INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Performance Period Report (04 August 2025 – 31 December 2025)
Submitted to:
City of Foster City
Submitted by:
Wildlife Innovations, Inc.
DUNS: 081042844
CAGE: 81PJ1
EIN: 82-3456892
12 January 2026
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 3 SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ............................................................. 3 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD .................................................. 6 SECTION IV: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS .................. 6 Site Assessments ................................................................................................................... 6 CAGO Surveillance and Behavioral Assessment .................................................................... 6 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................ 8 Public Outreach and Education .............................................................................................. 9 Data Collection and Review .................................................................................................... 9 SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................10 CAGO Observations and Trends ...........................................................................................10 Scat Transect Survey Data ....................................................................................................14 Tracking CAGO Movements with GPS Transmitters ..............................................................16 SECTION VI: PLAN FOR NEXT QUARTER AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................16 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED .........................................................17 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS ......................................................................24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Priority parks, identified in Foster City, California............................................. 5 Figure 2. Number of Canada Geese observed by location and month. .....................................11 Figure 3. Heat map, depicting the locations of Canada Geese observed within Foster City during this quarter. ........................................................................................................................12 Figure 4. Number of Canada Geese observed during point count stations surveys conducted by park and by month, during RP1..........................................................................................13 Figure 5. Number of Canada Geese detected during point count station surveys by park and by month, within RP1 of effort. ................................................................................................14 Figure 6. Canada Goose scat piles per meter square recorded during transect surveys, by mark and month. .........................................................................................................................15 Figure 7. Two pictures of banded and GPS collared Canada Geese, captured within Foster City, California. ..........................................................................................................................16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of point count station surveys conducted by station and time period. .............13 Table 2. Number of scat piles observed during surveys by transect and month. .......................15
3 SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To reduce park damage and mitigate human health risks associated with Canada Geese (Branta canadensis; CAGO), particularly from fecal accumulation in public parks and waterways, Foster City contracted Wildlife Innovations (WI) to implement a comprehensive, long-term, adaptive, and site-specific management program consistent with the City’s Management Plan. The pilot program, stemming from the Plan, is being conducted within seven priority parks within the city.
The contract was executed on 04 August and WI began equipment and personnel hiring and program development immediately. This report details the efforts and data collected during Reporting Period 1 (RP1; identified as 04 August and 31 December 2025).
Project work during RP1 includes site-specific evaluations; assessment of site access routes and logistical limitations; project kickoff and coordination meetings; equipment acquisition; database design and testing; camera placement; data collection; acquisition of permits required to capture, band, and deploy Global Positioning System (GPS) transmitters on CAGO; employee hiring and training; hazing dog acquisition and internal team development; habitat modification design and development; public outreach discussions; and CAGO capture, banding, and transmitter deployment.
During RP1, 12 cellular transmission cameras were placed and operated within seven priority parks for collection of CAGO presence and behavioral data. Pre-treatment surveys were conducted to understand baseline CAGO presence before hazing and habitat modifications are conducted. Those included 739 point count station surveys (PCS) and 1,503 scat transect surveys (STS). Initial data indicated presence of CAGO within all priority parks, although presence was irregular within some parks during this period. In total, 8,725 CAGO were observed and recorded within Foster City, 64% of which were observed in priority parks. Since nearly all CAGO were not individually identifiable (i.e. wearing bands or tags), observations recorded were likely repeated observations of some individuals. CAGO presence was greatest within Sea Cloud Park, and more CAGO were observed during October than during other months. Seven CAGO were captured within five city parks, banded, and GPS transmitters deployed to help track CAGO movements, the timing and frequency of use of those areas, and response to hazing and habitat modifications conducted as a part of the program.
During Reporting Period 2 (identified as 01 JAN-31 MAR 2026; RP2), WI will continue to develop the program, building on the foundation that was established this quarter. Monitoring of CAGO will continue, through PCS, STS, and GPS transmitter data, to identify, document, and evaluate how their presence and use of priority parks change as nesting season approaches and in response to habitat modifications and hazing within priority parks. WI will increase surveillance efforts for suitable nesting habitat located within Foster City to identify CAGO nesting attempted within the city limits and consider removal of any nests discovered to prevent successful hatching and imprinting new goslings on the city. Additionally, WI will initiate hazing/aversive conditioning, including hazing with a dog team, to reduce CAGO presence and begin evaluation of techniques.
SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
Foster City is located 17 miles south of San Francisco on the western shore of San Francisco Bay, where nearby protected lands, including Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and Eden Landing State Ecological Reserve, provide extensive foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for CAGO. As a result of available habitat within this area, and modifications to the habitat by humans that resulted in removal of many natural predators that would have helped to regulate the CAGO
4 population, reduction in recreational hunting, and milder weather associated with climate change, an unnatural, nonmigratory population of resident CAGO has become established in the southern part of San Francisco Bay, and may be growing. As a result of the growing resident population of CAGO, cities in the region are being forced to seek solutions to mitigate conflicts stemming from property damage and human-CAGO conflicts.
Foster City manages 24 parks and open spaces which are centered around Foster City Lagoon, which is used for recreation and stormwater detention. The lagoon features 16.5 miles of shoreline connecting seven parks, three with beach and swimming access, and supports widespread water recreation. City parks and the lagoon are attractive to nonmigratory resident CAGO for foraging and loafing. Frequent overlap between CAGO and public recreation within city parks has resulted in conflicts, property damage, and health and safety concerns. A comprehensive management plan to mitigate conflicts with CAGO was developed which describes a proactive, adaptive, and nonlethal approach to reduce these conflicts through habitat modification, deterrence and exclusion, aversive conditioning (aka hazing), localized reproductive control, monitoring, and public education, which are consistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) management recommendations and regulatory authorizations.
To reduce park damage and mitigate human health risks associated with CAGO, particularly from fecal accumulation in public parks and waterways, Foster City contracted WI to implement a comprehensive, long-term, adaptive, and site-specific management program consistent with the City’s Management Plan. To evaluate the effectiveness of hazing and deterrence efforts and to inform development of a long-term CAGO management strategy, WI was tasked with developing a pilot project stemming from the plan, which was to include testing and evaluation of the following:
parks-specific habitat modifications, hazing with Remote Controlled Devices (RCD), drones, trained dogs, lasers, a fogger, an audio deterrent system, and other methods as appropriate or determined necessary.
Work conducted during RP1 to develop and implement this program included steps to investigate, evaluate and begin to mitigate human–CAGO conflicts within seven (7) priority parks identified based on lagoon proximity, presence of youth athletic fields, and conflict history. Priority parks included: Leo J. Ryan, Erckenbrack, Marlin, Gull, Catamaran, Sea Cloud, and Edgewater Parks (Fig. 1). One additional park, Boothbay, was identified as a control park, due to frequent presence of CAGO, and will be used to evaluate priority parks before and after adaptive management is conducted to deter CAGO within priority parks.
5 Figure 1. Map of Priority parks, identified in Foster City, California.
6 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
WI was hired by Foster City to build a comprehensive CAGO conflict mitigation program, and a contract was executed on 04 of August 2025. Objectives for RP1 of the program included:
1. Kickoff meeting with city staff, from different departments, to describe the project and engage their participation in relevant elements of it;
2. Tour of the Lagoon with city staff, to better understand the layout, attractants and suitable habitat for CAGO, and to help design survey and surveillance schemes for CAGO;
3. Deploy cellular cameras in priority parks and begin monitoring CAGO presence and behavior;
4. Design comprehensive surveillance strategy for each priority park, identify survey locations and potential site limitations to design survey protocols, a database, and data review structure to be used for the duration of the program;
5. Acquire state and federal permitting necessary to capture, band and deploy transmitters on CAGO and conduct trapping once authorized;
6. Develop procedures to begin testing the application of different habitat modifications and aversive conditioning/hazing procedures within priority parks; and
7. Acquire working dog and develop internal CAGO Hazing Dog Team.
SECTION IV: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS WI staffed this project with two full-time Wildlife Biologists (BIO I), one being the handler for the hazing dog team and both of which will be FAA Part 107 Certified Drone Pilots to support project work. Additional support was provided by specialized WI wildlife biologists (BIO II), a Project Manager (PM), and the Principal Investigator (PI), as needed.
Beginning 3 November 2025, staff were typically on-site five (5) days per week, and eight (8) hours per day, with the flexibility to adapt schedules based on project needs. Multiple site visits were conducted by the PM and PI to attend meetings with the city, conduct initial site assessments, train personnel, and steer other parts of project development.
Site Assessments
WI conducted site-specific assessments at the seven priority parks during this quarter.
