DOCSLIB.ORG

Changes in Water-Associated Bird Abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake, WA from 1987 to 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Changes in Water-Associated Bird Abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake, WA from 1987 to 2017 CHANGES IN WATER-ASSOCIATED BIRD ABUNDANCE ON BUDD INLET AND CAPITOL LAKE, WA FROM 1987 TO 2017 by Tara Newman A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Environmental Studies The Evergreen State College June 2018 ©2018 by Tara Newman. All rights reserved. This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree by Tara Newman has been approved for The Evergreen State College by ________________________ John Withey, Ph. D. Member of the Faculty ________________________ Date ABSTRACT Changes in water-associated bird abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake, WA from 1987 to 2017 Tara Newman The abundance of water-associated birds has been changing around the world in recent decades. Population trends vary by species and by location, and likely contributing factors are changes in food source availability and environmental contamination. While some studies have been done in the Puget Sound region, research has not yet investigated population trends locally on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake in Olympia, Washington. Capitol Lake is an artificial reservoir that was created by constructing a dam preventing flow of the Deschutes River into Budd Inlet, and because of the unique characteristics and history of these sites, there may be factors that influence bird populations locally in ways that are not observed at the regional scale. This analysis seeks to fill the knowledge gap about this local ecosystem by using generalized linear models to determine the direction and significance of changes in water-associated bird abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake from 1987 to 2017, focusing on surface-feeding ducks, freshwater diving ducks, sea ducks, loons, and grebes. Many species that utilize Budd Inlet have experienced population declines over this period, while many species that utilize Capitol Lake have seen their populations increase. These trends are strongest for species that have a high degree of specificity for one habitat type or the other. On Capitol Lake, surface-feeding ducks and diving ducks that feed on aquatic vegetation have generally increased, and some benthic feeding species have declined. On Budd Inlet, many sea duck and loon species have declined, especially those that strongly prefer the saltwater habitat in Budd Inlet and consume primarily benthic organisms. Further research is needed to examine the reasons for these population changes, determine whether similar population changes have occurred elsewhere, and continue monitoring population trends in the future. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 5 Overview and History of Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake .................................................. 6 Figure 1. Map of southern Budd Inlet in Olympia, WA.............................................. 8 Figure 2. Map of Capitol Lake in Olympia, WA......................................................... 9 Budd Inlet Ecosystems and Biodiversity ...................................................................... 10 Capitol Lake Ecosystems and Biodiversity ................................................................... 13 Potential Changes under the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Plan ................................ 16 Foraging Behaviors and Food Sources of Capitol Lake and Budd Inlet Species ......... 17 Surface-feeding Ducks .............................................................................................. 18 Freshwater Diving Ducks .......................................................................................... 19 Sea Ducks .................................................................................................................. 20 Loons and Grebes ...................................................................................................... 22 Potential Causes of Changes in Waterbird Abundance ................................................. 23 Previous Research on Waterbird Population Trends in the Puget Sound Region ......... 29 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 36 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3. Map of the survey area boundaries ................................................................ 43 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 44 General Trends .............................................................................................................. 44 Habitat-based Trends..................................................................................................... 45 Surface-feeding Ducks .................................................................................................. 46 Freshwater Diving Ducks .............................................................................................. 47 Sea Ducks ...................................................................................................................... 48 Loons ............................................................................................................................. 49 Grebes............................................................................................................................ 49 Potential Biases ............................................................................................................. 