used in conjunction with other hazing techniques, which may increase their effectiveness. Bright or flashing lights may alarm CAGO or make them
uncomfortable in the area where lights are installed.
Deterrence lights are likely to be most effective at night or during low-light conditions, and frequent repositioning of lights may increase the longevity of their effectiveness as a deterrent.
Some drawbacks of using lights to deter CAGO are that
they typically require frequent maintenance, and CAGO may become habituated to them if not used in combination with other hazing techniques or without frequently repositioning them. Lights, especially in urban areas, may also be at risk of vandalism and/or theft if not secured or protected.
LIMITATIONS OF LIGHT TO
HAZE CAGO
•Requires regular maintenance
and repositioning
•CAGO may become habituated
to them quickly
•Risk of vandalism and theft
•Limited effectiveness outside of
low-light or nighttime periods
•May be disturbing and/or
unpleasant to nearby residents
REMOTE CONTROL DEVICE LIMITATIONS
•Operator and upfront costs could be high
•Battery time may be limited
•Device functionality may be affected by wind
and other environmental factors
•Flight may be prohibited in some areas
•Operator may have to manually transfer device
between land and water
•CAGO may return to area once the device and
operator leave unless mock objects are placed
•Mock objects may be subject to theft and
vandalism
•Mock objects should be repositioned often
22 Lasers—Lasers may be more effective than other
forms of lighting to disperse CAGO from within a variety of environments. Although this technique is more commonly
used to haze geese from their nesting areas, it could also be employed to disperse them while foraging, depending
on the type of laser and time of day. Green lasers tend to be more visible to geese than red during daytime hours, but both colors are effective in low-light and nighttime conditions. Laser devices come in both hand-held and
automatic versions. Automatic systems can be
programmed and monitored remotely via cameras and be
scheduled to follow certain patterns in pre-defined areas, during selected times, or alternate their movements in a way which could help reduce desensitization to the
presence of the laser device.
Although low-powered lasers that may be used to haze
CAGO from roosting and/or nesting areas at night, could be purchased relatively inexpensively, devices capable of effective aversion during daytime hours are often more
expensive ($3,000), and automatic systems may cost more than $10,000 (and require monthly service subscriptions). In addition, multiple systems may be necessary to cover large areas or areas that are geographically separated. Hand-held lasers are likely to be more effective as they can be applied to specific targets dynamically, thereby reducing habituation. However, utilizing hand-held lasers requires personnel time and could be expensive if frequency and duration required to effectively deter CAGO from some areas are high. Automated laser systems have the potential to cause disturbance to nontarget species or humans, and unsafe conditions in public areas due to unintentional contact with the eyes of humans and pets. The FAA also restricts the use of lasers near airports due to risk to aircraft, and in some areas permits may be required for use of lasers. Automatic laser systems should only be used within areas where human and pet access are restricted to prevent unsafe conditions from occurring. Lasers should not be used over water or in areas with heavy watering to reduce potential for reflection and unintended impacts to nontargets, including humans, pets, or other species of wildlife. Automatic laser systems may be vulnerable to theft and vandalism.
Flags, Tape, and Balloons—Visual hazing tools such as flagging, mylar flash tape, and scare-eye balloons have been effective in deterring wildlife from focused areas for short durations and could be used to attempt to deter CAGO from certain sites. Most of these devices are designed to reflect light, include bright colors that are known to be disturbing to wildlife, are intended to mimic the eyes of predators, and/or blow in the wind, creating motion to make wildlife uneasy. The effectiveness of this class of devices may depend on which behaviors are occurring and how strong the allure of the area is to individuals. For example, these methods may effectively deter CAGO from nesting within areas where they are placed, as CAGO are more vulnerable to predation when sitting on a nest than while feeding or conducting other behaviors. Therefore, the presence, movement in the wind, and light reflected by these devices may be sufficient to make CAGO too nervous to nest there and encourage them to go elsewhere. However, these devices may be less effective at areas where CAGO forage. Additionally, the light and motion created by these devices may be limited to periods when there is enough light to reflect and enough wind to make the devices move. Since there is no real threat to CAGO from these devices other than the
LIMITATIONS OF LASERS TO
HAZE CAGO
•Hi-powered lasers can be
expensive to purchase
•Laser use will likely be limited
to only handheld devices which
require an operator to be
present
•May require permits
•Laser use may be disturbing to
residents and park guests
•Lasers should not be fired over
water or in areas with heavy
watering to prevent dangerous
reflection
23 initial unfamiliarity, the duration of effectiveness is likely to be brief if the locations are not varied or these devices are not used in concert with other methods.
Mylar tape is shiny and reflective and comes in a variety of colors. It could be tied to objects and used as streamers or stretched between objects to form a fence. Flags and bird deflectors could also be used to help deter CAGO from areas that have consistent wind. Although there have been numerous studies to determine the most effective flag color for deterring CAGO, the placement and frequency of repositioning may be the most crucial factors (Smith et al. 1999).
Predator-eye balloons could also be hung up or filled with helium, are brightly colored, and designed to move with the wind to mimic a potential predator.
These deterrents may be aesthetically displeasing to park users, especially if not maintained. These devices may require maintenance following storms or periods of high winds or replacement due to theft or vandalism. Additionally, these devices have the potential to negatively affect other non-target birds in the area by deterring presence or nesting.
Sound-Making Devices—There are many
sound emitting devices available for purchase
that could be used to try to deter CAGO. The
sounds emitted from such devices could be used
to startle geese and make the environment less
pleasant through producing unfamiliar noises or
familiar noises, such as predator calls or
recreational hunting, (i.e., mimicking gunshots).
Propane cannons, pyrotechnics, and electronic
devices are examples of noise emitting devices
that have been used to deter wildlife and each is
explained in more detail below.
A propane cannon with a remote or timer could be
set off when CAGO are present. These devices
do not fire a projectile but produce a noise that is
very loud and intended to startle and deter CAGO.
These devices require careful monitoring and
maintenance to ensure that they are functioning
safely and properly. If the location or timing of the
ignition of propane cannons are not varied,
desensitization can occur quickly. If set to fire on
a timer and the time frequency is not varied
randomly, wildlife may become accustomed to the cadence and begin to ignore it. Some newer propane cannons may be remotely triggered, allowing for them to be triggered only when CAGO are near them, which could increase the amount of time before desensitization and habituation of CAGO to these devices occur. However, the remote-triggered version requires personnel to be
LIMITATIONS OF SOUND DEVICE TO
HAZE CAGO
•May negatively affect other wildlife in the
area.
•Potential for disturbance to the public.
•Most electronic sound devices are
expensive.
•Risk of theft.
•May require frequent maintenance on
non-manned devices.
•Remote devices require personnel time
for set-up and operation.
•Effect on CAGO may be brief unless
paired with other deterrence/hazing
measures or sounds are alternated
frequently.
•Some potential for fire hazards for some
pyrotechnics or propane cannons.
LIMITATIONS OF VISUAL
DETERRENTS
•Visual deterrents may
require frequent
maintenance or
repositioning.
•Visual deterrents may be
less effective during
periods of low light or
wind.
•Visual deterrents may be
aesthetically displeasing
to visitors and/or
residents.
•Visual deterrents may
negatively impact other
non-target species of
wildlife.
24 present, which increases costs and logistical complications. The use of this device may be restricted or prevented entirely, due to noise ordinances or the potential to cause a fire.
Explosive pyrotechnic cartridges may be fired from a starter pistol or break-action shotgun that make loud bangs or whistling and screaming sounds. Different cartridges could be purchased and used based on the desired effects. Additionally, firearm blank cartridges, which do not fire a projectile, can be used to startle CAGO, especially those that have been exposed to recreational hunting. These devices are commonly used on airports to deter potentially hazardous wildlife species, including CAGO. The use of these devices could be prevented during some hours of the day or when members of the public are present, and disturbing sounds may carry far from the areas where they are used. Those concerns combined with potential to cause fire and/or contribute negatively to air quality and contamination of parks or waterways (due to hazardous chemicals contained in cartridges) may limit or completely prevent use of these devices within some programs.
There are many electronic sound making devices commercially available that project familiar noises (i.e. wildlife destress calls and predator calls), or unfamiliar noises (i.e. car horn or siren) that may be used to attempt to deter CAGO. Wildlife distress calls are generally more effective when they are selected to be familiar and ecologically relevant to the species targeted for deterrence. Therefore, CAGO destress calls may be the most effective deterrent sound. Predator calls from a natural predator, such as a coyote, may also be more effective to deter CAGO presence than other predator calls. Like other tools that do not have an actual cost to CAGO associated with their use, CAGO may become acclimated to the sounds quickly, reducing their effectiveness. The effectiveness of electronic sounds may be prolonged if changed frequently or used in concert with other methods. For example, if a sound is played when a remote-controlled device or trained dogs are chasing CAGO, subsequent application of the sound alone may elicit the fear associated with the devices or dogs, even though they are not present.
Many of these sound devices also have the potential to negatively impact other non-target wildlife in the area. Additionally, these devices have the potential to disturb park-goers, businesses, and residents near treatment areas, especially if used at night. Most electronic sound devices are expensive, and the risk of theft or vandalism may be high within some urban areas. Automated electronic sound devices may be sensitive to environmental factors, such as rain, wind, and salt from ocean breezes or salty substrates. As a result, sound devices may require frequent maintenance or replacement to remain operational and reliable use. Canada Geese may also grow accustomed to sounds if the timing, location, duration, and type of sound are not varied frequently. Heinrich and Craven (1989) found that resident geese in urban environments were less susceptible to noise than migratory geese. Use of some devices could also require permitting and evaluation for potential noise ordinance violations and/or fire hazards if not monitored and/or maintained.