Assessments focused on identifying park-specific challenges or constraints, evaluating proposed management methods, and developing implementation procedures. Activities included documenting nesting bird and special-status species survey locations; developing survey protocols integrated with management actions; establishing CAGO point-count stations, transects, and other behavioral survey locations; identifying sites for digital surveillance cameras; evaluating potential locations for deterrence or exclusion equipment; assessing parking, access, and equipment deployment logistics; and developing an initial implementation schedule. In addition, WI evaluated parameters associated with the use of trained dogs, remote-controlled devices, aversive conditioning tools (e.g., audio and lasers), nest searches, and fogging with backpack-style mist blowers
CAGO Surveillance and Behavioral Assessment
WI installed cellular-transmission capable digital cameras in priority Foster City parks beginning in September and began full-time in-person CAGO surveillance in early October. Following
7 initiation, cameras were active during daylight hours seven days per week. In-person surveillance was conducted during weekdays, and the timing of work schedules was varied to identify peak activity periods for CAGO. WI personnel recorded all CAGO observed while conducting work within priority parks and while transiting between parks within city limits. Observations recorded outside of formal survey periods (e.g. point count and transect surveys) were recorded as “non- survey” observations. When CAGO were observed, the number observed, their behavior, and location was recorded and georeferenced.
Cellular Camera Surveillance—Twelve digital cameras were installed in city parks to record presence and behavioral data and help steer CAGO aversive conditioning/hazing efforts for the duration of the project. Nine of those were installed in mid-September; the remaining three were added to the beach areas of Marlin and Gull and the west edge of Leo J. Ryan Park following the installation of additional poles, by city parks personnel, in strategic monitoring locations identified by WI. Cameras were set to take time-lapse photos at 15-minute intervals. Photos were able to be reviewed using a mobile app, while WI personnel were conducting field work in the city, and uploaded and analyzed in more detail via desktop computer. Additionally, WI researched and did some testing on AI-driven programs for image recognition to determine possible integration options for CAGO surveillance and pre- and post-treatment evaluations.
Point Count Station Surveys—A total of 13 PCS locations were identified and mapped within the seven priority parks and within one “control” park (Boothbay; Appendix B). The smaller parks received only one PCS station, as all or nearly all those parks could be observed from a single point. Larger parks, such as Leo J. Ryan and Sea Cloud, received multiple PCS to be able to effectively survey all or nearly all those parks. PCS survey locations will be used to monitor and record the behavior of CAGO for the duration of the project. Each fixed-point survey was conducted by a biologist at PCS locations for a period of three (3) minutes and recorded the location, number of CAGO observed or heard, and their behavior, during the survey. Surveys were conducted within specific time periods during this quarter, to begin to identify and evaluate CAGO presence and use of priority parks, in time and space, before hazing and habitat modifications are initiated. This will allow for pre- and post-treatment comparison of CAGO presence and be used to help evaluate and describe the effectiveness of the habitat modifications and hazing methods applied.
Scat Transect Surveys— A total of 28 STS were identified and mapped within the seven priority parks and within one control park (Appendix B). Each STS was 30m in length and 1m in width. During each STS, a biologist walked each transect line while counting and recording all CAGO scat piles present within the transect area. STS were surveyed near-daily during RP1.
Data will be used to help evaluate presence of and impacts by CAGO to priority parks pre- and post-treatment and the associated effectiveness of the habitat modifications and hazing methods applied.
GPS Transmitters—As part of Task 7, WI will deploy a total of ten (10) GPS neck collars on CAGO captured within city parks. During RP1, a total of seven (7) collars were deployed, and each captured CAGO was examined for health, aged, sexed, and morphological measurements recorded. All captured CAGO were banded with a service band, an alpha-numeric auxiliary band (yellow over black), and received a GPS neck collar. Capture, banding, and the placement of transmitters was conducted under state and federal permits, and banding information was reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory (managed by the US Geological Survey).
The GPS transmitters are battery powered and recharged via small solar panels. Transmitters can be monitored through the manufacturer’s website, and the programming can be adjusted
8 remotely. Initially, transmitters were programmed to collect GPS locations every 15 minutes but were later adjusted to collect locations every 30 minutes. Transmitters will be monitored at regular interviews to ensure function, and to adjust the programming as needed. Data will be downloaded periodically and mapped to evaluate CAGO movements in response to hazing and habitat modifications, and to evaluate where GPS collared CAGO nest.
