DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 Washington Game Status and Trend Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 Washington Game Status and Trend Report S T A T E O F W A S H I N G T O N 20102010 GameGame StatusStatus andand TrendTrend ReportReport AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 2010 GAME STATUS AND TREND REPORT July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 STATE OF WASHINGTON Chris Gregoire Governor WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Phil Anderson Director WILDLIFE PROGRAM Nate Pamplin Acting Assistant Director GAME DIVISION Dave Ware Game Division Manager This Program Receives Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-96-R, Statewide Wildlife Management. This report should be cited as: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. 2010 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. TABLE OF CONTENTS Deer .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Region 1, PMUs 11, 13, GMUs 101-124 ................................................................................. 3 Region 1, PMUs 14, 15, GMUs 127-142 ................................................................................. 8 Region 1, PMUs 16, 17, GMUs 145-186 ............................................................................... 13 Region 2, PMUs 21, 22, GMUs 203-243 ............................................................................... 16 Region 2, PMUs 21, 23, 26 GMUs 243-269 .......................................................................... 20 Region 2, PMUs 24, 25, GMUs 272, 278, 284, 290, Buckrun LHP ...................................... 24 Region 3, PMU 31, GMUs 379, 381 ...................................................................................... 31 Region 3, PMUs 32-36, GMUs 328-372 ................................................................................ 34 Region 4, PMUs 41, 43, 45, GMUs 407, 410, 418, 426, 437 ................................................. 37 Region 4, PMUs 44, 47, 48, GMUs 454, 460, 466, 485 ......................................................... 41 Region 4, PMU 46, GMU 448, 450 ........................................................................................ 47 Region 5, PMUs 51-57, GMUs 382, 388, 501-587 ................................................................ 50 Region 6, PMUs 61-67, GMUs 601-684 ................................................................................ 57 Elk .................................................................................................................................................. 61 Region 1, Selkirk Herd, GMUs 101-121 ................................................................................ 63 Region 1, Spokane Subherd of Selkirk Herd GMUs 124, 127, 130, 133,136, 139, 142 ........ 67 Region 1, PMU 13, GMUs 145-186 ....................................................................................... 74 Region 3, PMUs 31-36, GMUs 328-382 ................................................................................ 78 Region 4, PMUs 45-46, GMUs 418, 437, 450 ....................................................................... 83 Region 4, PMUs 44, 47, 48, GMUs 454, 460, 466, 485 ......................................................... 86 Region 5, PMUs All, GMUs All ............................................................................................ 91 Region 6, PMUs 61-67, GMUs 601-699 ................................................................................ 98 Mountain Goat ............................................................................................................................ 103 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 105 Region 2, Methow ................................................................................................................ 107 Region 2, Chelan County ...................................................................................................... 109 Region 3, Naches Pass, Bumping River, Tieton River, Blazed Ridge, Kachess Pass .......... 112 Region 4, Foss and Pratt River, and Corral Pass .................................................................. 116 Region 5, Goat Rocks, Smith Creek, and Tatoosh ............................................................... 119 Bighorn Sheep ............................................................................................................................. 125 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 127 Region 1, Hall Mountain ...................................................................................................... 129 Region 1, Vulcan Mountain .................................................................................................. 131 Region 1, Lincoln Cliffs ....................................................................................................... 134 Region 1, Blue Mountains .................................................................................................... 138 Region 2, Mt. Hull ................................................................................................................ 147 Region 2, Swakane Canyon and Lake Chelan ...................................................................... 151 Region 3, Quilomene, Cleman Mtn., Umtanum, Selah Butte, and Tieton ........................... 156 Moose ........................................................................................................................................... 161 Region 1, GMUs 101, 105, 108, 111, 113, 117, 121 ............................................................ 163 Region 1, GMUs 124, 127, 130 ............................................................................................ 168 Cougar ......................................................................................................................................... 