25 Chemical Repellents—There are a variety of
chemical repellents that could be applied to lawns or
areas of turf to make the grass less palatable to CAGO.
As these repellents are typically less noticeable than
other deterrence/hazing techniques, they can be applied directly to a problem area and do not harm CAGO. Use
of these deterrents may be more advantageous and
avoid negative public perception. One such chemical is
methyl anthranilate, which is a grape flavored food
additive registered for use in human consumed food
items. It is not harmful to CAGO but irritates their mucous membranes, causing them to avoid areas where it has
been applied. Therefore, methyl anthranilate is used as the active ingredient in a variety of chemical-repellent products. Those products are typically spread directly on the grass in CAGO foraging areas to induce them to seek alternative areas with more palatable food sources.
As methyl anthranilate is degraded and diluted relatively quickly by the environment, frequent re- application may be required, especially following rainfall events, heavy watering, prolonged exposure to sunshine, and mowing, to obtain the desired results. For this reason, chemical repellents may only offer a short-term solution, and may only be feasible for application in small areas due to relatively high costs associated with purchasing the chemicals and the labor costs to apply them. However, this can be a viable method for use in areas where other methods are not feasible due to site specific or personnel-specific constraints or in small areas where CAGO forage.
In addition to direct application of methyl anthranilate to the substrate within areas where CAGO may forage or loaf, additional products containing methyl anthranilate can be applied using a fogger, which aerosolizes the product by applying it in a fine mist so that it can be carried with the wind. There are both stationery and mobile fogging devices. Foggers cannot be used in proximity to humans, during periods with higher winds, and have other restrictive conditions that may reduce the areas and times when these methods may be used. Restrictions, limited-duration effectiveness, and costs (associated with the products and personnel time to employ this method) make it ineffective as a standalone tool, but it could be used as part of a comprehensive program or in areas where use of other methods is not feasible.
Localized Reproductive Control
To complement deterrence and hazing efforts,
localized reproductive control for nesting resident
CAGO could be included as a part of a management
program. This is an important and well-established
component of comprehensive conflict mitigation
programs throughout North America. Canada Geese
that are born in or near areas where conflict exists will imprint on those areas and return to attempt to nest in the same areas. Preference for natal sites is a form of site fidelity. The stronger site fidelity is, the harder it could be to deter or haze individuals from those areas.
Once site fidelity has been reduced and few or no
CAGO are born in or near conflict areas, deterrence
LIMITATIONS OF CHEMICAL
REPPELLENTS
•May only offer short term
protection, for foraging areas,
before re-application is needed.
•Costs for labor and the product
may be high due to frequency of
re-application necessary to be
effective.
LIMITATIONS OF
REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL
•May take multiple unsuccessful
nesting attempts and/or seasons to
reduce site fidelity for some
individuals.
•Effective nest searching efforts
may require additional personnel
time.
•May not be well-received by the
community.
26 and hazing methods are likely to become more effective, which may require less effort and lower cost to maintain an effective CAGO mitigation campaign.
Areas with habitat suitable for nesting by CAGO in or near areas where public conflict exists could be identified and monitored for nesting activity. If nesting activity is identified, those areas could be searched diligently and regularly for presence of active nests, and all nests discovered in or near CAGO conflict areas could be oiled, addled, or removed to prevent eggs from hatching. This will reduce the number of CAGO that develop site fidelity to those areas. Modifying this cycle begins by ensuring that CAGO that attempt nesting within or near conflict areas are unsuccessful there. Although destruction of nests may be more likely to result in renesting attempts within the same season, it may go further to reduce site fidelity by increasing fear of predation and humans in areas where that treatment is applied. Although this could take multiple nesting seasons of failed nesting attempts to successfully accomplish, it is an effective part of successful long-term CAGO management programs.
In addition to reducing the number of CAGO with fidelity to areas where conflicts exist, if all nests are found and destroyed within a given nesting season, fewer goslings will be present overall. To ensure that all nests are found and destroyed, additional personnel could be needed during certain times of the year. This form of localized population control is generally better received by the public than lethal removal of individuals, making it easier to include in conflict mitigation programs.
Lethal Removal
Lethal removal of CAGO, either directly via firearm or
by capture and euthanasia, is often used to
supplement, reinforce, and renew effectiveness of
nonlethal deterrence or hazing methods as a part of
comprehensive and effective long-term human-
CAGO conflict mitigation programs. The use of lethal
methods depends on limitations associated with site
characteristics, public perception, and other factors.
Due to legal, ethical, and public constraints, these
methods should only be used when all other methods
have been sufficiently applied, evaluated, and
determined infeasible or unsuccessful. The timing
and application of lethal methods should be carefully
planned and completed, must adhere to state and
federal permit requirements, and should be
conducted in coordination with state and federal
wildlife agencies, as appropriate.
Recreational Hunting—Recreational hunting
is a part of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation and is often used as a method to help manage populations of wild game species, including CAGO. The CDFW sets hunting seasons and bag limits within a framework established by the USFWS in the Pacific Flyway. With evidence to support a steady increase in the number of resident non-migratory CAGO within developed areas of California, recreational hunting does not provide sufficient means of limiting population growth. In addition, the number of people recreationally hunting is decreasing in many areas, including California. Although hunting is still conducted at some public properties in the San Francisco Bay area, the level of CAGO take conducted does not appear to be sufficiently
LETHAL CONTROL LIMITATIONS
•Potential for negative public
perception and response
•Must obtain and maintain Federal
MBTA Depredation Permit
•Must have a plan for proper disposal
of carcasses
•Safety limitations may apply
depending on techniques used and
location of treatment area
•May not solve problem if recruitment
is high
•Hunting is not allowed within proximity
of some areas
27 reducing the number of resident CAGO within the Bay Area enough to mitigate conflicts, and hunting is not allowed within Foster City.
Professional Removal—When nonlethal conflict mitigation methods are not sufficient to mitigate conflict with wildlife, including CAGO, lethal removal using trapping or firearms may be the only remaining option to effectively protect human health and safety. These methods require training and expertise to comply with permit requirements and mitigate public safety and relations concerns. Due to these factors, lethal removal should only be conducted by wildlife management professionals. For landowners that have obtained MBTA Depredation permits, CAGO may be lethally removed directly by firearm and/or by trapping and euthanasia. An array of trap types may be utilized for removal of CAGO, with the most common being a coral trap and dropnet. It is important to follow Guidelines established by the American Veterinarian Medical Association for humane euthanasia of wildlife.
SECTION VIII: SURVEILLANCE TO INFORM EFFECTIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT A comprehensive CAGO conflict mitigation program should include a diverse and adaptive set of methods and strategies to be effective in the short and long terms. To support such a program, a focused surveillance effort could also be employed to identify and evaluate the timing, location, and behavioral responses of CAGO to the applied management techniques. To facilitate this, data should be collected following scientifically defensible and repeatable methods, and ideally, should be collected and evaluated by trained personnel; this is especially important during the initial stages of program development. Canada Goose presence and behavioral assessment metrics should be identified at the onset of the program and continuously reevaluated through in-person and digital surveys. Supplemental information may also be gathered from members of the public.
Surveillance data can also be used to evaluate and track human use of program areas, help identify the most appropriate methods and timing of application of those methods to mitigate CAGO presence, and to reduce or prevent impacts to project site users.
Digital Surveillance—To track CAGO use of the project site more efficiently and their response to management methods, cellular transmission-capable cameras should be installed and maintained within program site boundaries. Cameras allow for more comprehensive surveillance than possible using in-person surveillance alone. Digital surveillance will be especially valuable when attempting to identify where CAGO relocate to once displaced from a location by hazing methods. Real-time viewing of surveillance camera footage would allow management personnel to redirect efforts to another park if CAGO displaced from one park relocate there. All CAGO detections should be entered into a cumulative database to support more comprehensive evaluation of CAGO activity within FCP prior to, during, and following the applied management methods.
Physical Surveillance—Physical surveillance should be conducted by qualified personnel to identify CAGO age composition, including adults, juveniles, and nests, and evaluate their behavior. Physical surveillance should be conducted along with digital surveillance from pre- identified surveillance points (e.g. Point Count Surveys) to standardize data collection effort and allow for comparison between and across various time periods (e.g., months or years) and the type of mitigation methods applied. Surveillance points would be established within project boundaries and in areas that allow the observer to view CAGO without disturbing or affecting their presence or behavior. This surveillance could be conducted during both daytime and nighttime hours and on foot, or from a vehicle or boat, to effectively identify where and when CAGO are present and evaluate their behavior within all areas surveilled. Both conventional and special- 28 purpose optics (e.g., binoculars, spotting scopes, or thermal scopes) would be used during physical surveillance, and the timing and location of these efforts could include both standardized and adaptive surveillance points and schedules to allow for more comprehensive evaluation of CAGO presence and behavior.
To compliment digital and physical surveillance conducted by the hazing team, information provided by other members of the CAGO Conflict Mitigation Team (CCMT) or the public could be utilized. To facilitate this, a “CAGO reporting hotline” could be established that other project staff or members of the public could use to send text messages that may be viewed by designated program personnel and include information such as time, date, location, approximate number of CAGO, behavior, and/or photo documentation if deemed feasible by the program representatives.
GPS Tracking—In addition to other forms of CAGO surveillance, deployment of Global Positioning System (GPS) collars on some CAGO should be considered to further evaluate movements within the project area and regional movements between nearby cities and state and federal wildlife areas. Satellite telemetry would provide information on CAGO movements during the day, night, and during seasonal changes and could likely be done more effectively and at a lower cost than conducting in-person surveys to attempt to gain this information.
