Other Recreational Uses

 

• Wilderness- concern about restrictions with new designations. Would still like to do overnight camping, hiking, hunting, and fishing.
• Have fun, hands on activities and maybe people will have more appreciation for these resources.
• If we change the forest to be more recreation focused than we need to look at the impacts of the designation on habitat and communities.

• Need to have camp sites for students to take field trips. We went on a field trip with our community college biology class to the San Bernardino Mountains. If this opportunity was available in the San Gabriel Mountains we would definitely go.
• Improved recreational opportunities and access are needed.

• Opportunity to improve recreational quality of area. [NRA] Should include West Placentia, all of the forest to I-5 and Cajon Pass. Allow industrial cities to opt out. Management structure of C/USFS/NPS and other agencies.
• An NRA will facilitate fire recovery and restoration, wildlife, trails, habitat.
• Eliminate hunting in NRA.
• Low impact recreation preferred uses and non-motorized uses.
• Concern over motorized uses and who has authority to approve/disapprove their use.
• Increase water flow on the San Gabriel River to support fishing. Add to Alternative C.
• Ensure environment is protected from increased recreation uses.
• Want non-motorized recreation.
• Separation of trails – hikes/bikers/equestrians
• Bikes increased access/ controlled access
• Bikers – controlled access in habitat/ wilderness areas
• Continue equestrian access, would like more open space in flatlands for recreational purposes, trail maintenance.
• Wants range of activities: - Range of physical connections - Green job opportunities.
• Consider various types of permits for specific uses, i.e. back country.

• There is concern about whether certain forms of recreation would be curtailed.

• Improve signage.
• Preserve recreational opportunities and make accessible.
• Are there campgrounds in the San Gabriel Mountains? (Unaware of their existence). Would they remain intact? Camping with observational opportunities would be great.
• Would like camps to be better maintained.
• Would like to fish in lakes along the San Andreas Fault.
• It is important to keep recreation opportunities limited to what works for the land. Why not expand protection of resources throughout the study area?
• Management styles and priorities of NPS and USFS differ so. The mountains include bighorn sheep and other unique resources. Recreation opportunities merit protection.
• Stick with low-impact, non-motorized recreation.
• Clarify the goals that will provide for balance in recreational opportunities and resource protection. There are great treasures in the area. Highly-impacted areas need attention.
• Would not want any motorized recreation in NRA or any golf courses as part of "recreation".

• Promote lighter, less active and low-impact forms of recreation.
• The region needs better recreational opportunities outside of the urban environment.
• The region has a need for low-impact, non-motorized recreation.
• Do not over emphasize the use of asphalt in development of recreation trails.
• What will become of the USFS "Adventure Pass"? It does not encourage recreation and continued application of the program is not encouraged.
• Define what you mean by "user groups." How will people be excluded or included in defining recreational uses, e.g., hang gliders.
• What recreational opportunities may be lost, i.e. hang gliding, paragliding, and R.C. models?
• Add healthy recreational opportunities vs. reduce/eliminate opportunities.
• Continue collaboration regarding diverse uses of the spaces.
• Increased opportunities to connect with a ranger.
• Programs for seniors and youth are needed - multigenerational outreach.

• Camp 9 - would like a California Condor viewing area
• Connect resources together to provide a more consistent recreation experience.
• The Forest Service has done a horrific job at the campgrounds.
• Placerita Canyon County and State Parks - there are trail linkage issues into the forest; would like more single track trails in this area.
• Value the healthy mix of recreational opportunities that currently exists in the ANF.
• Important to know what recreational opportunities will be allowed and available.
• Like the forest as it is - the allowable recreation activities, trails, etc.
• Want to make sure recreational users are not shut out - keep areas open. Hang gliding, mountain biking, hunting, etc.
• Important to retain the decisions of the recent management planning process for the ANF. The forest plan very effectively recognizes recreation as the primary purpose of the Southern California forests, mix of allowable activities is good.
• Like to see a wide range of activities, but concerned about the impacts of bicycles (and other users) on the trails - physical impacts such as ruts, social impacts such as impact of fast downhill bicyclists on slower hikers.
• Recommend including all recreational users in the study process - mountain bikers, hikers, skiers, etc.
• Provide more active programming at the interface between the forest and the community; less programming at the interior of the forest. Provide a ranch of different kinds of experiences.

