Small-Scale Funding Agreement (2015-2) ‘Conservation of the globally threatened Lesser White-fronted goose’ Final report Complilled by Sonia Rozenfeld Translation: Vladimir Skvortsov

Part 1. Diminishing the threat from spring hunting on Lesser White-fronted Geese (Anser erythropus) in Kalmykya By Sonia Rozenfeld, Alexander Matyukhin, Youry Babitchev, Vladimir Badmaev

The Kumo-Manytch stopover is an area of international importance for waterfowl including Lesser White-fronted Goose (LWFG). Research carried out in 2012–2013 showed that the key regions for LWFG conservation are Kalmykya Republic, Stavropolskiy Kray, Rostov District, Astrakhan District, and Zimlyansk Reservoir in Volgograd Disrtict. The project area in Kalmykia Republic verges on Stavropolskiy Kray, Rostov District (Fig. 1). Actually, the geese use the whole area of Manych-Gudilo Lake and trh entire transboundary trritory that includes all the three federal units, depenting on hunting pressure and food accessibility. Thus, it is very important to reduce the hunting impact in the area of interest.

Fig. 1. Map of Kumo-Manytch stopover site Dates of spring hunt in 2015 were Kalmykya Republic: March 8–16. Stavropolskiy Kray: March 21–30. In Rostov District the spring hunt is traditionally forbidden; In Stavropolskiy Territory spring hunt is open due to very strong hunting lobby. Nevertheless, the hunt control is well-organized there, the staff numbers 30 inspectors, and the most of key sites of rare goose species are given the status of wildlife sanctuaries (Rus: ‘zakaznik’). At the same time, Kalmykya suffers the lack of funds neeed for hunt control; the whole republic’s patrolling staff only consists of 6 people. That is why we concentrated our efforts on Kalmykya. The Republic of Kalmykya, especially the territory around the lake Manytch Gudilo, is the key spring stopover site for Red-breasted goose and Lesser White-fronted goose (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Distribution of Red-breasted geese at Manytch Gudilo Lake in 2012–2014 (according to tagging data) In both 2012 and 2013, spring hunt in Kalmykya was closed. Unfortunately, the political situation and powerful hunting lobby supported by the Governer, Alexey Orlov, made it impossible to extend the total spring hunting ban in Kalmykya for 2015. However, the list of restrictions, as well as the hunting regulations proposed in the framework of this project, were finally adopted by local authorities (see details at http://www.nexplorer.ru/news__13494.htm). Spring hunt regulation in Kalmykya republic in 2015: 1. Greylag goose was excluded from the list of hunting species for spring time (Ministry of Natural Resourses Order № 383 04.09.2014 (registered 27.10.2014 N 34455) 2. Hunting of Great white-fronted goose and ducks is open only. 3. Hunting is forbidden on the lakes, rivers, water reservoirs and temporary water bodies, as wel as on their islands and shores (not closer then 200 meters from the shore). 4. Hunting was closed in all regional wildlife sanctuaries as well as in the territories of game husbandries of farm “TEG” and hunter association of Gorodovikovsky District (these territories cover a major part of wetlands in Kalmykya). 5. Hunting dates were moved for earlier dates (March 8–16). This particular measure helped avoid strong hunting pressure on geese. It became possible because the early nesting Greylag Goose had been excluded from harvested during spring hunt species. According to monitoring and tagging data (since 2008), the peak of Big geese migration in Kumo-Manytch depression normally falls within the period 8–16 March. The Red-breasted goose (RBG) migration peak usually takes place on 17–22 March, so the species leaves Manytch Lake on 5–12 April (https://www.naturalsciences.be/RBG-RBINS-spring2014/). 6. According to Order # 44 of 26.02.2015 issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Kalmykya Republic, hunting of waterfowl is closed in a total of 1000 hectares within hunting-free zones in the following five key admionistrative regions of Kalmykya Republic: Yashaltinsky, Priyoutnensky, Ikiburulsky, Tzernozemelsky, and Ketchenerovsky (Fig. 3–4). We suggested the following measures aimed at realization of restrictions put by the above Order: 1. Permanent monitoring of geese distribution. 2. Waterfowl number counts. 3. Annual planning of the hunting free zones. 4. Marking all hunting-free zones with warning signboards (each zone was marked with 6 signboards). All hunters demanded the licenses were prevented about the disposition of hunting free zones and constant patrolling of these areas was organized. 5. Based on monitoring results, moving the hunting free zones every year to the sites of huge concentrations of rare waterfowl species 6. Permanent routine patrolling and special poaching control (extended for the post-hunting season, despite the official closure of hunt, since many hunters from neighboring regions will come there to hunt waterfowl illegally). Thanks to these measures, the spring hunt was open only in small part of Kalmykya in 2015. Fig. 3. Order # 44 of 26.02.2015 issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Kalmykya Republic ‘On the measure of rare geese species (RBG, LWFG) conservation in Kumo-Manytch stopover in Kalmykya Republic’

Fig. 4. Hunting-free zones marked with signboards Poaching control To reduce illegal hunting, permanent patrolling by five inspection groups from the Ministry of Natural Resources (12 people, i.e. one group for each five key regions) started on the opening day of spring hunting season. The special focus was on the key sites of rare goose species. In addition, a group of biologists worked at the same time to count and monitor the geese. Special patrolling was also organized on 28–30 March, the last sprig hunting dates in Stavropolsky Kray. Geese distribution Our observations were carried out ion 6–30 March. The first small flocks of arriving LWFG were registered in Stavropolsky Kray on 7 March. A massive geese arrival was observed on the same day. The tens of thousands of geese were coming from west to east through Kalmykya to Stavropolsky Kray. On the same day in 18,000 geese were observed in State reserve ‘Chernye zemli’. During the hunting period, only 100 RBG and 2000 other geese species were observed outside that reserve. The huge concentrations of geese (35 to 37,000 individuals) were observed in Stavropolsky Kray between the lakes Podmanok 1 and Podmanok 2 (N 45.55, E 43.23) on 14–18 March. The massive goose arrival back to Kalmykya was observed just after the close of spring hunt on 16 March. The second wave, with thousands of geese and RBG arriving to Kalmykya (on Chograyskoe Lake) on 21 March, was the day of hunt opening in Stavropolsky Kray. Groups of 6 to 7000 geese arrived to Manytch-Gudilo Lake near the site of Yachalta. A lot of geese also came to the northern part of republic (Yashkulsky District). The feeding conditions in Kalmykya and Stavropolsky Kray are different. In Kalmykya, the area of winter wheat fields is much less, and the quality of the crop is poor. We suppose that the strong difference between spring hunt dates in Kalmykya (7–16 March) and Stavropolsky kray (21–30 March) allows geese to avoid hunting pressure and accumulate enough fat to resume their migration. During the spring hunting period in Kalmykya, the geese had been feeding for two weeks in Stavropolsky Kray on the local fields full of crops. After the opening of the spring hunt in Stavropolsky Kray they went back to Kalmykya (Fig. 5–6).

Fig. 5. Geese flock locations and hunting-free zones at Manytch-Gudilo Lake. Arrow indicates migration direction According to data obtained from hunt inspectors, about 30–40 geese were shot in spring 2015 in Stavropolsky Kray. In Kalmykya, according the official data, no geese were shot over the same period. We supposed that most of the RBG had avoided the strong spring hunting pressure, the same could be true for LWFG also. Unfortunately, we were not permitted to see data from observations on LWFGs tagged in 2014, however according the data of spring monitoring (carried out since 2007) in Northern Kazakhstan, the next stopover site after Kumo- Manytch depression, RBG and LWFG arrived there together on 15–20 April, later than the larger geese species. Thus, the taken measures allowed creating a large-scale and permanent refuge within the Kumo-Manytch stopover site during the 2015 spring hunting season.

Fig. 6. Flock of geese (about 30,000 birds) on a field Part 2. Monitoring of the breeding population and satellite tracking of Lesser White-fronted Geese (Anser erythropus) in Russian East-European tundra in 2015 By Vladimir V. Morozov Introduction The Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus, LWfG) is s globally threatened species recognized as vulnerable by IUCN and ranked by BirdLife International as ‘SPEC 1’ within Europe, i.e. a European species of global conservation concern. It is listed in Annex 1 of the European Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, 2 April 1979), in Column A of the Action Plan under the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), and in Annex II ‘Strictly protected species’ of the Bern Convention. The LWfG is strictly protected in both Norway and Russia, the only countries harbouring wild breeding populations of the species. There are relatively few threats for the species on their breeding grounds. However, the population numbers of the goose have not increased because the mortality among LWfG along their migration routes and on their wintering grounds is very high due to heavy hunting pressure (Jones et al. 2008). There are not enough data on staging areas and wintering grounds for the European breeding population. Tagging LWfG with satellite transmitters carried out in the 2011–2014 in different parts of the Bolshezemelskaya Tundra, Russia, brought new and important data on stopover sites and wintering grounds of LWfG. However, these data were obtained from only a few transmitter-tagged LWfGs. These data explained only a certain portion of the migration route and dealt only with a limited part of the European population of LWfG. Furthermore, the lack of detailed information on staging areas and, in particular, wintering grounds of LWfG prevents effective conservation measures for the species. Due to this, surveys and tagging efforts of LWfG were continued in the tundra zone of European Russia in the framework of a long-term collaboration between NOF-BirdLife Norway and The Goose, Swan and Duck Study Group of Northern Eurasia (RGG). The expedition in European Russian tundra was organized in summer 2015. The field work was carried out by a Russian team led by Vladimir Morozov (RGG). The NOF-BirdLife Norway supplied the Russian team with three satellite transmitters (we are especially thankful to the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency). The AEWA rendered financial support for the field work. The main goal of the project was to obtain new information on current status of breeding population of LWfG in the eastern Bolshezemelskaya Tundra and the western macro-slope of the Polar Urals as well as on staging areas and wintering grounds of LWfGs that breed in European Russia. The following objectives were established: – to organize and carry out field surveys within the breeding areas of LWfG in the eastern Bolshezemelskaya Tundra and on the western macro-slope of the Polar Urals. – to capture some adult LWfGs and attach satellite transmitters to them. Material and methods Survey routes The field work was carried out from 6 June till 10 August 2015 at the western macro-slope of the Polar Urals and in the eastern part of the Bolshezemelskaya Tundra, Russia. Participants Vladimir V. Morozov (coordinator), RGG, Moscow, and Kirill Klimov, a student at Moscow State Pedagogical University. Study areas The study areas are located in the eastern part of the Bolshezemelskaya Tundra and in the Polar Urals (Fig. 1). The first area administrtively belongs to Nenets Autonomous District. It includes the valley of the Bolshaya Rogovaya River between the mouth of the Padymeyshop River (67º34′03″ N, 62º06′11″ E) and the mouth of the Syatteityvis River (67º23′18″ N, 62º15′37″ E) as wel as the adjoining watersheds covered with bogs and thermokarst lakes (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Study areas (outlined in yellow) The medium-sized Bolshaya Rogovaya River (40 to 100 m wide) flows southwards. The banks are mainly pebbly and sandy, sometimes muddy. The valley is not forested generally, however, there are large areas covered by the high willow bushes. The bank slopes are mainly steep strongly eroded, with protruding sandy, clay or peaty cliffs; their sparse vegatetion is made up of a few species of vascular plants; turfed slopes are covered with dwarf shrubs.The terraces are overgrown with thick and tall bushes; the floodplain vegetation mostly consists of tall willow bushes with some willow trees and small patches of tussocky grass meadows. The frequently- occuring peat bogs are usually covered with dwarf shrubs such as Labrador tea (Ledum palustre var. decumbens) and dwarf birch, mosses and lichens, while similarly-looking dwarf-shrub tundras dominate on the watersheds. The lakes of the watersheds are shallow with swampy shores surrounded by willow thickets. The second study area is located in Komi Autinomous Republic. It includes a low mountain ridge and adjacent foothills separated from the outside territory by rivers valleys running down from the Polar Urals (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2. Detailed map of the study area in the Bolshaya Rogovaya River basin (red spot indicates the place where a brood of LWfG was encountered)

Fig. 3. Detailed map of the study area in the Polar Urals Note: Yellow line is the same as on Fig. 1; blue lines outline different sectors of the second study area (1 – northern foothills; 2 – southern foothills; 3 – western foothills; 4 – mountain ridge; 5 – eastern foothills); pink lines outline the sites where LWfGs were found in June (areas 6, 7 and 8); 9 – area where three LWfG broods were found and an adult male was captured The foothills of the Polar Urals are overgrown with different types of shrub tundra, which cover here the watersheds as well. This territory was described in detail and illustrated by photographs in our previous report (Morozov, Aarvak, Øien, 2015). So here we only place a photograph representing a general view of the area from the right bank of Usa River (Fig. 4). Details of the survey To reach the first point destination (in the Urals) we hired an MI-8 helicopter from Vorkuta airport. At first, we re-examined the areas where LWfGs had been revealed previously. We thoroughly searched on foot all steep slopes of the river banks, the most favourable nesting places of Lesser White-fronted goose and Peregrine falcon, looking for geese nests and broods. Then we inspected the nearby watersheds covered with lakes and bogs. When the moulting period of LWfG had begun, we went up the river and carefully examined all suitable feeding and roosting sites as well as the places where feathers and footprints had been found. The watershed lakes suitable for the goose feeding, roosting and moulting were also surveyed if the long-term LWfG presence had been confirmed by numerous feathers, great amount of excrements and traces of grazing. Diving LWfG were caught using hoop-nets or by hands if they tried to escape and hide in the bushes. The olnly captured adult LWfG was fitted with a PTT supplied by NOF and ringed with an metal ring with lock supplied by Moscow Ringing Centre of Academy of Sciences of Russia (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4. General view of the second study area from the right bank of the Usa River