Satellite telemetry is the most efficient means and may be the only feasible means of identifying where CAGO that are using project sites are nesting. Identifying nesting areas will allow for effective and targeted reproductive control. Information gained through satellite telemetry may also be used to cultivate productive conversations with state and federal agency land and resource managers and garner their support for conflict mitigation efforts within the project site.
In addition, telemetry data could help identify ways that agency-managed properties in the region could be better managed to help alleviate conflict between CAGO and human use at the project site and neighboring properties.
SECTION IX: APPROACH FOR CAGO CONFLICT MITIGATION WITHIN FOSTER CITY The purpose of this Plan is to identify an approach, including a set of methods and a progression for application, evaluation, and adaptation of those methods, to enable Foster City to reduce damage to FCP properties (from CAGO) and conflicts between geese and park users, thereby, maximizing the utilization and enjoyment of FCP by citizens. Foster City leadership acknowledges that the tolerance for CAGO within FCP, and opinions regarding what should be done to mitigate conflicts, varies among citizens and park users.
The lethal removal of all CAGO from Foster City is not a feasible solution and would likely be ineffective as a long-term strategy, as those removed are anticipated to be quickly replaced by others from nearby cities or state or federally managed wildlife areas. Additionally, lethal management of CAGO was removed from the set of proposed methods included within this plan due to public responses and concerns, so only non-lethal methods were included within this plan at the time it was written. Additionally, translocation has been disallowed by the CDFW, and therefore was also removed from mitigation methods identified in this plan.
There are 24 parks spread throughout Foster City, which differ in structure and human use. To employ effective habitat modification, deterrence, and hazing for CAGO conflict-mitigation across all parks simultaneously would require a massive effort and may be very costly. For this reason, a phased and tiered approach is identified herein for initiating a comprehensive CAGO conflict- mitigation effort. Once conflict mitigation efforts are successful within the priority parks, the program may be expanded to include additional areas where conflict with CAGO exists. 29 Foster City will identify key members and establish a CAGO Conflict Mitigation Team (CCMT).
The CCMT will be comprised of Foster City Parks and Recreation Management staff, additional Foster City Staff, contracted professional wildlife biologists and conflict mitigation specialists, members of the Foster City Public Relations Department, and other contributors as necessary.
Under the guidance provided in this Plan, the CCMT will begin targeting parks where conflicts with CAGO have been greatest. Parks will be prioritized based on public complaints, where CAGO feces has been commonly encountered, and where sports fields, recreational areas, or recreational waters have been contaminated by CAGO feces. Parks and park areas where those conditions have occurred will be identified as priority parks or park areas, and targeted using methods that are likely to yield the most immediate reduction of conflict with CAGO. Management techniques at priority parks will be carefully selected, and each method will be evaluated for effectiveness, based on the behavioral response of individuals or groups of CAGO to the application. Surveillance data from before, during, and following treatment will be used to evaluate the methods applied. Through the adaptive management process, the most effective methods will be identified and used in the conflict mitigation program going forward. The evaluation process will be important to:
1. Allow for testing methods and application strategies that have been successful in other states, properties, or areas where there has been CAGO-human conflict, to determine which are most effective and most feasible methods for use at FCP.
2. Minimize costs associated with developing and ratifying an effective CAGO conflict mitigation program at FCP.
3. Identify lessons learned during the treatment application, evaluation, and adaptation in priority areas to inform development of customized strategies and reduce effort necessary to implement effective conflict-mitigation within other areas in Foster City where there are conflicts with CAGO.
Canada Goose use of priority parks was evaluated during approximately three months of camera surveillance conducted during the development of this Plan. Since CAGO activity within FCP is likely to differ seasonally, additional surveillance will be conducted to further evaluate CAGO abundance, distribution, and behavior at each park, during the initial portion of plan implementation. The program will be developed in progressive phases. Second and third-tier parks, along with other important properties for conflict-mitigation, will be identified cooperatively by the CCMT, and mitigation efforts will be prioritized based on programmatic resources and needs.
Phased Approach to Program Development
Phase I: Site Visits, CEQA Review, and Initiation of Surveillance—The initial phase comprised site visits (conducted by Wildlife Innovations (WI) and Foster City representatives) to identify priority parks and evaluate them for suitable CAGO habitat, discussion of historical CAGO-human conflicts at FCP, and discussion of previous methods that were used to attempt to manage CAGO at FCP. Selection criteria used to identify priority parks were based on their proximity to the lagoon system, presence of sports fields used by children, and history of conflicts between human use and CAGO presence. Seven priority parks were identified: Leo J. Ryan Park, Erckenbrack Park, Marlin Park, Gull Park, Catamaran Park, Sea Cloud Park, and Edgewater Park (Fig. 7).
30 Figure 7. Map of Priority parks identified in Foster City, California.
31 To comply with CEQA, an initial review was conducted, an initial study designed, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was authored and approved. This Plan and the methods and application strategies identified within it were designed to comply with recommendations stemming from the approved MND (Appendix B).
Digital camera surveillance was initiated within priority parks to better understand CAGO and human use and inform future targeted mitigation efforts. Cellular-transmission cameras were used to allow for real-time viewing of camera photos. Nine cameras were installed in six priority parks, and one camera was installed at an additional park where conflicts and CAGO presence had been occurring. Camera locations and placement were selected to maximize field of view (FOV) in areas anticipated to have the highest CAGO activity. Cameras were programmed to take and transmit one photo every 15 minutes, from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset, with the intent to identify and pattern CAGO use during daylight hours, as roosting within priority parks was unlikely to occur at night. Phase I surveillance efforts will be used to inform Phase II efforts, with the surveillance and evaluation scheme also being expanded during this phase.
Phase II: Continued Surveillance and Implementation of Adaptive Management—During Phase II, surveillance of both CAGO and human activity within priority areas will be continued, as described for Phase I, and adapted as needed for Phase II to best meet the needs of the program.
In-person surveillance will also be conducted, as needed, to complement information gathered by digital surveillance and to fill gaps in time and/or space that cannot be sufficiently evaluated by digital surveillance alone. Surveillance data gathered during Phase I and II will be used to identify priority times and areas to focus mitigation efforts. If feasible to utilize GPS collars to further evaluate CAGO movements, park use, and nesting locations, it would be important to deploy them during this phase, prior to the initiation of active hazing, so that trapping and fitting selected individuals with transmitters may be conducted more efficiently.
Before active hazing or deterrence of CAGO is initiated, public outreach will be conducted, which may include installation of informational signage at priority parks, posts on Foster City social media pages, and information provided on the Foster City website. These outlets will be utilized to inform FCP users of CAGO mitigation efforts, so that FCP users better understand and support habitat modifications or active CAGO hazing, if observed.
Habitat assessment data will be used to inform design and initiation of habitat modifications within priority parks, of which more detailed recommendations are discussed in Section X of this Plan.
Habitat modification, where feasible and effective, is likely to net the greatest long-term effect to reduce CAGO presence within FCP and will be an integral part of conflict mitigation efforts conducted under this Plan. Where habitat modification is not possible (e.g. on sports fields) or until habitat modification can be completed, an organized plan to begin active hazing will be developed by the hazing team, which will comprise a series of methods for testing that may be applied both individually and in concert with other methods.
Hazing and other deterrence techniques, including nest destruction, will be employed following established protocols, with the associated behavioral response to each method evaluated and recorded to allow for formal evaluation of treatment methods. Hazing efforts and corresponding results will be recorded using digital data recording applications, such as ESRI’s Field Maps application. Records will be georeferenced for each observation and the number of CAGO observed, age and sex composition of the group of CAGO, the behavior when first observed, the hazing method(s) applied, and description of the effect of the hazing method(s) applied recorded. 32 If deterrence methods are used (e.g. lights, predator decoys, etc.) those will occur in the presence of a cellular-transmission capable camera positioned to help evaluate impacts on CAGO behavior.
Surveillance will continue using cameras and in-person surveys, to help identify areas and times of use for CAGO, so hazing efforts can target those locations and time periods. Surveillance data collected by the hazing team may also be supplemented by data generated from public outreach efforts. Following the initiation of hazing, CAGO will likely change their behavior at priority parks, and cellular camera data will also be used to identify these shifts for redirecting efforts. Repeated hazing from priority parks will increase the energetic cost to CAGO, preventing them from grazing within priority parks, and eventually, making it too energetically expensive to forage within priority parks.
Once habitat modifications are completed within priority parks, CAGO presence will likely be further reduced. However, habitat modification alone may not completely prevent CAGO activity within modified areas. Therefore, other deterrence or hazing efforts may continue to be necessary within select areas. Habitat modification, deterrence, and active hazing applied in concert are likely to reduce intensity and duration of each method necessary for effective CAGO conflict mitigation in the future. Habitat modification and hazing, especially within the smaller parks, have the greatest potential to result in significant reduction or near complete extirpation of CAGO from those areas. However, it may take some time to identify the most effective and feasible habitat modifications within each area of each FCP.
The level of management effort implemented will be adapted to provide coverage across both space and time, at all priority parks, to allow for sufficient conflict mitigation. High-intensity hazing (i.e. daily or near-daily) is expected to be necessary during the initial stages of the program, to alter the behavior of CAGO that are already habituated to using FCP. Hazing should be applied to each flock that attempts to use a priority park as close to their arrival time on site as possible.
