INTEGRATED ADAPTIVE CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Performance Period Report (01 January 2026 – 31 March 2026)
Submitted to:
City of Foster City
Submitted by:
Wildlife Innovations, Inc.
DUNS: 081042844
CAGE: 81PJ1
EIN: 82-3456892
30 April 2026
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION II: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE .............................................................................. 5 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD ................................................................... 8 SECTION IV: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS ................................. 8 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 8 CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 9 NESTING BIRD AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SURVEYS FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE ...................................... 12 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 12 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ........................................................................................................... 15 SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................... 16 CAGO OBSERVATIONS AND TRENDS ......................................................................................................... 16 POINT COUNT STATION SURVEY OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................ 17 SCAT TRANSECT SURVEY DATA ................................................................................................................. 18 TRACKING CAGO MOVEMENTS WITH GPS TRANSMITTERS ......................................................................... 20 SECTION VI: CAGO HAZING AND AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SUMMARY ........................................ 22 HAZING EFFECTIVENESS BY METHOD ......................................................................................................... 24 CAGO RESPONSE TO HAZING ................................................................................................................... 26 SCAT TRANSECT SURVEYS PRE- AND DURING HAZING ................................................................................ 27 SECTION VII: NESTING CAGO SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 28 SECTION VIII: PLAN FOR NEXT PERIOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 29 APPENDIX A: MAPS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED ........................................................................ 30 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS ..................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX C: MAPS OF HAZING EVENT LOCATIONS ......................................................................... 44 APPENDIX D: MAPS OF GPS COLLARED CAGO .................................................................................. 51
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. MAP OF PRIORITY PARKS, IDENTIFIED IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA. ................................................. 7 FIGURE 2. NESTING HABITAT SUITABILITY MODEL FOR CANADA GEESE IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA. .............. 11 FIGURE 3. CAPTURED DRONE IMAGERY OF A CAGO NEST, OUTLINED IN YELLOW. ............................................. 12 FIGURE 4. WILDLIFE INNOVATIONS DOG TEAM. ............................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 5.TOTAL NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED BY LOCATION AND MONTH DURING REPORTING PERIOD
2. ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 6. HEAT MAP, DEPICTING THE LOCATIONS OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED WITHIN FOSTER CITY DURING REPORTING PERIOD 2. .......................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 7.TOTAL NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED DURING POINT COUNT STATIONS SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY PARK DURING REPORTING PERIOD 2. ................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 8. CANADA GOOSE SCAT PILES PER SQUARE METER RECORDED DURING TRANSECT SURVEYS, BY PARK AND MONTH. .......................................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 9. COLLARED CAGO A01 IN LEO J. RYAN PARK. ................................................................................ 21 FIGURE 10. MAP DEPICTING THE DISPERSAL MOVEMENT OF COLLARED CAGO WITHIN FOSTER CITY AND SURROUNDING AREAS. ........................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 11. PERCENT DEPLOYMENT OF HAZING METHOD BY TREATMENT SITE. .................................................. 23 FIGURE 12. CANADA GOOSE BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE PER HAZING DEPLOYMENT BY METHOD AND SUBSTRATE .. 25 FIGURE 13. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE OBSERVED PER PARK BEFORE AND DURING HAZING. ............ 27 FIGURE 14. AVERAGE SCAT PILES PER TRANSECT VISIT PER PARK BEFORE AND DURING HAZING. ...................... 28
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF SCAT PILES OBSERVED DURING SURVEYS BY TRANSECT AND MONTH. .............................. 20 TABLE 2. HAZING METHOD EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY.................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4 SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To reduce park damage and mitigate human health risks associated with Canada Geese (Branta canadensis; hereinafter “CAGO” or “geese”), 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 pilot program consistent with the City's CAGO Management Plan. The pilot program is being conducted within seven priority parks within the city. The contract was executed on August 4, 2025 , and this report (RP2) details the efforts and data collected during Reporting Period 2 (RP2; identified as January 1 through March 31, 2026).
During RP2, WI implemented and evaluated a suite of active hazing techniques to reduce CAGO presence within priority parks. A total of 316 hazing events were conducted, collectively displacing 1,623 geese from priority park areas. Methods deployed included a trained hazing dog team, a Remote-Controlled Amphibious Device (RCAD), a handheld laser, an aerial drone, and a remote- controlled boat. Each method was evaluated across varying environmental conditions and site- specific circumstances, and the strengths and limitations of each tool were recorded during each application. Many events incorporated multiple tools deployed consecutively , but a coordinated land-and-water approach proved most effective to fully displace CAGO from priority parks and adjacent water areas.
When evaluated individually, all tools elicited a displacement response, though effectiveness varied by method. Preliminary testing indicated the RCAD performed best overall, with its ability to operate across both land and water likely a primary contribut ing factor. The drone, despite similar cross -substrate capability, produced lower displacement rates than all other methods.
Although continued testing and refinement will clarify which methods perform best under specific site and environmental conditions, supporting a more targeted hazing approach and more durable outcomes, collectively, these efforts produced measurable reductions in CAGO presence across priority parks, substantiated by both direct observations and scat surveys.
Since hazing efforts began, CAGO observation counts declined 57% across all parks , with treatment parks averaging a 66% decline compared to 48% at cont rol parks. This reduction suggests that hazing efforts may have attributed more to these declines in goose presence beyond seasonal trends alone (i.e. behavioral shifts due to nesting season). Similarly, CAGO scat piles declined 76.6% since the onset of hazing, with treatment parks averaging an 83% reduction while control parks increased by 6%, further suppor ting that more significant declines in CAGO activity were the result of hazing efforts as opposed to seasonal shifts exclusively.
