DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment of Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth for the Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment of Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth for the Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF MARINE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS BY THE R/V MARCUS G. LANGSETH FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE OFFSHORE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Submitted to: National Science Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725 Arlington, VA 22230 Submitted by: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD 8675 Discovery Way La Jolla, CA 92023 Contact: Professor Neal Driscoll 858.822.5026; [email protected] Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc. 5290 Overpass Road, Suite 217 Goleta, CA 93113 June 2012 Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey (SCCOGS) Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 6 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 6 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 Mobilization and Demobilization .............................................................. 9 2.3.2 Offshore Survey Operations .................................................................... 9 2.3.2.1 Survey Vessel Specifications ..................................................... 10 2.3.2.2 Air Gun Description .................................................................... 10 2.3.2.3 Hydrophone Streamer Description ............................................. 11 2.3.2.4 Ocean Bottom Seismometer ...................................................... 12 2.3.3 Acoustic Measurements ........................................................................ 15 2.3.4 Other Geophysical Equipment ............................................................... 17 2.3.4.1 Multibeam Echosounder and Sub-Bottom Profiler ...................... 17 2.3.4.2 Gravimeter (Bgm-3) ................................................................... 18 2.3.4.3 Magnetometer (G-882) .............................................................. 19 2.3.5 Onshore Survey Operations .................................................................. 19 2.4 PROJECT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT .................................................... 20 2.4.1 Equipment Requirements ...................................................................... 20 2.4.2 Personnel Requirements ....................................................................... 20 2.5 PROJECT SCHEDULE ..................................................................................... 21 2.6 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................ 21 2.6.1 Vessel-based Marine Wildlife Contingency Plan (MWCP) )/IHA Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan) .......................................... 23 2.6.1.1 Scheduling To Avoid Periods Of High Marine Wildlife Activity .... 24 2.6.1.2 Aerial Surveys ............................................................................ 24 2.6.1.3 Mitigation Measures During Survey Activities............................. 24 2.6.1.4 Safety And Exclusion Zones ...................................................... 25 2.6.1.5 Speed And Course Alterations ................................................... 25 2.6.1.6 Ramp Ups .................................................................................. 26 2.6.1.7 Power Downs............................................................................. 26 2.6.1.8 Shut Downs ............................................................................... 27 2.6.1.9 Monitors ..................................................................................... 27 2.6.1.10 Passive Acoustic Monitoring ...................................................... 28 2.6.1.11 Night Survey Areas .................................................................... 29 2.6.2 PSO Data Recording, Verification, Handling, and Security .................... 29 2.6.2.1 PSO Reports.............................................................................. 30 2.6.2.2 Reporting. .................................................................................. 30 2.7 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AVOIDANCE MEASURES ................................... 31 2.8 TERRESTRIAL IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES ........................................ 31 2.9 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS......................................................... 32 3.0 MARINE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 34 3.1 INVERTEBRATES ............................................................................................ 35 3.1.1 White Abalone ....................................................................................... 35 3.2 FISH ................................................................................................................. 35 3.2.1 Steelhead .............................................................................................. 36 3.2.2 Green sturgeon ..................................................................................... 37 Version (6/22/2012) - ii - Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey (SCCOGS) Environmental Assessment 3.2.3 Tidewater goby ...................................................................................... 37 3.2.4 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................ 38 3.2.4.1 Species Identified In Fishery Management Plans ....................... 39 3.2.4.2 Habitat Areas Of Particular Concern .......................................... 42 3.2.4.3 Commercial Fishing In Project Area ........................................... 43 3.3 SEA TURTLES ................................................................................................. 