This will require a well-coordinated effort, near-complete surveillance (combination of digital and in-person), and adequate personnel availability. Re-conditioning and/or breaking site fidelity for resident adults accustomed to using FCP’s may take time before avoidance is learned. Further, following successful conditioning of CAGO currently accustomed to using FCP’s, other CAGO in proximity to the city or region may attempt to begin using FCP’s. Those new migrants will also need to be targeted using hazing methods and aversively conditioned to avoid FCP, although, less effort will be required to reach desired results with new migrants than with resident flocks.
Information collected during the second phase will inform development of site-specific management strategies and act as a baseline of CAGO activity to be used for measures of success.
Phase III: Continue Adaptive Management for CAGO—Evaluation and implementation of all habitat modification, CAGO surveillance, deterrence and hazing, and public engagement/outreach efforts will be continued in priority parks during Phase III. As the number of CAGO using those parks are effectively reduced and/or mitigation efforts become more efficient, the number of properties treated may be increased beyond the priority parks, and the program expanded.
Conflict Mitigation Strategies for City-Wide Application Public Outreach
1. “No feeding” signage will be placed at all parks to reduce and/or prohibit feeding of wildlife, especially CAGO. Efforts should be made to update ordinances to include fines for feeding wildlife, if possible. These ordinances and fines should be displayed on signs along with 33 the negative impacts of feeding for wildlife, FCP facilities, and public enjoyment.
2. A CAGO information page or tab should be added to Foster City’s website that provides information about CAGO biology and the conflicts and management occurring in the parks, so members of the public may access it and stay informed of program happenings.
3. Efforts and success of the CAGO conflict mitigation program may be included on Foster City’s social media outlets, to keep the public engaged and informed as the program develops.
4. A public reporting program should be developed and made available to encourage members of the public to report positive or negative interactions with CAGO. For this, questionnaires could be accessed on Foster City’s webpage that evaluate residents’ support or concerns for CAGO management at FCP; these questionnaires should have boxes that identify individuals as residents of Foster City, California, or Out of State. QR codes or links to these questionnaires could be displayed on “No Feeding” or other signage for easy access. Reporting systems such as these may greatly increase the number of people that participate and submit information and could be used as one of the measures for success.
5. The public may be engaged through citizen science projects that could help collect more data on CAGO activity and numbers within and outside of parks.
6. Neighboring cities also experiencing conflicts with resident CAGO should be encouraged to collect data in a similar manner to this program, to help better understand CAGO activity on a regional scale. A regional working group could be formed and include local state and federal resource agency personnel.
Habitat Modification
1. Modifications to landscape designs will be made to make parks and other areas less attractive and less accessible to CAGO.
2. The amount and size of contiguous areas of turf grass should be reduced where feasible to reduce the amount of suitable area to support CAGO foraging.
3. The use of native landscaping vegetation, such as shrubs, and fencing material should be used to hinder transition between water and turf grass within parks to reduce CAGO activity.
4. Sightlines for CAGO should be reduced to less than thirty feet where feasible.
5. Grasses, like Ryegrass, orchard, Kentucky Blue, fescues, or timothy should be avoided, and less palatable, coarse grasses should be utilized where possible.
Aversive Conditioning
1. An adaptive hazing and deterrence program will be initiated to increase stress to CAGO and make FCP less desirable for foraging, roosting, and nesting.
2. Hazing and deterrence work will be conducted in coordination with and under the direction of wildlife biologists specialized in conflict mitigation.
3. Higher intensity hazing will be conducted in high-activity areas (for CAGO) within priority areas or parks, as those areas are identified through surveillance.
4. The intensity of hazing effort will be greater during ecologically relevant times of year for CAGO (e.g. ahead of the molt), to maximize effectiveness of the program and achieve desired results.
5. Nest searches and destruction should be employed throughout all FCP properties to reduce resident CAGO reproductive success and site fidelity.
Surveillance of CAGO
34 1. Physical and digital surveillance will be conducted within priority FCP and other relevant properties, to continue to assess and quantify CAGO presence, behavior, and density within those areas, identify the most appropriate hazing or deterrence methods and times for implementation, and evaluate the efficacy of the methods employed to measure success.
2. GPS collars should be fitted to at least one individual from each gaggle, active at priority parks, to gather better information on timing of site use, nesting, roosting, foraging, and to better understand regional movements between properties throughout the year.
Data Logging
1. Canada Goose surveillance data collected through both digital and in-person methods, will be logged and reviewed regularly.
2. Public complaints regarding CAGO within FCP should be logged and tracked. •Information, such as name of complainant, residency status, date, time, park name, number of CAGO observed, number of CAGO directly involved, conflict type, and other pertinent information should be collected.
•A user-friendly reporting system that allows residents and park guests to easily report CAGO conflict events should be developed.
•Questionnaires could be developed and made available for completion on Foster City’s webpage. QR codes could be posted on signs and social media outlets that allow residents and park guests to report conflicts with CAGO.
3. Foster City Park staff time spent responding to CAGO damage will be logged and tracked, with the type of response, such as cleaning fecal depositions and replanting and/or excessive damage to grass or landscaping, recorded.
4. The date, location, description, and costs associated with cleaning up or repairing damage caused by CAGO will be logged to help determine annual costs and the months of greatest damage associated with CAGO use of FCP or other properties.
Measures of Success
a. Reduction in E. coli within Foster City Lagoon from CAGO feces. b. Reduction in complaints received regarding CAGO at priority parks. c. Reduction in observed CAGO at priority parks, during digital and in-person surveillance, by the CCMT.
d. Reduction in staff or contracted time to clean fecal deposits from priority parks. e. No observations of people feeding wildlife at FCP.
Conflict Mitigation Methods for Priority Parks
The following methods were proposed and vetted through the CEQA process and will be used during Phases II and III by the CCMT.
Table 3. Summary of the Canada Goose Management Techniques for Foster City, CA.
Technique Description
Habitat Modification
Habitat will be modified, and native vegetation will be planted in select areas to create fewer desirable areas within Foster City parks for CAGO to gaggle. Modifications include planting a variety of native shrub species intended to mimic habitat more suitable for predators (e.g., coyotes), making it less desirable for geese.
35 Technique Description
Remote Controlled Devise (RCD)
Land-based and/or amphibious remote-controlled devices
(brightly colored device that resembles a canid predator), aerial drones, and/or remote-controlled boats will be used to haze CAGO. If necessary, a speaker, capable of playing sounds that can make geese feel more uneasy (e.g.,
predator calls), will be used with such devices to increase effect.
Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO
A small boat will be used to conduct surveillance of and haze CAGO in the lagoon where vehicle or shoreline
access are not possible from land. Boats will allow
personnel to get closer to CAGO to deploy other hazing
methods or devices as needed. Boat operations are
intended to increase hazing effectiveness and will typically be used in combination with another technique during the day or night.
Noise Makers
Dynamic noise making devices/speakers with capability of playing natural predator sounds, CAGO distress calls, or other irritating sounds, when triggered may be placed on the front of a boat, on a drone or other RCD, or placed in a fixed position within the parks and operated remotely.
Trained Conservation Dogs
Trained dogs or a dog team will be used to haze CAGO
from within the parks. Trained handlers will direct the dogs to pursue gaggles and/or individuals of CAGO until all birds take flight and leave the area.
Lasers (hand-held) Lasers (green) will be used to flush foraging, roosting, and nesting geese from treatment areas.
Lighting
Localized LED lighting, such as a fox light, will be placed in CAGO nesting areas. Lights will be placed in fixed positions to deter CAGO from nesting or roosting.
Balloons
Balloons (e.g., Scare Eyes) would be secured and mounted to deter CAGO from nesting or roosting in areas. Balloons would be anchored down.
Fogger
A backpack-style mobile mist blower would be used to emit grape-seed extract (EcoBird 4.0, EPA#: 86583-4) into the air up-wind from CAGO that are observed loafing, resting, or foraging within parks.
Addling or Oiling of Eggs
Eggs within CAGO nests would be addled, by vigorously
shaking them, coated with 100% corn oil, or removed
completely to prevent CAGO eggs from hatching.
36 New Technologies and Innovative Methods
A comprehensive management program begins with testing methods and application techniques reported to have been successful at other sites. For this plan, each method and application technique will be evaluated methodically, using a scientific framework. Results will be statistically evaluated, and only the most effective and efficient methods will be continued. To maximize efficiency and potentially reduce costs of a long-term management program, continuous efforts will be made to gather additional information from sources, such as scientific literature, human- wildlife conflict meetings and conferences, professional groups, or other experts, to evaluate whether new and better management methods and technologies are available and may be relevant for use within the program. When new methods are identified, their feasibility, probability of success, and cost will be evaluated before integrating them within the program. New techniques that are identified and implemented will be tested and evaluated using the adaptive management process identified above.
Annual Program Review and Progress Report Preparation
A comprehensive report will be generated annually, summarizing the CAGO mitigation actions employed, review and discussion of their effectiveness, a summary of CAGO surveillance by park and time period, and recommendations for the subsequent year will be authored. Lessons learned will be used to evaluate whether management can be expanded to additional parks or other city properties effectively within the available program resources. Recommendations for the next steps will be provided and any additional resources that may be needed to best support the program will be identified in the report. This information will be used to support the development of the most cost-effective, CAGO conflict mitigation program possible.
SECTION X: RECOMMENDED HABITAT MODIFICATIONS FOR PRIORITY PARKS The layout and composition of each priority park, type of human use, and the presence of playgrounds, sports fields, and recreational beaches and waters were all surveyed, photographed, and evaluated for potential to attract and support CAGO. The amount and type of grass, amount of available sandy beach, and the presence and type of trees, shrubs, or other ornamental planters, were surveyed and recorded. Habitat modifications may be especially important in discouraging, or even preventing, use by CAGO within smaller parks. If successful, the active deterrence and hazing effort required at those parks may be substantially reduced, and as a result, more cost effective for the overall program.