During RP1, seven CAGO were captured within priority parks and fitted with GPS transmitters.
One collared individual was subsequently harvested through legal hunting activities in the surrounding area, and the transmitter was recovered and returned to WI. Movement data from the remaining six collared individuals r evealed meaningful shifts in area use during RP2, likely attributable to a combination of seasonal movement patterns and behavioral responses to hazing.
These findings informed hazing efforts during RP2 and will continue to guide adaptive management in subsequent reporting periods. Collectively, transmitter data have contributed to a refined understanding of regional population structure, enabling a more targeted hazing approach going forward.
WI also conducted targeted nesting goose surveys, monitoring, and nest removal during RP2. A CAGO nesting habitat suitability model that incorporated vegetation and water feature data was used to create a map of suitable nesting areas within and near Foster City. That map was used
5 to identify high-priority areas to search for active goose nests. WI used a thermal imaging camera aboard a drone to detect nesting geese . The public also reported additional nests through the city's See-Click-Fix platform, with submissions routed through the park's maintenance department to WI for timely follow-up.
During Reporting Period 3 (identified as 01 April – 30 June 2026; RP3), WI will continue to develop the program. Hazing efforts will intensify as the flightless molt season approaches, with a particular focus on preventing geese from settling in priority parks during the molting period and preventing goose families with goslings from entering priority parks and imprinting on those areas.
Monitoring of CAGO within Foster City will continue through point count surveys, scat transect surveys, and GPS transmitter data. WI will coordinate with Foster City park staff to implement and evaluate habitat modifications, deploy and evaluate effectiveness of an audio deterrent system within at least one priority park, and continue nest monitoring and management efforts through the remainder of nesting season. Additionally, WI will continue to perform nesting bird surveys to avoid take and minimizing disturbance to MBTA-protected species during the breeding season.
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 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 Depart ment 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 program consistent with the City’s CAGO 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 inc lude testing and evaluation of the following:
parks-specific habitat modifications, hazing with Remote Controlled Devices, drones, trained dogs, lasers, a fogger, an audio deterrent system, and other methods as appropriate or
6 determined necessary.
This program focused on CAGO management within seven (7) priority parks selected based on lagoon proximity, presence of youth athletic fields, and conflict history. Work conducted during RP2 included conflict mitigation measures at five of these parks: Leo J. Ryan, Gull, Catamaran, Sea Cloud, and Edgewater. Marl in and Erckenbrack, while designated priority parks, were not treated during RP2 as deterrent measures (including habitat modifications and a sound system) were still being developed and approved by WI and City staff; these parks therefore served as temporary controls alongside Boothbay, the program's long-term control park. The use of multiple control parks allowed for a more robust before-and-after comparison to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive management efforts. Marlin and Erckenbrack are scheduled to receive park -specific CAGO deterrent measures in RP3.
7 Figure 1. Map of Priority Parks, identified in Foster City, California.
8 SECTION III: OBJECTIVES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
Objectives for RP2 of the program included:
1. Implement frequent hazing of CAGO at priority parks using Hazing Dog Team, remote-controlled boats and amphibious devices, aerial drones, and lasers;
2. Identify the most effective site-specific hazing and deterrence strategies;
3. Perform ground and aerial nest searches to identify and remove CAGO nests to reduce their nesting success and site fidelity;
4. Collect data from cellular transmitter collars, point count surveys, scat transect surveys, and non-point count observations to be used to establish and contribute to measures of success;
5. Participate, as requested, in City Council or Parks and Recreation Committee meetings to present findings, demonstrate program success, and recommend adjustments based on monitoring results;
6. Evaluate and refine the most appropriate hazing and deterrence methods based on CAGO monitoring data and ongoing management challenges; and
7. Work with Foster City representatives to develop public education materials regarding CAGO nesting.
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. A dditional support was provided by specialized WI wildlife biologists (BIO II), a Project Manager (PM), and the Principal Investigator (PI), as needed.
Throughout RP2, 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 to attend meetings with the city, provide supplies, logistical updates to on -site biologists, and steer other parts of project development.
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 was reviewed periodically throughout RP2 and at its conclusion to ensure accuracy and consistency. Program effectiveness was evaluated using metrics such as reductions in CAGO presence and scat within priority parks, property damage, and public complaints, as well as improvements in health indicators (e.g., water quality), although multiple variables may affect certain health indicators. Results are presented herein in tabular, graphical, and georeferenced
9 formats.
CAGO Surveillance and Behavioral Assessment
In-person surveillance was conducted primarily during weekdays with occasional weekend work, and the timing of work schedules varied to identify and to target 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 w ere recorded and georeferenced. Cellular transmission capable digital cameras in priority parks were also utilized to monitor goose presence. These cameras were programmed to be active during daylight hours seven days per week.
Cellular Camera Surveillance — During RP1, WI installed 12 digital cameras in priority parks and recorded presence and behavioral dat a, to help steer CAGO aversive conditioning efforts for the duration of the project . Cameras were set to take time -lapse photos at 15-minute intervals. Photos were 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 . The camera settings for RP1 were not changed for RP2. Additionally, WI developed and tested AI-driven programs for image recognition to identify and evaluate possible integration avenues for CAGO surveillance and pre- and post-treatment evaluations.
Point Count Station Surveys — 13 Point Count Station (PCS) locations (Appendix B) were used to monitor and record the behavior of CAGO. 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 period, to identify and evaluate CAGO presence and use of priority parks, in time and space . By continuing to conduct pre- and post -treatment PCS , comparisons of CAGO presence can be used to help evaluate and describe the effectiveness of the habitat modifications and hazing methods applied.