173 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 175 Black Bear ................................................................................................................................... 179 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 181 Northeastern Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 7) ...................................................... 184 Blue Mountains Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 8) ................................................. 186 East Cascades Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 6) .................................................... 188 Okanogan Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 5) ........................................................... 190 North Cascades Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 3) .................................................. 192 South Cascades Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 4) .................................................. 194 Coastal Black Bear Management Unit (BBMU 1) ............................................................... 196 Mourning Dove and Band-Tailed Pigeon ................................................................................. 199 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 201 Waterfowl .................................................................................................................................... 207 Waterfowl Breeding Populations and Production ................................................................ 209 Winter Waterfowl Populations and Harvest ......................................................................... 233 Wild Turkey ................................................................................................................................ 253 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 255 Pheasant ...................................................................................................................................... 261 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 263 Chukar ......................................................................................................................................... 269 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 271 Quail ............................................................................................................................................ 275 Statewide Summary .............................................................................................................. 277 Deer 1 2 Deer Status and Trend Report 2010 • Base DEER STATUS AND TREND REPORT: REGION 1 PMU 11 – GMU 101 PMU 13 - GMUS 105, 108, 111, 113, 117, 121, 124 DANA L. BASE, District Wildlife Biologist Population objectives and guidelines 35000 In northeastern Washington white-tailed deer 30000 (Odocoileus virginianus) are the most abundant deer 25000 species. Mule deer (O. hemionus) are locally common, especially in the higher elevations and throughout 20000 Ferry County, but their overall numbers are low 15000 compared to white-tailed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bears in Oklahoma
    April 2010 Bears in Oklahoma Our speaker for the April 19 meeting of the Oklahoma City Audubon Society will be Jeremy Dixon, wildlife biologist at the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. His presentation is titled “The Strange But True History of Bears in Oklahoma.” For many years Jeremy was a biologist in Florida where he studied the interactions between black bears and humans. His master’s research was on the Conservation Genetics of the Florida Black Bear. Jeremy moved to Lawton in 2009 to experience life out here in the middle of the continent. Our grass prairie and ancient granite mountains are a new living environment for him. However, the black bears are coming back across Oklahoma from the east presenting birders an experience with a new and large predator to which we are unaccustomed. With an education from Jeremy, hopefully we can learn how to watch the birds while not feeding the bears ourselves. Come out for bear-hugging good time at bird club and bring a friend. County Birding: Kingfisher Jimmy Woodard On March 11, the group of 7 birders entered Kingfisher County in the far southeast corner. We located several small lakes with waterfowl: Canada Geese, Gadwall, Mallard, Green- Winged Teal and Ruddy Duck. We also found an adult Bald Eagle, the first of two found during the trip. Driving the back roads, we observed Great Horned Owl, Phoebe, King- fisher, and a bunch of sparrows – Harris, White Crowned, Song, Savannah, & Lincoln’s. We visited fields along the Cimarron River southeast of Dover. Carla Brueggen & her hus- band lease fields in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Washington Game Status and Trend Report
    S T A T E O F W A S H I N G T O N 20092009 GameGame StatusStatus andand TrendTrend ReportReport AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 2009 GAME STATUS AND TREND REPORT July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 STATE OF WASHINGTON Chris Gregoire Governor WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Phil Anderson Interim Director WILDLIFE PROGRAM Dave Brittell Assistant Director GAME DIVISION Dave Ware Game Division Manager This Program Receives Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-96-R, Statewide Wildlife Management. This report should be cited as: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. 2009 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. TABLE OF CONTENTS Deer .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Statewide Summary .................................................................................................................. 3 Region 1, PMUs 11, 13, GMUs 101-124 ................................................................................. 6 Region 1, PMUs 14, 15, GMUs 127-142 ............................................................................... 11 Region 1, PMUs 16, 17, GMUs 145-186 ............................................................................... 15 Region 2, PMUs 21, 22, GMUs 203-243 ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl in Iowa, Overview
