Partnerships and Roles

Partnerships and Roles

Need more management for this amazing area. Find more resources for more management.
Support Alternative C. Management and expertise of the NPS. It should be much bigger - entire mountain range and communities.
Alternative A - concerned that NPS would have no role.

Sees many opportunities for NPS/Forest Service to partner; watershed protection.
NPS provide increased safety.
Want management with NPS and USFS.
Interest in Puente-Chino Hills. Like to see:

NPS facilitate partnerships to increase acquisition and preservation. Don't pave paradise!

Interested in opportunities to bring partnership for increased education; funds for millions of people.
Likes idea of incorporating San Gabriel Basin and feels partnership of NPS and Forest Service. Likes a combination of A, B, and C and more partnerships are key- including NGOs, etc.
Partner w/ service and youth groups services to teach youth about nature.
Like the inclusion of non-profits and cities in partnerships.
Land in Alternative A, with community partnerships.
Alternative B, sharing of responsibilities between agencies and cities.
NRA emphasizes funding sources and finding funding. Important NPS involvement and partnership building.
Largest area protected with NPS involvement is important as an alternative.
Alternatives A and C - important to have NPS involvement.
Park service access to camping equipment to facilitate kids and camping.
NPS will do a better job of reaching out and having funds to accomplish.
NPS to facilitate purchase of land.
NPS would bring nicer [preservation] to the Recreation area.
Alternative C with NPS involvement and include larger boundaries of A and B.
Alternative C - why weren't the tributaries included? Also why weren't the Puente Chino Hills included?
Important to connect people with kids to nature but don't see the need for federal government to do that.
Concerned about bureaucracy.
Real connection and agency to create connection between people and nature - i.e. NPS is strongest vehicle to make that connection happen - helps protect mountains.
No extra level of bureaucracy - make it easier.
NRA with cooperative effort with FS (Plan C emphasized).
Start small in "worst area" - see how it works and move from there with partnerships.
Support NRA - go beyond boundaries of USFS o Claremont wilderness and other areas of wilderness. Involve NPS. Consider NP for recreation and water supply.
NPS’s role in Alternative C:

Emphasis on lower portion of watershed
Recreate where we live
Conservation – how to connect Puente Hills
Wildlife connections, corridors

Build on the strengths of agencies - NPS, USFS, nonprofits.
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.
USFS management planning - don't have capacity along SG River Forks. They are looking for help. Partnership with NPS would provide rangers and education and help clean up the river.
NPS is needed to focus on education in Alt A. NPS is better at conservation and education, transferring Angeles to NPS/ collaboration with USFS.
Cooperation between NPS/USFS/Private landowners/private agencies.
Eminent Domain - No as a condition/commitment.
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).

An NRA designation could help partnering local, county, state agencies better leverage resources.
Education/interpretation partnership opportunities to bring together locally-significant ranchos, State Historic sites, etc.
USFWS has a terrestrial carbon sequestration program that could be a resource/ partnership opportunity for implementing an NRA.
Crystal Lake should be a major focal point/destination and needs to be restored/improved and open to public. Would like NPS to manage it in future as part of NRA.
The establishment of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area set a precedent.
Consider the Coyote Hills and collaborate with local leadership.
Management styles and priorities of NPS and USFS differ so. The mountains include bighorn sheep and other unique resources. Recreation opportunities merit protection.
What is the precedence or likelihood of success (by NPS) for land acquisition and protection of resources when there are multiple landowners?
Alternatives B and C are interesting. Clarify the role of the Southern California Resource Learning Center and benefits to education. The RLC should be part of all three alternatives.
Need an Option/Alternative D – combining the good parts of each alternative:

Management component (NPS) of Alternative C
Inclusion of the San Gabriel Mountain Range (maximum area of Alternative A)
Include the two rivers – San Gabriel River and the Rio Hondo Riverways
Include the Puente-Chino Hills
Have the most NPS involvement as possible
Need more funding: USFS doesn’t have enough funds alone. Need NPS funds.