45 3.3.1 Olive ridley sea turtle ............................................................................. 46 3.3.2 Green sea turtle ..................................................................................... 46 3.3.3 Leatherback sea turtle ........................................................................... 47 3.3.4 Loggerhead sea turtle............................................................................ 48 3.4 MARINE BIRDS ................................................................................................ 48 3.4.1 California least tern ............................................................................... 48 3.4.2 Western snowy plover ........................................................................... 49 3.4.3 Xantus’s murrelet .................................................................................. 50 3.4.4 Marbled murrelet ................................................................................... 50 3.4.5 Short-tailed albatross............................................................................. 51 3.5 MARINE MAMMALS ......................................................................................... 51 3.5.1 Mysticetes (Baleen Whales) .................................................................. 51 3.5.1.1 North Pacific right whale ............................................................ 52 3.5.1.2 Gray whale ................................................................................ 55 3.5.1.3 Humpback whale ....................................................................... 55 3.5.1.4 Minke whale ............................................................................... 55 3.5.1.5 Sei whale ................................................................................... 56 3.5.1.6 Fin whale ................................................................................... 56 3.5.1.7 Blue whale ................................................................................. 56 3.5.2 Odontoceti ............................................................................................. 56 3.5.2.1 Sperm whale .............................................................................. 57 3.5.2.2 Dwarf sperm whale .................................................................... 57 3.5.2.3 Cuvier’s beaked whale ............................................................... 57 3.5.2.4 Baird’s beaked whale ................................................................. 58 3.5.2.5 Mesoplodont beaked whales ...................................................... 58 3.5.2.6 Bottlenose dolphin ..................................................................... 58 3.5.2.7 Striped dolphin ........................................................................... 58 3.5.2.8 Common dolphin ........................................................................ 59 3.5.2.9 Pacific white-sided dolphin ......................................................... 59 3.5.2.10 Northern right whale dolphin ...................................................... 59 3.5.2.11 Risso’s dolphin ........................................................................... 60 3.5.2.12 Killer whale ................................................................................ 60 3.5.2.13 Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................. 60 3.5.2.14 Dall’s porpoise ........................................................................... 61 3.5.3 Pinnipeds .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OB 15.1 1989 Spring
    OREGON BIRDS is a quarterly publication of Oregon Field Ornithol• MEMBERSHIP IN OFO BRINGS YOU ogists. Oregon Birds is printed at the University of Oregon Press. Member• ship in Oregon Field Ornithologists is on an annual basis and includes a sub• • Oregon Birds — OFO's quarterly journal with news briefs of interest to scription to Oregon Birds. ISSN 0890-2313 Oregon birders • short notes and articles on status and identification of Oregon's birds • bird-finding guides to Oregon's better birding spots and Editor Owen Schmidt rarer species • reviews of printed material of interest to Oregon's birders. Assistant Editor Sharon K. Blair Associate Editor Jim Johnson • Proceedings of the Oregon Bird Records Committee — OFO members stay current on the rare birds of Oregon. OREGON FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS • Annual meetings — As a member, you are invited to participate in President Larry Thornburgh, North Bend (1989) OFO's birding meetings, held at some of Oregon's top Secretary Donna J. Lusthoff, Beaverton (1989) birding spots. Treasurer Kit Larsen, Eugene (1989) • Publications — OFO pub• Past President Alan Contreras, Jefferson City, MO lishes useful field cards and other Directors David A. Anderson, Portland (1988-90) field checklists accurate according Alice Parker, Roseburg (1987-89) to the Official Checklist of Oregon Bill Stotz, Ashland (1987-89) birds prepared by the Oregon Bird Tom Mickel, Eugene (1988-90) Records Committee. OREGON BIRD RECORDS COMMITTEE Secretary Clarice Watson, Eugene (1989) Members Tom Crabtree, Bend (1989-91) FOR USE IN 1989 ONLY Jeff Gilligan, Portland (1987-89) Steve Heinl, Eugene (1989-91) OREGON FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS David Irons, Beaverton (1987-89) APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP & Jim Johnson, Portland (1987-89) MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL Larry McQueen, Eugene 1988-90) Harry Nehls, Portland (1988-90) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3.3 - Wildlife Within Local Watersheds1