Scat Transect Surveys — A total of 28 Scat Transect Surveys ( STS; 30m in length and 1m in width) were used to monitor CAGO presence across RP2 (Appendix B). During each STS, a biologist walked each transect line while counting and recording all CAGO scat piles present within the transect area. WI reduced STS survey frequency during RP2 to twice weekly, once at the beginning and once at the end of each week, as scat accumulation remained detectable through the end of each survey interval, eliminating the need for daily monitoring. This period the data was used to help evaluate presence of and impacts by CAGO to priority parks pre- and post- treatment. The data will be used in RP3 to evaluate effectiveness of the habitat modifications and additional hazing tools.
GPS Transmitters — During RP1, a total of seven (7) CAGO were captured, and each 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 remotely. Initially, transmitters are programmed to collect GPS locations every 30 minutes .
10 Transmitters will be monitored at regular intervals to ensure function, and to adjust the programming as needed. During RP2 data was downloaded periodically and mapped to evaluate CAGO movements in response to hazing, and to evaluate where GPS collared CAGO nest. The data will be used in RP3 to associate effectiveness of the habitat modifications and additional hazing tools. Soon after deployment of GPS collars, one goose was shot during legal hunting activities. Therefore, data summary provided in this report is for the six remaining collared geese.
Canada Goose Nest Surveys — During RP2, WI began developing and testing standardized drone flight protocols and survey paths to improve CAGO nest detection across Foster City. Most survey flights were conducted manually, with WI personnel targeting areas of high nesting potential bas ed on habitat characteristics, prior observations, and results from a nesting habitat suitability model developed for this purpose. In parallel, WI began testing a hybrid drone survey approach utilizing preprogrammed waypoints for autonomous navigation between survey locations, with manual pilot control resumed at each station to conduct observations, to establish a more consistent and replicable survey methodology for future reporting periods.
To prioritize survey efforts, WI developed a CAGO nesting habitat model using ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro (Redlands, California). The model pulled data from two publicly available datasets: vegetation data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), and water feature data from San Mateo County's open GIS data portal. Areas where suitable nesting vegetation, including grasslands, shrub patches, mudflats, and wetland-fringe plant communities occurred in close proximity to water were identified as high- priority nesting habitat for CAGO. These habitat types are commonly used by CAGO for nesting.
The resulting map guided the design of targeted drone survey flights and ground -based nest monitoring efforts across Foster City.
11 Figure 2. Nesting Habitat Suitability Model for Canada Geese in Foster City, California.
12 WI utilized the drone's thermal imaging camera to survey areas identified as high-conflict nesting habitat. Flights were conducted regularly throughout the nesting season, typically during early morning hours when thermal contrast between incubating female geese and the surrounding environment was greatest. Upon nest confirmation, the drone was used to monitor incubation progress and inform timely management decisions. Thermal imaging proved particularly valuable for locating nests in areas inaccessible or impractical to survey on foot. All flight operations were conducted in compliance with FAA Part 107 regulations by certified personnel and coordinated with San Carlos Airport traffic control throughout the season.
Figure 3. Captured drone imagery of a CAGO nest, outlined in yellow.
Additionally, public reporting of goose nests observed through the city's See- Click-Fix platform was also utilized by WI to locate and inform management for additional goose nests.
Nesting Bird and Special Status Species Surveys for CEQA Compliance In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to minimize disturbance to non -target species, WI conducted nesting bird and special -status species surveys at each priority park at least once per week during RP2. Surveys consisted of 20-minute observation periods structured in two phases: the first 10 minutes were spent stationary to passively detect bird activity, followed by a slow, deliberate 10-minute walk to visually inspect vegetation, ground cover, and other features with nesting potential. High-powered optics and audio recording devices were used to confirm species identifications, and all birds were documented, with separate records logged for individuals associated with active or suspected nests. If nesting activity was identified, hazing applications were to be modified or suspended accordingly.
Special-status species surveys were also conducted at Marlin, Erckenbrack, and Gull parks, which contain beach habitat with potential to support nesting Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus; WSPL). These surveys followed the same 20-minute protocol with focused attention on open sandy areas and shoreline features consistent with WSPL nesting habitat.
Adaptive Management
During RP2, WI began formal testing and evaluation of site- specific hazing and deterrence application procedures. All events followed a standardized behavioral assessment protocol. For the purpose of this report, a hazing event refers to a single continuous hazing effort targeting one (1) group of geese, which may involve multiple sequential tool applications ; each individual tool
13 application within an event is noted as a deployment (e.g. the dog team pushing geese from a lawn to adjacent water followed by an RC boat completing dispersal constitutes one (1) event comprising two (2) deployments).
Prior to each hazing event, observers recorded a count of all CAGO present, including their location, group size, behavior, and any banding information. Hazing events were then logged separately, capturing location, group size, banding presence, pre- event behavior, deployment substrate (lawn, beach, water, or other), tool applied, and the time for geese to vacate the site.
When multiple attempts or additional tools were required, supplementary fields were recorded within the same event entry. During RP2, specific methods were designated as primary tools at specific treatment parks based on site and tool characteristics; however, when needed, primary methods were substituted when a tool was unavailable, environmental conditions limited use, or initial application failed to produce displacement. Goose response to each hazing application was categorized into one of five outcomes:
1. No Reaction: Little to no change in behavior; geese remained at the original location with no indication of displacement
2. Partial Group Left: One or more geese of the group were displaced from the site while others remained at the original location
3. Transited Within Park: Geese displaced but quickly re-landed within the same treatment substrate (e.g. land to land)
4. Retreated to Water: Geese were displaced into park -adjacent water bodies within treatment park
5. Full Flush: The entire group was displaced from the treatment park (land and water) Any additional observational comments on goose response were also recorded for each hazing application. The tools used in RP2 are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Remote Controlled Amphibious Device — WI deployed the remote-controlled amphibious device (RCAD) across Foster City parks to exploit its predator -mimicking qualities, including its appearance, movement, and bright orange coloration, which elicit a strong fear response in CAGO and are visible f rom a considerable distance. WI operators employed deliberate techniques such as large S-curve patterns to corral geese, concealed approaches behind cover, and sharp accelerations to simulate predatory attacks. The RCA D proved adaptable across multiple substrates including artificial turf, natural grass, sand, concrete, and open water.