Fig. 5. Kirill Klimov with caught Lesser White-fronted Goose Results The weather conditions at the beginning of spring 2015 were quite favourable for goose breeding. The spring had come very early and went on fast, yet due to very snowy winter the flood was very extensive and lasted for an unusually long time. Anyway, the number of breeding LWfG turned out low for some unknown reasons. We could reach the other study area (the basin of the Bolshaya Rogovaya River) only in by the end of July after the geese had moulted. Thus, we found only one LWfG couple with 5 juveniles on 2 August; however, our efforts to get LWfG adults failed because both adults and juveniles were already able to fly well. In contrast, the number of Bean Geese was high: we counted 92 adults and at least 58 juveniles within same area. We visited the study area in the Polar Urals several times. In June, lesser white-fronted geese were found on the rivers and the watershed lakes at northern, western and southern foothills (sectors 1–3 and 6–8 on Fig. 2). Repeated observations carried out from 10 July till 15 July and from 5 August till 7 August did not confirm LWfG presence in sectors 1 and 3. However, we encountered many broods of Bean Goose, which is quite common in the area. The southern foothills (sector 2 on Fig. 2) were examined from 25 June till 5 July and then from 28 July till 31 July. As a result, we found three broods of Lesser-white fronted geese in one flock in area 9 (Fig. 3). Table 1. Information on caught of LWfG at the Polar Urals in 2015 Date PTT- Ring Coordinates of catching № Name Sex Age caught id number site mal adu 12664 1 Rocky 26.07 C-748131 67º06′35″ N, 64º16′35″ E e lt 7 Threats Human impact on the LWfG population at the foothills of the Polar Urals appears moderate. At the end of May and at the beginning of June reindeer shepherds drive their herds across the area to reach the pastures on the sea shore. Later, reindeer from Siberia pass the area to reach their mountain pastures in July. The impact of reideer breeding is in not expected to be significant, as sll the reindeer graze on pastures located close to mountain tops where LWfGs do not occur in summer. Unlike the Polar Ural foothills, the Usa River and its tributaries are visited in summer very often, mainly by fishers. The latter may disturb goose broods considerably, so LWfGs tend to hide on small creeks and thermokarst lakes where there is no fishing. In spring, during the hunting period, LWfGs are seriously endangered there. However, at the foothills of the Polar Urals they are relatively safe since the majority of hunters prefer to hunt in low tundra areas with numerous lakes and vast bogs where Bean geese gather in great numbers. The human impact on LWfG in the Bolshaya Rogovaya River valley looks moderate as well. Three houses on the shores of large lakes (Padymeiskiye Lakes and Varkaty Lake) are situated somewhat northeast of the river valley and used by local hunters for lodging during hunting seasons both in spring and in autimn, while fishers may use the houses all over the year. Discussion The new data on LWfG numbers in the study areas obtained in 2015 show that the amount of breeding LWfGs has decreased in the Bolshaya Rogovaya River valley in a few past years. For example, the numbers of adult LWfGs in the Bolshaya Rogovaya River valley was 29 in July 2006, 14 in July 2007, 7 in July 2009, 4 in July 2011 and 9 in July 2012 (Morozov, 2012), while only one couple was found in 2015. In the Polar Urals, the situation looks not so bad. The total number of adult LWfGs was 28 in 2006, 53 in 2008, 18 in 2009, 36 in 2010, 24 in 2011, 20 in 2012 (Morozov, 2012), and 23 in 2015, so it only seems to oscillate throughout a number of years. The reason for LWfG number decrease 2015 might be explained, in principal, by bad weather conditions in this particular year (especially by the very extensive flood in the summer). However, the negative tendency in LWfG popualtion dynamics in the Bolshaya Rogovaya River valley could hardly be due to bad weather conditions in any the last season. In our opinion, the reasons have nothing to do with the breeding grounds and are accounted for by the conditions in the wintering grounds and staging areas. References Jones, T., Martin, K., Barov, B., Nagy, S. 2008. International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Western Palaearctic Population of the Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus. AEWA Technical Series No.36. Bonn, Germany. Morozov, V.V. 2012. Monitoring of numbers of local populations threatened bird species in the eastern Bolshezemelskaya Tundra and the Polar Urals. Proceedings of the fourth International Buturlin Conference. Ulyanovsk, p. 188-200 (Russian, with English summary). Morozov, V.V., Aarvak, T., Øien, I.J. 2015. Satellite tracking of Lesser White-fronted Geese from the East-European tundra in Russia in 2014. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening – Report 1-2015, 14 p. Part 3. Monitoring and identification of key sites of Lesser White-fronted goose (Anser erythropus) in the breeding and/or moulting areas in Baydaratskaya Bay and adjacent territories using GPS or satellite-tagging

By Sonia Rozenfeld, George Kirtaev Introduction Modern trends in social and economic development within breeding areas of Lesser White- fronted goose (LWFG) in Russia have produced a visible positive effect on the species condition. The human population in the Russian Extreme North decreased palpably in the past few decades. Following this, hunting and recreation impact as well as the intensity and scale of exploration work also lessened. This, in turn, favored the conservation of all waterfowl species, including Anser erythropus, in the Arctic. On the other hand, gas main construction in Yamal has been suspected to worsen the ecological situation in some parts of the peninsula in general, and negatively affect waterfowl populations in particular. It is widely accepted that the intensity of disturbance and hunting activities will increase by several times in areas surrounding gas and oil pipelines. At present time, raw hydrocarbon materials are transported from their sources in the Yamal Peninsula through pipelines laid on the bottom of Baydaratskaya Bay. These large infrastructure objects also run straight across the coastal marine marshes, which, as was shown in our 2012– 2014 research are used by Lesser White-fronted geese as staging sites when they migrate from the Extreme North to their wintering grounds (Fig. 1 & 2). Since there has been anxiety that the areas could be lost as staging sites of Lesser White-fronted geese, we decided to carry out a series of detailed surveys in Baydaratskaya Bay during summer and autumn 2015. The results of the field study are described in this section.

Fig. 1 & 2. Marine coastal marshes in Baydaratskaya Bay Material, methods and the survey area In the current surveys we used the methods described in detail in our previous RGG report for AEWA (2014). From 11 till 13 August 2015, we surveyed a large area that included Baydaratskaya Bay itself and some of the adjacent territories (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Layout of the routes and overview the surveyed area in autumn 2015 (total length 1925 km) Over the same period (7–25 August) we spent several days walking or taking routes in a boot. On these routes whose total length was about 400 km we explored the territory lying around the mouth of the Yuribey River to record there the flocks, groups and broods of Lesser White-fronted geese. To identify Lesser White-fronted geese and assess their numbers in the flocks of different waterfowl species, we photographed gatherings and groups of geese and then analyzed the photographs. The total amount of analyzed photographs was 1927. Results of field survey In the survey area, we found a number of moulting and post-moulting gatherings as well as single broods of Lesser White-fronted goose, which amounted to a total of 28 records including both flocks consisting only of the target species and those where some Greater White-fronted geese and/or a few Bean geese were also present. One brood was found to keep close to a group of Red-breasted geese. In gatherings formed by large numbers of Bean geese, neither Lesser White-fronted geese nor Greater White-fronted geese were recorded in the majority of cases (see Fig. 4–7).

Fig. 4–7. Moulting groups of Lesser White-fronted geese and Greater White-fronted geese

Fig. 8. Moulting brood of Lesser White-fronted goose in gatherings of Red-breasted goose

Fig. 9–10. Moulting groups of Lesser White-fronted goose

Fig. 11. Broods of Lesser White-fronted goose in a river canyon. The breeding site has been found for the first time

Fig. 12–13. Moulting Bean geese Total numbers and distribution of Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area The distribution pattern and the counted numbers of Lesser White-fronted goose in Baydaratskaya Bay and adjacent territories are illustrated by Fig. 14. We have counted a total of 1,352 adult individuals of Lesser White-fronted goose and 391 goslings (Annex 1). The proportion of juveniles among Lesser White-fronted geese and in the other goose species turned out to be rather small (see Table 1 for details). Table 1. Results of goose counts in the study area Species Anser erythropus Anser albifrons Anser fabalis Branta ruficollis N closely 879 2304 130 27 observed birds % juv 36.4 36.6 26.9 62.9 The distribution of Lesser White-fronted goose gatherings (including those with broods) is presented on Fig. 14.

Fig. 14. Distribution and numbers of Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area The average proportion of Lesser White-fronted geese among all the goose individuals counted in the study area in simmer and autumn 2015 was about 9% (Fig. 15).

1352; 9%

535; 4%

Anser erythropus Anser fabalis Anser albifrons 8036; 56% 4388; 31% Branta bernicla

Fig. 15. Relative abundance (%) of four goose species in the study area according to field counts The distribution of Lesser White-fronted goose in the gatherings and groups of other goose species is shown on Fig. 16.

Fig. 16. Distribution and counted numbers of three goose species in surveyed area Why we decided not to use transmitters to monitor Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area Even though we purchased transmitters for marking birds and they worked correctly when tested (see Annex 2), we eventually decided not to capture and mark the target species. Capturing Lesser White-fronted geese was extremely difficult since all the individuals encountered on our routes were keping in almost inaccessible places such as the river canyon with sheer faces shown on Fig. 17. We also had to keep in mind that each moulting site was constantly patrolled by three or four White-tailed sea eagle (Fig. 18). For the latter reason, any disturbance made to the moulting birds would have caused disruption of the groups and broods and provoked many deaths among adult or young geese from predating by the sea eagles.

Fig. 18. A river canyon where we encountered three broods of Lesser White-fronted goose. Capturing geese in such biotopes would entail great difficulties.

Fig. 17. White-tailed sea eagle attacking a group of moulting geese The summary table of all goose counts (including Lesser White-fronted goose) in the study area is given in Annex 1. The table also contains data on White-tailed eagle counts. Autumn migration The first individuals of Lesser White-fronted goose able to fly after moulting were encountered in 2015 as early as on 11 August. Flocks flying in southerly direction first appeared on 20 August.

Fig. 19. Gathering of Lesser White-fronted goose. Most of the birds were capable of flying by 11 August.

Fig. 20. Flock of Lesser White-fronted goose at the mouth of the Yuribey River, 20 August 2015 Discussion To find, without attaching transmitters, the key habitats used by Lesser White-fronted geese for nesting, breeding and as stopover sites, we carried out a series of survey and research works in 2014–2015 in all the study area as well as along the autumnal migration routes of Lesser White-fronted goose in three administrative regions of Russian Federation. The results of these massive studies are described in Part 5 of the current report. The revisiting of Lesser White-fronted goose key sites in the Stshuchia River basin shown that the territory formerly considered as one of the most important areas for Anser erythropus (Morozov &, Syroyechkovski 2002), probably had lost its significance for the species. We found there no broods of Lesser White-fronted goose during our observation in 2015. In 2014 only two broods of Lesser White-fronted goose had been found over the entire survey period. Instead, significant numbers of White-fronted goose were recently discovered much further to the north. This may indicate that the nesting range of A. erythropus has moved northwards; otherwise, it is possible to assume that the species has always nested there, while the area itself is critically underexplored. A 2015 discovery of four Lesser White-fronted goose nests some distance off the field observation base on the Yerkuta River (where faunistic and ecological monitoring has been since 1999) seems to support the former hypothesis (see Part 3а of the current report). Nevertheless, it would be highly instructive to investigate this phenomenon in further detail. One possible explanation for the shift may be the influence of global warming spreading now more and more to the Extreme North. As far as conservation interests are concerned, the northerly shift of Lesser White-fronted goose range would require a different insight into the system of protected areas for waterfowl in the Arctic and taking new measures aimed to Lesser White-fronted goose conservation in YaNAD. Anthropogenic impact in the study area Data obtained in the framework of the current study indicate that gas main construction in Baydaratskaya Bay has not caused any detectable decrease in Lesser White-fronted goose population number so far and exerts no negative effects on the bird’s survival. We have not recorded even a single case of poaching as well. At the same time, there are some signs of oncoming positive changes in people’s attitude to the protection of Lesser White-fronted goose key sites in YaNAD. For example, the territory of Yamalski wildlife sanctuary (‘zakaznik’) is regularly patrolled now by the security staff. In all the outposts situated inside the sanctuary, signboards were set in August 2015 (Fig. 21) to warn against any hunting, recreation and touristic activities in the protected territory.

Fig. 21. Warning signboard in Yamalski wildlife sanctuary Some key territories of Lesser White-fronted goose discovered during our study fall into currently existing specially protected natural areas of YaNAD. On the other hand, certain key sites where Lesser White-fronted geese temporary gather in great numbers belong to areas most frequently visited by hunters. All the moulting sites discussed above are outside the actual specially protected natural areas (see Fig. 14). In a report to be submitted to YaNAD Administration, we are will recommend changing the boundaries of Yamalski wildlife sanctuary so that it encompasses all the areas mapped in August and September where Lesser White- fronted geese get together during the moulting and pre-migration periods.

