Alternative Concept C: San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area

 

• Support Alternative C. Amazing stuff in the forest. Seems like Yosemite in some areas. Need to get the word out young adults about these resources.
• Extend the informational sites (in Alternative C) west and north - beyond the San Gabriel Watershed. Draw in other communities. The sub-watersheds should be included.
• Prefer Alternative C. More education, informational areas/spots. Education is an important component for the watershed.
• Prefer Alternative C - more NPS, river rangers to do outreach on all parts of the river. More funding from the NPS is necessary for educational outreach. Also need more amenities such as bathrooms.

• Maps in Alt A. B and C boundaries are arbitrary. Love forest - would bring resources.
• B and C cuts out too much. Area underserved and kids need nature access, ranger programs, etc.
• Collaboration in C is great. Concerned about vendors, contractors, etc. Losing oversight/accountability.

• Alternative C = limit bureaucracy, concern with getting things done.
• Likes that NPS would be more involved in Alternative C. There are amazing areas. NPS could be involved in high use areas.
• Alternative C provides / should have more funding because of the focus on recreation, especially in San Gabriel Canyon. Provide/create open space through the watershed and linking. Focusing on the watershed is a good start.

• Funding: Alternative C should be broader for entire forest - not just San Gabriel Canyon/Watershed.
• I expressed that I liked that alternative A include the potential for the most direct federal dollars. After further clarification of the funding mechanism for alt C, I expressed that C should be expanded to include all of the ANF in order to use the federal dollars for the whole of the ANF rather than just the San Gabriel River watershed.

• Would like as much NPS involvement as possible: more recreation opportunities; NPS brings prestige to the area. Many people don't visit the San Gabriels. NPS would help to raise the level of pride in the area. Alternative C embodies this vision. It should be broader.
• Alternative C: would like NPS staff to be local, not travel from SAMO - otherwise, it's not worth it - not enough attention to the area. There could be issues with confusion with multiple jurisdictions. Need 1 lead.

• Alternative A seems to have the potential to provide more funding, while Alternative C would provide more volunteer opportunities and less funding.
• Alternative C to assist the variety of organizations and interests  purpose: facilitate and attract funding. NRA should encompass the entire forest.
• Concern about Alternative C. Does an increase in access mean organizations will be less accessible to the local communities? I don't want to see this.  

·        Like option C - bigger with Puente Hills.

·        Like Alternative C - broadest allowance of preservation.

·        Likes that Alternative C has most NPS involvement and source of funding.

·        Alternatives A and C are preferred.

·        Likes Alternatives A and C - students are not connected now and need more appreciation of nature; they are more into technology; use technology to reach students and others.

• Likes Alternative C - emphasis on education. Teach students about where they live, our history. Likes information centers and components that can be used to educate.
• Alternative C provides for greater opportunities in academic instruction and collaboration with local universities. It is watershed-oriented and demonstrates aspects of hydrology, geology and ecology.
• Alternatives A and C are good. NPS would provide more education and recreation opportunities. The USFS mission is not specific enough to help the urban population.
• Alternative A would provide for more land area, with less involvement by NPS. Alternative C provides for less land area with more NPS involvement. It seems like two disparate options. Is this intentional? What is the future of Angeles National Forest?
• Preferred Alternative C since it would likely provide more funding that the other alternatives.

• Alternative C - leave status quo for Mt. Baldy and San Antonio Canyon. Dept of Interior (education, interpretation, conservation) has different philosophy from Dept. of Agriculture (multi-use).
• Alternative C - need more awareness of water system. NPS could bring more to this through education and interpretation.

• NRA w/ cooperative effort w/ FS (Plan C emphasized).
• Alternative C - why weren't the tributaries included? Also why weren't the Puente Chino Hills included?

• Increase water flow on the San Gabriel River to support fishing. Add to Alternative C.
• Why does Alternative C have such a small boundary?
• Alternatives A and C - important to have NPS involvement.
• Alternative B and C, [mayor area verde, connection para ninos, con la tierra] connecting the children to the land area in Alternative A and protecting the watersheds. Promote youth opportunities.
• Like education centers in Alternative C.