Deployment of the RCAD was subject to environmental and wildlife considerations. Due to its lightweight, and high-profile structure, the RCAD is susceptible to capsizing in wind and is considered inoperable at wind speeds of 10 mph or greater . To avoid capsizing, WI personnel implemented a protocol to use a hand-held wind meter to assess conditions prior to each RCAD deployment. Additionally, the RCAD was not to be used when nesting birds were suspected in adjacent areas, and operators were to suspend use at any time based on observed wildlife activity or other site-specific concerns. Testing of the RCAD during RP2 continued to identify strengths and limitations and information gathered will be used to inform more effective applications in future reporting periods. WI has also begun evaluating static RCAD decoys as a potential supplementary deterrent.
Remote-controlled Boat — During RP2, WI acquired a remote-controlled boat (hereinafter “RC boat”), as an additional water-based hazing tool to address gaps where methods such as the
14 dog team were ineffective and when wind or other environmental conditions limit ed RCAD deployment. Though lacking the RCAD's predator -like qualities, operators employed similar techniques during deployment of the RC boat in water, including S-curve patterns to corral CAGO and sharp accelerations to simulate a predatory attack. As with the RCAD, the RC boat was not to be used when nesting birds were suspected in adjacent areas, and operators suspended use of the RC boat when wildlife activity or other site-specific concerns occurred.
Drone — During RP2, WI expanded drone operations across multiple project applications.
The drone was equipped with daytime and thermal imaging cameras, a two- way speaker, and multi-color strobe lights, with its appearance modified to enhance CAGO response in future program stages. Foster City falls within semi-complicated airspace, including Class B and Class D designations, each requiring different coordination protocols. WI maintained Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) authorization through the Low Alt itude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) system with multi- month access for up to seven (7) days per week, coordinated with San Carlos Air Traffic Control (ATC) before and after each flight day, and communicated with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to maintain compliance. Successful flights were conducted in most priority parks and over the Lagoon during RP2.
Hazing flights employed varied altitudes and speeds in unpredictable patterns to mimic avian predator movement and maximize disturbance to loafing and foraging geese. The drone is particularly effective for covering large areas and accessing water bodies, dense vegetation edges, and other locations impractical or unsafe for personnel and the dog team. To reinforce predator association, WI broadcast predator vocalizations through the drone's integrated speaker during hazing flights, testing calls from Peregr ine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Red- tailed Hawk, Coyote, and domestic dog. In RP3, the drone is anticipated to continue supporting nesting surveillance and management while serving as a hazing tool in combination with the audio deterrent system.
Dog Team — During RP2, WI managed, trained, and deployed the dog team as one of the most effective predator -mimicking hazing tools available (Fig. 4) . The dog's predator -like appearance and directed movement closely simulates the behavior of a natural predator such as a coyote or wolf, eliciting a stronger fear response in CAGO than what is typical of most dogs. WI directed the dog to initiate each hazing event with a slow, low-profile stalk, with head down, gaze focused and focused, before executing a full-speed chase on command to simulate a predatory attack. The flush and chase are timed to occur when geese are most vocal and alert, maximizing the behavioral impact. The dog team is effective across a variety of substrates and continues to build commands for varying conditions, including different levels of human activity and other environmental factors. While the dog patrols water edges to apply additional pressure, it is intentionally discouraged from pursuit in the water; water-based tools are used to address those areas instead.
15 Figure 4. Wildlife Innovations Dog Team.
Habitat Modifications — During RP1, WI designed and recommended temporary habitat modifications to Foster City and a plan was developed with city staff to test this modification within Erckenbrack Park. CAGO presence within Erckenbrack Park during RP2 was irregular and the city was not ready to deploy the temporary habitat modifications. WI will consult with the city again during RP3, and the temporary habitat modifications will be deployed and evaluated when CAGO return following nesting season and when habitat modification materials are available.
Audio Deterrent — The audio deterrent system was available for deployment during RP2; however, as CAGO presence was intermittent within the priority park during this time and adequate testing of this deterrence method determined not possible, it was not deployed during RP2. The audio deterrent will be tested in Marlin Park during RP3, once CAGO presence has been determined to be more regular.
Public Outreach and Education
During RP2, WI met with Foster City representatives to evaluate and develop outreach and support materials. Specifically, a nest identification pamphlet for CAGO and informational content for inclusion on the City’s website were developed and shared with the public during RP2. CAGO nest identification and reporting information was shared on the city’s CAGO Management Program website, and the public was directed to use the See -Click-Fix app to efficiently report suspected CAGO nests.
16 SECTION V: CAGO SURVEILLANCE AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Data reported in the following sections were collected during RP2. The locations of all CAGO observed during RP2 are provided in maps within Appendix A. Camera surveillance data were not summarized for this report but will be summarized within the annual report for this project.
CAGO Observations and Trends
CAGO were observed daily throughout the performance period within priority parks, non -priority parks, lawn areas adjacent to roadways, and select non -city properties including apartment complexes (Figs. 4-5). Overall CAGO presence declined during the period, with fewer individuals recorded during the final month than the first.