Proposed hybrid alternative:

Alternative C - level of NPS involvement; NPS brings notoriety, cohesiveness, and funding
Alternative B – inclusion of the Puente-Chino Hills, Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River all the way to Whittier Narrows; include historic sites (original site of San Gabriel Mission, Pio Pico, etc.) and cultural values
Alternative A – include maximum area of the forest – biggest area of the San Gabriel forest and the North Slope; habitat linkages would be improved; why wasn’t eastern area to Cajon Pass and Cucamonga Wilderness and San Bernardino Forest included? Similar geology.

Likes that Alternative C has most NPS involvement and source of funding.
Forest Pass benefits in the SBF - was for increased number of toilets. Where did they go? We need accountability of agencies.
Function of drawing parks and access together/NRA cohesion of coordinating agencies is positive and needed now.
No transfer in management.
Along River particularly - more NPS/ better for operation and maintenance.
More management by the Federal/NPS.
Combination of agency resources - based on work already done.
Need good collaboration like in SAMO.

Create collaborations with non-profits because the government cannot do this by itself. Non-profits can help with programming, fundraising, etc.
Santa Monica NRA should be a model for this so that the community voice is heard.
I prefer a combination of Alternatives A and C. Land management should be by both the NPS and the USFS.
People would be willing to volunteer as River Rangers/forest rangers because there was a general belief that the federal government cannot do this work by itself.
Maximum support from NPS for NRA i.e. resources, technical, operational, interpretive support - at the highest levels
Include local groups to enhance and convey local culture in interpretive programs i.e. Amigos de los Rios, Sierra Club, Old Timers Foundation, and Sylmar Hang Gliding Association.
Alternative C to assist the variety of organizations and interests - purpose: facilitate and attract funding. NRA should encompass the entire forest.
Improved recreational uses/opportunities along San Gabriel River as a result of cooperation between NPS and USFS.
There is a role for ongoing research, and California's universities and colleges should be included. Do not limit NPS role to cooperation with SAMO staff.
Include non-profit organizations, political jurisdictions and CBOs in the planning process.
California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over wildlife resources. The agency must be involved in this planning process.
A stronger role by NPS is warranted among the alternatives.
The region needs a stronger resource protection entity and help to serve the recreational needs of the community.
Expand your contact list to include organizations concerned with Chino and Puente Hills and include local elected officials.
There should be National Recreation Area status for the entire study area, including the river network and NPS participation, with the NRA extending down river communities to the Puente Hills, providing non-motorized recreation and job opportunities for urban residents to do work with federal and local agencies, too.
NPS should work with USFS and other organizations on a voluntary basis.
The focus of NPS and USFS is different; Interior Department versus Department of Agriculture. NPS administration would bring about substantial changes in management of natural resources.
Want NPS visibility.
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.
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.
Forest Service has existing Wilderness Plans - keep these plans intact.
Suggest a partnership with San Bernardino National Forest.
Would like as much NPS involvement as possible. NPS could: serve populations, develop streams, and protect wildlife corridors. Alternative B doesn't have NPS involvement. Would like a hybrid of alternatives B and C.
Bring opportunities/green space along the river, urban areas, and tributaries. Add the green stuff in Alternative B to Alternative C. Likes B because of local control.
Likes that NPS would be more involved in Alternative C. There are amazing areas. NPS could be involved in high use areas.

Important to work with local communities and organizations, such as city of Santa Clarita, SGV Green, Friends of the River. Their participation and support is critical to make something like this work.
Santa Monica Mountains NRA is a great model to follow.
NPS could fill the ANF land management gaps.
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.
Connect the two parts of the ANF, connect other areas to the west (Rim of the Valley). ANF is the hub, with habitat connectors that need to go out in all directions. Like tinker toy hub & sticks.
Value NPS experience in public education and outreach. Would like to have NPS involved in partnerships to help other organizations with outreach, education, developing interpretive materials, etc.
Integrate management of ANF & NPS, while retaining USFS management authorities.
Would like a hybrid of Alternatives A & C - NPS and ANF working together can be positive and effective.
Likes the “finger network” in alternative B – would like a similar network for this region (North Slope). For a similar network, the agencies, organizations, and other partners should include:

City of Santa Clarita
City of Palmdale
MRCA
DMCA
Mojave RCD (Resource Conservation District)