    Appendix 3.3 - Wildlife within Local Watersheds1 2 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat AMPHIBIANS Bufo boreas western toad U/W Bufo microscaphus californicus arroyo southwestern toad W Hyla cadaverina California tree frog W Hyla regilla Pacific tree frog W Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog W Rana catesbeiana bullfrog W Scaphiopus hammondi western spadefoot W Taricha torosa torosa coast range newt W BIRDS Accipiter cooperi Cooper's hawk U Accipiter striatus velox sharp-shinned hawk U Aechmorphorus occidentalis western grebe W Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird U/W Agelaius tricolor tri-colored blackbird W Aimophila ruficeps canescens rufous-crowned sparrow U Aimophilia belli sage sparrow U Aiso otus long-eared owl U/W Anas acuta northern pintail W Anas americana American wigeon W Anas clypeata northern shoveler W Anas crecca green-winged teal W Anas cyanoptera cinnamon teal W Anas discors blue-winged teal W Anas platrhynchos mallard W Aphelocoma coerulescens scrub jay U Aquila chrysaetos canadensis golden eagle U Ardea herodius great blue heron W Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing U Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern W Branta canadensis Canada goose W Bubo virginianus great horned owl U Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk U Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk U Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk U Butorides striatus green heron W Callipepla californica California quail U Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis San Diego cactus wren U Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegoense cactus wren U Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence's
    [Show full text]
  • Body Size, Not Phylogenetic Relationship Or Residency, Drives Interspecific Dominance in a Little Pocket Mouse Community
    Animal Behaviour 137 (2018) 197e204 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Animal Behaviour journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anbehav Body size, not phylogenetic relationship or residency, drives interspecific dominance in a little pocket mouse community * Rachel Y. Chock a, , Debra M. Shier a, b, Gregory F. Grether a a Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A. b Recovery Ecology, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, Escondido, CA, U.S.A. article info The role of interspecific aggression in structuring ecological communities can be important to consider Article history: when reintroducing endangered species to areas of their historic range that are occupied by competitors. Received 6 September 2017 We sought to determine which species is the most serious interference competitor of the endangered Initial acceptance 6 November 2017 Pacific pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris pacificus, and more generally, whether interspecific Final acceptance 1 December 2017 aggression in rodents is predicted by body size, residency status or phylogenetic relatedness. We carried out simulated territory intrusion experiments between P. longimembris and four sympatric species of MS. number: A17-00719 rodents (Chaetodipus fallax, Dipodomys simulans, Peromyscus maniculatus, Reithrodontomys megalotis)ina field enclosure in southern California sage scrub habitat. We found that body size asymmetries strongly Keywords: predicted dominance, regardless of phylogenetic relatedness or the residency status of the individuals. aggression The largest species, D. simulans, was the most dominant while the smallest species, R. megalotis, was the dominance least dominant to P. longimembris. Furthermore, P. longimembris actively avoided encounters with all interference competition Perognathus longimembris species, except R.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibiaweb's Illustrated Amphibians of the Earth
    AmphibiaWeb's Illustrated Amphibians of the Earth Created and Illustrated by the 2020-2021 AmphibiaWeb URAP Team: Alice Drozd, Arjun Mehta, Ash Reining, Kira Wiesinger, and Ann T. Chang This introduction to amphibians was written by University of California, Berkeley AmphibiaWeb Undergraduate Research Apprentices for people who love amphibians. Thank you to the many AmphibiaWeb apprentices over the last 21 years for their efforts. Edited by members of the AmphibiaWeb Steering Committee CC BY-NC-SA 2 Dedicated in loving memory of David B. Wake Founding Director of AmphibiaWeb (8 June 1936 - 29 April 2021) Dave Wake was a dedicated amphibian biologist who mentored and educated countless people. With the launch of AmphibiaWeb in 2000, Dave sought to bring the conservation science and basic fact-based biology of all amphibians to a single place where everyone could access the information freely. Until his last day, David remained a tirelessly dedicated scientist and ally of the amphibians of the world. 3 Table of Contents What are Amphibians? Their Characteristics ...................................................................................... 7 Orders of Amphibians.................................................................................... 7 Where are Amphibians? Where are Amphibians? ............................................................................... 9 What are Bioregions? ..................................................................................10 Conservation of Amphibians Why Save Amphibians? .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report
    Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Habitat Work Group February, 2013 Prepared by: Todd Sandell, James Fletcher, Andrew McAninch and Micah Wait Setting the net in Half Moon Bay, Grays Harbor Estuary, 2012 Sculpin displaying in a Wild Fish Conservancy “photarium”, April 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................7 1.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................8 Specific Hypotheses: ......................................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Methods ................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Habitat Inventory/ Sample Site Selection.................................................................... 12 2.2 Field Sampling Methodology ....................................................................................... 15 Data Recording/Water Quality Measures ............................................................................................ 17 2.3 Age Class Assignments ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Research for the Endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse: an Overview of Collaborative Studies1