WI personnel recorded 4,281 CAGO during fieldwork conducted across Foster City, encompassing both survey and non-survey observations (Figs. 5–6). The majority of observations (80.6%; n = 3,450) occurred within priority parks. Monthly totals were highest in January (n = 1,657; 38.7%), followed by March (n = 1,387; 32.4%) and February (n = 1,237; 28.9% ; Fig. 4).
More observations were recorded during midday hours (41.3%), with afternoon (30.4%) and morning (28.3%) periods comprising smaller proportions. Foraging was the predominant behavior recorded (61.9%), followed by loafing (22.2%), swimming (5.9%), flying (3.6%), calling (3.2%), transiting within site (1.5%), transiting through site (1.0%), and preening (0.6%).
Figure 5.Total number of Canada Geese observed by location and month during Reporting Period 2.
17 Figure 6. Heat map, depicting the locations of Canada Geese observed within Foster City During Reporting Period 2.
Point Count Station Survey Observations
CAGO were detected in all parks surveyed during the performance period. Between January and March 2026, a total of 748 surveys were conducted at 13 point -count stations (PCS) across five (5) parks that received hazing treatments and three control parks that did not receive hazing treatments (Fig. 6).
During PCS, the greatest proportions of CAGO observations were recorded at Boothbay (54.7%; n = 827; control park), Sea Cloud (14.3%; n = 216; treatment park), and Marlin (10.2%; n = 154; control park). Survey effort was distributed relatively evenly across the three- month period, with the greatest number of surveys conducted in March (35.3%; n = 264), followed by February (33.0%; n = 247) and January (31.7%; n = 237). Boothb ay recorded the highest single- survey CAGO count (n = 57), the highest mean count per survey (x̄ = 14), and the highest site occupancy rate (84.7%; proportion of surveys with at least one CAGO detected).
Monthly observation totals were highest in January (40.1%; n = 607), declined in February (20.2%; n = 306), and rebounded in March (39.7%; n = 600). While no single variable can be identified as
18 the primary driver of this pattern, seasonal redistribution and the onset of nesting behavior are likely contributing factors.
Figure 7.Total number of Canada Geese observed during point count stations surveys conducted by park during Reporting Period 2.
Scat Transect Survey Data
During this period, 685 scat transect surveys (scat/m²) were conducted across 28 transects in city parks, recording a total of 3,077 CAGO scat piles (Fig. 5). Scat detections declined across the period with detections the highest in January (46.6%) and February (31.7%), and lowest in March (21.7%). Marlin and Booth bay transects (n=6), where hazing was not conducted during this period, accounted for 72.4% of all scat detected. The remaining scat transects (n=22) within parks where hazing was conducted, only accounted for 27.6% of scat. In January, the highest scat densities occurred at Marlin (0.87), Boothb ay (0.62), and Sea Cloud (0.29). In February, the highest scat densities occurred at Marlin (0.74), Boothbay (0.32), and Gull (0.19). In March, the highest scat densities occurred at Marlin (0.46), Boothbay (0.2), and Gull (0.08; Fig. 8).
19 Figure 8. Canada Goose scat piles per square meter recorded during transect surveys, by park and month.
20 Table 1. Number of scat piles observed during surveys by transect and month.
Site January February March Total
MarlinST1 509 459 285 1253
BoothbayST2 391 228 115 734
GullST1 81 133 60 274
SeaCloudST3 177 22 19 218
MarlinST3 38 53 59 150
SeaCloudST1 73 3 7 83
EdgewaterST2 53 0 2 55
MarlinST2 2 19 25 46
EdgewaterST3 31 12 1 44
BoothbayST3 0 1 34 35
SeaCloudST2 31 3 0 34
SeaCloudST4 1 14 15 30
CatamaranST2 18 6 0 24
Erckenbrack ST3 11 1 9 21
GullST3 10 5 5 20
LeoST1 0 4 9 13
BoothbayST1 0 2 9 11
LeoST2 2 6 3 11
EdgewaterST1 0 0 7 7
Erckenbrack ST1 3 0 3 6
CatamaranST3 2 2 0 4
LeoST3 0 2 1 3
GullST2 0 1 0 1
CatamaranST1 0 0 0 0
Erckenbrack ST2 0 0 0 0
LeoST4 0 0 0 0
LeoST5 0 0 0 0
LeoST6 0 0 0 0
Total 1433 967 668 3077
Tracking CAGO Movements with GPS Transmitters
All six (6) GPS transmitters deployed on collared CAGO (not including the transmitter from the harvested individual) remained functional throughout RP2 (Fig. 9) . Although all collared
21 individuals were captured within priority parks in Foster City, movement data confirmed they utilize a broader landscape than Foster City alone, with locations recorded across sloughs and wetland areas along the San Francisco Bay margin, including Belmont Slough, the Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve, and Bair Island, as well as urban areas withi n San Mateo and Redwood Shores. Individual birds varied considerably in their site fidelity to Foster City; a pattern explored in detail in the movement analysis below (Fig. 10, Appendix D).
Figure 9. Collared CAGO A01 in Leo J. Ryan Park.
In January, the majority of collared CAGO maintained relatively localized movement patterns within and around Foster City. Four (4) of the six (6) individuals remained within Foster City and nearby sloughs and wetlands, while two (2) birds made longer-range movements northward into the Oakland and Alameda estuary corridor, traveling more than 25 kilometers from Foster City.
These movements suggest that at least some collared individuals are part of a broader regional population rather than exclusive city residents.
In February, most collared birds continued to demonstrate localized movement patterns, returning consistently to Foster City parks and waterways despite ongoing hazing pressure. This persistence underscores the challenges of managing resident CAGO and reinforces the need for sustained multi-method hazing strategies with great enough frequency and duration to break strong site habituation created over years of using city parks . Collared bird 376614 made brief movements to Bair Island and the Redwood Shores E cological Reserve, while the two (2) birds that ranged north in January continued to move between Foster City and the broader Bay corridor, suggesting regular commuting behavior.