Adaptive Management
During RP1, WI began acquiring, testing, evaluating, and designing site-specific application procedures for hazing and deterrence tools that will be used within priority parks during future phases of the program. The tools developed in RP1 are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Drone— WI acquired and began training with a quadcopter drone. The drone was equipped with both daytime and thermal imaging cameras, a two-way speaker, and lights, and its appearance modified to enhance CAGO response and to support associative management techniques in future stages of the program. Foster City is located within semi-complicated airspace, with some areas falling within Class B and Class D designations, each of which requires a different level of coordination to fly within. During this quarter, WI spent a significant amount of time communicating with the city, the FAA, and San Carlos Airport management and Air Traffic Control to identify and accomplish steps necessary to fly a drone within city parks in compliance with regulatory requirements. By the end of November, WI determined a path forward for requesting and being granted flight access to begin flying the drone within Foster City. Initial flights were conducted within areas of Sea Cloud Park, where and when park users were not present, to practice the check-in process with the San Carlos Airport air traffic control staff, and other general flight operational procedures for flying in the city. By the end of the quarter, WI was granted multi-month flight access by the FAA for up to seven days per week and subsequently conducted successful flights in most priority parks and over the Lagoon without issues. During Q2, the drone is anticipated to be used as a stand-alone hazing tool, in combination with the audio deterrent system, and to help with CAGO nesting surveillance and management.
Remote-controlled Devices—WI acquired and began testing a remote-controlled amphibious device (RCD) that is intended to mimic predator-like qualities, within city parks.
Performance of the RCD was tested on grass (under different environmental conditions), sandy beaches, and over water within the lagoon. As the manufacturer of the RCD indicated the device was sensitive to wind (due to its lightweight and tall profile), WI testing during RP1 focused on identifying strengths and limitations, to inform effective application of the RCD during the next phases of the project. Additionally, efforts were directed towards development of protocols for effective transport, deployment, and potential recovery of the device.
Habitat Modifications—Testing and evaluating habitat modification strategies in city parks is recommended to support the long-term success of this program. However, as permanent habitat modifications can be time-consuming and costly to implement, WI recommended that temporary modifications that mimic potential long-term solutions be tested first. Should testing of these modifications show positive results in deterring CAGO use, WI will work with Foster City, as directed, to develop more permanent solutions.
Scientific literature indicates that reducing open sightlines, which allow CAGO to detect approaching predators, can make areas less attractive to geese and reduce their activity. During RP1, WI met onsite with city parks staff to plan and visualize the installation of temporary “islands” within the lawn area of Erckenbrack Park to disrupt these sightlines. WI recommended building the islands using temporary fence posts and privacy cloth, forming circular visual barriers that
9 CAGO cannot see through or over. In addition, it was recommended that privacy cloth be installed along the existing chain-link fence at the back of the beach. Together, these measures are expected to significantly reduce CAGO visibility of foraging habitat from water, water from grass, available sightlines for potential predators, and their activity at this park.
PCS, STS, and GPS collar data will be used to assess the effectiveness of these modifications in deterring CAGO use, while public feedback will help determine the feasibility of implementing similar strategies on a long-term basis within this and other parks. To better assess the efficacy of this technique for reducing CAGO activity, it is recommended that scheduled implementation of temporary fencing be aligned with periods of higher CAGO visitation.
Audio Deterrent—WI acquired and began testing an audio deterrent system for use within priority parks. To allow deployment in areas without grid power, WI designed and constructed a self-contained power system consisting of a rechargeable battery, solar panel, and programmable timer. Following construction, WI conducted bench evaluations to confirm adequate solar charging capacity and battery endurance, verify speaker volume and effective broadcast range, and refine operational reliability. A remote switching mechanism was also investigated for incorporation, that would enable biologists to activate or deactivate the system without approaching the control box, thereby minimizing disturbance effect during deterrence evaluation surveys. Potential installation locations and mounting configurations were coordinated with Foster City park managers and final authorization will be given prior to deployment to ensure compatibility with site conditions and park operations. The audio deterrent will be deployed on Marlin Park during Q2, to evaluate its effect on CAGO presence.
Public Outreach and Education
During RP1, WI worked with Foster City representatives to develop city website content and park signage materials and to discuss more options for public outreach and education for use later in the program. Additional outreach and support materials will be developed during Q2, including a CAGO nest identification pamphlet and informational content for inclusion on the City’s website.
Standardized procedures and guidance may also be prepared to allow residents to accurately and efficiently report suspected CAGO nests, supporting timely verification and management response. If additional needs or opportunities to engage with or educate the public are realized or requested by Foster City, WI will be prepared to support those efforts during the next phases of the program.
