Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3 Alternatives
3.1 Introduction
An important step in the planning process is the development and analysis of alternatives.
Alternatives are developed to identify and analyze different ways to achieve Refuge purposes,
contribute to the mission of the NWRS, meet Refuge goals, and resolve issues identified during
scoping and throughout the CCP process. The development of alternatives is also an important
component of the NEPA process, and as described in Chapters 1 and 2, compliance with NEPA for
this CCP is being accomplished through an integrated document, a draft CCP/EA, which
addresses both the requirements of NEPA and the CCP process. As such, this chapter describes
the process that was followed to develop a range of management alternatives for the Seal Beach
NWR; provides detailed descriptions of each alternative; identifies the proposed action; compares
the way in which each alternative addresses identified issues; summarizes the similarities among
the alternatives; and presents alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed
study.
3.2 Alternative Development Process
The alternatives development process for the Seal Beach NWR was an iterative process that
required consideration of a number of factors, some of which were known at the beginning of the
process and others that became evident during the process as a result of public comments, analysis
by the planning team, and information provided by other agencies and interested parties. The
issues, constraints, and opportunities affecting management of the Seal Beach NWR (described in
Chapter 2, Sections 2.4 and 2.5) were all taken into consideration during alternatives development.
Also influencing this process were the Refuge purposes, as well as the vision, goals, and objectives.
One of the first steps in the alternatives development process was identifying and describing the
various programs and management actions currently being implemented on the Refuge, as these
practices represent the “No Action” Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the current
management of the Refuge would continue to be implemented for the next 15 years or until
management direction is revised through a revision to the CCP. It is important to describe this
alternative accurately because the No Action Alternative serves as the baseline to which all other
alternatives are compared.
Next, the planning team considered a wide range of management actions (or strategies) that would
address the issues, constraints, and opportunities identified and would assist in achieving Refuge
goals and objectives. These actions were refined during several planning team meetings and then
clustered into logical groupings to form the two action alternatives. Many actions are common to
more than one alternative, but the various actions described for each alternative reflect a common
management approach for that particular alternative, as presented in detail below.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 3-1