22 By March, transmitter data began to reflect the advancing nesting season. Several birds exhibited tighter, more consistent clustering within habitat outside of Foster City's priority parks, potentially indicating nesting site selection and territorial behavior associated with incubating active nests.
Bird 376613, which had previously demonstrated wide-ranging movements between Foster City and the greater Bay corridor, appeared to establish a more consistent presence outside the city by the end of the period, possibly reflecting a range shift in response to sustained hazing pressure, though continued monitoring is needed to confirm this trend. Separately, Bird 376618 demonstrated strong site fidelity to the Belmont Slough area throughout the entire period, maintaining a consistent presence south of Foster City's priority parks.
Figure 10. Map depicting the shifts in areas use by collared CAGO from early January to late March within Foster City and surrounding areas. Each dot on the map represents an average of GPS collar locations recorded, and the arrows indicate the direction of area use shift for each collared individual between the beginning of January and the end of March 2026.
SECTION VI: CAGO HAZING AND AVERSIVE CONDITIONING SUMMARY To assess overall program effectiveness, WI monitored CAGO presence and park use across treatment and control parks using point count surveys, observational surveys, and scat transect surveys. Sound deterrents and habitat modifications were intentionally w ithheld during RP2, providing experimental control to isolate the efficacy of active hazing techniques. Data from all
23 three monitoring methods were collected consistently across pre -hazing and active hazing periods, enabling direct before-and-after comparisons of goose activity.
Results across all three methods indicated substantial reductions in CAGO presence at treatment sites. Declines at treatment parks consistently exceeded those at control parks, suggesting that observed reductions were not attributable to seasonal CAGO movement patterns alone.
Observational surveys documented CAGO presence across varied times of day and site conditions, while point count surveys provided standardized, single- visit effort at fixed stations conducted once daily. Because both methods were implemented concurrently at the same sites and yielded near-uniform trends, point count data were incorporated into the observational survey analysis rather than reported separately. The sections that follow summarize these findings.
Over the course of RP2, WI conducted 316 hazing events (defined as a single continuous effort targeting one (1) group of geese, potentially incorporating multiple tools applied sequentially ), collectively displacing 1,623 geese from priority park areas. Tools deployed included the dog team (n = 144), remote-controlled aquatic device (RCAD; n = 173), laser (n = 70), aerial drone (n = 34), and remote- controlled (RC) boat (n = 28). Tool use varied by park, with Sea Cloud relying predominantly on the dog team (68%; n = 99), Edgewater on the laser (45%; n = 35), and Gull, Catamaran, and Leo J. Ryan on the RCAD (83%, n = 49; 57%, n = 32; 72%, n = 79, respectively; Fig. 11 ). Multiple tools were frequently used in succession, and coordinated multi -method approaches consistently outperformed single-method applications.
Figure 11. Percent deployment of hazing method by treatment site.
A recurring behavioral pattern observed throughout RP2 was that CAGO displaced from land frequently retreated to adjacent water rather than vacating the park entirely. In these instances, a secondary water-based hazing method was deployed to achieve full displacement of the group of CAGO. Without this follow-through, geese typically staged at the water's edge and re-entered the park shortly after hazing pressure ceased. This land- to-water dynamic has been a key factor informing the multi-tool hazing strategy within Foster City.
24 Each hazing method was evaluated across a range of environmental conditions and site-specific circumstances, including high park occupancy by the public, proximity to water, wind, and precipitation. Effectiveness is reported at the deployment level (each individual tool applied within an event) to capture per-application performance, including instances where multiple passes were required to achieve full displacement of CAGO. Event-level outcomes are summarized separately (Table 2), and the strengths and limitations of each tool are discussed in the sections that follow.
Hazing Effectiveness by Method
Aerial Drone — WI deployed a drone as a hazing tool across priority park areas during this period. Hazing effectiveness varied by deployment substrate. On land (n = 27 deployments), full flush occurred in 25.9% of deployments; an additional 37.0% of deployments resulted in geese retreating to adjacent water. The remaining 29.6% of deployments elicited only brief agitation before geese resumed normal behavior. Flush rates declined when the drone was deployed over water (n = 7 deployments), with a full flush occurring in 14.3% of deployments, 42.9% of deployments relocating geese within the water body , and 42.9% producing no discernible response (Fig. 12).
Deployment strategies are being refined to improve drone hazing efficacy across substrates.
Auditory deterrent calls are under active evaluation, and results will inform fu rther development of the program.
Dog Team — WI deployed a border collie dog team as an active hazing tool across priority park areas during this period. Land- based deployments (n = 144) demonstrated strong hazing efficacy, producing a full flush in 47.2% of events; 15.3% of successful displacements required multiple applications to achieve a full flush. An additional 37.5% of deployments resulted in geese retreating to adjacent water, providing a handoff opportunity for water -based hazing tools to achieve a full flush of the CAGO (Fig. 12).
Remote-Controlled Amphibious Device — During land-based deployments (n = 104), the RCAD achieved a full flush in 39.4% of deployments. RCAD deployments were frequently initiated on shoreline lawns and beach areas directly adjacent to the lagoon, resulting in 58.3% of land - based deployments driving geese to retreat to water. Unlike single-substrate methods, however, the RCAD's amphibious capability eliminated the need for a tool handoff when geese retreated to water. When deployed directly on water (n = 69 deployments), the RCAD achieved a full flush in
98.6% of deployments, the highest recorded across all methods evaluated in this program , with the remaining 1.4% of deployments resulting in geese moving beyond the device's operational range (Fig. 12). Though not yet implemented in Foster City parks, RCAD decoys may serve as a valuable addition to the program provided they are regularly repositioned to prevent CAGO habituation.