• Likes the management components of Alternative C o Need to bring federal agencies together o Provide trails and services o Need safe and sane management
• Alternative A provides protection for a larger area o Would like a Research Learning Center o Likes the management structure in Alternative C – partnership
• Would like increased federal funding

• If Alternative C were implemented, political support for this area would go away; there would be lack of trust for any future process.
• Pleasant View Ridge is not even included in the boundary under Alternative C.

• Alternative C - interpretive centers could cover the history; different themes could be covered at various interpretive centers (e.g. gold, condors, Nike Missile Sites).
• Alts A & C are good, but will need to find the right balance between the efficiency of command & control (with a couple of large partners) and the benefits of including partnerships with many small agencies - many cities, nonprofits.

• Each of the three alternatives presented seek to add or increase federal agency jurisdiction over significant portions of the San Gabriel River watershed, but the description of alternatives does not identify the local (and potentially adverse) implications of such new designations: e.g. new land use restrictions, additional environmental hurdles for projects, loss of local control over land use decisions (including types of acceptable recreation), threats to water quality due to expanded recreation, and federal interference with water rights and supply.
• As the Puente-Chino Hills serves as the southern boundary of our community we are pleased to learn that the National Park Service in its San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act recognizes it as a nationally significant habitat resource. We support the comments on the preliminary alternatives in the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and urge the National Park Service to include our Puente-Chino Hills in the San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area.
• The National Park Service needs to take a lead role in coordinating the partnership between current land management agencies and land owners as described in Alternative C for the new NRA. The Forest Service and others would benefit greatly in partnering with the Park Service in gaining additional resources, interpretive services, and planning experience.
• Our organization believes that Alternative B and Alternative C would be inappropriate choices for a new management plan under the National Park Service. Both alternatives include waterways outside the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest, but it is unclear what benefit would be derived or what would be added if the National Park Service were to introduce a new management plan that, rightly, would be circumscribed by existing rights and authorities We believe that Alternative C, San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area, is the poorest alternative. Portions of the watershed within the boundaries of the Angeles National Forest are already under tremendous pressure from recreational use. A national recreation area designation focused on these same areas would likely increase user pressures and lead not to improvements but to further deterioration of the land.
• We would like to see a SGM NRA with the management structure in Alternative C. The NPS would take the lead role in the formal partnership that would manage the SGM NRA. The National Park Service is historically known for its success in managing recreation and recreational needs in nationally significant places like the San Gabriel Mountains. The management partnership vision in Alternative C is the only vision we think will bring in significant new recreational resources and staff to supplement the stagnant Angeles National Forest recreational budget.
• The NRA should have the management structure described in Alternative C. The proposed formal partnership would make clear the role and responsibilities of the parties, with the NPS taking the lead role in developing and coordinating a comprehensive management strategy.
• We believe the management proposed by Alternative C in which the NPS would implement a comprehensive management program for the National Recreation Area is the best choice for future management and actual implementation. Although all partners would retain their land ownership, NPS could provide technical, planning and administrative services. We respect the NPS's long history of emphasis in providing quality visitor services that embody educational programs and facilities required when large numbers of people utilize an area, while protecting ecological resources. Given our experience with fragmented planning in the San Gabriel Valley and although lands would remain in current ownership with funding from those agencies, the NPS involvement would provide key coordinated planning as well as bring federal funding for administration, educational and interpretive roles that are not currently available.
• The City of West Covina takes no objection to any of the alternative plans.
• My suggestions for all 3 plans (A, B, C) for improving recreational opportunities and protecting significant resources in the San Gabriel Watershed land area shown on your maps would be to extend the southern border further south to include the 510 acres of Chevron property in northwest Fullerton of the Coyote Hills, plus the 72.5 acres of the Robert Ward Nature Preserve, tangent to the Chevron property and owned by the City of Fullerton, California. It is all part of the Coyote Creek watershed that drains into the San Gabriel River.
• As a tax-payer, I see Alternative C as the most expensive as it seems too far-reaching and difficult to manage.
• Alternatives B & C increase Bureaucracy.
• The Alternative C is the most valuable in terms of improving and protecting significant resources. It includes all the wilderness area including Puente-Chino Hill area.