Of the seven parks surveyed for specific habitat modifications to deter CAGO, the two largest (>20 acres) were Leo J. Ryan and Sea Cloud Parks, followed by Catamaran Park (approx. 5.8 acres), and Gull, Erckenbrack, and Marlin Parks (approx. 3-3.5 acres). Of these, three had beaches with direct access to the Foster City Lagoon (Gull, Erckenbrack, and Marlin Parks), two were adjacent to the lagoon but did not contain sandy beach areas (Leo J. Ryan and Catamaran Parks), one was divided from the lagoon by a large fence with a vegetated row (Sea Cloud Park), and one park was not adjacent to the lagoon (Edgewater Park). Three of the parks contain sports fields (Sea Cloud, Catamaran, and Edgewater Parks), and those parks were composed of a mix of artificial and live turf. Within parks that contained artificial turf fields, most parks had strips or areas of live grass, between or adjacent to the fields, composed of artificial turf. Although artificial turf does not provide a food source for CAGO, it can provide space for loafing, adjacent to the strips of live turf that are utilized for food.
Habitat modification can be labor and time intensive, especially in the beginning; however, where successful, habitat modification has the greatest potential to reduce the long-term cost of 37 mitigating conflicts with CAGO. Habitat modification may net the most programmatic gain within the smaller priority parks, such as Gull, Marlin, and Erckenbrack, where less effort would be needed to dissuade CAGO, thereby, potentially reducing the level of hazing and deterrence effort necessary in those areas and allowing the CCMT to redistribute those efforts to other parks.
When initiating habitat modifications, larger areas of uninterrupted turf grass should be targeted first. Where possible, continuous areas of turf grass should be allowed to grow to a minimum of 5-6” in length and replaced with less-palatable grasses, or with artificial turf (if/where allowed), to reduce the attraction of CAGO for grazing. Where turf replacement is not possible, large areas of turf grass should be broken up by adding islands composed of vegetation or large rock piles (composed of rock >2ft in diameter) and/or perimeter borders of vegetation, to reduce the distance of open sightlines for CAGO. Islands or rows of vegetation or rock should be of a size sufficient to conceal a coyote or wolf-sized predator within or behind each visual obstruction. Literature supports that this strategy may make CAGO nervous and wary of becoming vulnerable to predation within those areas. These habitat modification strategies are also likely to increase the effectiveness of hazing, when used in combination.
A list of suitable and recommended native plant species is provided that could be used to build vegetated islands or borders along the edges of waterbodies or large areas of turf grass, with the growth characteristics, size, water, and light needs for each of those plant species are provided within Appendix A. The recommended plant species are California native plants, which require less water to survive and have the added benefits of providing habitat for other native wildlife species. These native plants should be planted in clusters and used within complementary combinations to achieve the height and density needed to provide the illusion that a canid predator could be hiding within or behind each island or row of plants. For example, some plant species may not be wide and dense enough (all the way to the ground) to prevent CAGO from seeing underneath them but may grow tall and typically contain thicker foliage from 12-36 inches from ground level (e.g., Baccharis spp.). In this situation, complimentary, lower growing vegetation (e.g., sage spp.) planted in combination with the taller shrubs, will add the lower-growing visual obstruction needed to break up CAGO sightlines sufficiently.
Properties with beaches or water edges that allow CAGO to leisurely walk from water to land, should be modified, where possible to do so without impeding desired human use. This can be achieved by lining those areas with coarse rock (>2 ft diameter), placing emergent vegetation at the water’s edge or below the surface of the water growing on small ledges, and/or strategically placed fencing. Obstructions along water edges are especially important to deter CAGO presence during the molt period of the year, when they cannot easily fly over those obstructions. During the molt period, obstructions can be low (e.g. 12 inches), which would allow humans to step over the obstructions while preventing CAGO access.
The sections below were developed to help identify areas where specific habitat modifications may be possible within priority parks, and to provide visual representations for the habitat modifications recommended. Figures 10, 13, and 16 show specific recommendations for Marlin, Gull, and Erckenbrack Parks, respectively. Park-specific maps were not developed for Leo J.
Ryan, and habitat modifications within Catamaran, Sea Cloud, and Edgewater parks may impede human use of those parks. Due to the presence of sports fields and practice areas that surround those sports fields within Edgewater, Sea Cloud, and Catamaran parks, habitat modifications that include adding islands or rows of shrubs, may impede the current human uses of those areas.
The modifications mapped within Figures 10, 13, and 16, and the principles described, can be applied to similar areas within all parks, if determined to not conflict with human-use of those 38 areas. If habitat modification becomes necessary to deter CAGO and mitigate conflicts within Edgewater, Sea Cloud, and Catamaran parks, alternative habitat modification strategies, such as replacement of all live grass with artificial turf or chemical treatment of live turf may be necessary to deter CAGO, if hazing alone is not sufficient.
In the maps below, the pink, hatched circles identify approximate locations recommended for round or other shaped planter “islands” which could be used to compose a mosaic to create enough visual obstructions which CAGO cannot see through (Fig. 10,13, and 16). Additionally, the “green-hatched” areas delineate recommended locations for vegetated borders around open areas of turf grass. Areas with “blue-hatched” markings delineate recommended locations for vegetated borders or privacy fencing that could be placed at the rear of sandy beaches to break up CAGO sightlines between near-shore or beach areas from turf areas, which could be used for foraging or loafing. In these locations, chain-link fencing already exists. Privacy cloth could be added to that fencing to provide a visual obstruction to break up CAGO sightlines easier, more quickly, and at lower cost than adding a vegetated border in front of or behind that chain-link fencing. However, privacy cloth may not be as aesthetically pleasing for park users as a manicured hedge or shrub row.
The locations and size of vegetation islands and borders within maps are drawn to approximate scale; however, the actual dimensions, shapes, and shrub compositions should be varied to address site-specific CAGO presence and behavior following installation to identify which sightline obstructions are most effective to deter CAGO presence and use. Additionally, if planted shrubs are not of mature size and structure when initially planted, evaluation of their effect, or lack of, should be delayed until shrubs have matured enough to provide sufficient height, width, and density to adequately occlude CAGO sightlines.
Marlin Park
One of the smaller priority parks evaluated for habitat modification, Marlin Park, is bordered by Marlin Avenue and near Pompano Circle. The park comprises 3.1 acres, 23% of which is turf grass, and has a large sandy beach on Foster City Lagoon at the western edge of the park (Fig. 8–9). There is a playground and a bathroom on each edge of the park, with a paved walkway extending between them. The large turf grass area in the middle of the park is approximately one acre with two large trees (Fig. 8; Area 1), one yellow wood (Cladrastis kentukea) and one arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis; Sohcahtoa 2024). The bases of those trees are narrow and do not provide much visual obstruction for CAGO, and no planters with sufficiently tall and thick shrubs exist within Marlin Park to provide visual obstructions for CAGO. Additionally, the sandy beach provides direct water access for CAGO. The combination of water nearby to escape from predators and ample forage available, make this park ideal for CAGO use.
Visual obstructions, such as vegetated islands, should be added within the large area composed of turf grass (Fig. 8; Area 1) to occlude sightlines and visible distance for CAGO (Fig. 10). The perimeters of that open grass area and the rear of the beach should be lined with thick hedges or vegetated rows to provide additional visual obstructions for CAGO. Alternatively, the chain-link fence at the rear of the beach could be modified by adding a cloth barrier or by planting vine-like vegetation to grow on the fence, to reduce visual sightlines of CAGO when using the beach.
The simplest and most cost-effective habitat modifications to make within this park include adding privacy cloth to the chain-link fence at the rear of the beach and adding a few vegetated islands within the middle of the turf grass area. These initial modifications should be made and follow-up surveillance of CAGO behavior should be conducted to determine how they respond to these modifications. If the initial modifications do not deter CAGO or only partially deter CAGO, 39 additional habitat modifications should be made to further break up CAGO-sightlines, followed by more behavioral surveillance to evaluate the success of those adaptations.
Figure 8. Marlin Park on Marlin Avenue and Pompano Circle with the priority habitat modification area identified and labeled.
40 Figure 9. Photos of Marlin Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data. a
b
c
d
e
f
41 Figure 9 (cont’d). Photos of Marlin Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
g
h
42 Figure 10. Marlin Park, with recommended habitat modifications to deter CAGO.
43 Gull Park
Gull Park is located on Gull Avenue and is close to Audubon Elementary School. At Gull Park, 45% of the 3.1 acres is composed of turf grass (Area 1). A sandy beach is located on the southern edge of the park that provides access to Foster City Lagoon for human recreation and for CAGO to easily walk to and from the water. The park has two sand-lined areas, with play equipment for children. Two trees on the edge of the main segment of turf grass, include redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and canary island date palms (Phoenix canariensis; Sohcahtoa 2024). Non-native sea lavender (Limonium perezii) and native manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) shrubs are present within planters. One paved walkway runs through the center and towards the eastern side of the park, with no CAGO sightline obstructions along its edges. The turf grass areas are easily accessible for CAGO via walking or a short flight from the sandy beach, and insufficient CAGO sightline impediments make this park an easy place for CAGO to forage and loaf (Fig. 11–12).