    STATE OF IOWA 1977 WATERFOWL IN IOWA By JACK W MUSGROVE Director DIVISION OF MUSEUM AND ARCHIVES STATE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT and MARY R MUSGROVE Illustrated by MAYNARD F REECE Printed for STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION DES MOINES, IOWA Copyright 1943 Copyright 1947 Copyright 1953 Copyright 1961 Copyright 1977 Published by the STATE OF IOWA Des Moines Fifth Edition FOREWORD Since the origin of man the migratory flight of waterfowl has fired his imagination. Undoubtedly the hungry caveman, as he watched wave after wave of ducks and geese pass overhead, felt a thrill, and his dull brain questioned, “Whither and why?” The same age - old attraction each spring and fall turns thousands of faces skyward when flocks of Canada geese fly over. In historic times Iowa was the nesting ground of countless flocks of ducks, geese, and swans. Much of the marshland that was their home has been tiled and has disappeared under the corn planter. However, this state is still the summer home of many species, and restoration of various areas is annually increasing the number. Iowa is more important as a cafeteria for the ducks on their semiannual flights than as a nesting ground, and multitudes of them stop in this state to feed and grow fat on waste grain. The interest in waterfowl may be observed each spring during the blue and snow goose flight along the Missouri River, where thousands of spectators gather to watch the flight. There are many bird study clubs in the state with large memberships, as well as hundreds of unaffiliated ornithologists who spend much of their leisure time observing birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of the Grande Ronde River
    Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of the Grande Ronde River by Aryn E. Hayden ABSTRACT In selecting habitat animal species require food, water and adequate cover. When these criteria are taken into account it appears that habitats utilized by terrestrial wildlife along the Grande Ronde River change longitudinally from mixed conifer forests to ponderosa pine forests in the headwaters and middle reaches to grassland and shrub-steppe in the lower reaches. Species diversity of mammals, birds and reptiles within these habitats will also decrease towards the lower reaches to some degree as habitat changes along the Grande Ronde River. A potential decrease in species diversity as habitat changes may indicate that habitat specialist species are more likely to be found in the headwaters of and middle reaches while habitat generalists are likely to be found in the middle and lower reaches of the Grande Ronde River. This concept of decreasing species diversity in a downstream gradient indicates that the River Continuum Concept, traditionally an aquatic hypothesis, may have some applicability to distributions of terrestrial wildlife in the context of riverine ecosystems. Species diversity of terrestrial wildlife is also heavily influenced by the presence of riparian vegetation along the river. Riparian vegetation is likely to be found within the headwaters and middle reaches of the Grande Ronde River and in patches pertaining to locations of physical complexity along the river such as confluences with tributaries. Riparian vegetation provides complex habitat for mammals and birds that live along the river and those that utilize riparian habitat for foraging, water requirements, migration or other activities necessary for survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Plot Survey, 2019 Anthony Roberts June 26, 2019
    Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Plot Survey, 2019 Anthony Roberts June 26, 2019 Acknowledgements The information contained in this report is the result of cooperative efforts from multiple agencies both State and Federal. The following is a list of agencies and personnel involved in data collection. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection: Min Huang and Kelly Kubik Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife: Agency personnel and cooperators Maryland Department of Natural Resources: Agency personnel and cooperators Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game: Agency personnel and cooperators New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game: Agency personnel and cooperators New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife: Ted Nichols, Lisa Clark, Joe Garris, Jodi Powers, and Austin Damminger New York Division of Fish and Wildlife personnel and cooperators Pennsylvania Game Commission: Agency personnel and cooperators Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife: Agency personnel and cooperators Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife: Agency personnel and cooperators Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries: Agency personnel and cooperators Introduction and Methods The Atlantic Flyway Northeast Plot survey was considered operational in 1993 and was initiated in an effort to collect information about locally breeding waterfowl. The intent was to collect data that would provide the basis for setting waterfowl hunting regulations in the Atlantic Flyway. Currently this effort involves 11 states from Virginia to New Hampshire in which cooperators survey randomly selected 1-km2 plots (Figure 1). These data are then sent to the Atlantic Flyway office in the USFWS’s Division of Migratory Bird Management for analysis. This analysis produces both population and breeding pairs estimates for selected species that are surveyed.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Seward and Moose Pass, Alaska, 2000
    Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Seward and Moose Pass, Alaska, 2000 By Brian Davis, James A. Fall, and Gretchen Jennings Technical Paper Number 271 Prepared for: Chugach National Forest US Forest Service 3301 C Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 9950s Purchase Order No. 43-0109-1-0069 Division of Subsistence Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska June 2003 ADA PUBLICATIONS STATEMENT The Alaska Department of Fish and Game operates all of its public programs and activities free from discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. For information on alternative formats available for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) 1-800-478-3548 or (fax) 907-586-6595. Any person who believes she or he has been discriminated against should write to: Alaska Department of Fish and Game PO Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 or O.E.O. U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 ABSTRACT In March and April of 2001 researchers employed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G) Division of Subsistence conducted 203 interviews with residents of Moose Pass and Seward, two communities in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The study was designed to collect information about the harvest and use of wild fish, game, and plant resources, demography, and aspects of the local cash economy such as employment and income. These communities were classified “non-rural” by the Federal Subsistence Board in 1990, which periodically reviews its classifications.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Waterfowl Population Status Survey
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 August 19, 2019 In the United States the process of establishing hunting regulations for waterfowl is conducted annually. This process involves a number of scheduled meetings in which information regarding the status of waterfowl is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. This report includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative eforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. In addition to providing current information on the status of populations, this report is intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for the 2020–2021 hunting season. i Acknowledgments Waterfowl Population and Habitat Information: The information contained in this report is the result of the eforts of numerous individuals and organizations. Principal contributors include the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife conservation agencies, provincial conservation agencies from Canada, and Direcci´on General de Conservaci´on Ecol´ogica de los Recursos Naturales, Mexico. In addition, several conservation organizations, other state and federal agencies, universities, and private individuals provided information or cooperated in survey activities. Appendix A.1 provides a list of individuals responsible for the collection and compilation of data for the “Status of Ducks” section of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York
    CHECKLIST OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS OF NEW YORK STATE Including Their Legal Status Eastern Milk Snake Moose Blue-spotted Salamander Common Loon New York State Artwork by Jean Gawalt Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Page 1 of 30 February 2019 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Diversity Group 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-4754 This web version is based upon an original hard copy version of Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York, Including Their Protective Status which was first published in 1985 and revised and reprinted in 1987. This version has had substantial revision in content and form. First printing - 1985 Second printing (rev.) - 1987 Third revision - 2001 Fourth revision - 2003 Fifth revision - 2005 Sixth revision - December 2005 Seventh revision - November 2006 Eighth revision - September 2007 Ninth revision - April 2010 Tenth revision – February 2019 Page 2 of 30 Introduction The following list of amphibians (34 species), reptiles (38), birds (474) and mammals (93) indicates those vertebrate species believed to be part of the fauna of New York and the present legal status of these species in New York State. Common and scientific nomenclature is as according to: Crother (2008) for amphibians and reptiles; the American Ornithologists' Union (1983 and 2009) for birds; and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Expected occurrence in New York State is based on: Conant and Collins (1991) for amphibians and reptiles; Levine (1998) and the New York State Ornithological Association (2009) for birds; and New York State Museum records for terrestrial mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Table F. Wildlife Disease Sampling Conducted by Wildlife Services in California - FY 2008
    Table F. Wildlife Disease Sampling Conducted by Wildlife Services in California - FY 2008 State Disease/Condition Species Sampled Samples CA adenovirus hemorrhagic disease deer, black-tailed 2 deer, mule 114 Subtotal of Samples by Disease 116 avian influenza ducks, bufflehead 6 ducks, gadwall 69 ducks, goldeneye, common 1 ducks, mallards 213 ducks, northern pintail 29 ducks, northern shoveler 123 ducks, redhead 5 ducks, ring-necked 4 ducks, ruddy 2 ducks, scaup, lesser 1 ducks, teal, cinnamon 19 ducks, teal, green-winged 156 ducks, wigeon, american 82 ducks, wood 4 geese, aleutian cackling 6 geese, canada 21 geese, snow, lesser 10 non-wildlife 1,584 Subtotal of Samples by Disease 2,335 chronic wasting disease deer, black-tailed 27 deer, mule 251 Subtotal of Samples by Disease 278 classical swine fever hogs, feral 188 Subtotal of Samples by Disease 188 e.coli coyotes 31 crows, american 1 deer, black-tailed 6 Entries of "bird, unidentifiable" or "non-wildlife" usually refer to samples of matter, such Page 1 of 3 as fecal material, found in the environment. "Bird, unidentifiable" is a name assigned to material when WS wants to know it is associated with birds. State Disease/Condition Species Sampled Samples CA e.coli ducks, mallards 2 ducks, northern shoveler 2 ducks, teal, green-winged 5 ducks, wigeon, american 1 hares, jackrabbits (all) 16 hogs, feral 187 non-wildlife 32 opossums, virginia 13 rabbits, cottontail 21 raccoons 17 skunks, striped 16 squirrels, ground, california 44 starlings, european 153 Subtotal of Samples by Disease 547