• Alternative C is too small.
• Forest Service and/or NPS role should be strengthened as in A and C.
• I like Alternative C because that is where a large population is present without driving a great distance.
• I believe that the NRA should include the largest possible area, as shown in Map A. However, I am concerned that this proposal does not include the management that is offered in proposal C, which would make a huge difference in the quality of life in my city, would improve our water quality, maintain the connectivity within the animal corridors, and the environment for our endangered species.
• I'm excited about Alt. C because it draws in the downstream resources and the SG River which are currently not managed well and it expands nature-related recreational opportunities.
• I'd like to see expansion of the educational component of the appropriate body in plan C to include greater emphasis on keeping the streams clean from down-water contamination of cities' waters and beaches: do not throw trash or used oil, etc.
• Plans B and C concentrate on the lower areas of the San Gabriel River and as many of these areas are within heavily populated parts of the city I don't think they lay within the province of the NFS or NPS. However, I do feel that those tributaries have conservancies and local agencies interested in protecting them and that these entities would benefit from direct grants and assistance with signage etc.
• I have concerns that Plans B and C add a new level of bureaucracy which makes for very inefficient planning and implementation of proposed plans, as well as generating a lot of extra cost that DOES NOT go directly into improving signage, information kiosks, picnic areas, campgrounds, toilets, and rangers.
• I'm in favor of Alternative C because it would give the area support from the NPS, USFS, and other agencies. However, I would like to see the NRA include all of the San Gabriel Mountains as in Alternative A.
• Alternative C, the San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area, guarantees that park personal will be present, on the ground, in the new NRA.

• Option C should include more of the mountains.
• This alternative is similar to Alternative A but encompasses a more limited portion of the San Gabriel Mountains while extending along the San Gabriel River to the limits of the Study area. This Alternative could directly affect portions of the City that border the San Gabriel River. As described in Newsletter 4, "In the lower portion of the watershed, the river corridor and related public lands would continue to be managed by existing owners" each of which "would retain all of its land ownership, management and decision-making authority."' Based on other information provided by the NPS, we assume that such a National Recreation Area may be patterned after the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area outside of Atlanta, Georgia. As you are aware, the Watershed Conservation Authority (a joint powers authority formed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy) acquired a large site within Industry along the San Gabriel River (the "Duck Farm") for the purposes of developing a public open space area. Due to funding problems within these agencies, the project has languished and local residents and visitors remain unable to enjoy the recreational opportunities that were originally promised. To the extent the above representations are correct, along with the representation that the "NPS will only consider alternatives that respect and retain existing decision-making and regulatory authorities, including authorities over flood protection and water supply,"' and to the extent that the proposal would expand funding opportunities for projects such as the Duck Farm, the City would consider supporting such a proposal depending on the final details of any authorizing legislation.
• I think that Concept C is the idea that will produce the best results. What is appealing is that all the agencies continue to exist, but now must work together to bring about needed change in the area. The NPS's has funding and the organization's mandate is to educate the public.
• Alternative C seems to be the most valuable and relevant to fulfilling the goals of improving recreational opportunities and protecting significant resources. The upper portion of the watershed within the ANF is heavily used (and abused) for a variety of recreational pursuits. The lower portion represents a unique opportunity to provide recreational and educational services to a nearby demographic who otherwise may not be exposed to, or have a connection with, their natural environment. Other alternatives may provide this, but Alternative C, focusing solely on the San Gabriel Watershed as an NRA may be the best "bang for the buck" in that it would concentrate resources on an already heavily utilized area, and realize the potential that exists within the lower watershed.
• Another concern I have is the reaction by the public to the concept of purchasing land from willing sellers and adding it to the federally managed area. I support the idea of purchasing land from willing sellers, but some of the meeting attendees expressed concern and stated they absolutely did not want to see this happen. I support this idea going forward and am concerned that current landowners want to skirt the constitution and try to mandate the choices available to neighboring landowners. If purchasing land can provide for closing "gaps", enhancing wildlife corridors, protecting resources, then it is a great idea and should continue to be included in the alternative concepts.
• Of the three concepts presented, we believe that Concept C would be the best area for potential recreational opportunities.