Fig. 22. Distribution and numbers of Lesser White-fronted goose in specially protected natural areas of YaNAD A detailed presentation of the data on Lesser White-fronted goose obtained and analyzed in the study will be made in December 2015 at a meeting in Salekhard city specially dedicated to Anseriformes conservation.

Acknowledgements We are much obliged to non-commercial group ‘Arctica International Exprdition Center’ and the Department of Science and Innovations of YaNAD for their help in preparation of our field trips and a well-organized logistics support. We would like to thank Didier Vangeluwe and Savas Kazantzidis, our colleagues and companions in the expedition. Our study would have been impossible without efforts made by pilots and managers of Yamal Federation of Ultralight Aviation. The staff of Ust-Yuribey trading post and many other people helped us in the field very much as well. Part 3a. Lesser White-fronted goose records in Yerkuta Tundra monitoring site, Yamal Peninsula, Russia By Natalya Sokolova & Aleksander Sokolov Since 1999, we have been conducting year-by year population monitoring of most bird and mammal species in Yerkuta Tundra monitoring site (68.2°N, 69.2°E), southwest of the Yamal Peninsula. During the first five years of the survey, we saw adult Lesser White-fronted geese (Anser erythropus, LWFG) as well as their broods on local rivers every year (Sokolov et al., 2004). In 2001, we picked up a dead adult LWFG lying on the sand bank of a river (Sokolov et al., 2001). However, we could not find any visible gunshot wounds even after dissection and the removing of skin.

Fig. 1. Lesser White-fronted goose on its nest, Yerkuta

Fig. 2. Lesser White-fronted goose found dead in Yerkuta in 2001 We found the first nest of Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area in June 2006. The nest had 5 eggs in it and was situated 10 m away from an nest of Peregrine falcon. (Note: We never look specifically for geese nests, except for checking areas around active nests of Peregrine falcon (within the distance of up to 200 m) where we have discovered a significant number of nests belonging to LWFG, Greater White-fronted goose, Bean goose and Red- breasted goose.) By now, our findings of the adults and broods of A. erythropus on local rivers seem to have decreased in number slightly; however, as indicated above, we never search specifically for Lesser White-fronted goose. A second nest of Lesser White-fronted goose was found by us in 2012, on a sandy cliff overlooking the river. It happened on 23 June when we had gone out of the core area of the monitoring site for the first time and were moving up the Yerkuta River. The nest had 6 eggs in it and, again, was situated close to an active nest belonged to Peregrine falcon.

Fig. 3–4. Another nest of Lesser White-fronted goose in Yerkuta found in 2012 A few more adult Lesser White-fronted geese were also observed in the same place, together with Greater White-fronted geese, but we failed to find any other goose nests on the route. On 23 June 2014 we discovered two nests on the same cliff as in 2012, each with 3 eggs.

Fig. 5–7. Two nests of Lesser White-fronted goose and adult bird walking from the nest, 23 June 2013. On 23 June 2015 we found 4 nests of Lesser White-fronted goose, again, on cliffs in the upper reaches of the Yerkuta. Three of them were associated with an nest of Peregrine falcon, and the fourth was located near another. Two of the first three nests conttained 4 and 2 eggs, respectively, while in the third one we found as many as eight eggs, plus three egg-shells very close to the nest. The egg-shells looked as if they had been eaten by a raptor. Finally, in the fourth nest we discovered, instead of eggs, five just hatched chicks. One of them had already jumped from the five-meter-high sand cliff to follow one of the parents, the others stayed in the nest with the second parent.

Fig. 8–12. Lesser White-fronted goose and their nests in Yerkuta, 23 June 2015 From the data presented above, we conclude that in the Yerkuta River basin there is a small but stable population of Lesser White-fronted goose. All the nests belonging to the birds have been found rather close to nests of Peregrine falcon. Besides, we suppose that microhabitats and microclimatic conditions in the middle and upper reaches of the Yerkuta are more preferable for the species’ nesting and breeding than in other places within our study area. The amount of available data on Lesser White-fronted goose number in the monitoring site is still small and insufficient; by our rough assessment 10 to 15 pairs may breed every year within a 40 km-wide zone stretching along the Yerkuta River. Part 4. Monitoring and Satellite-tagging of Lesser White-fronted Geese in the breeding and/or moulting areas in Chukotka By Alexander Kondratyev Introduction Number and distribution of the Lesser White-fronted geese in Chukotka still remains poor, especially after marked population changes, noticed during last decade. In the Eastern Asia Lesser White-fronted Geese are almost entirely confined to the Yangtze River floodplain, where more than 90% of the entire Eastern Palearctic Flyway now spends winter. Yet very little is known about their annual movements and migration itinerary, and their main spring and autumn staging sites, thus weakening conservation efforts for this vulnerable species. No planned conservation actions could be effective without a Flyway approach, where comprehensive knowledge of integrity of wetlands that these birds use through their annual cycle. In the project the Lesser White-fronted geese were planned to be caught and supplied with CTT on their breeding grounds in North-East Russia, where breeding population of several dozen pairs was known in Western Chukotka, Rauchua river water basin and west part of the Chaun bay water basin. In the same time, the results of 2014 survey in Rauchua river revealed very low number of the LWFG, thus increasing the anxiety about the future of this recently discovered population. Monitoring of its state in the eastern part of this breeding/moulting site was among the major tasks of 2015 year study. Description and goals of the project The ultimate goal of the project was to track movements and migratory routes of the Lesser White-fronted Geese from Western Chukotka, in order to acquire important life-history information such as: a. Timing of departure from the breeding/moulting grounds b. Migration strategies i. defining staging areas, habitats and threats (determined by follow- up visits) ii. frequency and durations of stops along the autumn flyway iii. identifying key sites for conservation actions along the route c. Timing of arrival to wintering areas d. Wintering strategies iv. Defining feeding areas and nighttime roost v. Determining the frequency of shifts between feeding/roost sites in relation to changes in water level, food depletion and habitat quality determined by use of remote sensing and field studies vi. Defining important habitats used e. Spring fattening strategies vii. Defining feeding areas and nighttime roost viii. Determining the frequency of shifts between feeding/roost sites in relation to changes in water level, food depletion and habitat quality determined by use of remote sensing and field studies ix. Defining important habitats used f. Timing of departure from the wintering grounds g. Spring migration strategies x. defining staging areas, habitats and threats (determined by follow- up visits) xi. frequency and durations of stops along the spring flyway xii. identifying key sites for conservation actions along the route h. Timing of arrival to breeding areas i. Site loyalty to breeding/moulting areas j. Repeat in subsequent years if the transmitters continue to be active, providing data on between season site loyalty at all stages of the annual cycle and supporting investigations of carry over effects to look at how patterns in the prelude to breeding affect reproductive success of individuals that can be tracked back to the wintering grounds with or without associated young. The proximate goals of the project was to make ground (boat and walking) survey in the south-east corner of the Kyttyk peninsula (north-western coast of the Chaun bay), where the Lesser White-fronted geese were known to be present in 2003-2010, and which is accessible by boat from the south corner of the Chaun bay without a helicopter. Historical background of the presence of LWFG in Western Chukotka The traditional breeding range of the Lesser White-fronted Geese in Chukotka for the long time was thought to be limited by the Anadyr river basin (including Kanchalan river with only observations of single broods in 1991 and 1993 reported on the Chukotka Peninsula (Krechmar & Kondratyev 2006). In the early 21st century a small number of breeding birds were recorded in the Rauchua River basin, west Chukotka (Solovieva et al. 2003). In 2010 additional data were collected in the same place in Western Chukotka, so this new breeding site was proved to be quite important for the support of the population of this vulnerable species in East Asia (Solovieva, Vartanyan 2011) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2). However, when in the summer of 2014 A. Kondratyev (author of this report), together with D. Solovieva and S. Vartanyan (who discovered this site in 2003 and reinspected in 2010) visited this area with the aim of monitoring the Lesser White-fronted Goose population and catching some birds for GPS-GSM tagging, we observed markedly smaller number of this species. Detailed survey of the Rauchua river and also western part of the Kyttyk peninsula revealed drastic decline of the Lesser White-fronted Geese in compare to survey results of 2003 and 2010, while little has changes with the number of Bean Geese in the area (Fig. 3). The latter species should be considered as abundant with broods and moulting flocks numerous and widespread in various habitats. As two GPS-GSM transmitters, implemented on the back of two Lesser White-fronted Goose individuals appeared not to work, the task of satellite tagging of the Lesser White-fronted Geese in Western Chukotka was planned to be repeated in 2015.

Fig. 1. Location of known Lesser White-fronted Goose breeding, moulting and stopover sites in Chukotka (from Heinicke et al 2009)

Fig. 2. Historical records of the Lesser White-fronted Goose in Western Chukotka after 2003 – 2010 surveys (from Solovieva&Vartanyan 2011). Squares show moulting concentrations and circles – brood aggregations. Shaded area from C1 to C4 shows part of Rauchua river important for the Lesser White-fronted Geese. This area corresponds to point 8 from Fig. 1

Fig. 3. Results of Goose counts in Rauchua river basin and western part of Kyttyk peninsula in July 2014 Selection of the study and operation area and tasks for the summer 2015 Due to logistical reasons access to the Rauchua river basin with boats and catching equipment is only available with a support of helicopter, that we were happy to get a lucky lift in 2014. As the lift of a helicopter was not expectable in 2015 selection of the operation area has to be done only relying on the motor boat. Starting point of the ground operation was the Rytkuchi village in the south part of the Chaun Bay (accessible from Pevek town by regular helicopter flight two times a month), where hiring of a motorboat is possible. Therefore we only planned to access the north-western coasts of the Chaun bay and inspect the south-eastern parts of the Kyttyk peninsula, where the moulting sites of the Lesser White-fronted geese were discovered in 2003 with the numbers of about 40-50 moulting individuals. In the late summer of 2014 D. Solovieva and S. Vartanyan visited shortly this site and observed one individual moulting (D. Solovieva pers. comm.). Combining all that conditions and limitations surveying the rivers in the north-western corner of the Chaun bay in the second half of July (i.e. the period when the non- breeding geese are yet flightless and breeding adults also start moulting their primaries) was the task for 2015. Due to limited transportation facilities in the area we could only rely on the strict schedule of the regular helicopter flights between Pevek (the only town with the airport large enough for big planes to come to the area of Western Chukotka in general) and Rytkuchi village. The latter is the only village where from the access to Kyttyk peninsula is accessible by boat. As there is no regular connection flight between Pevek and Magadan, the only way to get to Pevek from Magadan was with KINROSS charter flights (free for us) done one regular basis once a month. Being strict with this schedule we could not change any dates and had to rely on the weather to be sure that the sea journey is safe. Participants and calendar of events Alexander Kondratyev, Magadan – leader of the team Pavel Ktitorov, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk – field assistant Vladimir Chasovskih, Rytkuchi village – boat driver

07.06.2015 – P. Ktitorov arrives Magadan from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, then goes to Pevek with KINROSS flight and helps with expedition preparation in Pevek and Rytkuchi 05.07.2015 – A. Kondratyev arrives from Magadan to Pevek with the support of KINROSS flights. 13.07.2015 – A. Kondratyev arrives from Pevek to Rytkuchi village by regular flight. 18.07.2015 – All three participants start boat survey across the Chaun bay to Kyttyk peninsula 29.07.2015 – All three participants return to Rytkuchi village by boat. 30.07.2015 – A. Kondratyev and P. Ktitorov arrive from Rytkuchi to Pevek by regular flight. 5.08.2015 – A. Kondratyev and P. Ktitorov arrive from Pevek to Magadan by regular flight. 9.08.2015 – P.Ktitorov returns Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk from Magadan. Weather conditions and state of common predators The 2015 season in a Chaun bay area was early and warm with crossing-zero dates at 25- 26 May, and with little rains in June and July. Combined with warm southern winds it led to the seasonal drought with low water level both in rivers (as a result of low precipitation) and at sea (as a result of water expel from the Chaun bay to the Arctic ocean by the southern winds). Lemming abundance was extremely low, while the predation pressure of gulls and foxes was markedly noticed on ducks and waders in the Chaun river mouth waterbird permanent study site. Other big waterbirs, such as swans (Cygnus bewickii) divers (Gavia stellata, Gavia arctica, Gavia pacifica, Gavia adamsii) and also Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) were, on the contrary, quite common and seemingly had no decrease in nesting success. Foxes, predating on ground- nesting ducks and waders and also on geese broods were regularly seen in all surveyed sites – Chaun river delta and Kyttyk peninsula. Results of field expedition 1. Studied area. During the extensive boat and walking trips the complete survey was done on two rivers of the Kyttyk peninsula (see Fig. 4) – Emukkuvnyan river and Teukulkal river, with both river stream and also adjoining lakes covered by surveys. In addition to that the upper part of Nagleinynvaam river (where the boat rafting and catching were performed in 2014) were also covered by walking trips (Fig. 5). After the unsuccessful operation on Kyttyk peninsula another river of the south-western coast of the Chaun bay (Teukul river), that has a joined watershed with the mentioned above Nagleinynvaam river, was also inspected within the limits of boat-accessible area (Fig. 4). PEVEK