Visual obstructions, such as vegetated islands, should be added within the large area composed of turf grass (Fig. 11; Area 1) to occlude sightlines and visible distance for CAGO (Fig. 13). The perimeters of the open grass area and back portion of the beach should be lined with thick hedges or vegetated rows to provide additional visual obstructions for CAGO. Alternatively, the chain-link fence at the rear of the beach could be modified by adding a cloth barrier or by planting vine-like vegetation to grow on the fence and reduce visual sightlines for CAGO.
Initial habitat modifications within this park should include adding privacy cloth to the chain-link fence at the rear of the beach and adding at least a couple vegetated islands within the middle of the turf grass area (if determined to not conflict with desired human use of the park). After those habitat modifications are completed, follow-up CAGO surveillance and behavioral assessment should be conducted to identify whether and how CAGO respond to the initial modifications. If CAGO remain present and their use of the park is unchanged, additional habitat modifications should be made, and subsequent CAGO behavioral surveillance conducted. This process should be continued to identify the most effective and feasible habitat modifications to deter CAGO from FCP. Habitat modifications that are found to deter CAGO within this park should be expanded in use to include other parks or other city properties.
44 Figure 11. Gull Park on Gull Avenue with the priority management area indicated by the number 1.
45 Figure 12. Photos of Gull Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data. a
b
c
d
e
f
46 Figure 13. Gull Park, with recommended habitat modifications to deter CAGO.
47 Erckenbrack Park
This park is located off Niantic Drive and Brewer Island Elementary School and comprises 3.4 acres, 29% of which is open and primarily composed of turf grass (Fig. 14; Area 1). Erckenbrack Park has one large sandy beach on the northeastern side that borders Foster City Lagoon. There are two sand-lined children’s play areas and two paved pathways running towards Niantic Drive on both ends of the park. A circular concrete wall partially obscures CAGO sightlines in one portion of the beach. Tree species present include a large redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), southern marigold (Magnolia grandiflora), and bottlebrush (Callistemon viminalis; Sohcahtoa 2024). Non-native plants present include iris (Iris sp.), Mexican marigold (Tagetes lucida) and Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum). A large open area of turf grass exists in the middle of the park, with walking access to Foster City Lagoon via the beach. No CAGO sightline impediments exist within that large area of turf grass, and visual barriers that exist on the perimeters of the park are insufficient to deter CAGO. Like Marlin and Gull Park, the combination of water access and open areas of turf grass for foraging and loafing, make nearly all of this park suitable for CAGO (Fig. 14–15).
Visual obstructions, such as vegetated islands, should be added within the large area composed of turf grass (Fig. 14; Area 1) to occlude CAGO sightlines and visible distance (Fig. 16). If the islands alone do not deter CAGO presence, the perimeters of the open grass area and the back portion of the beach should be lined with thick hedges or vegetated rows to provide additional CAGO visual obstructions. Alternatively, the chain-link fence at the rear of the beach could be modified by adding a cloth privacy barrier or by planting vine-like vegetation to grow on the fence, to reduce visual sightlines of CAGO when using the beach.
To keep costs and effort as low as possible, yet provide sufficient habitat modifications to deter CAGO, initial habitat modifications within this park should include adding privacy cloth to the chain-link fence and adding a few vegetated islands within the middle of the turf grass area (if determined to not conflict with desired human use of the park). Then follow-up surveillance should be conducted to evaluate how CAGO respond to those initial modifications. If the initial modifications do not sufficiently deter CAGO, additional islands should be added, and hedge or vegetation rows should be added to the perimeters of the open grass area, and along pathways.
Modifications determined to successfully deter CAGO should be expanded in use to other parks or city properties, and CAGO surveillance data collection should continue to ensure that the most effective and cost-efficient methods are identified and expanded in use. 48 Figure 14. Erckenbrack Park, located on Niantic Drive with the priority habitat modification area labeled.
49 Figure 15. Photos of Erckenbrack Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
a
b
c
d
e
f
50 Figure 16. Gull Park, with recommended habitat modification features to deter CAGO presence.
51 Leo J. Ryan
Leo J. Ryan (LJR) is one of the two largest parks in Foster City and is centrally located, bordered by East Hillsdale and Shell Boulevards. The park totals 20.75 acres, 52% of which is turf grass (Fig. 17), and includes a large, horseshoe-shaped stretch of Foster City lagoon shoreline on the southern-facing side. The park is composed of a boardwalk and cement walking paths and contains the William E. Walker Recreation Center, bocce ball courts, the Veterans Honor Wall, the Leo Ryan Park Amphitheater, Leo J. Ryan Park Gazebo, and other important features. Many paved walkways connect areas of the park and create approximately 23 different segments of turf grass, comprising 10.8 acres of the park area (Fig. 17–18). These open areas of turf grass range in size with four distinctly larger areas that are each about one acre (Fig. 17; Areas 1, 3, 4, and 5) and those larger areas should be prioritized for habitat modification to reduce attractiveness to CAGO. More than 20 species of trees were recorded during the habitat survey performed, some of which include: Italian alder (Alnus cordata), Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina), red iron bark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), Corkscrew willow (Salix matsudana), Siberian elm (Ulmus pulmila), and Peruvian peppertree (Schinus mole; Sohcahtoa 2024). Although there are many trees within LJR, the trunks are narrow and do not provide sufficient breakup of sightlines to deter CAGO. Planters exist along the edges of areas of turf grass, which contain mostly low-growing shrubs and plants that do not obstruct sightlines sufficiently to deter CAGO presence.
Due to the large size of LJR, the complexity of the mosaic of pathways and planters, each section was not mapped to provide visual representation of recommended placement for additional sightline impediments for CAGO. The same general principles for habitat modifications described and mapped for smaller parks such as Marlin, Gull, and Erckenbrack should also be applied to LJR. Habitat modifications recommended are based on literature and what has worked within other properties, in other states, or areas, but no literature or habitat modification to deter CAGO has yet to be conducted and evaluated within FCP. It will be important to apply some of the modifications that have been successful elsewhere, and test whether they also work within FCP’s to deter CAGO. Additionally, some modifications may conflict with desired human use of parks.
Since it is not yet known which modification strategies will not conflict with human use of FCP’s, nor which strategies will be most effective and cost efficient to deter CAGO within FCP’s, mapping of LJR was not conducted. Smaller parks within Foster City should be targeted for habitat modification before LJR, so that testing and evaluation of different modification methods can first be conducted within smaller properties, likely at much lower cost and effort, before expanding use of only the most effective methods to use within larger parks like LJR.
Existing planters within LJR, especially those along the perimeter of large areas of turf grass (e.g., Areas 3, 4, 5, 6), should be modified to include taller, thicker shrubs that would better occlude the CAGO sightlines across and between open areas of turf grass. Since planters already exist at the edges of Areas 1–6 within LJR, some of the needed habitat modification may require less effort and cost to employ. To reduce costs and ensure success of habitat modifications to deter CAGO presence, some planters should be modified to include taller and thicker shrubs, and follow-up surveillance of CAGO behavior should be conducted. Additionally, park areas where the greatest amount of CAGO conflict has occurred in the past should be targeted for habitat modification first.
If modification to the existing planters does not prove sufficient to deter CAGO, vegetated rows should be added along the entire north side of the boardwalk, and vegetated islands should be added where possible within Areas 3, 4, and 5. Follow-up surveillance and behavioral evaluation for CAGO response to those modifications conducted.
52 Area 2 includes the amphitheater, and only small sections of lawn exist there. Area 1 is far from the lagoon, and as a result may be less desirable for CAGO use. Area 6 is smaller and more broken up than other areas. Therefore Areas 3, 4, and 5 should be prioritized for habitat modification. Once Areas 3, 4, and 5 are modified, and CAGO are no longer using or are less present within those areas, the successful modifications identified within those areas should be expanded to the areas within LJR. In addition, if CAGO are observed present at LJR during the period of the year when they are molting, a fence should be placed along the water’s edge to prevent CAGO from easily transitioning from the water to the boardwalk and on to the areas of turf grass. Literature supports that a fence as low as 12 inches in height may effectively deter CAGO during the molting period from transitioning between water and land areas. 53 Figure 17. Leo J. Ryan Park on Hillsdale and Shell Boulevard with priority management areas for habitat modification indicated by the numbers 1 through 6.
54 Figure 18. Photos of Leo J. Ryan Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
a
b
c
d
e
f
55 Figure 18 (cont’d). Photos of Leo J. Ryan Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
g
h
i
j
k
l
56 Figure 18 (cont’d). Photos of Leo J. Ryan Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
m
n
o
p
q
r
57 Catamaran Park
Catamaran Park comprises 5.8 acres and is located centrally in Foster City, along Catamaran Street and Shell Boulevard. The northern boundary of the park is the longest edge and borders Foster City Lagoon. However, Catamaran does not have a sandy beach or beach access and instead includes a chain-link fence and a concrete curb. Open areas of both live and artificial turf grass occur in this park (Fig. 19–20), with a soccer field and practice area covering 86% of the park’s area. The soccer field is composed of artificial turf, with the practice area to the north of the soccer field consisting of live grass (Fig. 19; Area 1). The non-turf portions of the park include a small playground, a basketball court, two tennis courts, a beach volleyball court, and one restroom building. Except for approximately 20 trees, such as native juncus (Juncus patens), non- native New Zealand flax (Phormium tenax), lantana (Lantana sp.), and oleander shrubs (Sohcahtoa 2024) bordering the southern and southwestern portions of the park, the park is completely open and has no sightline obstructions for CAGO. Although walking access between the park and the lagoon is not possible for CAGO, a short flight over the fence may allow CAGO to move between foraging areas within the park and the safety of the lagoon easily.