• Concerned about adequate trails, other facilities for equestrian use - staging areas.
• Combination of Alternatives A and C:
• Interagency cooperation with USFS and NPS for managing the river areas, wants restoration
• River Rangers
• Trash clean up
• Education/information where trails/recreational opportunities are available
• Little Rock Creek – portion is accessible
• Low impact, healthy recreation at Little Rock Cree. Education of this (NPS and USFS)

• C = funding - a diversity of sources. What they serve = variety of recreational opportunities, willing to participate.
• History of NRA’s = creating better recreational opportunities, urban areas.
• More land included would be better for improving recreation.
• Lower Big Rock Creek - could have picnic.

• Large area is important because people live on fringes - more opportunities for people to recreate on the edges, and middle for wildlife habitat.
• Concern with wilderness designation restrictions for trail maintenance - use of power tools. Would like to preclude wilderness designation from NRA.
• Offer different types of recreation.
• Wild trout habitat - east fork - surrounded by wilderness.
• Recreation - this is a form of healthcare ultimate. Mental and physical.
• Better maintained trails and keep open. Trails fall in disrepair so don't use so USFS decides to close because no one is using them.
• More staging/access for equestrians. Especially more picnic areas.
• Seems like many are concerned about change and losing access, current activities should be an explicit list of uses and call out in legislation as allowed to continue.
• Historic/archeology/old cabins/ etc. important.

• The bungee cord jumping at the bridge and the associated traffic are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964.
• I write my comments in the wake of the terrible fires that raged in the Angeles Forest. It will be some time before the western front country and much of the high country is open for recreation. When again available, quality of recreation will be much diminished. Perhaps recreation in the burned portions of the forest should be de-emphasized, at least for the foreseeable future. Restoration is now key.
• This is nothing more then a land grab by the extreme environmentalists who wish to use these lands for nothing but their own use. There are many other recreationists out there who use these lands, in particular - gold prospectors. Studies have shown in the past that hobbyist dredge mining of river streams is not detrimental to the river's ecosystem, and in fact, helps gamefish by preserving the gravel beds for fish to lay their eggs. I am also an avid fly fisherman and have caught fish right next to dredgers - both upstream and down. There are areas of the San Gabriels that are the ONLY areas these hobbyists can go in the Los Angeles area. Although I have never gone dredging, someday I might like to hunt for gold. I support Plan B - because it seems to allow the most for ALL of the recreationists - not just a loud, select, few.
• There is limited hunting allowed in the Angeles National Forest. The animal populations present have survived with this limited hunting; hunting has become a part of the human interaction and the ecological balance of the management of the forest. This winter there will be no hunting, as the forest is closed. I feel this is positive; animal populations are currently confined to unburned "islands" of vegetation where their numbers are concentrated. Having survived a devastating fire, it seems this would be a good year to not add the extra pressure of hunting. In future years, if the goals of a National Recreation Area and the management policies of a National Forest conflict over hunting, we may see one of two scenarios; more abundant wildlife in balance, or more abundant wildlife out of balance. The rhythms and natural fluctuations of nature's cycles, as well as our impact on them, will not be gleaned in one or two seasons. It will take years to understand the impacts of changes we make to the natural environment, whether or not they were made with all the right intentions.
• The word "recreation" in NRA causes some apprehension that it may mean opening up areas to mountain biking and off-road vehicle use. I want to see mountain-biking extremely limited and off road vehicle use totally prohibited.
• Geological should include the historical gold mining uses. No evidence that it has been considered so far.