KYTTYK peninsula CHAU N bay

RYTKUCHI

Teukul river

Fig. 4. General overview of survey routes in the Chaun bay area in July 2015

Emekkuvnyan River

Teukulkal River

Nagleinynvaam River

Fig. 5. Layout of survey routes in July 2015 in the north-western coast of the Chaun bay, major expected area for monitoring and catching of the Lesser White-fronted geese 2. Survey results. Altogether 85 km of the river stream of 4 rivers were surveyed (see map 1 and table 1), with the total of 89 broods (78 broods of Bean Geese and 12 broods of White-fronted geese) and 987 non-breeding Bean Geese in moulting aggregations – i.e 1,1 brood and 11 moulting non- breeder per 1 km of the river stream at average (Table 1, Fig. 6 – 8). Table 1. Results of goose counts on the surveyed rivers. River Length of survey No of GWFG No of Bean No of moulting route (km) broods Goose broods Bean Geese Emukkuvnyan 35 2 18 524 Teukulkal 35 8 31 463 Nagleinynvaam 10 2 1 0 Teukul 5 0 28 0 TOTAL 85 12 78 987

Fig. 6. Distribution of moulting concentration of Bean geese in the surveyed area of Emukkuvnyan and Teukulal rivers. (the largest circle corresponds to a group of 300 moulting individuals)

Fig. 7. General overview of the distribution of geese broods (red circles) recorded during survey

Fig. 8. Distribution of brood concentrations of Greater White-fronted Geese (green circles) and Bean Geese (red circles) in the area of Emukkuvnyan, Teukulkal and Nagleinynvaam rivers. The largest circle corresponds to the group of 8 broods at one concentration. Yellow triangles show position of falcon eyries on Teukulkal river Not one individual of the Lesser White-fronted Goose was either seen or heard during the entire survey both on the Teukulkal river (seen in 2003 and 2014) and also in the small inspected part of the Nagleininvaam river (seen in 2003 and seen and caught in 2014). Two other neighboring rivers (Emukkuvnyan and Teukul) and adjoining lakes also provided quite the same survey results in relation to Bean Geese numbers with no observations of the Lesser White- fronted Geese at all. As nesting associations and brood concentrations of lesser white-fronted geese are often associated with the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Rough-legged Buzzard (Buteo lagopus), and their nests and brood concentrations are confined to the nesting territories of these predator species, we paid special attention on these sites and specially surveyed suitable raptor nesting eyries in detail. Altogether we inspected two nesting sites of Peregrine falcons and one site of Rough-legged Buzzards. In contrast to 2014, when both the non-breeding aggregation on Nagleinynvaam river and the only seen brood on the Rauchua river were associated with Peregrine falcon eyries, in 2015 the two inspected cliffs on the Teukulkal river, occupied by raptors, had no associations with any geese (Fig. 8). Discussion Complete absence of the Lesser White-fronted Geese in the survey results of 2015 combined with high abundance of the Bean Geese in all surveyed sites indicates that human disturbance (possible factor responsible for the low number of all geese in western part of Kyttyk peninsula during 2014 surveys) is not responsible here, therefore other reasons must be considered. General population decline, seasonal failure and distribution shift are among the most probable factors responsible for the observed situation. However, if the seasonal failure is the most probable explanation for the low numbers of broods (especially evident in a case of 2014 when large areas with high number of broods in 2010 were surveyed), this is less probable an explanation for the absence of moulting aggregations, which are expected to be more site- faithful and also should not decline in a season when breeding failure is anticipated. D. Solovieva (2011), basing on the observations of about 60 broods during their boat surveys in 2003 and 2010 speculated about the population level of ca. 500 breeding pairs all over this area of the Western Chukotka, which could possibly comprise about 10% of the entire East-Asian population of this species. Recent results of both 2014 and 2015 surveys evidently show that the current situation has drastically changed, and the population markedly decreased with the exact reasons of that still remaining unknown. Conclusion Kyttyk peninsula proved to be a key Bean Goose breeding/moulting area in Western Chukotka where local density along the important rivers with good feeding habitats may reach 1 brood/km of the river bank. Lesser White-fronted geese in previous years were only known to be found on the semi-mountainous rivers coming from the hills south from Kyttyk peninsula, where they were always observed together with Bean geese, also as numerous at those rivers as on Kyttyk peninsula. In 2014 and 2015, however, while the Bean geese were still abundant in all mentioned above areas and different habitats, Lesser White-fronted geese, on the contrary, were very limited in 2014 in the western part of the area (Rauchua river basin) and absolutely absent in 2015 in the eastern part of this area. References 1. Heinicke, T., Yakushev, N.N. & Syroechkovski, E.E. 2009. The importance of the Kanchalan River, Chukotka, Russia, for the Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.//Wildfowl 59: 124–134. 2. Krechmar A.V., KondratyevA.V., 2006, Waterfowl in North-East Asia//Magadan, NESC FEB RAS, 458 pp. [In Russian with English summary.] 3. Solovieva, D.V., Vartanyan, S.L. & Dondua, A.G. 2003. Lesser White-fronted Goose in western Chukotka. Casarca 9: 154–155. [In Russian with English summary.] 4. Solovieva D., Vartanyan S., 2011, Lesser White-Fronted Goose Anser erythropus:good news about the breeding population in west Chukotka, Russia// Wildfowl, 61: 110-120. Part 5. Monitoring, field work and work with hunters in Yamalo- Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug, Russian Federation and adjacent territories in the Ob valley area

By Sonia Rozenfeld

Continued progress on the regulation of spring hunting in Yamal region and Ob Valley in order to lessen the threat from hunting to the species

Before the beginning of spring 2015 season, we have spread 100 questionnaire for the bag description (Annex 3). According the key sites revealed during spring, summer and autumn work in 2014 (Rozenfeld, 2014, AEWA report) we offered eight (3 new) hunting free zones on territory of YNAA with the common area 513 762 hectares. This proposal has been discussed and endorsed by the Ministry for Nature Protection. The map with coordinates and squares of each hunting free zones established in 2015 is presented below (fig. 1-8). In addition, according the scheme of hunting reserve approved by Yamal authorities the spring hunt is forbidden in the most part of YANAO (fig. 9). The leaflets with the maps of hunting free zones were given to the each hunter together with the hunting permission.

Fig 1. Hunting free zone “Ayvasedapur”

Fig. 2. Hunting free zone “Baydaratskaya”

Fig. 3. Hunting free zone “Shuryshkarskaya”

Fig. 4. Hunting free zone “Zajimtcharskaya”

Fig. 5. Hunting free zone “Khanymey”

Fig. 6. Hunting free zone “Kharposlinskaya”

Fig. 7. Hunting free zone “Levdievskaya”

Fig. 8. Hunting free zone “Tchaselka”

Fig. 9. The regional and federal reserves (light rose) and hunting free zones (green) within which the hunt is forbidden. The square of the hunting free zones is 3986478 hectares.

The appropriate resolution of YNAA government (N 282-РП from 15.05.2013) was signed by Governor (fig. 10).

Fig. 10. The direction of the Governor of YNAA about endorsement of hunting free zones during spring hunt 2015. In addition, the 100 Hunter's dairy (see Annex 3) were spraid and 37 returned diaries were analised. In spring hunt season of 2015, any hunter from three regions of Yamal reported the shot of LWFG (fig. 11).

35

31 30

25

20 Southern 17 Northern 15 15 Central

10

66 5 4 2

0 Anser albifrons Anser fabalis Cygnus bewickii

Fig. 11. The geese-hunting bag in three region of spring hunt according the data sent by 37 hunters

We also asked hunters about registrations of LWFG and receve this information (fig. 12).

100%

90%

80%

70% Not recognised 60% Branta ruficollis 50% Anser fabalis

40% Anser erythropus Anser albifrons 30%

20%

10%

0% Northern Southern Central Not recognised 328 408 134 Branta ruficollis 120 4 Anser fabalis 317 570 1498 Anser erythropus 559 Anser albifrons 784 1493 2255

Fig. 12. The ratio of geese species registered (not shot) by hunters in three region of spring hunt according the data sent by 37 hunters

We suppose that this kind of information can be usefull and this method can be effective enough for receiving the information about hunting bag and illegal shotting of rare species. The next step of this kind of activity should be the huge programme of questionnering of hunters and effective analysis and interpretation of these data.

Part 5 a. Monitoring of the species. The results of autumn counts in Ob valley and White-sea-Baltic flyway in September 2015

By Sonia Rozenfeld, George Kirtaev, Mikhail Soloviev, Natalia Rogova, Mikhail Ivanov Introduction In a few past years we have obtained a large amount of data on the numbers and state of the Lesser White-fronted goose populations in the Yamal Peninsula in nesting period (Rozenfeld et al., 2014). New bird counts carried out in August 2015 make it possible to have a deeper insight in this problem. In a thirteen-year old review on Lesser White-fronted goose by V. Morozov and Е. Syroyechkovski (2002), the number of nesting geese belonging to the species was roughly estimated as 700–1000 individuals. Our latest data allow us to reconsider this assessment and make it much more precise. For example, in August 2015 we counted in the Yamal Peninsula 960 adult Lesser White-fronted geese, out of which 766 were in gatherings with broods. Besides, the results of the recent field counts suggest a remarkable northerlу shift in the nesting range of Lesser White-fronted goose. These new findings have been discussed in Part 3 of the current report. A significant corpus of data on the numbers and state of Lesser White-fronted goose populations was also obtained during spring and autumn geese migration in the Dvuobie, in limits of Yamalo-Nenetski Autonomous District (YaNAD) and Khanty-Mansiiski Autonomous District (KhMAD, or Yugra), as well as in the Yamal Peninsula (Rozenfeld & Strelnikov 2011; Rozenfeld 2014; Rosenfeld et al. 2015). At the same time, our knowledge on the state of other populations of Lesser White-fronted goose including those in Fenniscandia, Western Russia and particularly in Nenets Autonomous District is still very insufficient. Below is a brief review of the available data. Nesting Some ten-year old publications cite two nesting sites of Lesser White-fronted goose in tundras west of the Pechora River delta: 1. the upper reaches of the Neruta River; and 2. the Velt River basin in the Malozemelskaya Tundra. There are also reliable records of nesting Lesser White-fronted geese from Bilshezemelskaya Tundra (NAD, Arkhangelsk Province) on the Padimeityvis River (Mineev & Mineev 2013). Later, the authors estimated the population density of A. erythropus in the Padimeityvis River basin as 0.2 individuals per square kilometer (Mineev & Mineev, 2014). In addition, the same researchers (Mineev & Mineev 2011) supposed that Lesser White-fronted geese could nest in Vorkuta District (Komi Republic), on the Seida River, which runs along NAD boundary in its middle reaches. In this area, the authors had seen single individuals, couples and groups of Lesser White-fronted goose, sometimes in flocks of Bean geese. Some LWFGs were seen there to demonstrate nesting behaviour as well. The habitats where the birds had been encountered were just of the kinds typically preferred by A. erythropus for nesting. The density of Lesser White-fronted goose populations in those tundra habitats was reported to be 0.2 individuals per square kilometer on the Seida River itself and 2.1 individuals per square kilometer on the streams surrounding the main watercourse of the Seida (Mineev & Mineev, 2011). In the east of Bilshezemelskaya Tundra, Lesser White-fronted geese breed in the upper reaches of the Bolshaya Rogovaya River and the middle reaches of the Khey-Yakhi River (Morozov 2006). There, the abundance of A. erythropus is rather low, and some sites where the spesies used to massively nest in the past do not exist any longer (Morozov, 1995; Morozov, Syroyechkovski, 2002). No data about nesting Lesser White-fronted geese from the Kanin Peninsula have appeared over the past 50 years. Spring migration In the past, Lesser White-fronted geese were observed in many regions of Nenets Autonomous District in the period of spring migration. According to data obtained by A.Ya. Moskvin, Lesser White-fronted geese occur during their spring migration on the Barents Sea coast around Kolokolovaya Bay and in the lower reaches of the Neruta River (Mineev & Mineev 2009). Some LWFGs flying in spring along the Barents Sea coast were noticed, in the even more distant past, near the Strait of Senegei (Mineev 1986). Autumn migration In contrast to the above, the autumn migration of Lesser White-fronted geese in the territory of NAD is almost unstudied. One place where Lesser White-fronted geese regularly rest during their autumn migration is known in the interfluve btween the Shoina Rivers and the Torna River. Data obtained from satellite ovservations sowed that such places exist also in southeast of the Kanin Peninsula and in coastal area of the Malozemelskaya Tundra (Litvin, 2014). Some summer records of non-breeding Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area have been reported from marshes at Lake Toravey and on Dolgi Island (Morozov, 2006). Fifteen years ago, approximate assessments of Lesser White-fronted geese numbers made for the tundras lying between the Kanin Peninsula and the Polar Urals in the territory of Nenets Autonomous District were, according to Morozov & Syroyechkovski 2002, 500–700 individuals before the reproduction season and 500–1000 individuals in autumn (Morozov, 2006). Materials, methods and the survey period The summer counts of Lesser White-fronted goose were carried out in the Yamal Peninsula on 11–13 August 2015 (the results of the counts have been described in Part 3 of the current report). The autumn counts of LWFG were conducted on 7–29 September. Again, we used an А-27 ultralight hydroplane to survey the Dvuobie as well as the coastal areas of the Kara, Barents and White seas, plus the same territory that we had surveyed in the Yamal Peninsula in August (Fig. 1). The total length of our count routes was 12 400 km. Such a massive bird count within the Russian part of the western population of A. erythropus using ultralight aviation has been made for the first time.