50 iv Trends in Abundance by Habitat Specialization and Feeding Guild ............................ 51 Table 1. Results for general trends in species richness and all species abundance using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ......................................... 53 Table 2. Results for species that utilize and/or specialize in habitat found in Capitol Lake using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ...................... 53 Table 3. Results for species that utilize and/or specialize in habitat found in Budd Inlet using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ............................... 54 Table 4. Results for surface-feeding duck species using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ............................................................................................ 55 Table 5. Results for freshwater diving duck species using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ........................................................................................ 56 Table 6. Results for sea duck species using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi- Poisson distribution. ...................................................................................................... 57 Table 7. Results for loon species using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ................................................................................................................... 58 Table 8. Results for grebe species using a GLM based on the Poisson or quasi-Poisson distribution. ................................................................................................................... 59 Table 9. Results for change in each survey variable over time, using simple linear regression. ..................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 4. General trends in total bird species richness, total water-associated bird species richness, and total water-associated bird abundance in each survey year. ....... 61 Figure 5. Abundance and species richness trends for Capitol Lake users and Capitol Lake specialists. ............................................................................................................ 62 Figure 6. Abundance and species richness trends for Budd Inlet users and Budd Inlet specialists. ..................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 7. Abundance of the surface-feeding duck species in each survey year. ........... 64 Figure 8. Abundance of the freshwater diving duck species in each survey year. ........ 66 Figure 9. Abundance of the sea duck species in each survey year................................ 68 Figure 10. Abundance of the loon species in each survey year. ................................... 71 Figure 11. Abundance of the grebe species in each survey year. .................................. 72 Figure 12. Counts of species by their trend in abundance and habitat specialization. .. 74 Figure 13. Counts of species by their trend in abundance and preferred feeding guild. 75 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 76 Surface-feeding Ducks .................................................................................................. 77 Freshwater Diving Ducks .............................................................................................. 80 v Sea Ducks ...................................................................................................................... 83 Loons and Grebes .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Process Control Improvements SEPA Checklist
    Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements SEPA Environmental Checklist October 2015 LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements This page left intentionally blank. LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 6 1. Earth ..........................................................................................................................................6 2. Air ..............................................................................................................................................7 3. Water .........................................................................................................................................8 4. Plants ......................................................................................................................................10 5. Animals ...................................................................................................................................11 6. Energy and Natural Resources ...............................................................................................12 7. Environmental Health ..............................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Inventory for the Cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater and Their Urban Growth Areas