Remote-Controlled Boat — When integrated with a coordinated land- based hazing strategy, the RC boat demonstrated promising efficacy across water deployments ( n = 28 deployments): 67.9% of deployments produced a full flush, 22.7% required a second application to achieve a full flush, and the remaining 9.1% resulted in geese moving beyond the device's operational range (Fi g. 12). The concurrent application of ground- based hazing during water deployments effectively constrained shoreline refuge options for geese, producing a more comprehensive and coordinated hazing effect.
The RC boat remains under evaluation. If results continue to be positive , investment in a larger RC boat with greater range will be explored to improve operational performance. Key considerations, research, and testing will include improving range capabilities to increase
25 coverage of target waterways, and to evaluate whether increased vessel size and speed, and coloration, elicit stronger hazing responses from CAGO.
Handheld Laser — Land-based deployments (n = 67) of the handheld laser produced a full flush in 52. 2% of deployments; an additional 22.4% of deployments resulted in geese retreating to adjacent water , and 23.9% elicited a partial or transit ion response. A very small proportion of deployments (1.5%, n = 1) produced no discernible response. In three deployments where geese were positioned at the water's edge and the laser was directed at the adjacent shoreline, a full flush occurred in 33.3% of deployments , while geese remained on the water in the remaining 66.7% (Fig. 12).
WI noted that laser efficacy appeared reduced on bright, sunny days, likely attributable to diminished beam visibility from a goose’s perspective. These observational data are being systematically tracked to characterize the environmental conditions under which laser hazing is most effective.
The laser was not deployed over open water due to safety considerations. The combination of active airspace, adjacent residential development, and non -target wildlife occupying the hazing area limited the locations and situations that the laser could be used safely within. In situations where the laser could not be used safely, other tools were utilized instead.
Figure 12. Canada Goose behavioral response per hazing deployment by method and substrate
26 Table 2. Canada Goose behavioral response to hazing by method and substrate where hazing was initiated.
Outcome
Dog
Team
Land
RCAD
Land
RCAD
Water
Laser
Land
RC
Boat
Water
Drone
Land
Drone
Water
Number of Events 118 100 9 49 6 27 4
Full Flush from Standalone
Method 43.2% 38% 100% 46.9% 66.7% 25.9% 0%
Repeated Same Method to
Achieve Full Flush 11% 53% 0% 18.4% 16.7% 0% 0%
Needed Different Tool to Achieve
Full Flush 11% 0% 0% 10.2% 0% 29..6% 75%
Retreated to Water as Final
Reaction 33.1% 8% 0% 22.4% 16.7% 33.3% 25%
Transited in Park as Final
Reaction 0.8% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
No Reaction as Final Reaction 0.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11.1% 0% CAGO Response to Hazing
Outside of designated point count surveys, CAGO observations were recorded throughout the reporting period to track CAGO occurrence across priority parks. Pre -hazing observations recorded 7,661 geese across 67 survey days; following hazing implementation, counts declined to 3,282 geese across 60 survey days, representing an overall reduction of 57.2% across all parks. Treatment parks averaged a 66% decline in goose counts: Sea Cloud Park decreased 71%, from 46.8 geese per survey day (pre-hazing: n = 50 days) to 13.7 (post-hazing: n = 43 days), and Edgewater Park decreased 74%, from 30.2 to 7.9 geese per survey day (n = 41 and 34 days, respectively). Control parks averaged a 48% decline over the same period: Boothb ay Park decreased 43%, from 45.4 to 25.9 geese per survey day (n = 44 and 52 days, respectively), and Marlin Park decreased 40%, from 17.1 to 10.3 geese per survey day (n = 34 and 30 days, respectively). Point count surveys corroborated these patterns, with treatment parks averaging an 85% decline in geese per survey compared to 48% at control parks. The 18-percentage-point differential between treatment and control park declines suggests that hazing contributed to goose displacement beyond the effects of seasonal behavioral changes alone (Fig. 13).
Although observed declines are promising, goose activity is anticipated to increase temporarily as the breeding season concludes and resident CAGO return to park areas. CAGO surveillance observations will continue into the next reporting period, with hazing pressure adjusted as needed to sustain the reductions documented here.
27 Figure 13. Average number of Canada Geese observed per park before and during hazing.
Scat Transect Surveys Pre- and During Hazing
Scat transect surveys served as an additional index of hazing effectiveness and helped identify temporal gaps in hazing effort. Prior to hazing implementation, WI recorded 11,996 scat piles across 2,154 transect surveys. Following hazing initiation, scat abundance declined to 2,804 piles across 627 surveys, representing a system-wide reduction of 76.6%.
Mean scat pile counts differed markedly between treatment and control parks. Treatment parks showed a mean decline of 83%; Sea Cloud Park decreased 84%, from 15.3 piles per survey (n = 227) to 2.5 (n = 92), and Edgewater Park decreased 94%, from 12.2 (n = 170) to 0.7 (n = 69).
Control parks, by contrast, showed a mean increase of 6%. Marlin Park increased 88%, from 11.3 piles per survey (n = 164) to 21.2 (n = 66), and Boothbay Park increased 23%, from 9.2 (n = 133) to 11.3 (n = 69). Erckenbrack Park, designated as a control site during RP2, was an exception to this pattern, with scat piles declining 92%, from 3.8 (n = 168) to 0.3 (n = 63; Fig. 14). The mechanism driving this anomaly remains unclear; however, the consistent increases observed at the remaining control parks provide corroborating evidence of hazing efficacy at treatment sites.