Fig. 1. Layout of the routes and the surveyed area Our count methods are described in detail in the report made by North Eurasian Group of Goose, Swan and Duck Study (RGG) for AEWA in the framework of contract N2014-9 (Rozenfeld, 2014). All the birds were counted within the distance of 2 km from aircraft (1 km on each side of the aircraft). The routs were plotted according to the requirement that the distance between them should be more than 2 km. Thus, if within two subsequent days the distance between our tracks was over two kilometers, we took it for granted that no birds had been counted twice, i.e. such quantitative data were believed to be absolute. Sometimes, however, we used the same field base several days in a row (namely, it was in three following places: in the vicinities of Naryan-Mar, in Lampozhnya settlement and in Ust-Yuribey trading post). In the above cases it was impossible to avoid track overlapping while taking off and landing, so the counts made in those three places could not be considered as absolute in a strict sense. The total area within which repeated birds counts were possible was 824.2 km2, or 3.3% of the entire surveyed area. For more precise number estimations and detailed assessment of the specific composition of the flocks, the photos were taken with a 7D Canon camera equipped with a 100–400-mm lens. If the number of birds in a group exceeded 100, a series of photographs of different parts of the group were taken and the proportion of various species and young-to-adult ratio estimated. These data were then extrapolated on the entire group. To ensure reliable photograph geotagging the time settings in the camera and in the GPS navigator had been synchronized beforehand. The taken photographs were then linked to their respective tracks using GEOSETTER (free software). In total, we analyzed 11549 photographs. All GIS layers used for analytical work were created in MapInfo format (scale 1:100 000). Estimations of the total numbers We consider all quantitative count data to be minimal. The position of encountered birds (on the ground, on water, or in midair) was ignored. We addressed the number of birds counted along each route as individual sample and assessed the population number in the region based on the sum of samples weighed relative to the lengths of the routes. To calculate underestimation and choose a proper extrapolation method it is necessary to take in consideration the mosaic structure of landscapes in the the surveyed territory, the areas of the biotopes suitable for waterfowl, as well as the density of each species in each delineated biotope. To solve this problem we useda landscape map made satellite image interpretation. The landscape map was created on the basis of freely accessed Landsat satellite images. A total of 45 Landsat-8 images (2013–2014) and 17 Landsat-5 images (2009–2011) were used to cover the entire territory. The analysis of satellite images and class delineation was first carried out using the automatic neural-network classification method (with teaching) in ScanEx IMAGE Processor software. Additional processing and refinement of the obtained vector layers and the area counts was made using Quantum GIS software. For primary classification of biotope we also used Landscape map of the USSR 1: 2500000 (1980), and Legend to Landscape map of the USSR (1987). As a result, we created a landscape map of the study area within which we delineated 17 habitat types. Then we put on the map all the points where geese had been encountered (Fig. 2– 9). The total area for which our quantitative data were to be extrapolated was 9,150,674 hectares.

Fig. 2. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (small-scale overview)

Fig. 3. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 1)

Fig. 4. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 2) Note: Habitat descriptions are given immediately after Fig 9.

Fig. 5. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 3)

Fig. 6. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 4)

Fig. 7. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 5)

Fig. 8. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 6)

Fig. 9. Distribution of waterfowl on the habitat map of the surveyed area (close-up of part 7) Note: The habitat descriptions given below are listed according to their numbers on Fig. 4.

Description of the key habitats 1. Coastal zone 500 m in width (from coastal line inland). The zone was delineated within any habitats verging onto the sea except for marshes (3), and swamped outlets of rivers (4). This habitat is considered as a key one for all theh migratory birds, being the main land corridor within which waterfowl migrate. It is also used for bird total number calculations to separately assess the parameter of migration intensity. Total area: 13,182 hectares. 2. The floodplain of the Mezen River (to the mouth of the Peza River inland) covered with motley grass-sedge meadows (bogged or not bogged), patches of small-leaved mixed forests, or, less frequently, spruce forests and stands of willow and adler on banks. Total area: 20,824 hectares. 3. Bogged coastal plains flooded during high-water periods, with a large number of river arms, streams, kettles and lakes; covered with halophytic marshy meadows formed by grasses and sedges, or with tundras of dwarf shrubs and grasses or, otherwise, with cotton-grass bogs. These habitats also include adjacent marine littoral zones. Total area: 340,681 hectares. 4. Bogged or swamped river outlets with halophytic motley grass-sedge meadows, combined with lowland bogs overgrown with grasses and green mosses. Total area: 46,574 hectares 5. Transitional bogs and lowland bogs with humpy microrelief and small shallow hollows; overgrown with sedges, cotton grasses and mosses; often with participation of motley herbs. Total area: 362,699 hectares 6. Flat and wavy, terraced, partly bogged plains with small hills and ridges, numerous thermokarst kettles and lakes, frost-heavings and polygons; covered with different types of tundra formed by dwarf birches or willows, dwarf heather shrubs, grasses, sedges and mosses. Total area: 662,041 hectares. 7. Wavy plains with small hills and ridges, karst lakes, thermokarst lakes or residual lakes; covered with different types of birch or willow tundras combined with various types of humpy or ridgy bogs formed by small birches and willows, grasses and dwarf heather shrubs, sometimes with minor lakes. In the south of the study area this landscape type includes open woodlands and low forests formed by birch and spruce. Total area: 133,338 hectares 8. Upland bogs and transitional bogs of humpy or hummock-ridge structure (including complex aapa-type bogs), sometimes with small lakes (primarily of thermokarst origin); overgrown with grasses, sedges, cotton grasses dwarf heather shrubs, mosses (including Sphagnum species), and lichens. Combined with tundras formed by dwarf birches or willows, dwarf heather shrubs, grasses, sedges and mosses. In river floodplains there occur motley grass- sedge meadows, lowland grassy or mossy bogs and open woodlands formed by pine, spruce and birch. Total area: 1,484,560 hectares. 9. Wavy and flat plains with scattered hills and ridges, thermokarst kettles and lakes, frost- heavings and polygons; covered with tundras formed by dwarf birches or willows, dwarf heather shrubs, grasses, sedges and mosses in combination with various bog types including upland bogs, transitional bogs and lowland bogs, all with smoothed humpy microrelief, ridges, hollows and small lakes; overgrown with grasses, sedges, cotton grasses dwarf heather shrubs, mosses (including Sphagnum species in hollows). In the southern part of he study territory there are low isolated stands of spruce and birch. Total area: 1,784,693 hectares. 10 Upland bogs and transitional bogs of humpy or hummock-ridge structure (including complex aapa-type bogs) sometimes with small lakes (mostly of thermokarst origin); overgrown with grasses, sedges, cotton grasses dwarf heather shrubs mosses (including Sphagnum species in hollows), and lichens. Combined with patches of tundras formed by dwarf or small willows and birches dwarf heather shrubs, and mosses. There are also isolated low stands of birch-spruce forests around lakes Korgovoye, Bolshoye, Srednee, Nizhnee, Urdyuzhskoye, Tyrabeito as well as patches of floodplain with (bogged) motley grass-sedge meadows, minor small-leaved stands, spruce stands or mixed stands; sandy banks are overgrown with willow and/or adler. Total area: 354693 hectares 11. Plains with ridges, hills, rocky prominences, cliffs and outliers; overgrown with tundras formed by dwarf birches or willows, dwarf heather shrubs, mosses and lichens, with grassy/mossy bogs and patches of open woodlands formed by birch. Total area: 102306 hectares 12. Flat plains with thermokarst lakes; mostly covered by low spruce-birch forest or open woodlands of birch or/and spruce. This complex landscape also includes tundras formed by small birches or willows, dwarf shrubs, grasses and mosses or grassy/mossy bogs. Total area: 121813 hectares 13. Lowland bogs and transitional bogs of humpy or hummock-ridge structure (including complex aapa-type bogs) sometimes with small lakes, in particular, of thermokarst origin; formed by grasses, sedges, cotton grasses dwarf heather shrubs mosses (including Sphagnum species), and lichens; combined with birch-spruce forests or larch forest with the undergrowth formed by dwarf shrubs, mosses and lochens. Total area: 770032 hectares. 14 Floodplain of the Pechora River (in limits of Nenets Autonomous District), with ridges and lowlands with numerous river arms and oxbows and lakes; covered with motley grass-sedge meadows, grassy or mossy bogs, patches small-leaved or mixed forests; more rarely with spruce forests, interrupted by willow-adler stands on sandy banks. Total area: 457667 hectares. 15. The watercourse of the Ob River, with numerous tributaries and lakes in the floodplain; becomes visible only in periods when the water level is at its lowest. Total area: 357622 hectares. 16 The most elevated parts of the Ob River floodplain with elevated banks, outliers, small and rare bogs; overgrown with willow or willow-adler forests often with a large proportion of birch, or otherwise, with pine-larch forests and spruce-birch forests. Total area: 487995 hectares 17 Regularly flooded part of the Ob River floodplain, extensively bogged, with muddy and sandy banks; covered with halophytic motley grass-sedge meadows often dominated also by bent grasses or rushes, sometimes with patches shrubby willow stands. Total area: 1312287 hectares. Calculation of bird densities and estimated numbers of species We calculated densities bird species in different habitats as well as their estimated density and abundance using a GIS project made up of the following four layers: 1. delineated habitats; 2. count localities; 3. territories surveyed from aircraft; 4. administrative borders of NAO. The quantitative data were taken from summary tables containing all the count results. Calculations requiring the use of geographic operators were made in the GIS Manifold System (version 8.00); other calculations were made in the Paradox 9.0 database management system. Data processing for each of the count areas included the following stages: 1. Calculating the total area of all polygons belonging to all habitats within each studied territory. 2. Calculating the total area of all polygons belonging to each certain habitat within each studied territory. 3. Calculating the surveyed area within each studied territory (identified as the total area of intersection of the following two layers: delineated habitats (1) and territories surveyed from aircraft (4)). 4. Calculating the total area occupied by each habitat within the surveyed part of each studied territory (identified as the total area of intersection of the following two layers: delineated habitats (1) and territories surveys from aircraft (4), the latter being grouped by habitats). 5. Identifying habitat type for every count locality. 6. Calculating the total number of birds belonging to each certain species counted within each habitat type in each studied territory. 7. Adding the sum area calculated at step 4 to the resulting table compiled at the end of step 6. 8. Calculating bird densities typical for each habitat within the surveyed part of each studied territory (obtained by dividing data from column Number by data from column SurveyedArea). 9. Calculating bird estimated numbers in different habitats within the surveyed part of each studied territory (obtained by multiplying the density of birds typical for a habitat (as calculated at step 8) to the area occupied by the habitat within each studied territory (as calculated at step 4)). The bird estimated number is identified as the result of extrapolation of the bird number counted from aircraft for the entire area of each studied territory (i.e. including the parts not covered by direct field counts). 10. Calculating the total estimated number of each bird species in all the habitats (identified as a sum of all the above parameters calculated at step 9). The analytical maps of estimated density of birds in different administrative districts of YaNAD were made by the ranking method (Fig. 10) using different range width depending on the maximum number of counted birds. If the maximum number was more than 1001 we used the following ranges: 0–101; 101–201; 201–301; 301–401; 401–501; 501–601; 601–701; 701– 801; 801–901; 901–1001; If the maximum number was more than 1000 but less than 5001, we used the following ranges: 0–501; 501–1001; 1001–1501; 1501–2001; 2001–2501; 2501–3001; 3001–3501; 3501– 4001; 4001–4501; 4501–5001; If the maximum number was more than 5000 but less than 10001, we used the following ranges: 0–501; 501–1001; 1001–2001; 2001–3001; 3001–4001; 4001–5001; 5001–6001; 6001– 7001; 7001–8001; 8001–10001.

Fig. 10. Calculation of densities and estimated numbers of birds in delineated biotopes Human impact assessment Human impact on waterfowl populations in the study area is mainly accounted for by hunting and reindeer breeding. To assess the latter, we registered all the herds of domestic/domesticated reindeer. To estimate the former, we registered all the hunters encountered in the study area, boats, hides, cabins and hunting bases. The amount of kills was calculated by analyzing data on ring returns of waterfowl species, marked as «bird was shot», available from in database of Bird Rinding Center of Russia. Results Our data are interesting first of all for comparing different geographical regions in terms of waterfowl species richness and bird numbers. Such information is also crucial for a better estimation of Lesser White-fronted goose number as well as to reveal trends in its dynamics. The most valuable results obtained during our surveys are presented in summary tables that contain data of all the encounters of geese on our routs. Each record includes information on local time, coordinates, number of counted birds, plus additional data about disturbance factors and hunting impact (see Annex 4). To make navigation through the table more convenient, data for different days are shown in different colours. During the period of autumn counts we counted a total of 7,177 individuals of Lesser White-fronted goose, 38278 individuals of Greater White-fronted goose, 20,162 individuals of Bean goose, 50,546 individuals of Brent goose, 144,586 individuals of Barnacle goose, and 1,514 individuals of Red-breasted goose. We consider all these numbers as minimal. The total proportion of Lesser White-fronted geese among all the counted geese is around 3% (Fig. 11).