• Which set of rules? Forest Service of National Park Service will be applied to the proposed recreation areas. Two former ski areas are closed with a major reduction in winter recreation. They need water to compete. Will the recreation benefit of the west fork fishing continue forever if the area is designated as a recreation area?
• Designation of the SGM as a portion of a National Recreation Area will not change the ANF faulty-fire policy. While the SGM are adjacent to the second largest metropolitan area in the country, topography generally limits access to most of the SGM. An emphasis on passive recreation and increased access may disrupt habitat use by these species, particularly in sensitive areas (e.g. springs and mineral licks). The loss of consumptive uses of these species will result in a reduction in revenue from the sale of hunting licenses or special tags (e.g. national hunting groups have been interested in hunting bighorn sheep in the SGM). Indeed, data generated by consumptive uses of mule deer and mountain lions have been critical in the analyses of those populations. The loss of those data sources would preclude future analyses. Thus, caution in emphasizing recreation over resource management should be carefully considered and implemented.
• I am also excited that an NRA might further connect our community to the forest and offer healthy, increased recreation for my family. I am a hiker, equestrian, photographer and animal advocate, and the reason I want an NRA is to be able to engage in activities in the out of doors with my dogs and horses, and encourage others to do the same.
• I would very much like NPA involvement to accelerate the processes of developing long distance trail systems, especially related to rivers, bike paths and trails, even ones useful for commuting, and possibly kayaking/canoeing and fishing in the river opportunities, as they do in Boulder, CO (the urban greenway concept).
• Possibility of too much activity restriction.
• While some indication exists that alternatives of the plan envision things like bike riding in semi-urban open space, nothing is said about the opportunities in the forest, many of which have been severely curtailed or eliminated (hang gliding, nude sunbathing, shooting, archery, and how the trail system would be administered to deal with the competing demands of bicycles, horses, and foot hikers). What about other legitimate uses of the forest? (E.g. mining).
• I must say that concept B should be considered in the future as cities see the need to keep open pathways for animals to migrate and rivers to flow naturally and keep lands open for recreation.
• Given the devastation wrought by the Station Fire (still ongoing), it seems that this plan has been rendered, by and large, moot. At least until an assessment of the damage wrought by the fire (and, certainly, by the subsequent debris flows come the rain) on the natural and developed resources can be done. The assumptions upon which the study was based are no longer valid- at least for most of the range west of Highway 39. Certainly, "close to home" recreational opportunities have been/will be drastically affected, and, no doubt, curtailed in a great many areas, not to mention the loss of habitat. River systems will be affected by the winter runoff, etc., etc. So, I propose that, come the spring, a new resource analysis be performed so that we can assess what remains, and then formulate policies accordingly.
• My suggestion is a home field for the baseball group, ages 3-18 years old. The need for more sport-type parks is important to the community and to the kids and families in our little area. I would support a nature-type area where seniors and young alike can enjoy a center and enjoy the surrounding wilderness atmosphere similar to that of Eaton Canyon in Pasadena. It is very sad to say that the County of LA does not take care of this area and we find ourselves begging for help and for funds to support the kids.
• The U.S. Forest Service's chronic budget restrictions and heavy firefighting expenses have meant inadequate resources for enhancing recreation opportunities on the forest. The need for improvement is most apparent in such places as the San Gabriel River, where more trash cans and trash bags are needed, as well as rangers, interpretive signs, toilets, graffiti removal, resource education programs, and safe access trails. But other parts of the forest will certainly need recreational areas restored after the Station Fire of Aug. 26-Oct. 16, 2009. With all of the other demands on the USFS budget, NPS resources could make a big difference over the next several years. An NRA should add healthful recreational opportunities, not eliminate any current opportunities. It should be clear that the NRA's intent is not to reduce any existing lawful recreation -- ranging from hang-gliding off mountains to driving off-road vehicles on designated trails - but rather to create and promote new low-impact recreational opportunities.
• A national recreation area should improve the recreational experience of visitors while protecting and preserving the mountain's natural resources. An NRA should be designed to promote and expand healthy, non-motorized recreational opportunities. Detail how non-motorized users might benefit from an NRA, including fishers, equestrians, picnickers, sightseers, birders, mountain bikers, hikers, and other who constitute 95% of the visiting public. Make it clear, however, that a national recreation area will preserve existing legal recreational opportunities in existing areas where they take place, including hang gliding and off-road vehicles trails.
• Include a space for recreation vehicles at low cost with a national park Recreation Vehicle yearly permit.
• Create picnic areas easily accessible for those who just want to picnic outdoors. Other areas should be preserved for those who want to walk and bike in silence.
• The analysis should clearly recognize the importance of wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers in a San Gabriel Mountains NRA. It should address opportunities to expand these resources and support their recreational use with rangers.
• The San Gabriel Mountains provide over 70 percent of the public open space in Los Angeles County, and the Angeles National Forest is one of the top three most heavily used recreational forests in the United States. These natural landscapes are a refuge from the urban surroundings in this region, providing a place where residents and visitors can retreat to hike, ride mountain bikes, and otherwise enjoy the tranquility of nature. These areas also provide clean air and water, creating a healthier environment for residents of the San Gabriel Valley.