·        The preferred management structure is Alternative C which would create a partnership between the National Park Service and the Forest Service (which would continue to manage the San Gabriel Mountains). The benefits of this plan are numerous: more resources for park management, lower diabetes, and increased diversity in these ecosystems, more tourist dollars, and reduced crime as children connect to a world greater than themselves. 

·        It is not clear how functional the partnership strategies spelled out in Alternatives B & C would be. Certainly, it would be preferable to have a designated lead role (Alt. C).

·        Only Alternative C gives the NPS a leading role in the coordination of the partnership, I think this needs to be the case no matter what plan becomes a reality. Someone has to be in charge, and the NPS is the best agency for this purpose. C makes no mention of connecting wildlife corridors, which will be vital for the long term viability of the ecosystems we are seeking to protect.

·        The concept 'C' with its view of the importance of the San Gabriel River Watershed and drainage is one of the most valuable reasons for protection of this area. As the recent fires have shown how the protection of this area is vital to the well being of the residents below the watershed not just in the water it produces but for flood protection, recreation, air purity, beauty and enjoyment for all.

·        I support Draft Alt. Concept C San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area This plan expands access to San Gabriel River based recreational opportunities for 5 million urban weary residents. In park poor towns like La Habra, regional recreational linkages are crucial to improving our quality of life.

·        I think that alternative C provides the most promising management and support mechanism for such a park and it does recognize its biodiversity and its support of sensitive wildlife while providing a popular recreational destination, it misses what could be the greatest and most unique asset of any San Gabriel Mountains NRA. That is, its location as the core of a far greater resource, a habitat connection between our urban (suburban) wildness areas.

·        While we remain opposed to draft Alternative "B", we do not have any issues with Alternatives "A" or "C" as presented.

·        The City of Diamond Bar finds Concepts "A" and "C" to be the most appropriate alternatives for consideration in the final report, as they most closely follow the Congressional guidelines established for the Study.

·        Alternative C offers the protection and opportunities of a National Park Service Unit specifically a National Recreation Area to a localized area of the RMC territory. It encompasses the benefits that having the National Park Service in our area would bring, additional funding and protections, also a park service unit that could bring Ranger Services in interpretation as well as law enforcement. These are good benefits to our region and this alternative is the best choice of the three alternatives for moving the RMC's legislative mandate forward. However, the National Park Service has identified the Puente-Chino Hills as nationally significant with unique coastal sage scrub habitat and walnut woodlands, yet they are not additionally protected by this alternative.

·        I support the management structure in Alternative C of the Study, which creates a management partnership between the National Park Service, Forest Service, and local agencies. Please recommend designation of the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area.

·        I feel that the best of these plans, Alternative C, would address the Angeles National Forest and the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area. Furthermore, NRA will bring forth more government assistance and resources that will manage the scenery effectively. As a concerned citizen, I feel this is a step towards making our valleys in the Southern (and Northern) California area more awesome, and managed more properly. Alternative C has my support since it would create a partnership between the National Park Service, the Forest Service along with local agencies.

·        We (we who are involved at Haramokngna) are also asking for environmental justice in the creation of a Native American Forest Restoration Area around Haramokngna where we can demonstrate Native land management practices that kept the forest viable for thousands of years. Many other National Forests works with their Indigenous People to maintain gathering areas in traditional ways. We are asking for that now in the Angeles National Forest. I support the management structure in Alternative C of the Study.

·        We are pleased that all three alternatives would provide a more coordinated mechanism for managing these resources and enhance public access and recreational opportunities. We are pleased that all three alternatives would provide a more coordinated mechanism to promote the local tourism economy.

·        Alternatives B and C increase bureaucracy with untried and inadequately vetted organizations – inadequate education, training, and demonstrated success in land and resource management. Already disturbed and impacted lands do not need more threats and degradation. (There is more to be said and demonstrated on such concerns).

·        I and most of the community of Mt. Baldy support most of Alternative "C". However, it should not include the Mt Baldy community. We are already saturated, especially in winter, with the snow players. Frequently, the road must be closed because emergency equipment cannot move through the community and recreation area.

·        The Alternative "C" proposed program is a good concept but must have adequate management and adequate resources to preserve our forests park. The general public can be quite abusive; do not mix the two counties!

·        Alternative C does not include a big enough section of the National Forest.