1514; 1% 20162; 8%

38278; 15%

Anser fabalis Anser albifrons 7177; 3% Anser erythropus Branta bernicla 144586; 54% Branta leucopsis Branta ruficollis

50546; 19%

Fig. 11. Relative abundance (%) of four goose species in the study area according to field counts Assessments of reproductive success of this species have shown that the proportion among Lesser White-fronted geese amounted to 31% (n=757). For comparison, the proportion of young birds was 33% (n =1060) for Barnacle goose, 36% (n =676) for Brent goose, 29% (n =139) for Red-breasted goose, 26% (n =1209) for Greater White-fronted goose, and 24% (n =537) for Bean goose. Information on afutumn migration September 2015 was exceptionally warm, no frosts occurred throughout the month. Most of the observed geese were only changed places within limited territories. We did not encounter any flocks flying high in the sky; nor did we notice a well-expressed southerly migration of any waterfowl species. All the registered gatherings of geese and ducks were all at pre-migration stage; the birds never migrated far (being in the state of pre-migration hyperfagy). Therefore, the distances between our tracks were large enough to be sure that no birds might be counted for several times during successive aerial counts over several days. Evidently, most birds left the survey area after we had finished the autumn counts in 2015. Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area During the season of waterfowl autumn migration, Lesser White-fronted geese were encountered within the study area in most of the localities where we conducted our aerial counts, both in YaNAD and NAD (Fig. 12–13). The species sometimes formed (almost) pure flocks; otherwise it joined larger and smaller groups of other duck and goose species.

Fig. 12–13. Flocks of Lesser White-fronted goose over the Kanin Peninsula

Fig. 14. Lesser White-fronted geese flying over Baydaratskaya Bay

Fig. 15. Families of Lesser White-fronted goose

Fig. 16. Lesser White-fronted geese in a flock of Barnacle geese and Bean geese. Khaidypurskaya Bay.

Fig. 17. Lesser White-fronted geese in a flock of Bean geese. Ust-Kara.

Fig. 18. Lesser White-fronted geese in a flock of Barnacle geese. Bolvanskaya Bay.

Fig. 19. Lesser White-fronted geese and Barnacle geese in gatherings of wigeon. The Shoina River, Kanin Peninsula.

Fig. 20. Lesser White-fronted geese and Red-breasted geese in the Dvuobie At present time we do not have any data about Lesser White-fronted goose migration in the north of European part of Russia, with the exception of one known stopover site (registered from a transmitter attached to a Lesser White-fronted goose) at the western coast of the Kanin Peninsula (Litvin, 2014). The distribution and numbers of Lesser White-fronted geese in the study area (Fig. 21) demonstrate an exceedingly important role of marine marshes on the coast of Baydaratskaya, Khaidypurskaya, Pakhancheskaya and Bolvanskaya bays in the species’ existence. West of the Pechora River delta, and in the delta itself, findings of Lesser White- fronted geese are getting somewhat sparser: LWFGs become not very numerous on the marshes, and most of the encounter sites fall within the Kanin Peninsula, southwest coast of Cheshskaya Bay, Lake Toravey and adjacent marshes. It looks obvious that the first birds ready to autumn migration gathered in the Dvuobie during the observation period. The distribution pattern of Lesser White-fronted geese allows us to suppose that all the birds encountered west of Vaigach Island could possibly migrate southward in autumn using the corridor along the Pechora River or fly to the Dvuobie, or even move directly to Kazakhstan. To make the problem clearer it is necessary to survey the southern part of NAD during the time of mass autumn migration of waterfowl.

Fig. 21. Localities of Lesser White-fronted geese in the study area Gatherings of Lesser White-fronted geese and their key stopover sites The mapped quantitative data from field observations of Lesser White-fronted goose flocks immediately delineate several highly important areas where Lesser White-fronted geese were staging before their autumn migration. Among these key sites (in which the numbers of Lesser White-fronted goose exceed thousand individuals), are doubtlessly the following areas: Khaidypurskaya Bay, Pechorskaya Bay (with adjacent coastal zones); Baidaratskaya Bay near Ust-Kara settlement (where the administrative boundary separating YaNAD and NAD meets the sea), as well as all the marshes along the entire western coastal zone of Baydaratskaya Bay and the eastern coast of Baydaratskaya Bay outside the Yuribey River mouth.

Fig. 22. Gatherings of geese at Ust-Kara, Yamal Peninsula

Fig. 23. Distribution and numbers of Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area The density of Lesser White-fronted geese in the study area The densities of Lesser White-fronted geese in the study area during autumn migration (table 1) show that biotopes 1,3,4 are crucially important. Our materials can be used as scientific base for creating a network of protected areas inhvolving all those key sites. Table 1. Calculations of Lesser White-fronted goose population density and number. Note: For biotope codes see Fig. 4; biotope descriptions are given just below it.

Number Biotope Surveyed Area Density Estimated number 1662 1 665,2758 2,49821202 3243,453275 6 2 278,2929 0,021560018 4,427225445 4091 3 1580,497 2,588426299 8740,653828 174 4 130,7918 1,330358631 612,2035303 224 5 378,8799 0,591216372 2129,813227 5 7 204,9056 0,02440148 32,10698163 325 8 1906,5192 0,17046773 2501,662703 34 9 1335,9957 0,025449184 450,5910901 122 10 471,9472 0,258503494 909,4083561 22 11 117,3658 0,187448132 190,0315525 25 14 1061,2135 0,023557936 107,0746479 14 15 260,6473 0,053712431 237,7166558 8 16 738,7317 0,010829371 72,51122916 376 17 2849,1005 0,131971477 2369,791163

Large numbers of Lesser White-fronted goose in tundras and coastal marshes, and rather small numbers in the Dvuobie once again support our conclusion that a well expressed autumn migration in 2015 began exceptionally late. According to data obtained by our colleagues in Kazakhstan, mass migration of geese occurred there during the first ten-day period of October 2015 (А. Timoshenko, pers.com.). The estimated numbers of Lesser White-fronted geese was 21600 individuals, the calculated average density was 0.6 individuals/km2. The obtained figures for Lesser White- fronted geese numbers can be used to find trends (either negative or positive) in its dynamics. Having compared our data with already existing assessments of Lesser White-fronted goose numbers based on counts conducted in Northern Kazakhstan (table 2), we came to the conclusion that it amounts, in average, to 23,000 birds but is subject to strong fluctuations depending on the proportion of young individuals (one should take oin consideration that counts in Kazakhstan were carried out after the reproduction period of the species has finished). Whether our data actually say that the decrease in Lesser White-fronted goose reproductive core-group number in the world population has come to an end thanks to the efficiency of conservation measures in the key regions, or it is a result of some natural processes, is still an open question. Table 2. Results of Lesser White-fronted geese counts in Northern Kazakhstan for the last five years Year Number Source 2010 18786 Rozenfeld, 2011 2011 17516 Timoshenko, 2011, Rosenfeld, 2011 2012 30788 Rosenfeld, Timoshenko, Vilkov, 2012 2013 28044 Rosenfeld, Timoshenko, 2013 Zuban, Vilkov, 2013 2014 19963* Timoshenko, Volkov, 2014, Zuban, Vilkov, 2014 * Only 50% of the territory was surveyed in 2014. Hunting impact on goose population in spring and autumn (estimated by ring returns from NAD after bird kills in according to Центра кольцевания birds database) Data on ring returns are, in essence, the only available information for us to assess hunting impact on waterfowl. It is impossible now to report any quantitative data on the subject since we have no information on actual kill numbers from the study area. After analyzing information on ring returns provided by Bird Ringing Ceiner of Russia we have come to the conclusion that both in NAD and in YaNAD (Rozenfeld, 2014, report for AEWA) the intensity of spring hunting is much higher than the intensity of autumn hunting. For example, out of 1290 rings returned from all the kills 1064 (82%) were sent after spring hunting period, while only 226 (18%) were sent in autumn. Therefore, the negative impact caused by autumn hunting on waterfowl population is rather weak. Despite its longer duration, it is by far less intensive, while a greater proportion of young individuals in autumn gives better chances to older individuals, more valuable in terms of reproductive capacity, to survive. The mapped data on ring returns from NAD, demonstrate that there are several places where the hunting impact on waterfowl populations is especially strong (Fig. 25).\ At the same time, some of these places are among the most important staging and nesting sites of Lesser White-fronted geese (Morozov, 2006).

Fig. 25. Distribution of ring returns from waterfowl killed in the study area, as well as in the entire territory of NAD, in spring and autumn obtained by 2015. Localities where birds were killed in spring are marked white, those of autumn kills are in red Therefore, we can state that spring hunting is one of the most important limiting factors for Lesser White-fronted geese and must be thoroughly regulated, first of all, limited. As for hunting in autumn, its influence appears to be less significant compared to that in spring. Unfortunately, we have no detailed data to calculate the proportion of Lesser White-fronted goose among the entire number of kills during both hunting period: this could be one of the objectives of further studies. We insist that one of the most important tasks for the local policy makers working in the study area should be to introduce mandatory waterfowl counts as well as quantitative assessments of kills for each certain game and protected species. This would minimize the negative impact of hunting on the birds both in spring and in autumn. Assessment of anthropopogenic impact on faterfowl during the survey period We assessed the distribution of anthropogenic impact on Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area by combining the map of Lesser White-fronted geese distribution (Fig. 26–30) with that showing any signs of hunters presence discovered in different habitat types, including the people, boats, bungalows and hides as well as Nenets outposts and herds of domestic reindeer. To evaluate the contribution of currently existing protected areas to anthropogenic impact alleviation, we added their boundaries (as a separate GIS-layer) onto the resulting map. Since the entire study area is too large to analyze on one map, we finally divided into five sectors using rectangular frames of different shape and size (Fig. 26–30). Legend to к Figures 26–30:

2

3 4 1

5

Fig. 26. Human impact on Lesser White-fronted goose populations in autumn 2015 (general outline)

Fig. 27. Human impact on Lesser White-fronted goose populations in autumn 2015 (sector 1)

Fig. 28. Human impact on Lesser White-fronted goose populations in autumn 2015 (sectors 1 & 2)

Fig. 29. Human impact on Lesser White-fronted goose populations in autumn 2015 (sector 4)

Fig. 30. Human impact on Lesser White-fronted goose populations in autumn 2015 (sector 5) The here analyzed data demonstrate that hunting pressure on Lesser White-fronted goose in the study area is remarkably strong. In the western part of the surveyed territory (sector 1) the most vulnerable staging sites of Lesser White-fronted geese are on the western coast of the Kanin Peninsula from Konushinsaya Korga Cape to Shoina settlement; in the mouth of the Torna River, and on the western and southern coasts of Cheshskaya Bay. In the central part of the surveyed territory (sectors 2 and 3) the greatest impact is found out in the mouth of the Indiga River, on the lakes Toravey and Urdyuzhskoye; on Bolvanskaya Bay coast and along the coastal line of Pecherskaya Bay from Cape Bolvanski Nos to Cape Konstantinovski, as well as on the Khaidypurskaya Bay coast. In the eastern part of the surveyed territory (sector 4) the threats are highest for places around Kara Bay and in the environs of Ust-Kara settlement. As for the southern part of the surveyed territory (the Dvuobie, sector 5), anthropogenic impact is of almost the same intensity over the whole territory of the Ob River floodplain. At the same time, it is obvious that the currently existing protected areas cannot work properly for waterfowl conservation, and their number as well as the area covered by them is insufficient for Lesser White-fronted geese protection in the period of autumn migration, both in NAD, and in YaNAD. Almost all large gatherings of Lesser White-fronted geese are situated outside the limits of the existing protected areas. We have counted only nine rather small gatherings of Lesser White-fronted geese within the protected areas: four of them were encountered in Nenetski State nature reserve and Nenetski State wildlife sanctuary (NAD), three in Yamalski wildlife sanctuary and two – in Kunovatski wildlife sanctuary (YaNAD). To assess the impact of autumn hunting on Lesser White-fronted goose in more detail we used the algorithm described above for calculating LWFG proportion in goose gatherings in the sites where anthropogenic impact (hunting, in particular) is significant (Fig. 24–28). Legend to к Figures 24–28:

4 2 3 1

5

Fig. 31. Human impact on all goose populations in autumn 2015 (general outline)

Fig. 32. Proportion of Lesser White-fronted geese among all geese species in autumn 2015 (sector 1)

Fig. 33. Proportion of Lesser White-fronted geese among all geese species in autumn 2015 (sector 2)

Fig. 34. Proportion of Lesser White-fronted geese among all geese species in autumn 2015 (sector 3)

Fig. 35. Proportion of Lesser White-fronted geese among all geese species in autumn 2015 (sector 4) The above-given series of diagrams shows that the proportion of Lesser White-fronted goose in geese gatherings during their autumnal migration period is sometimes really large. Therefore, there are a significant number of places with strong negative anthropogenic impact where the abundance of Lesser White-fronted geese is so high that the species cannot disperse and stay undetected on the background of the entire geese population. Among such places are, for instance, the southern seaside of Cheshskaya Bay (the middle reaches of the Bolshaya Krutaya River), the southern coastal area of Bolvanskaya Bay, the coast of Pechorskaya Bay (from Cape Bolvanski Nos to Cape Konstantinovski), all coastal zones of Khaidypurskaya Bay, Kara Bay and the surroundings of Ust-Kara settlement. In contrast, there are no such massive gatherings of geese in the Dvuobie; Lesser White-fronted geese primarily migrate there in dispersed flocks or together with Red-breasted geese. For these reasons, all the territory of the Dvuobie should be considered as a zone where the risk of illegal kills of Lesser White-fronted goose is increasingly high. Therefore, although the hunting impact on geese in autumn is significantly less than in spring, the negative influence from hunters and the level of disturbance caused by hinting are rather high anyway, so this allows us to list hunting among the important limiting factors for all geese populations and for Lesser White-fronted geese in particular. Impact of oil production When surveying the study area we regularly saw Lesser White-fronted geese in flocks of Greater White-fronted goose, Barnacle goose and Bean goose in territories of oil development. Interestingly enough, neither construction activities nor the infrastructure itself exert any observable negative influence on the birds. Just on the contrary, many waterfowl species appear to like gathering around and within areas where oil wells are exploited. The possible reason for it is that hunting is entirely prohibited in those paces, so disturbance appears very low just outside the infrastructure objects.