The largest live turf grass area is located at the northwestern end of the park (Fig. 19; Area 1).
Area 1 is the only area where CAGO were observed foraging during camera and in-person surveillance and may be the only area of this park where habitat modification is possible.
However, Area 1 was observed to be used for soccer practice and warm-up type activities, and conflict with those human uses may prevent use of most habitat modification strategies. If Area 1 is to be modified to deter CAGO, vegetated islands installed within that portion of the park may be the only possible modifications. Since the additional of vegetated islands may conflict with human uses currently in practice within this park, and perimeter shrub rows are unlikely to effectively deter CAGO due to the amount of open area afforded from the soccer field, those habitat modifications are not likely possible within Catamaran. Since habitat modification may not be possible within this park, no mapping was conducted, and instead CAGO conflict-mitigation within Catamaran may rely on hazing.
58 Figure 19. Catamaran Park on Catamaran Street and Shell Boulevard with the priority management area indicated by the number 1.
59 Figure 20. Photos of Catamaran Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
a
b
c
d
e
f
60 Sea Cloud Park
Sea Cloud Park is the largest priority park, consisting of 23 acres and is located on Sea Cloud and Pitcairn Drive on the southeastern edge of Foster City. Approximately 87% of this park is open, with long-distance CAGO sightlines possible due to few obstructions and presence of many open sports fields (Fig. 21–22). The north edge of the park butts up against Foster City Lagoon, although a tall chain-link fence and vegetated row divide the park from the lagoon and prevent walking access by CAGO. There are six baseball fields and four soccer fields within Sea Cloud.
Four of the baseball fields are comprised of live grass with bare dirt infield areas, and four soccer fields are all artificial turf. All the visual obstructions currently within the park are on the edges, leaving the middle of the park open for loafing and foraging by CAGO. Approximately 20 trees (ten large and ten small) are scattered between the sports fields, and include Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), pine trees (Pinus spp.), Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), large weeping willows (Salix babylonica), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia;) and cabbage trees (Cordyline australis; Sohcahtoa 2024). These conditions make the park a desirable site for CAGO for loafing, and foraging. An adjacent property to the east includes a water catchment basin that may provide suitable nesting habitat for CAGO. It is unlikely that any habitat modifications to that property are possible, without affecting the function of it. However, if possible, removing vegetation from that property outside of the nesting season may reduce the attractiveness for CAGO, during the nesting season.
Since the addition of vegetated islands may conflict with human uses currently in practice within this park, and perimeter shrub rows are unlikely to effectively deter CAGO due to the amount of open area afforded from the sports fields, those habitat modifications are not likely possible within Sea Cloud Park. Since habitat modification may not be possible within this park, no mapping was conducted, and instead of relying on habitat modification for CAGO conflict-mitigation within Sea Cloud Park, hazing may need to be the primary method used for conflict-mitigation. If hazing alone does not effectively deter CAGO from using Sea Cloud, chemical treatment of some areas could be tried, if determined to not be hazardous to children playing sports within those treated areas. 61 Figure 21. Sea Cloud Park on Sea Cloud and Pitcairn Drive with four baseball and soccer fields, all of which are priority management areas.
62 Figure 22. Photos of Sea Cloud Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
a
b
c
d
e
f
63 Figure 22 (cont’d). Photos of Sea Cloud Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
g
h
i
j
k
l
64 Figure 22 (cont’d). Photos of Sea Cloud Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
m
n
o
p
q
r
65 Edgewater Park
Edgewater Park consists of 9.5 acres and is located between Regulus Street, Polaris Avenue, and Edgewater Boulevard. This park is not located on Foster City Lagoon, and contains five tennis courts, one baseball/soccer field, and one basketball court (Fig. 23–24). There are multiple buildings along the baseball/soccer field and one sandy play area to the south. Edgewater Park is comprised of 54% contiguous live turf grass, and trees that include white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Non-native herbaceous plants present in the park include white sweet clover (Trifolium repens), Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), and cheese weed (Malva parviflorum; Sohcahtoa 2024).
There is one large area of turf grass at the northern end of the park (Fig. 23; Area 1), which contains no visual obstructions for CAGO sightlines, and is not part of the sports fields. Although Area 1 was not observed being used by park-goers during surveys, it may be used for practice or warmups before soccer or baseball games. If Area 1 is used for those activities, it is not a suitable candidate for habitat modifications which include vegetation islands and perimeter plant rows. As it is suspected that is the case, potential habitat modifications were not mapped for that Area, but mapping done for Gull, Marlin, and Erckenbrack can be viewed to visualize the types of modifications that could be used for Area 1 within Edgewater Park.
Trees located around this section are mostly redwood. The trunks of those trees provide some breakup of sightlines, but not sufficient breakup to deter CAGO presence. The leaves of redwood trees are very acidic, making it difficult to grow other plants below redwood trees. Additionally, the shade provided by those trees may prevent plants from gaining adequate sunlight to support growth below the trees. If the turf grass in Area 1 is not necessary for human use, it should be broken up by installing vegetation islands, to obscure CAGO sightlines. Surveillance to evaluate CAGO behavior following installation of a few islands should be conducted to determine whether sufficient deterrence occurs following modifications. If CAGO continue to use Area 1 following the addition of vegetation islands, the north and eastern edges of Area 1 should be modified to include shrub rows or hedges of sufficient height and width to break up CAGO sightlines. Following those additional modifications, more surveillance and behavioral evaluation of CAGO should be conducted to assess success or lack of. If habitat modification is not possible due to human use, or habitat modification that is possible is determined to be insufficient to deter CAGO, conflict- mitigation with CAGO within Edgewater Park may rely on hazing alone. 66 Figure 23. Edgewater Park between Regulus Street, Polaris Avenue, and Edgewater Boulevard showing the priority management area indicated by the number 1.
67 Figure 24. Photos of Edgewater Park, with georeferenced camera locations and camera view directional data.
a
b
c
d
e
f
68 SECTION XI: LITERATURE CITED
Baldassarre, G. 2014. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Baxter, A. and J. Hart. 2010. A Review of Management Options for Resolving Conflicts with Urban Geese. Bird Management Unit, Food and Environment Research Agency. Sand Hutton, York, UK.
Bedard, J. and G. Gauthier. 1986. Assessment of Faecal Output in Geese. Journal of Applied Ecology. 23(1):77–90
Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
Buck, J. D. 1990. Isolation of Candida albicans and halophilic Vibrio spp. from aquatic birds in Connecticut and Florida. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 56:826–828.
Castelli, P. M., and S. E. Sleggs. 2000. Efficacy of border collies to control nuisance Canada geese. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:385–392.
CDC. 2023. Parasites - Cercarial Dermatitis (also known as Swimmer’s Itch). <https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/swimmersitch/index.html>. Accessed 1 March 2024.
CDFW. 2024. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. <https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/CEQA>. Accessed 1 March 2024.
Clark, L. 2003. A Review of Pathogens of Agricultural and Human Health Interest Found in Canada Geese. USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 205.
Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Conover, M. R. 1991. Herbivory by Canada Geese: Diet Selection and Effect on Lawns.
Ecological Applications. 1(2):231–236.
Converse, K. M. Wolcott, D. Docherty, and R. Cole. 2001. Screening for Potential Human Pathogens in Fecal Material Deposited by Resident Canada geese on Areas of Public Utility. United States Geological Service, National Animal Health Center, Madison, WI.
Cooper, J. A. 1998. The potential for managing urban Canada geese by modifying habitat. Pages 18–25 in Proceedings of the 18 th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis.
Curtis, P.D., H. Henrichs, L. Braband, J. Lampman. 2016. Evaluating and Mitigating Canada Goose Impacts to Parks, Schools, and Golf Courses
Dolbeer, R. A. and J. L. Seubert. 2009. Canada goose populations and strikes with civil aircraft, 1990-2008: challenging trends for aviation industry. Special Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. Washington D.C.
Fairazl, S. D. 1992. An Integrated Approach to the Management of Urban Canada Goose Depredations. Pages 105–109 in Proceedings of the 15 th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis.
69 Feare, C. J., M. F. Sanders, R. Blasco, and J. D. Bishop. 1999. Canada geese (Branta canadensis) droppings as a potential source of pathogenic bacteria. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. 119:146–155.
Foster City. 2024. Parks and Recreation. <https://www.fostercity.org/parksrec>. Accessed 1 March 2024.
Fox, A. D., J. Madsen, H. Boyd, E. Kuijken, D. W. Norriss, I. M. Tombre, D. A. Stroud. Effects of agricultural change on abundance, fitness components and distribution of two arctic- nesting goose populations. Global Change Biology. 11:881–893.
Gorenzel, W. P., T. P. Salmon, and R. Imai. 2010. Response of Water Birds to Hazing with a Red Laser. Pages 235–240 in Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis.
Gosser, A. L., M. R. Conover, and T. A. Messmer. 1997. Managing problems caused by urban Canada geese. Berryman Institute Publication 13, Utah State University, Logan.
Hadidian, J. 2002. Resolving Conflicts between People and Canada Geese: The Need for Comprehensive Management Approaches. Pages 175–179 in Proceedings of the 20 th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis.
Heinrich, J. W. and S. R. Craven. 1989. Evaluation of a Canada goose call-activated switch for crop damage abatement. Pages 65–69 in Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference.
Holevinski, R. A., P. D. Curtis, and R. A. Malecki. 2007. Hazing of Canada geese is unlikely to reduce nuisance populations in urban and suburban communities. Human-Wildlife Conflicts. 1(2):257–264.
Hussong, D., J. M. Damare, R. J. Limpert, W. J. L. Sladen, R. M. Weiner, and R. R. Colwell. 1979.