Data Collection and Review
Digital data collection systems on mobile devices were used for recording all CAGO surveys and management activities in the field. Customized databases and data collection forms for this project were developed by WI, allowing for digital collection of georeferenced information such as location, CAGO abundance and behavior, management techniques deployed, and observed responses. Data collection protocols were developed and used to promote standardization. These data were downloaded into spreadsheets and mapping programs for analysis, mapping, and summary. Observations were summarized by park, observation type, month, and other relevant categories to support interpretation of results. CAGO observational data were also classified by six time periods to characterize activity patterns: morning (0600–0959), midday (1000–1359), afternoon (1400–1759), evening (1800–2159), night (2200–0159), and pre-dawn (0200–0559).
Data collection was field-tested and modifications were made to data collection forms and protocols, as necessary. Data was reviewed periodically throughout RP1 and at its conclusion to ensure accuracy and consistency. Program effectiveness will be evaluated using such metrics as reductions in CAGO presence, property damage, and public complaints, as well as improvements
10 in health indicators (e.g., water quality), although multiple variables may affect certain health indicators. Results are presented herein in tabular, graphical, and georeferenced formats.
SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In-person survey and non-survey data were collected between 10 September and 31 December, the results of which are displayed in the following sections. The locations of all CAGO observations recorded in RP1 are provided in maps within Appendix A. Due to the labor cost necessary to manually process and finalize a review, camera surveillance data could not be summarized for this report; however, they will be summarized within the annual report for this project.
CAGO Observations and Trends
City-wide CAGO Observations—During fieldwork conducted within Foster City, WI personnel observed and recorded 8,725 CAGO (surveys and non-survey observations; Fig. 2–3).
Of those, 63.6% (n=5550) were observed within priority parks. October comprised the highest number of observations (n=3853; 44.2%) which decreased in both November (n=2,388; 27.4%) and December (n=1,957; 22.4%). CAGO were more frequently observed during morning hours (39.1%), than during midday (32.6%), and afternoon (27.1%). Foraging was the primary CAGO behavior observed, comprising 77% of observations, with other behaviors, such as loafing (9.5%), calling (4.7%), preening (2.8%), transitioning through site (1.7%), and swimming (2.3%) were recorded less often.
11 Figure 2. Number of Canada Geese observed by location and month. 70303816551727031
676566246353275207102903525
99438011676264227438289
59124714529138642432639302004006008001000Sea Cloud Edgewater Marlin Catamaran Gull Leo J Ryan Erckenbrack Boothbay Other LocationPriority Parks Control Park Foster CityNumber of Canada Geese September
October
November
December
12 Figure 3. Heat map, depicting the locations of Canada Geese observed within Foster City during this quarter.
Point Count Station Survey Observations—Between the beginning of October and the end of December, a total of 739 surveys were conducted at 13 PCS within seven priority parks and one control park (Table 1). During PCS, more CAGO were observed within Sea Cloud (28.5%; n=1661), Boothbay (22.6%; n=1319) and Edgewater (19.7%; n=1148) than in other parks (Fig. 4- 5), and more CAGO observations were recorded during October (47.7%; n=2783), than during other months. Total survey effort was greatest during October (38%; n=281), compared to November (28.6%; n=211) and December (33.4%; n=247). The greatest number CAGO observed per survey was recorded at Boothbay and Sea Cloud (20.9 and 11.3 respectively), and CAGO detections per survey were highest in October (9.9), followed by November (7.7), and December (5.8).
13 Table 1. Number of point count station surveys conducted by station and time period.
Point Count Station ID Morning Mid-day Afternoon Evening Total Boothbay CAGOPCS 22 23 18 63
Catamaran CAGOPCS 18 27 16 61
Ebrack CAGOPCS 18 24 19 1 62
Edgewater CAGOPCS1 16 20 18 54
Edgewater CAGOPCS2 21 20 17 58
Gull CAGOPCS 16 24 25 65
Leo CAGOPCS 1 14 22 21 57
Leo CAGOPCS 2 13 25 19 57
Leo CAGOPCS 3 13 24 19 56
Marlin CAGOPCS 14 24 21 59
SeaCloud CAGOPCS1 18 23 15 56
SeaCloud CAGOPCS2 18 24 16 58
SeaCloud CAGOPCS3 8 13 12 33
Total 209 293 236 1 739
Figure 4. Number of Canada Geese observed during point count stations surveys conducted by park and by month, during RP1.
70722459395297158271438
320663105963372716
2921924515134551695070100200300400500600700800Canada Geese Observed October
November
December
14 Figure 5. Number of Canada Geese detected during point count station surveys by Point Count Station and by month, within RP1 of effort.