Fig. 36. Lesser White-fronted geese in a hydrocarbon production area

Fig. 37. Lesser White-fronted geese and Greater White-fronted geese in flying along oil pipeline Reindeer breeding impact The impact of reindeer breeding on Lesser White-fronted goose is difficult to evaluate at the current stage of research. We only could state that the numbers of domestic or domesticated reindeer is constantly increasing in both Autonomous Districts, which is about to become a serious environmental problem. The number of reindeer grazing on the coastal marine marshes, the key staging sites of Lesser White-fronted geese, is still rather small; however, in future, if the population of domestic reindeer grows uncontrolled (as it goes on today), these key feeding habitats of Lesser White-fronted geese may fall under threat of degradation from overgrazing.

Fig. 38. A herd of reindeer on coastal marshes Conservation measures The progressive fragmentation of the nesting habitats of Lesser White-fronted goose and the total decrease in the species’ numbers make it necessary to organize permanent monitoring of the extant LWFG populations as well as all its key habitats. The results of already existing periodical monitoring have shown that Lesser White-fronted geese migrate through the study area very extensively. As often as not they will join flocks and groups formed by different game species of geese, and their proportion in such gatherings can be very high occasionally. The main reason for the recently observed decrease in the number of Lesser White-fronted goose in Russia is the high bird mortality due to hunting or poaching. It is evident that the most effective measure for the species conservation would be creation of several protected areas (on local or federal level) in all the key nesting sites of the species as well as in its migratory stopover sites. In fact, we need a network of protected areas covering all stopover sites where a significant number of Lesser White-fronted geese have been observed during spring and autumn migration. At present time, there are no protected areas in NAO for Lesser White-fronted goose to nest. Neither are there any protected areas specifically created for Lesser White-fronted goose conservation or to save their habitats from destruction. In this connection, it would be important to create several protected areas at the level of Federal wildlife sanctuaries in the study region as a measure for territorial protection of the species. These should be added by two or three specially protected areas at the level of State nature reserves or, otherwise, by expanding the areas of existing state nature reserves so that their newly created sections ensure conservation of all the major breeding groups of A. erythropus in their nesting areas. The measures are especially urgent because some VIP hunting bases are built right now in the Kanin Peninsula and in the environs of the Ust-Kara settlement. As soon as they are open to use, the level of disturbance will significantly increase in several key areas of Lesser White- fronted goose, and the number of kills among the species will grow by far as well, particularly in spring, a period especially popular for hunting in the study area.

Fig. 39. Greater White-fronted geese and Lesser White-fronted geese at a hunting base near Ust-Kara settlement.

Fig. 40. Hunting base under construction in Yazhma settlement, Kanin Peninsula. Development and implementation of a system of conservation measures is highly required to prevent the range shrinkage in all geese populations (including those of rare and protected species) and the fall in their numbers. The system of already existing protection measures must be extended and improved. That can be done by modifying current conservation laws or adopting new, better ones; by making amendments to territorial protection system, both in the nesting areas and migration stopovers, and also by improving hunting regulations. An extremely effective measure could be to put the ban on spring hunting and strongly limit autumn hunting in all the key areas; as well as introduce effective measures against poaching in areas where the exploration and production of oil, gas and other mineral resources is taking place. Suggestions for creation of new protected areas for Lesser White-fronted goose protection Below are our suggestions for the creation of six seasonal wildlife sanctuaries (or even more strictly protected areas) in the study territory for conservation of migratory populations of Lesser White-fronted goose in autumn. They are illustrated by a generalized map and a series of more detailed maps for all the six sectors described above.

Fig. 41. Location and boundaries of six key stopover sites of Lesser White-fronted geese where hunting waterfowl must be prohibited or strictly limited Note: The encounter sites of Lesser White-fronted goose and its numbers are shown by points and figures; existing protected areas are filled with red; the areas where it is necessary to limit hunting for conservation of migratory Lesser White-fronted geese (i.e. the new protected areas we have proposed) are filled with green.

Fig. 42. Boundaries of hunting-free zone 1

Fig. 43. Boundaries of hunting-free zone 2

Fig. 44. Boundaries of hunting-free zones 3 & 4

Fig. 45. Boundaries of hunting-free zones 5 & 6

Our recommendations for NAO and YaNAD administration, with the necessary reasoning One of the most efficient ways to protect the Lesser White-fronted goose will be to create several hunting-free zones for waterfowl covering the key migratory stopovers in the Kanin Peninsula and on the coasts of the Strait of Pomorie, Cheshskaya Bay and Mezenskaya Bay. All the particularly important sites used by Lesser White-fronted goose during autumn migration are located along the entire coastal line of Bolvanskaya Bay and Pechorskaya Bay from Cape Bolvanski Nos to Cape Constantinovski, plus the coast zones of the Khaypurdskaya Bay, Kara Bay and the environments of Ust-Kara settlement. We recommend creating protected areas in all the territories delineated on Fig. 41–45. In addition, we suggest that hunting all goose species in spring should be entirely forbidden in the following areas or its separate parts: 1. From Arkhangelsk Province boundary in the west in northerly direction along the Ice Ocean coast to the mouth of the Bolshaya Bugryanitsa River, then along the straight line up to the Cape Western Ludovaty Nos, then along the sea coast to the mouth of the Vigas River, further along the coast of Cheshskaya Bay to the mouth of the Snopa River, then southwest to Vigas settlement and back westwards to Arkhangelsk Province boundary (key zones 1–4 on Fig. ); 2. In the mouth of the Indiga River and over the entire territory of Cape Svyatoi Nos (key zone 5 on Fig.); 3. On the lake Toravey and in the mouth of the Welt River (key zone 5 on Fig.) 4. In one-kilometer wide zone along the costs of Khaypudyrskaya, Pakhancheskaya and Bolvanskaya bays; 5. In one-kilometer wide zone along the cost of Kara Bay; 6. In one-kilometer wide zone along the cost of Pechorskaya Bay; 7. In the Dvuobie within the boundaries described in Part 3 of the current report. List of high priority measures to improve hunting regulations and enhance Anseriformes conservation in YNAO and NAO 1.1. It is strongly advisable to immediately initiate activities on creating Bolshezemelski State nature reserve as a first-priority measure to protect large nesting groups of the Lesser White-fronted goose. The reserve should include the following parts: – the valley of the middle reaches of the More-Yu River; – the basin of the upper and middle reaches of the Khe-Yakha River, a right-side tributary of the Korotaikha River; – the valley and adjacent tundras in the upper reaches of the Bolshaya Rogovaya River 1.2. We suggest that the reserve boundaries within all three above-mentioned parts should be kept in accordance with the initial project of Bolshezemelski reserve as it was proposed in 1994. 1.3. To protect moulting gatherings of Lesser White-fronted goose, all key moulting sites revealed so far should be included in the territory of Yamalski Peninsular regional wildlife sanctuary. 1.4. Hunting-free zones for autumn period should be allocated in the Dvuobie along the boundaries of all the hunting-free zones proposed for spring period (see Part 3 of the current report for details). 2.1. It is essential to develop special regulations for hunting waterfowl in spring, i.a.: 2.2. New terms of spring hunting should be set to prevent extermination of the nesting waterfowl populations; namely, the closing day for the spring hunting season should be changed to 1 June. 2.3. An analytical study of existing fund materials should then be carried out to determine the beginning dates of nesting periods for all waterfowl species found in the region, as well as how the dates depend on weather conditions and other factors. 2.4. Then, based on the above information, the opening and closing dates for waterfowl hunting period in spring should be adjusted more precisely for each region. 3. It is also important to set the opening day of autumn hunting period not sooner than 1 September. In tundra zone, it is advisable to open autumn hunting between mid-September and late October, within the period of mass migration of Bean goose and Greater White-fronted goose, in order to give better chances for rare goose species (especially for Lesser White-fronted goose) to disperse among the waterfowl flocks after joining the mass groups of goose game species. 4. Last, but not least, hunting quotas during both hunting periods should be set for a day, not for a trip. Conclusions The current study has revealed the feasibility of Lesser White-fronted geese aerial monitoring in vast and remote areas of the Russian Extreme North. Using this approach 1. we obtained new and reliable data on the number and biotope distribution of Lesser White-fronted goose during their autumn migration within a major part of the range occupied by the western population of the species; 2. a number of key sites were discovered during the period of autumnal hyperphagia and the following migration; 3. we could develop advanced practical measures for Lesser White-fronted goose conservation in the study area; 4. appropriate suggestions were put forward for policy makers in YNAO and NAO concerning protection of all the key stopover sites of Lesser White-fronted goose identified in both Autonomous Districts. The suggestions include, among other items, proposals on a stricter limitation of hunting in the study area, as well as some necessary changes in hunting regulations. The results of our massive aerial surveys made over a large area show that this method is much more effective and less expensive in searching for key places of waterfowl species than marking a few bird individuals with transmitters. New key places identified using transmitters will require an additional field survey to confirm their status; whereas, during aerial surveys we immediately receive a great amount of actual data about the numbers of birds, their habitat condition, their conservation status, as well as the hunting pressur on the populations. Therefore, aerial surveys provide much more reliable information about the key habitats of the species in their breeding areas and about the main zones of their autumn migration. Furthermore, we believe that it is aerial surveys that should be applied in future for further studies aimed at Lesser White-fronted goose research and monitoring all over the territory of Russia. This will allow researchers to react operatively to all changes occurring to the populations of this endangered species. Final statements The most recent data on estimated numbers and density of geese in the district are presented in table 3 below. Table 3. Assessment of goose numbers in the study area Species Number Estimated Number Branta leucopsis 144500 550 620 Branta bernicla 50530 187 760 Branta ruficollis 1514 9 870 Anser albifrons 36862 144 300 Anser erythropus 7088 21 600 Anser fabalis 18543 101 500