Microbial impact of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and whistling swans (Cygnus columbianus columbianus) on aquatic ecosystems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 37:14–20.
Kullas, H., M. Coles, J. Rhyan, and L. Clark. 2002. Prevalence of Escherichia coli serogroups and human virulence factors in faeces of urban Canada geese (Branta canadensis).
International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 12:153–162.
Liu, H. C., Q. Z. Yin, M. J. Ye, C. W. Zhang, J. Liao, and Q. X. Peng. 1989. A serological survey of Legionnaires' disease in domestic fowls and animals in Chengdu area. Hua Xi Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 20:441-444.
Manny, B. A., W. C. Johnson, and R. G. Wetzel. 1994. Nutrient additions by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia. 279/280:121–132.
Pacific Flyway Council. 2023. Management plan for the Pacific Flyway population of western Canada geese. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Palmer, R. S.1976. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 2 and 3. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Raffel, T. R., K. B. Register, S. A. Marks, and L. Temple. 2002. Prevalence of Bordetella avium infection in selected wild and domesticated birds in the eastern USA. Journal of Wildlife 70 Diseases. 38:40–46.
Rusch, D. H., R. E. Malecki, and R. E. Trost. 1995. Canada geese in North America. Pages 26– 28 in Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. USDI. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.
Sauer J. R., K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, A. C. Smith, M. R. Hudson, V. Rodriguez, H.
Berlanga, D. K. Niven, and W. A Link. 2017. The first 50 years of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The Condor. 119:576–593.
Schlater, L. K., B. O. Blackburn, R. Harrington, Jr., D. J. Draper, J. Van Wagner, and B. R. Davis. 1981. A non-O1 Vibrio cholerae isolated from a goose. Avian Diseases. 25:199–201.
Smith, A. E., S. R. Craven, and P. D. Curtis. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban environments. Jack Berryman Institute Publication 16, and Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, N.Y.
Sohcahtoa, LLC. 2024. Habitat Assessment Report for Select Parks in Foster City, California.
Unpublished report. 39 pages.
Warnick, L. D., L. M. Crofton, K. D. Pelzer, and M. J. Hawkins. 2001. Risk factors for clinical salmonellosis in Virginia, USA cattle herds. Preventative Veterinary Medicine. 49:259– 275.
Washburn, B.E., and T.W. Seamans. 2012. Foraging Preferences of Canada Geese Among Turfgrasses: Implications for Reducing Human-Goose Conflicts. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(3):600–607
Wehbe, P. A. 2020. Canadian Geese Management Methods in Indian Lake. Undergraduate Project Report, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Woodruff, R. A., J. Sheler, K. McAllister. D. M. Harris, M. A. Linnell, and K. I. Price. 2004.
Resolving urban Canada goose problems in Puget Sound, Washington: A coalition-based approach. Pages 107–112 in Proceedings of the 21 st Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis.
71 APPENDIX A: LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS FOR HABITAT MODIFICATION Name Size Moisture
Level Sunlight Irrigation Growth
Rate
California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica) 1-8ft tall by 4ft wide
Extremely/ve
ry low Full sun 1x per month Fast
Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum) 1.6-5.9ft tall by 2-
3ft wide Low/very low Full shade, part
shade 1x per month Moderate
Coyote Bush (Baccaris pilularis) 1.5-10ft tall by
12ft wide Low/Very low Full sun, part
shade 1x per week Fast,
moderate
California Buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum)
1-6.6 ft tall by 3 ft
wide
Extremely/ve
ry low Full sun 1x per month, none once
established Fast
Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) 8ft tall by 10-15ft
wide
Extremely/ve
ry low
Full shade, part
shade
2x per month, never once
established
Fast,
moderate
Eastwood Manzanita (Arctostaphylos
glandulosa spp. glandulosa)
3-10ft tall by 3-
10ft wide Very low Full shade, part
shade 1x per month Moderate,
slow
Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) 3-13ft tall by 1-8ft
wide)
Extremely/ve
ry low Full sun 2x per month Slow
72 APPENDIX B: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) for all projects for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. A public agency is required to adopt a MMRP to ensure compliance, efficacy, and enforceability of all mitigation measures during project implementation. Specifications are made herein that identify the action required for each mitigation measure recommended in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, include the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight. The MMRP will remain in place through all phases of the project. Specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation will be defined prior to final approval of the project. The lead agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to other agencies or contracted entities, but the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
The City of Foster City (hereafter “City”) is the lead agency and will be responsible for administering the MMRP activities or delegating them to staff, other City departments, consultants, or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through reports (if required) and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. A contracted environmental monitor (e.g. Wildlife Biologist) hired by the City will track and document compliance with mitigation measures for Biological Resources, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems. A contracted, qualified Archeologist may be needed to guide and document compliance with Cultural Resource mitigation measures identified. Data collected during mitigation measure compliance surveys or effort will be recorded and stored within digital databases. Written reports documenting mitigation measure compliance will be generated and submitted as requested or required.
The mitigation measures proposed will become conditions of project approval if the project is approved. The City is required to verify that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented properly to ensure compliance, and that this MMRP has been adhered to, although conduct and tracking responsibilities may be delegated to qualified staff or consultants. The MMRP shall be adopted, along with CEQA Findings, by the City and must be administered by the City. Specific responsibilities are identified for each measure in the table below (Table A-1). The table should be used by the applicant, all contractors, and personnel from City Departments, as the appointed mitigation implementation and monitoring entities.
73 Table A-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, identifying each mitigation measure, the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure and the time for implementation of each mitigation measure.
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Aesthetics
Impact AES-1 - Use of Mylar Balloons and
Mylar Tape. The use of mylar balloons and/or
mylar tape would change the visual character
of the parks. The CAGO Mitigation Plan notes
that the duration of effectiveness is likely to be
brief if the locations are not varied or these
devices are not used in concert with other
methods. The CAGO Mitigation Plan also
notes that these devices have the potential to
negatively affect other non-target birds in the
area. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1 is
proposed to limit the use of mylar balloons
and/or mylar tape to a maximum of two weeks
of continuous use with a minimum two-week
period of non-use. Impacts would be less
than significant.
MM AES-1 - Use of Mylar Balloons and Mylar Tape: The use of mylar balloons and/or mylar tape at a park shall be limited to two (2) weeks of continuous use followed by a minimum of two (2) weeks on non-use.
Project proponent
(Foster City, Foster
City Parks and
Recreation
Department, All City
Staff and Contractors)
All
phases
of the
project
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1 - Migratory Birds and
Nesting Raptors: Project activities could
disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees
and shrubs in park and lagoon areas.
Potential impacts on special-status and
migratory birds that could result from the
operation of the Project include the
destruction of eggs or occupied nests,
mortality of young, and the abandonment of
nests with eggs or young birds prior to
fledging. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1
would reduce impacts to migratory and
nesting raptors protected under the MBTA to
less than significant
MM BIO-1 - Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors:
1) If Project work is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local native avian species (typically February 15 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the Project boundaries, where possible) the Project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are found, Project activities may proceed.
2) If an active nest is located during the pre-activity survey, Project activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include the establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the Project schedule.
Project proponent
(Foster City, Foster
City Parks and
Recreation
Department, All City
Staff and Contractors)
During
the
avian
nesting
season
74 Table A-1 continued. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, identifying each mitigation measure, the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure and the time for implementation of each mitigation measure.
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-01 and CUL-02: The proposed
project would include a variety of hazing
methodologies to deter the geese population
on site. Minor physical changes include
installation of planters and minor alteration of
the open space areas. No physical
alterations of existing buildings on any of the
sites are currently being considered.
Furthermore, as part of the adoption of the
General Plan Final Environmental Report
(FEIR) in 2015, Foster City has adopted
Standard Conditions of Approval (SCOAs)
and mitigation measures that are related to
cultural resources. These SCOAs are
included as mitigation measures to ensure
that if archaeological or paleontological
deposits or human remains are encountered
during excavation or construction activities,
appropriate measures would be
implemented to reduce potential adverse
effects. While the proposed project would not
result in substantive ground disturbance
activities, the project would be required to
implement the same conditions of
approval/mitigation measures prior to and
during any work that would be ground
disturbing.
MM CUL-01 – Accidental Discovery of Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological: If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Community Development Director immediately notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the find, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the analysis and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits discovered. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the Foster City Community Development Department and the Northwest Information Center. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains. Adverse effects to such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible (as determined by the City, in conjunction with the qualified archaeologist), the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, avoidance of project impacts on the deposit shall be the preferred mitigation. If adverse effects on the deposits cannot be avoided, such effects must be mitigated.
Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; preparation of a brochure for public distribution that discusses the significance of the archaeological deposit; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological material sat a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City shall ensure that any mitigation involving excavation of the deposit is implemented prior to the resumption of actions that could adversely affect the deposit.
Project proponent
(Foster City, Foster
City Parks and
Recreation
Department, All City
Staff and Contractors)
All
phases
of the
project
75 Table A-1 continued. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, identifying each mitigation measure, the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure and the time for implementation of each mitigation measure.
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Cultural Resources
MM CUL-02 - Human Remains: If human remains are
encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be directed and the County Coroner and the Community
Development Director immediately notified. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. The project sponsor shall also be notified. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this
identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report
documenting the methods and results and provide
recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The project sponsor shall comply with these recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the project sponsor, the Foster City Community Development Department, the MLD, and the
Northwest Information Center.
Project proponent
(Foster City, Foster
City Parks and
Recreation
Department, All City
Staff and Contractors)
All
phases of
the
project