Scat Transect Survey Data
To establish baseline conditions prior to hazing and habitat modification, 28 CAGO scat transects in city parks were surveyed 1,503 times (Table 2). A total of 11,767 CAGO scat piles were recorded. Scat detections were highest in October (43.9%) and December (43.0%), and lowest in November (13.1%). Six transects, EdgewaterST2, GullST1, MarlinST1, SeaCloudST3, SeaCloudST1, and BoothbayST2, accounted for 64.8% of all scat detected, while the remaining 22 transects accounted for 35.2%.
During this quarter, scat density (scat/m²) was highest at Sea Cloud (0.50) and Edgewater (0.42) parks (Fig. 6). In October, the highest densities occurred at Boothbay (0.65), Edgewater (0.63), and Marlin (0.60). In November, densities were highest at Sea Cloud (0.31) and Edgewater (0.21).
In December, Sea Cloud again had the highest density (0.88), followed by Marlin (0.44), Gull (0. 0102030Geese Observed per Survey
October
November
December
15 42), and Edgewater (0.39).
Figure 6. Canada Goose scat piles per meter square recorded during transect surveys, by mark and month.
Table 2. Number of scat piles observed during surveys by transect and month.
Site October November December Total
BoothbayST1 80 50 0 130
BoothbayST2 849 131 980
BoothbayST3 103 19 0 122
CatamaranST1 72 31 1 104
CatamaranST2 209 32 137 378
CatamaranST3 22 5 1 28
EbrackST1 245 3 88 336
EbrackST2 10 2 5 17
EbrackST3 211 11 105 327
EdgewaterST1 114 47 26 187
EdgewaterST2 688 211 481 1380
EdgewaterST3 220 64 161 445
GullST1 609 160 662 1431
GullST2 28 1 2 31
GullST3 127 7 60 194
LeoST1 0 0 7 7
LeoST2 9 2 434 445
LeoST3 0 1 0 1
LeoST4 0 1 8 9
LeoST5 0 0 1 1
LeoST6 59 15 13 87
MarlinST1 574 91 703 1368
MarlinST2 20 2 5 27
MarlinST3 320 18 57 395
SeaCloudST1 181 167 874 1222
SeaCloudST2 115 95 166 376
SeaCloudST3 253 264 732 1249
SeaCloudST4 49 116 325 490
0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60Scat Piles per Square Meter October
November
December
16 Total 5167 1546 5054 11767
Tracking CAGO Movements with GPS Transmitters
Two days of targeted trapping efforts at the end of December resulted in the capture of seven CAGO within five (5) Foster City parks, which were processed, banded, fitted with GPS collars, and released at the capture site (Fig. 7). Based on behavior and other physical cues, the captured CAGO were suspected to have belonged to seven different gaggles. All transmitters were functioning properly as of the writing of this report. Preliminary GPS data indicate that CAGO captured primarily utilize Foster City parks, sloughs and wetland areas at the edges San Francisco Bay, such as Belmont Slough, Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, and Bair Island, as well as more urban areas within the cities of San Mateo and Redwood Shores.
Figure 7. Two pictures of banded and GPS collared Canada Geese, captured within Foster City, California.
SECTION VI: PLAN FOR NEXT QUARTER AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The plan for this project for Q2 will be to continue with PCS and STS surveys to monitor changes in CAGO use of priority parks as the seasons change and nesting season approaches. WI will begin hazing, applying a variety of methods and evaluating the behavioral response of CAGO to application of each method. WI will coordinate with Foster City representatives for testing habitat modifications and evaluating CAGO behavioral response to those, both independently and then with the addition of hazing, if habitat modifications alone do not deter CAGO from using priority parks. WI will deploy and begin testing of an audio deterrent for CAGO within at least one of the priority parks and evaluate any measurable changes in CAGO presence and behavior in response to the audio deterrent. WI will continue searching for and mapping all suitable nesting habitats within and near the city and begin monitoring those areas for CAGO nesting. If active nests are identified, they will be removed or treated to prevent those nests from being successful and reduce/prevent site fidelity.
17 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED
Appendix A-1. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.
18 Appendix A-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey period, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.
19 Appendix A-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.
20 Appendix A-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.
21 Appendix A-5. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.
22 Appendix A-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.
23 Appendix A-7. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.
24 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS
Appendix B-1. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.
25 Appendix B-2. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.
26 Appendix B-3. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.
27 Appendix B-4. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.
28 Appendix B-5. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.
29 Appendix B-6. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.
30 Appendix B-7. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.