• The PHLF has been owned and operated by the Districts since 1970. The 1,365-acre site is located immediately southeast of the intersection of the San Gabriel Valley (1-605) Freeway and the Pomona (SR-60) Freeway in unincorporated Los Angeles County. A portion of this site is located within the conceptual boundaries of proposed Alternative B. The PHLF is scheduled to close on October 31, 2013. However, maintenance and operation of the closed site will continue for years to come. Imposition of additional regulatory requirements will only impede the Districts' ability to properly maintain the site. The land-filled portion of the PHLF site will be ultimately dedicated for park and recreational use. The specifics of the site plan will be the subject of future planning between the surrounding community, the Districts, and the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. While it may be appropriate to designate part or all of this area as an NRA or other formal federal open space network, the Districts have concerns regarding the associated impacts on the land-filled portions of the property.
• The California Wildlife Action Plan identified a stressor affecting wildlife and habitats within the project area being recreational pressures. The Department of Fish and Game recognizes the vital role that National Forest lands play in sustaining large core habitats and watersheds that support much of thee resources for hunting and fishing opportunities in California. The Department of Fish and Game supports providing hunting and fishing opportunities for the public in close proximity to their homes. The Department is also highly committed in supporting efforts to maintain and enhance the high biological diversity in the San Gabriel Mountains which supports non-consumptive uses such as wildlife and botanical viewing, as well as hiking, biking, and equestrian excursions. The Department of Fish and Game is also concerned that future National Park policy governing this area will exclude hunting or fishing opportunities. Both hunting and fishing opportunities, similar to non-consumptive activities allow the public to retain close connection with open space resources, maintain the value of hunting and fishing heritage within families that has been passed down many generations, as well as promote future projects and political support. Citizens that are not allowed access and opportunity for hunting or fishing on public lands for non biological reasons often will not support future conservation programs. Strategic multi-use planning of public lands provides valuable outdoor opportunities for all public sectors.
• The San Gabriel Mountains provide us with open space, clean air, and clean water. By recommending a National Recreation Area designation for the San Gabriels, my family and I can take comfort that our local mountains will be vital today, tomorrow, and for future generations with improved healthy recreational opportunities.
• Alternative A is best overall for significant increase in recreational opportunities – now and future for the mountains, trail systems, reduced impact with more land and variations, plus connectivity with other recreational access points at the boundaries/perimeter.
• I support a large NRA in the ANF as proposed in Concept A. To this NRA, I would add the San Gabriel River from Azusa to Pico Rivera. The idea of this is that the NPS could provide additional resources to better manage recreation in the National Forest. For example, all overnight camping within 3 miles of a road should be restricted to established campgrounds in order to prevent over-crowding and unsanitary conditions.