Note: All the estimated numbers are rounded to tens of individuals. The low estimated numbers of some, normally abundant, game species of geese have caued a serious concern since these results may suggest the overall negative trend in their abundance. In this connection, it seems appropriate to take immediate measures to limit both autumn and spring waterfowl hunting in two key Federal Districts in the area of our research. A strong necessity for further monitoring by the proposed method is also evident. The monitoring data should be used to flexible adjust some hunting regulations and improve measures aimed at Lesser White-fronted goose conservation in the adjacent regions. Acknowledgements The maps and descriptions of hunting-free zones for the waterfowl were prepared by I. Pospelov. We are much obliged to the staff of the Department of Natural Resources Management of YaNAD V. Yachmenyov, V. Borisyuk and S. Schnaider for their help in distributing questionnaires among hunters in the District, as well as V. Basova and M. Ivanov for their help in the primary processing of the query results. A field survey encompassing such a vast area would be impossible without organizational and logistics assistance that we received from many our colleagues. We are very thankful personally to D Zamyatin, P. Kondratenko, A. Kashin, O. Makarova, S. Uvarov, V. Vyucheiskij, M. Sobolev, E. Levandovski, U. Logvinov, N. Zubri, B. Filippov, I. Bolotov, V. Spitsyn, M. Gavrilo and I. Ryabikov. We also got an immense support from Regional public organization ‘Wings of the Arctic’ at the Federation of Light and Ultralight Aviation of Yamalo-Nenetski Autonomous District; as well as from the crew of boat station at Priobye settlement, from V. Stepin, the leaseholder of the Ust-Yuribey trade outpost, and his staff. Our special thanks to T. Konstantinova for reporting the results of our project in the mass media. References Litvin K.E. 2014. The latest data on the migratory patterns of geese nesting in Russia: revew of the results of remote tracking. Casarca, 14: 13–45 (in Russian, with English summary). Mineev O.Y., Mineev Y.N. 2013. New breeding area for the Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus in the Bolshezemelskaya Tundra. Goose Bulletin 17: 23–26. Mineev O.Yu., Mineev Yu.N. 2011. Fauna ptits basseina reki Seida (Bol’shezemel’skaya tundra). Russkii ornitologicheskii zhurnal 20 (express issue 694): 1983–1992 (in Russian). Mineev O.Yu., Mineev Yu.N. 2014. Ptitsy basseina reki Padimeityvis (Bolshezemelskaya Tundra). Russkii ornitologicheskii zhurnal 23 (express issue 1005): 1633–1639 (in Russian). Mineev Yu.N., Mineev O.Yu. 2009. Ornitofauna Kolokolkovoi guby (Malozemelskaya Tundra). Russkii ornitologicheskii zhurnal 18 (express issue 540): 2367-2381 (in Russian). Mineev Yu.N. 1986. Chislennost i kharakter proleta ptits vesnoi 1978 g. na poberezh’e Barentseva morya. Tr. Komi fil. AN SSSR 74: 30–37 (in Russian,). Morozov V.V., Syroyechkovski-jr. E.E. 2002. Lesser White-fronted goose on the verge of the millenium. Casarca, 8: 233–276 (in Russian, with English summary). Morozov V.V. 1995. Modern condition, ditribution and trend of population of Lesser White-fronted goose in Russia. Casarca, 1: 131–144 (in Russian, with English summary). Morozov V.V. 2006. Piskul’ka. Krasnaya kniga Nenetskogo avtonomnogo okruga. Nar’yan-Mar: 302–304 (in Russian). Rosenfeld S.B., Timoshenko A.Yu. 2013. Okhota na guseobraznykh ptits v Severnom Kazakhstane ili pravil’nyi podkhod k okhotkhozyaistvennoi deyatel’nosti. Okhota, 4: 98–106 (in Russian). Rosenfeld S.B. 2011. Abundance of the Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus) and the Red-breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis) in key regions on migratory stopovers and ways of minimizing hunting pressure on these species. Abstracts of International conference of waterfowl of Northern Eurasia “Waterfowl of Northern Eurasia: geography, dynamic and population management”, Elista, Kalmykya, 24–29 March 2011: 67–68. Rosenfeld S.B., Kirtaev G.V., Solovyev M.Yu., Rogova N.V., Ivanov M.N. 2015. The experience of aerialcounts of waterfowl in Yamalo-Nenetsky and Khanty-Mansyisky autonomous okrugs. Casarca, accepted. (in Russian, with English summary). Rosenfeld S.B., Timoshenko A.YU., Vilkov V.S. 2012. The results of Goose counts on the North-Kazakhstan stopover site in Autumn 2012. Casarca, 15 (2): 115–124 (in Russian, with English summary). Rozenfeld S., Strelnikov E. 2011. Survey of Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus in lower Ob River, Russia, in autumn 2010. NOF–Report 2011 (3): 1–25. Rozenfeld S., 2011. The number of Red-Breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis) and Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus) on the migration routes in 2010. Goose Bulletin 12: 8– 14. Rozenfeld S. 2014. Monitoring of the Lesser White-fronted Goose population and mitigation of the hunting impact on it in Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug, Russian Federation. AEWA 2014-9 final report: 1-72. Rozenfeld S.B., Kirtaev G.V., Vangeluwe D., Schoffiniels M. 2014. The Red-breasted goose and the Lesser White-fronted Goose on the southern Yamal, peninsula, Russia. Casarca, 17: 46–57. Timoshenko A.Yu., Volkov S.V. 2014. Osennii monitoring gusya-piskul’ki (Anser erythropus) i drugikh gusey i kazarok na vodoemakh Kostanaiskoi oblasti i prilegayustshikh territorii. Otchet v ramkakh rabot proekta ACBK/AEWA ‘Sokrastshenie ugroz ot nelegal’noi okhoty dlya vodoplavayustshikh ptits na severe Kazakhstana.’ Kostanai: 1–20 (manuscript; in Russian). Timoshenko A.YU. 2011. Evaluation of the number of geese migrating through Northern Kazakhstan according to monitoring data of 2005-2010. Abstracts of International conference of waterfowl of Northern Eurasia “Waterfowl of Northern Eurasia: geography, dynamic and population management”, Elista, Kalmykya, 24–29 March 2011:80. Zuban I.A., Vilkov V.S. 2013. Osennii monitoring gusya-piskul’ki (Anser erythropus) i drugikh gusei i kazarok na vodoemakh Severo-Kazakhstanskoi oblasti. Otchet v ramkakh rabot proekta ACBK/AEWA ‘Sokrastshenie ugroz ot nelegal’noi okhoty dlya vodoplavayustshikh ptits na severe Kazakhstana.’ Petropavlovsk: 1–9 (manuscript; in Russian). Zuban I.A., Vilkov V.S. 2014. Osennii monitoring gusya-piskul’ki (Anser erythropus)) i drugikh gusei i kazarok na vodoemakh Severo-Kazakhstanskoi oblasti. Otchet v ramkakh rabot proekta ACBK/AEWA ’Sokrastshenie ugroz ot nelegal’noi okhoty dlya vodoplavayustshikh ptits na severe Kazakhstana.’ Petropavlovsk: 1–11 (manuscript; in Russian). Part 6. Organization of the special seminar for hunters in the framework of the 5-th Conference on Goose, Swan and Duck Study Group of Northern Eurasia and the 17-th Conference of the Goose Specialist Group of IUCN Species Survival Commission and Wetlands International ‘Waterfowl of Northern Eurasia: research, conservation and sustainable use’ 30 November – 6 December 2015, Salekhard,Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous District, Russia Schedule 09:00–09:30 Registration of participants. Welcoming address. General educational lectures 09:30–10:30 The Journey of Arctic Geese S.B. Rosenfeld 10.30–10.50 Coffee break 10.50–11.50 Remote Identification of Rare Goose and Raptor E.A. Koblik Species of YaNAD 11.50–12.50 North American Model of Waterfowl Management and E.E. Syroechkovski Conservation 12.50–13.10 Principles of Waterfowl Resources Management in E.E. Syroechkovski Russia: Recognizingof the Problem 13.10–14.00 Coffee break 14.00–14.20 Results of a Study on Waterfowl Population Dynamics S.B. Rosenfeld and Hunting Regulation in YNAD 14.20–14.40 Proposals on Hunting Parameter Optimization for V.N. Fedosov Waterfowl Harvesting in the Primanyche (Stavropolski Territory) 14.40–15.00 Geese Hunting Management in Northern Kazakhstan. A.Yu. Tymoshenko Positive Experience and Problems 15.00–15.20 Coffee break 15.20–15.40 Waterfowl Hunting Management in Kamchatka: Yu.N. Gerasimov Experience Learnt 15.40–16.00 Detection and Official Registration of Illegal Hunting A.P. Mizhnev & A Review of Actions and Experience in different RF E.L. Lykov subjects (Iincluding Measures Taken in Specially Protected Areas). 16.00–16.20 Official Registration of Waterfowl Game Species Kept A.P. Mezhnev in Captivity or Half-Free Discussion on issues proposed for consideration by RF subjects: 1. Protection of rare species of Anseriformes listed in the international Red books, as well as Red books of Russian Federation its administrative subjects, during their migration and on their wintering grounds (KhMAD-Yugra). 2. Rvising the opening dates of spring and autumn geese hunting in the FR subjects (KhMAD-Ugra). 3. Protection of waterfowl staging, nesting and stopover sites along the largest migratory routes in the Ob floodplain and economic activitiy limitations (KhMAO-Yugra). 4. Protection and management of Ramsar Wetlands, a territory of international importance; creating observation system to monitor ecological conditions in the area (KhMAD- Yugra). 5. Studies on Bean goose and White-fronted goose: changes of migration routes and decrease in population numbers (Arkhangelsk region). 6. Geese counts for studying their population dynamics in Northern Europe (within the Baltic and White Sea basins) (Arkhangelsk Province). 7. Studying and legal assignment of protected areas for Anseriformes migration (Arkhangelsk Province). 8. How to determine exact dates of spring hunt for each administrative subject of the Russian Federation (Arkhangelsk Province). UNEP/AEWA Small-Scale Funding Agreement (2015-2) Conservation activities for the Lesser White-fronted Goose the Russian Federation (March – November 2015)

Financial report

Part 1. “Diminishing the threat from spring hunting to Lesser White-fronted Geese in Kalmikia”

Costs in Expenditures # Item Budget Spent EUR (EUR) (EUR)

1 Rent of transport 1.1 Rent of 6 cars, including reparation 160 UAZ 6 1025 1025 1.2 Tickets for RGG coordinators 65 2 - 130 2 Field expenses 2.1 Fuel (6 cars x 1000 km, 20 liters per 100 km) 0.6 liter 1200 300 720 Per diem expenses for participants for 8 people 1600 2.2 10 day 20 800 (inspectors and RGG coordinators) 3 RGG fee 375 15% 375 375 2500 3850

Expenditures exceeding the funding received from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat were covered by Bird ringing center of Russia and RGG.

Part 2. Monitoring and tagging of Lesser White-fronted Geese in the breeding and/or moulting areas in the European tundra

Costs in Expenditures # Item Budget Spent EUR (EUR) (EUR)

1 Rent of transport 2000 per 1 8000 1.1 Rent of helicopter (two flight) 4 hours 6630 hour 1.2 Taxi rent in Vorkuta 100 120 3 Field expenses 2.1 Per diem expenses for participants 10 2 60+30 days 900 2.2 Accomodation in Vorkuta city 150 2 months 300 300 2.3 Equipment 25 2 50 50 2.4 Travel costs by train Moscow-Vorkuta-Moscow 250 2 persons 420 500 3 RGG fee 1260 15% 1260 1260 8400 11130

Expenditures exceeding the funding received from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat were covered by RGG.

Part 3. Monitoring , identification of key sites (and GPS or satellite-tagging) of Lesser White-fronted Geese in the breeding and/or moulting areas in Baydaratskaya Bay and adjacent territories

Costs Expenditures # Item Budget Spent in EUR (EUR) (EUR)

1 Rent of transport 1.1 Rent of hydroplane A-27 50 22 hours 300 1100 1.2 Rent of hydroplane L-42 (instead of helicopter) 50 24 hours 800 1200 1.3 Rent of boat 10 18 days 300 300 2 Direct costs 2.1 Fuel (benzine А-95) 0.5 800 liters 400 400 2.2 Field equipment 251 4 person 1050 1050 Printing of Dairy of hunter for estimation of 670 2.3 670 100 piece 1000 hunting bag 2.4 Consultations 1000 500 3 Transmitters ECOTONE (GPS-GSM) 3.1 BSAK17/SAKER3 1730 1 piece - 1730 3.2 BSAK24/SAKER3-ECOTONE 1730 1 piece - 1730 3.3 BSHE12/SAKER3-ECOTONE 1730 1 piece - 1730 3.4 BSHE15/DUCK.L-ECOTONE 1391.5 1 piece - 1391.5 4 Field expenses 3.1 Per diem expenses for four participants 10 22 days 1200 880 3.2 Travel costs to Salekhard 470 3 persons 1880 1410 4 RGG fee 1500 15% 1215 1215 8100 15306.5

Expenditures exceeding the funding received from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat were covered by Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, A.N. Severtsov Insitute of Ecology and Evolution, Interregional Expedition Center “Arktika”.

Part 4. “Monitoring and Satellite-tagging of Lesser White-fronted Geese in the breeding and/or moulting areas in Chukotka”

Costs Expenditures # Item Budget Spent in EUR (EUR) (EUR)

1 Rent of transport 1.1 Rent of boat 10 30 days 300 300 2 Direct costs 2.1 Connection ( satellite) 1232 1 piece - 1232 2.2 Connection (satellite iridium card) 492.38 1 packet - 492.38 2.3 Fuel (benzine А-92) 1.27 200 liters 350 253.56 2.4 Field equipment (Miscellanious) 45.9 300 45.9 3 Field expenses 3.1 Per diem expenses for participants 12.72 63 days 900 801.36 3.2 Travel costs to Pevek 2 persons 1600 2077.42 3.3 Accomodation in Pevek 36.7 5 days 800 181.8 4 RGG fee 750 750 5000 6134.42 Expenditures exceeding the funding received from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat were covered by the Institute of Biological problems of the North, KINROSS golden mining company and RGG.

Part 5. Monitoring, field work and work with hunters in Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug, Russian Federation and adjacent territories in the Ob valley area

Costs Expenditures # Item Budget Spent in EUR (EUR) (EUR)

1 Rent of transport 1.1 Rent of hydroplane A-27 50 134 hours 6000 6700 2 Direct costs 2.1 Connection (satellite iridium card) 145 1 piece - 145 2.3 Fuel (benzine А-95) 0.5 2680 liters 800 1340 2.4 Field equipment 450 2 details 900 900 Printing of Dairy of hunter for estimation of 670 2.5 670 100 piece 1000 hunting bag 3 Field expenses 3.1 Per diem expenses for two participants 10 22 days 200 440 3.2 Travel costs to Surgut 330 1 persons - 330 4 RGG fee 1500 15% 1500 1500 10000 12025

Expenditures exceeding the funding received from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat were covered by RGG.

Part 6. Organization of the special seminar for hunters in the frame of the 5- th Conference of Goose, Swan and Duck Study Group of Northern Eurasia and the 17-th conference the Goose Specialist Group of IUCN-Species Survival Commission and Wetlands International (30 November – 6 December 2015, Salekhard, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Okrug, Russia) “Waterfowl of Northern Eurasia: research, conservation and sustainable use”

Costs Expenditures # Item Budget Spent in EUR (EUR) (EUR)

1 Travel expenses of invited speakers 428 4 900 1712 2 Communication costs 100 100 1000 1812

Expenditures exceeding the funding received from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat were covered by Birds Russia (ROSIP).

Sonia Rozenfeld, Project Coordinator and RGG executive secretary

Konstantin Litvin, RGG chairmen