Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Management Alternatives
related to public use. A detailed description of the wildlife and habitat management activities
currently being implemented on the Refuge, as well as the Refuge’s current public use program,
are described in detail in Section 3.3.3.1 (Alternative A - No Action).
3.4 Proposed Management Alternatives
Before the process of developing alternatives began, the planning team reviewed and evaluated
both the comments received during the initial phases of the CCP planning process, including
scoping, as well as the issues, management concerns, threats, and opportunities presented in
Chapter 2 of this document. Through further analysis of the issues and general public comment,
the team developed various objectives for achieving Refuge goals, the mission of the NWRS, and
other mandates. Based on the objectives and an analysis of the types of strategies that might be
implemented to achieve the objectives, a range of draft alternatives were developed for how the
Refuge should be managed over the next 15 years. These draft alternatives were further refined
during the analysis of environmental consequences.
As a result of this process, three management alternatives, including a no action alternative and
two action alternatives, were developed for evaluation in the draft CCP/EA. The three alternatives
differ in the extent and focus of wildlife and habitat management actions to be implemented on the
Refuge and in the types and levels of public use opportunities to be provided. Management
Alternative “C” represents the proposed action. Following consideration of the comments
received during public review of the draft CCP/EA, this alternative may be altered to include one
or more of the actions addressed in another alternative, or some elements of the alternative may be
modified or deleted. The preferred management alternative will be described in the Final CCP.
3.4.1 Summary of Alternatives
The three management alternatives evaluated for the Seal Beach NWR are summarized below and
described in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Alternative A - No Action
Under this alternative, past and present management activities would remain unchanged. Current
conservation and management actions would continue per available funding and wildlife
observation, interpretation, and environmental education would continue at current levels. This
alternative represents the baseline from which other “action” alternatives will be evaluated.
Alternative B – Maximize Salt Marsh Restoration, Continue Current Public Uses
Under this alternative, current wildlife and habitat management activities would be expanded to
include evaluation of current baseline data for fish, wildlife, and plants on the Refuge, identification
of data gaps, implementation of species surveys to address data gaps as staff time and funding
allows, and support for new research projects that would benefit Refuge resources and Refuge
management. Also proposed is the restoration of approximately 22 acres of intertidal habitat (salt
marsh and intertidal mudflat) and 15 acres of wetland/upland transition habitat. Pest control
would be implemented in accordance with an Integrated Pest Management program and mosquito
monitoring and control would be guided by a Mosquito Management Plan. No changes to the
current public use program are proposed.
Alternative C (Proposed Action) - Optimize Upland/Wetland Restoration, Improve Opportunities for
Wildlife Observation
The majority of the management activities proposed in Alternative B would also be implemented
under this Alternative. The primary difference between Alternatives B and C is that under
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 3-7