These results are notable in that the magnitude of reduction at treatment parks exceeds what would be expected from seasonal variation alone. WI anticipates that CAGO activity may increase as the breeding season progresses and resident birds return to park areas. Scat transect monitoring will continue during the third reporting period, with hazing effort adjusted as needed to sustain the reductions documented here.
28 Figure 14. Average scat piles per transect visit per park before and during hazing.
SECTION VII: CAGO NESTING SUMMARY
During RP2, WI conducted approximately 30 drone survey flights throughout the month of March, focusing on parks and areas identified as containing suitable nesting habitat by the nesting habitat suitability model. Survey flights ranged from approximately 10 to 20 minutes in duration, with coverage prioritized in areas where habitat characteristics suggested the greatest likelihood of nest establishment. Parks lacking suitable nesting habitat in proximity were not surveyed during this period.
One (1) active CAGO nest was detected on March 11, 2026, within the Sea Cloud Basin area using the drone's thermal imaging camera. The nest was located on city-owned property and was surveilled and managed prior to the suspected hatch date. The incubating female was hazed from the nest site, the nest structure was dismantled, and the eggs were destroyed on site to prevent successful hatching and discourage renesting at the location. The thermal camera proved valuable in this detection, as the nest was situated in an area that would have been difficult to identify through ground-based survey methods alone.
Separately, one (1) nest was reported by the public through the city's See- Click-Fix platform during RP2. The reported nest was located on private HOA property and was assessed by WI personnel following notification through the park’s maintenance department. WI will continue to encourage the city to promote public use of the platform as nesting season progresses into RP3.
Community involvement in nest detection can meaningfully contribute to preventing successful hatching, particularly on private property w here goslings may imprint on the surrounding environment and become a long- term management challenge. WI has encouraged the city to promote use of the platform, and as public awareness of the program grows, this reporting pathway has the potential to becom e an increasingly effective tool for timely nest identification and management.
29 SECTION VIII: PLAN FOR NEXT PERIOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS During the third reporting period (RP3), WI will intensify hazing pressure in anticipation of CAGO returning from nesting areas and the onset of the molt season. Hazing protocols will be refined based on lessons learned during RP2, with management effort prioritized to prevent birds from establishing or reestablishing use of priority parks during the pre-molt and molt periods. As geese temporarily lose flight feathers and become flightless, their reduced mobility increases site fidelity risk, making proactive displacement particularly critical during this interval.
Any goslings detected within priority parks, along with attending adults, will be subject to intensive but careful hazing efforts designed to establish strong negative site associations prior to imprinting on the city as part of their established home range. Disrupting early imprinting represents one of the highest-value long-term management outcomes achievable during this period, as juvenile site fidelity can substantially influence future population distribution and management complexity.
Collar monitoring will continue throughout RP3 to evaluate long -term program effectiveness.
Transmitter data will be used to assess whether individuals displaced through hazing or deterrence maintain range shifts or return to priority parks following the conclusion of the nesting season. This data will inform adaptive management decisions and contribute to a longitudinal record of program outcomes.
WI will continue to evaluate and document the efficacy of all hazing methods, assessing their strengths, limitations, and most effective applications as seasonal conditions evolve. Point-count and scat transect surveys will continue to track changes in CAGO space use across priority parks.
WI will also coordinate with Foster City Parks staff to implement and evaluate habitat modifications identified during recent collaborative planning efforts, monitoring CAGO behavioral responses to those modifications bot h independently and in conjunction with active hazing. An audio deterrent system will be deployed at a minimum of one priority park, with CAGO presence and behavior monitored for measurable responses.
Nest monitoring will continue via ground -based surveys and aerial drone methods, with active nests treated or removed as appropriate to reduce site fidelity and prevent successful hatching.
The nest reporting system will be evaluated on an ongoing basis for its utility in supporting broader program objectives, with improvements implemented as opportunities are identified.
WI will remain prepared to support public engagement and outreach efforts if additional needs are identified or requested by Foster City. Coordination will continue with Foster City representatives and relevant homeowners associations (HOAs) to advance public education and participation in the CAGO Management Program.
30 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.
31 Appendix A-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey period, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.
32 Appendix A-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.
33 Appendix A-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.
34 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.
35 Appendix A-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.
36 Appendix A-7. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese observed during survey and non-survey periods at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.
37 APPENDIX B: MAPS OF SURVEY LOCATIONS
Appendix B-1. Locations of CAGO and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.
38 Appendix B-2. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.
39 Appendix B-3. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.
40 Appendix B-4. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.
41 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.
42 Appendix B-6. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.
43 Appendix B-7. Locations of Canada Goose and Nesting Bird Point Count Surveys, and Scat Transect Surveys, at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.
44 APPENDIX C: MAPS OF HAZING EVENT LOCATIONS
Appendix C-1. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Catamaran Park, in Foster City, California.
45 Appendix C-2. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Edgewater Park, in Foster City, California.
46 Appendix C-3. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Erckenbrack Park, in Foster City, California.
47 Appendix C-4. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Gull Park, in Foster City, California.
48 Appendix C-5. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Leo J. Ryan Park, in Foster City, California.
49 Appendix C-6. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Marlin Park, in Foster City, California.
50 Appendix C-7. Locations and numbers of Canada Geese during Hazing Events at Sea Cloud Park, in Foster City, California.
51 APPENDIX D: MAPS OF GPS COLLARED CAGO
Appendix D-1. Map depicting the GPS Collar points and centroids of CAGO during the month of January.
52 Appendix D-2. Map depicting the GPS Collar points and centroids of CAGO during the month of February.
53 Appendix D-3. Map depicting the GPS Collar points and centroids of CAGO during the month of March.
54 Appendix D-4. Map depicting the movement of GPS Collared CAGO by dispersal range from the beginning of January to the end of March.