    [Show full text]
  • Raccoon Island Phase B 2009 Final EA FONSI
    PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate environmental risks associated with the proposed action (herein referred to as the “Project”). Mitigation measures in the form of terms and conditions are added to the negotiated agreement and are shall be considered enforceable as part of the agreement. Application of terms and conditions will be individually considered by the Director or Associate Director of the MMS. Minor modifications to the proposed mitigation measures may be made during the noncompetitive negotiated leasing process if comments indicate changes are necessary or if conditions warrant. Plans and Performance Requirements The NRCS will provide the MMS with a copy of the Project’s “Construction Solicitation and Specifications Plan” (herein referred to as the “Plan”). No activity or operation, authorized by the negotiated agreement (herein referred to as the Memorandum of Agreement or MOA), at the Raccoon Island Borrow Area shall be carried out until the MMS has determined that each activity or operation described in the Plan will be conducted in a manner that is in compliance with the provisions and requirements of the MOA. The preferred method of conveying sediment from the Raccoon Island Borrow Area involves the use of a hydraulic cutterhead dredge and scows. Any modifications to the Plan that may affect the project area, including the use of submerged or floated pipelines to convey sediment, must be approved by the MMS prior to implementation of the modification. The NRCS will ensure that all operations at the Raccoon Island Borrow Area shall be conducted in accordance with the final approved Plan and all terms and conditions in this MOA, as well as all applicable regulations, orders, guidelines, and directives specified or referenced herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Weights of Wild Mallard Anas Platyrhynchos, Gadwall A. Streperà, and Blue-Winged Teal A
    Weights of wild Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, Gadwall A. streperà, and Blue-winged Teal A. discors during the breeding season JOHN T. LOKEMOEN, DOUGLAS H JOHNSON and DAVID E. SHARP During 1976-81 we weighed several thousands o f wild Mallard, Gadwall, and Blue-winged Teal in central North Dakota to examine duckling growth patterns, adult weights, and the factors influencing them. One-day-old Mallard and Gadwall averaged 32.4 and 30.4 g, respectively, a reduction o f 34% and 29% from fresh egg weights. In all three species, the logistic growth curve provided a good fit for duckling growth patterns. Except for the asymptote, there was no difference in growth curves between males and females of a species. Mallard and Gadwall ducklings were heavier in years when wetland area was extensive or had increasedfrom the previous year. Weights of after-second-yearfemales were greater than yearlings for Mallard but notfor Gadwall or Blue­ winged Teal. Adult Mallard females lost weight continuously from late March to early July. Gadwall and Blue-winged Teal females, which nest later than Mallard, gained weight after spring arrival, lost weight from the onset o f nesting until early July, and then regained some weight. Females o f all species captured on nests were lighter than those captured off nests at the same time. Male Mallard weights decreased from spring arrival until late May. Male Gadwall and Blue­ winged Teal weights increased after spring arrival, then declined until early June. Males of all three species then gained weight until the end of June. Among adults, female Gadwall and male Mallard and Blue-winged Teal were heavier in years when wetland area had increased from the previous year; female Blue-winged Teal were heavier in years with more wetland area.
    [Show full text]
  • Valentine National Wildlife Refuge: Wildlife List
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife List Wildlife Abounds Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Hackberry and Look for ducks and geese, especially in the Native (NWR), located 25 miles south of Pelican Lakes during the spring and fall. Watch for Prairie the town of Valentine, Nebraska, is pintail, mallard, ruddy, canvasback, 71,774 acres in size and was established and many more ducks. Take a walk in 1935 as a Refuge and breeding on the nature trail up to the old fire grounds for migratory birds and tower on the west end of Hackberry other wildlife. In fact, most of the Lake for a view of the Sandhills and wildlife present in historical times a look at grassland sparrows. This goose, are still present on the Refuge designed by J.N. today. Numerous wetlands, lakes, Duck Lake Look in the trees around the boat “Ding” Darling, wet meadows, and large expanses of ramp for they are an oasis for has become the native prairie attract a wide variety songbirds. Watch for warblers, blue symbol of the of wildlife. This brochure lists and black-headed grosbeaks, Lazuli National Wildlife 289 species of birds, 41 species of buntings, eastern bluebirds, and Refuge System. mammals, 16 species of reptiles, and many more. six species of amphibians that have been recorded on the Refuge. Check-list Key Sp Spring March – May S Summer June – August May, September, and October offer F Fall September – November good opportunities for observing a W Winter December – February variety of migratory birds. Spring migrants, including waterfowl and c common – present in large warblers, are most numerous in May.
    [Show full text]