    January 2010 City of Lacey Shoreline Master Program update - Appendix 4 Characterization and Inventory; In original form as received from Thurston Regional Planning. Includes Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and the their urban growth areas (UGAs) Shoreline Inventory for the Cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater and their Urban Growth Areas Thurston Regional Planning Council 2424 Heritage Ct. S.W. Suite A Olympia, WA 98502 www.trpc.org City of Lacey Shoreline Master Program September 2011 THURSTON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (TRPC) is a 22-member intergovernmental board made up of local governmental jurisdictions within Thurston County, plus the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The Council was established in 1967 under RCW 36.70.060, which authorized creation of regional planning councils. TRPC's mission is to “Provide Visionary Leadership on Regional Plans, Policies, and Issues.” The primary functions of TRPC are to develop regional plans and policies for transportation [as the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and state recognized Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO)], growth management, environmental quality, and other topics determined by the Council; provide data and analysis to support local and regional decision making; act as a “convener” to build community consensus on regional issues through information and citizen involvement; build intergovernmental consensus on regional plans, policies, and issues, and advocate local implementation; and provide
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State Capitol Historic District Is a Cohesive Collection of Government Structures and the Formal Grounds Surrounding Them
    -v , r;', ...' ,~, 0..,. ,, FOli~i~o.1('1.300; 'REV. 19/771 . '.,' , oI'! c:::: w .: ',;' "uNiT~DSTATES DEPAANTOFTHE INTERIOR j i \~ " NATIONAL PARK SERVICE -, i NATIONAL REGISTER OF mSTORIC PLACES INVENTORY .- NOMINATION FOR~;';;" SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMP/"£J'E NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES·· COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS , " DNAME HISTORIC Washington State,CaRito1 Historic District AND/OR COMMON Capit'olCampus flLOCATION STREET &. NUMBER NOT FOR PUBUCATION Capitol Way CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CITY. TOWN 3rd-Dona1d L. Bonker Olympia ·VICINITY OF coos COUNTY CODE STATE 067 Washington 53 Thurston DCLASSIFICA TION PRESENT USE CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS _MUSEUM x..OCCUPIED -AGRICULTURE .x..OISTRICT ..xPUBLIC __ COMMERCIAL _PARK _SUILDINGISI _PRIVATE _UNOCCUPIED _EDUCATIONAL _PRIVATE RESIDENCE _STRUCTURE _BOTH _WORK IN PROGRESS _ENTERTAINMENT _REUGIOUS _SITe , PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE -XGOVERNMENT _SCIENTIFIC _OBJ~CT _IN PRoCesS __VES:RESTRICTED _INDUSTRIAL _TRANSPORTATION _BEING CONSIDERED X YES: UNRESTRICTED _NO -MIUTARY _OTHER: NAME State of Washington STREET &. NUMBER ---:=-c==' s.tateCapitol C~~~~.te~. .,., STATE. CITY. TOWN Washington 98504 Olympia VICINITY OF ElLGCA TION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEOS.ETC. Washin9ton State Department of General Administration STREET & NUMBER ____~~~--------~G~e~n~e~ra~l Administration Building STATE CITY. TOWN 01ympia Washington -9B504 IIREPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS' trTlE Washington State Invent~,r~y~o~f_H~l~'s~t~o~r~ic~P~l~~~ce~s~----------------------- DATE November 1974 _FEOERAL .J(STATE _COUNTY ,-lOCAL CITY. TOWN Olympia ' .. I: , • ", ,j , " . , . '-, " '~ BDESCRIPTION CONOITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE 2lexcElLENT _DETERIORATED ..xUNALTERED .xORIGINAl SITE _GOOD _ RUINS _ALTERED _MOVED DATE _ _FAIR _UNEXPOSED ------====:: ...'-'--,. DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL IIF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Washington State Capitol Historic District is a cohesive collection of government structures and the formal grounds surrounding them.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline for Capitol Lake Faunal Analysis
    FINAL REPORT Implications of Capitol Lake Management for Fish and Wildlife Prepared by: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marc P. Hayes Timothy Quinn Tiffany L. Hicks Prepared for: Capital Lake Adaptive Management Program Steering Committee 11 September 2008 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Historical Background and Physical Setting of Capitol Lake ................................... 1 1.2 Prior Faunal Surveys and Research ...................................................................... 7 1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7 2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Species Assessment ................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Ecosystem Assessment ............................................................................................. 9 3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 10 3.1 Species Present and Their Response .......................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Vertebrates ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 8: Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report
    Attachment 8 Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report CAPITOL LAKE – DESCHUTES ESTUARY Long-Term Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report Prepared for: Washington State Department of Enterprise Services 1500 Jefferson Street SE Olympia, Washington 98501 Prepared by: Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. June 2021 < Intentionally Blank > CAPITOL LAKECAPIT – DESCHUTESOL LAKE – DESCHUTESESTUARY ESTUARY Long-Term Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Long-Term Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary This Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report describes the potential impacts of the Capitol Lake – Deschutes Estuary Long-Term Management Project on aquatic invasive species in the area surrounding the project. The Capitol Lake – Deschutes Estuary includes the 260-acre Capitol Lake Basin, located on the Washington State Capitol Campus, in Olympia, Washington. Long-term management strategies and actions are needed to address issues in the Capitol Lake – Deschutes Estuary project area. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared to document the potential environmental impacts of various alternatives and determine how these alternatives meet the long-term objectives identified for the watershed. Aquatic invasive species (AIS) include nonnative plants and animals that rely on the aquatic environment for a portion of their life cycle and can spread to new areas of the state, causing economic or environmental harm. The impacts of construction and operation of each alternative are assessed based on the potential of project alternatives to result in changes in abundance or distribution of AIS within or outside the project area from AIS transport into or out of the project area. Where impacts are identified, the report discusses measures that can be taken to minimize or mitigate potential impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • M Street to Israel Road Feasibility Federal Aid #: STPUS-5235(015)
    CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Carol Schultze and Chrisanne Beckner Title of Report: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Capitol Boulevard – M Street to Israel Road Feasibility Federal Aid #: STPUS-5235(015) Phase 1 - Capitol Boulevard/Trosper Road Intersection Improvements Project, City of Tumwater, Thurston County, Washington Date of Report: July 2017 County(ies): Thurston Section: 34, 35Township: 18NRange: 2W Quad: Olympia and Maytown Acres: 53 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: Submission of PDFs is required. Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Capitol Boulevard - M Street to Israel Road Feasibility Federal Aid #: STPUS-5235(015) Phase 1 - Capitol Boulevard/Trosper Road Intersection Improvements Project, City of Tumwater, Thurston County, Washington Submitted to: SCJ Alliance (SCJA) Submitted by: Historical Research Associates, Inc. Carol Schultze, PhD, RPA Chrisanne Beckner, MS Seattle, Washington July 2017 This report was prepared by HRA Archaeologist Carol Schultze, PhD, RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards for archaeology, and Chrisanne Beckner, MS, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards for architectural history. This report is intended for the exclusive use of the Client and its representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
    Final Draft THURSTON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Inventory and Characterization Report SMA Grant Agreements: G0800104 and G1300026 June 30, 2013 Prepared By: Thurston County Planning Department Building # 1, 2nd Floor 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW Olympia, WA 98502-6045 This page left intentionally blank. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 REPORT PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATES FOR CITIES WITHIN THURSTON COUNTY ...................................................................... 2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 2 SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 REPORT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 DETERMINING SHORELINE JURISDICTION LIMITS ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006
    South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006 Making connections and building partnerships to protect the marine waters, streams, and watersheds of Nisqually, Henderson, Budd, Eld and Totten Inlets The economic vitality of South Puget Sound is intricately linked to the environmental health of the Sound’s marine waters, streams, and watersheds. It’s hard to imagine the South Sound without annual events on or near the water - Harbor Days Tugboat Races, Wooden Boat Fair, Nisqually Watershed Festival, Swantown BoatSwap and Chowder Challenge, Parade of Lighted Ships – and other activities we prize such as beachcombing, boating, fishing, or simply enjoying a cool breeze at a favorite restaurant or park. South Sound is a haven for relaxation and recreation. Businesses such as shellfish growers and tribal fisheries, tourism, water recreational boating, marinas, port-related businesses, development and real estate all directly depend on the health of the South Sound. With strong contributions from the South Sound, statewide commercial harvest of shellfish draws in over 100 million dollars each year. Fishing, boating, travel and tourism are all vibrant elements in the region’s base economy, with over 80 percent of the state’s tourism and travel dollars generated in the Puget Sound Region. Many other businesses benefit indirectly. Excellent quality of life is an attractor for great employees, and the South Puget Sound has much to offer! The South Puget Sound Forum, held in Olympia on April 29, 2006, provided an opportunity to rediscover the connections between economic vitality and the health of South Puget Sound, and to take action to protect the valuable resources of the five inlets at the headwaters of the Puget Sound Basin – Totten, Eld, Budd, Henderson, and the Nisqually Reach.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Eye of the European Beholder Maritime History of Olympia And