    Recovery Research for the Endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse: An Overview of Collaborative Studies1 Wayne D. Spencer2 Abstract The critically endangered Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus), feared extinct for over 20 years, was “rediscovered” in 1993 and is now documented at four sites in Orange and San Diego Counties, California. Only one of these sites is considered large enough to be potentially self-sustaining without active intervention. In 1998, I gathered a team of biologists to initiate several research tasks in support of recovery planning for the species. The PPM Studies Team quickly determined that species recovery would require active trans- locations or reintroductions to establish new populations, but that we knew too little about the biology of P. l. pacificus and the availability of translocation receiver sites to design such a program. Recovery research from 1998 to 2000 therefore focused on (1) a systematic search for potential translocation receiver sites; (2) laboratory and field studies on non-listed, surro- gate subspecies (P. l. longimembris and P. l. bangsi) to gain biological insights and perfect study methods; (3) studies on the historic and extant genetic diversity of P. l. pacificus; and (4) experimental habitat manipulations to increase P. l. pacificus populations. Using existing geographic information system (GIS) data, we identified sites throughout the historic range that might have appropriate soils and vegetation to support translocated P. l. pacificus. Re- connaissance surveys of habitat value were completed in all large areas of potential habitat identified by the model. Those sites having the highest habitat potential are being studied with more detailed and quantitative field analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS Outreach/Education FY2005 Protected Salmonid Survey/Angler Outreach Project Progress Report
    USFWS Outreach/Education FY2005 Protected Salmonid Survey/Angler Outreach Project Progress Report Cooperative Agreement # 134104 Report Date: March 24, 2008 Reporting Period: November 1, 2005–December 5, 2007 Project Rationale and Objectives In recent years, Wild Fish Conservancy has received reports from recreational anglers of observed violations of no-harvest rules for trout, salmon and char in the marine waters of Washington State. Such illegal take may be significantly compromising conservation efforts, and may stem in part from confusion about the geographic range of the fishery regulations or from misidentification of protected species as harvestable salmonids. To assist in the protection of the anadromous life-history forms of these fishes, this cooperative project has developed educational signage that alerts the public about state and federal harvest restrictions on at-risk salmonids and illustrates diagnostic features to facilitate species identification in the field. The signs, installed throughout coastal Washington State, target Washington’s recreational nearshore anglers. To assess recreational fishing pressure on selected species, the project has implemented a 12-month harvest survey. The objective of the survey is to collect quantitative and qualitative information volunteered by anglers, which Wild Fish Conservancy will analyze and provide to USFWS and WDFW as feedback to assist with refinement of biologically based fishing regulations that are accessible and understandable by the public. Methods The regulatory signage utilized in this project focuses on anadromous bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and sea-run coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and were developed by the USFWS’s Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (Fig. 1). At all posting sites, the regulatory sign was accompanied by an advertisement (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Washington State Birding Trail  OLYMPIC LOOP
    OLYMPIC LOOP INDEX Sites Page Sites Page INFO KEY 1 1 Nisqually National 2 32 Morse Creek 8 Wildlife Refuge 33 Dungeness National Wildlife 2 Tumwater Historical Park Refuge 3 Capitol Lake 34 Dungeness River Audubon 4 Grass Lake Refuge Center 5 McLane Creek Nature 3 35 Dungeness Bay Trail 36 John Wayne Marina 6 Kennedy Creek 37 Jimmycomelately Creek 9 7 Friends Landing 38 Protection Island National 8 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuge 39 Kah Tai Lagoon Park 9 Humptulips Estuary 4 40 Fort Worden State Park 10 Damon Point 41 Chimacum Creek Estuary 11 Ocean Shores North Jetty 42 Fort Flagler State Park 12 Point Grenville 43 Big Quilcene River 10 13 Campbell Tree Grove Estuary 14 Lake Quinault 44 Mt. Walker 15 Kalaloch Creek 5 45 Dosewallips State Park 16 4th Beach 46 Hamma Hamma Beaver Pond 17 Hoh Rainforest 47 Potlatch State Park 11 18 Anderson Homestead 48 Skokomish Delta 19 La Push 49 Twanoh State Park 20 Quillayute River Estuary 50 GeorgeAdamsSalmon 21 Lake Ozette 6 Hatchery 22 Hobuck Beach 51 Panhandle Lake 4H Camp 23 Cape Flattery 52 Oakland Bay 24 Clallam Bay Park 53 Jarrell Cove State Park 25 Pillar Point County Park 54 Theler Wetlands 12 26 Salt Creek County Park 7 27 Elwha River Estuary CREDITS 12 28 Lake Crescent 29 Whiskey Bend Trail 30 Hurricane Ridge © Ed Newbold, Tufted Puffins 31 Ediz Hook The Great Washington State Birding Trail 1 OLYMPIC LOOP INFO KEY MAp Icons LocAl SERVices And Highlights Best seasons for birding( spring, summer, fall,winter) Overall Washington: www.experiencewashington.com Olympic BirdFest: First weekend in April, Developed camping available, including restrooms; fee required.