    Number 3 August 2017 Olympia: In the Eye of the European Beholder Maritime History of Olympia and South Puget Sound Mining Coal: An Important Thurston County Industry 100 Years Ago $5.00 THURSTON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL The Thurston County Historical Journal is dedicated to recording and celebrating the history of Thurston County. The Journal is published by the Olympia Tumwater Foundation as a joint enterprise with the following entities: City of Lacey, City of Olympia, City of Tumwater, Daughters of the American Revolution, Daughters of the Pioneers of Washington/Olympia Chapter, Lacey Historical Society, Old Brewhouse Foundation, Olympia Historical Society and Bigelow House Museum, South Sound Maritime Heritage Association, Thurston County, Tumwater Historical Association, Yelm Prairie Historical Society, and individual donors. Publisher Editor Olympia Tumwater Foundation Karen L. Johnson John Freedman, Executive Director 360-890-2299 Katie Hurley, President, Board of Trustees [email protected] 110 Deschutes Parkway SW P.O. Box 4098 Editorial Committee Tumwater, Washington 98501 Drew W. Crooks 360-943-2550 Janine Gates James S. Hannum, M.D. Erin Quinn Valcho Submission Guidelines The Journal welcomes factual articles dealing with any aspect of Thurston County history. Please contact the editor before submitting an article to determine its suitability for publica- tion. Articles on previously unexplored topics, new interpretations of well-known topics, and personal recollections are preferred. Articles may range in length from 100 words to 10,000 words, and should include source notes and suggested illustrations. Submitted articles will be reviewed by the editorial committee and, if chosen for publication, will be fact-checked and may be edited for length and content.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of CAPITOL LAKE AREA Tim Keck
    HISTORY OF CAPITOL LAKE AREA by Tim Keck History of Capitol Lake Area Capitol Lake is located in the heart of Olympia, Washington on the shores of Budd Inlet in the Puget Sound. In 1846 Levi L. Smith and Edmund Sylvester came to what is now Olympia and made permanent settlements. The two became partners, and under the partnership clause of the land law of Oregon, each located 320 acres, Smith making his residence upon what is now the City of Olympia, and designating it Smithfield. Mr. Sylvester took up the claim on the edge of Chamber's Prairie, better known as the Dunham Donation claim. The area in and around Olympia was a site of beauty when Smith first arrived. Stretching off to the north was the placid waters of the beautiful bay, its shores lined with the primeval forests; in the background the white peaks of the Olympics, to the right was the grand old Rainier, while all around were the gigantic forests of fir and cedar. The two square acres of muddy peninsula between the two arms of Puget Sound formed a small oasis in the wilderness of virgin timber. It was here that Olympia would have its beginnings. The tidal range at the tip of Puget Sound is well over twenty feet. At low tide the peninsula extended nearly a mile south in the form of mudflats teeming with clams and oysters. At extreme high tide much of it was covered by salt water. Under normal tidal conditions the small peninsula somewhat resembled the silhouette of a bear, and the area was called "Chetwoot" by the Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Budd Inlet Model Analysis
    Capitol Lake and Puget Sound. An Analysis of the Use and Misuse of the Budd Inlet Model. 8. REFERENCES. AHSS 2014. “Alliance for a Healthy South Sound” meeting, July 17 2014. Ahmed, Anise and Greg Pelletier. 2014. Presentation to AHSS group, July 17 2014; cites an updated Redfield ratio (mass C to mass N in organic matter) as 7x; that is, mg C = 7x mg N. (See AHSS 2014 above) Ahmed, Anise, Greg Pelletier, Mindy Roberts, and Andrew Kolosseus. 2013. South Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen Study. Water Quality Model Calibration and Scenarios. DRAFT. Wa. State Dept. of Ecology Olympia, WA. (SPSDOS 2013. I refer to the draft issued for external review October 10, 2013. I have not seen the final product.) Ahmed, Anise, Greg Pelletier, and Mindy Roberts. Pers. comm. March 20, 2014. Response to questions by D. H. Milne. With copy to Lydia Wagner, Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. Aura Nova Consultants, Inc., Brown and Caldwell, Evans-Hamilton, J. E. Edinger and Associates, Ecology, and the University of Washington Department of Oceanography. 1998. Budd Inlet Scientific Study Final Report. Prepared for the LOTT Partnership, Olympia, Washington. (The “BISS Report.”) BISS Report 1998. Budd Inlet Scientific Study. See Aura Nova Consultants … above. CH2M-Hill (consultants) 1978. Water Quality in Capitol Lake. Olympia, Washington. A Report prepared for the State of Washington Departments of Ecology and General Administration. Ecology Publication no. 78-e07. June, 1978. Clark, Dave [HDR, Spokane Office]. 2016. Pers. Comm. to R. Wubbena (CLIPA) January 28, 2016. CLIPA (Capitol Lake Improvement and Protection Association) 2010. Historic photos on CLIPA website.
    [Show full text]
  • Shellfish at Work – Reducing Nutrient Pollution in the Budd Inlet Watershed
    Final Project Report- Shellfish at Work – Reducing Nutrient Pollution in the Budd Inlet Watershed National Estuary Program (NEP) Toxics and Nutrients Award No. G1300037 Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Prepared by 120 State Avenue NE #1056 Olympia, WA 98501 December 2014 This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Puget Sound Ecosystem Restoration and Protection Cooperative Agreement grant PC-00J20101 with Washington Department of Ecology. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Suggested citation: Pacific Shellfish Institute. 2014. Shellfish at Work – Reducing Nutrient Pollution in the Budd Inlet Watershed. Final Project Report for National Estuary Program Toxics and Nutrients Award No. G1300037. Prepared for the Washington Department of Ecology by Aimee Christy, Bobbi Hudson and Andrew Suhrbier of the Pacific Shellfish Institute, Olympia, WA. December 2014. 80pp. Shellfish at Work (NEP #G1300037) Final Report-- i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 History of study area ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]