    [Show full text]
  • MCB Camp Pendleton Arroyo Toad (Bufo Californicus) Monitoring Results, 2003
    MCB Camp Pendleton Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus) Monitoring Results, 2003 Annual Report Prepared for: Wildlife Management Branch AC/S Environmental Security Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WESTERN ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER MCB Camp Pendleton Arroyo Toad Monitoring Results, 2003 By Cheryl S. Brehme, Andrea J. Atkinson, and Robert N. Fisher U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WESTERN ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER Annual Report Prepared for: Wildlife Management Branch AC/S Environmental Security Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton San Diego Field Station USGS Western Ecological Research Center 5745 Kearny Villa Road, Suite M San Diego, CA 92123 Sacramento, California 2004 ii U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, or brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information, contact: Center Director USGS Western Ecological Research Center 3020 State University Drive East Modoc Hall, Room 3006 Sacramento, CA 95819 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3 The Arroyo Toad..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Surveys for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo Californicus) in the Sweetwater River Channel, San
    Baseline Surveys for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus) in the Sweetwater River Channel, San Diego County, California. Draft Final Report 10/05/05 Prepared for: Sweetwater Authority U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WESTERN ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER Baseline Surveys for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus) in the Sweetwater River Channel, San Diego County, California. By Melanie C. Madden-Smith1, Edward L. Ervin2 and Robert N. Fisher1 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WESTERN ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER Final Report Prepared for: Sweetwater Authority 1San Diego Field Station USGS Western Ecological Research Center 5745 Kearny Villa Road, Suite M San Diego, CA 92123 2Current address: Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5434 Ruffin Rd. San Diego, CA 92123 Sacramento, California 2005 ii U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, or brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information, contact: Center Director Western Ecological Research Center U.S. Geological Survey 3020 State University Drive East Modoc Hall, Room 3006 Sacramento, CA 95819 iii Table of Contents ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 2. STUDY
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)
    National List of Beaches March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-04-004 i Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama ............................................................................................................... 3 Alaska................................................................................................................... 6 California .............................................................................................................. 9 Connecticut .......................................................................................................... 17 Delaware .............................................................................................................. 21 Florida .................................................................................................................. 22 Georgia................................................................................................................. 36 Hawaii................................................................................................................... 38 Illinois ................................................................................................................... 45 Indiana.................................................................................................................. 47 Louisiana
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Shores Park Board Adopted February 26, 2018 City of Ocean Shores Washington P.O
    COMPREHENSIVECOMPREHENSIVE PARKPARK ANDAND RECREATIONRECREATION FACILITIESFACILITIES PLANPLAN 2018 - 2023 In association with the: Ocean Shores Park Board Adopted February 26, 2018 City Of Ocean Shores Washington P.O. Box 909, Ocean Shores, Washington 98569 EA OC N S F H O O R Y E T I S C W N AS O HING T EA OC N S F H O O R Y E T I S C W N AS O HING T CITY OF OCEAN SHORES COMPREHENSIVE PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES PLAN 2018 - 2023 Prepared by: City of Ocean Shores P.O. Box 909 Ocean Shores, Washington 98569 In association with the: Ocean Shores Park Board Adopted February 26, 2018 CITY OF OCEAN SHORES COMPREHENSIVE PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES PLAN 2018 - 2023 OCEAN SHORES CITY COUNCIL Susan Conniry Bob Crumbpacker Steve Ensley Lisa Griebel Jon Martin Bob Peterson Holly Plackett OCEAN SHORES MAYOR Crystal Dingler OCEAN SHORES PARK BOARD Rich Otto Michael Darling David Deweese Dirgo Briant Olsen Dave Timbrook TBA TBA Bob Peterson, Council Representative (during 2017-2018) OCEAN SHORES PARK FOUNDATION Michael Darling Rich Otto Cathey Peterson Mary Walker Goals, Objectives and Participants Chapter 1 1.0 City Parks and Recreation Facilities Plan ...................................1 1.0.1 Introduction to Ocean Shores 1.0.2 City of Ocean Shores Planning for Parks and Recreation Facilities 1.0.3 Parks and Recreation Facilities at Ocean Shores 1.1 Ocean Shores Parks and Recreational Facilities Plan .........................3 1.1.1 City Parks and Recreational Facilities Introduction 1.1.2 City Parks and Recreational Facilities Goals and Objectives
    [Show full text]