Alternative A provides protection for a larger area:

Would like a research learning center
Like the management structure in Alternative C – partnership
Would like increased federal funding

There is a huge spirit of volunteerism in the area:

Need opportunities, including trail maintenance
Large part of funding comes from volunteers and the time they put in
Need agency supervision and training

Likes the management components of Alternative C

Need to bring federal agencies together
Provide trails and services
Need safe and sane management

Likes the map (area) in alternative A because it includes west side of the mountains; alternative C doesn’t include the North Slope, but like the NPS management component in the alternative:

Have condors in the area; coordination with Ventana Wilderness, would like a condor viewing area
Would like improved access to the forest and picnic areas
Campgrounds have been closed; the forest needs funding for this

It's a good fit for NPS to work with RMC.
The Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior have different philosophies.
Situation with the Elsmere Canyon is the result of the lack of coordination between agencies; would not like this situation to spread to the North Slope area if the area is not included in a [NRA] boundary.
The Forest Service doesn't pay attention to safety issues.
The Forest Service has done a horrific job at the campgrounds.
Run with a minimum of bureaucracy.

Mountains are the headwaters of several major rivers- this is a major resource - deserves special attention. USFS is a multiple-use (ranching, farming, etc) this may not be the best use of headwaters are would like to see land use incompatible with the purpose of the mountains (headwaters/benefits) excluded. Department of Agriculture is not the best department to manage these values.
USFS not protected from development pressure - NRA legislation should add protections against development that would be antithetical to the purpose of the NRA. Any development should go through NEPA.
Alt A should have NPS management - the NPS provides a certain quality experience. Drawbacks - it has to be funded.

The land comes first - stewardship should be collaborative, not just USFS. Also support preservation of Native American practices.
Like that NPS can bring emphasis and funding for stewardship, including connectivity of lands. Need help in acquiring.
Collaboration in C is great. Concerned about vendors, contractors, etc. Losing oversight/accountability.
USFS blocking off parking, dirt roads, etc. and reducing access, especial for equestrians and trailers.
Concerned about legislation and omission or getting rid of horses/trails. Don't like USFS and how it manages.
B is too loose. There's nothing to hold it together - would need oversight. NPS involvement is important.
Most useful - Alts w/ NPS role in recreation/education. NPS's strengths. ANF is a recreational forest - NPS planning and execution would be preferable.
Standardize management.
Likes C for bringing in NPS.
Alternative C = limit bureaucracy, concern with getting things done.
NPS does an excellent job with educational aspects.

I recommend that a San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area ensure that the National Park Service partners with local community based organizations in the services area to help engage, education, and provide services to our communities in regards to this NRA, while maintaining the NPS as the lead agency directing all efforts. I recommend that a San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area address in detail how the partnership between the US Forest Service and National Park Service will address some of the poor recreation conditions we experience when visiting the San Gabriel River.
The Department of Fish and Game recognized the amount of time and effort in this study process and recommends that we become a partner as the planning process proceeds when fish, wildlife, vegetation, research, and recreation issues are considered. The Department of Fish and Game supports the concept of increased wildlife and vegetation research and monitoring in the proposed area but respectfully requests that we have an equal place at the planning table with other agency resource management staff. 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 looks forward to working with the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources with a focus on these stressors.
It is also of paramount importance that the management of these lands is spearheaded by NPS, in cooperation with other local public agencies. WCCA's experience is that the most effective and flexible way to acquire, manage, and preserve public open space lands is through the cooperative effort of interested public agencies with a common set of goals. We believe that NPS's leadership and expertise in this area would prove to be invaluable. We applaud the National Park Service's recognition of the biological importance of both the San Gabriel Mountains and the Puente-Chino Hills. WCCA takes this position in recognition of the limitations of existing law preventing NPA from interfering with local control pertaining to land use and water resources (including conservation and management) in a NRA. WCCA urges Congress to reaffirm these protections in any statute authorizing a NRA.
The Districts own and operate (or are in the process of constructing) several solid waste facilities that fall within the study area. These facilities include PHLF, the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility, the (future) Puente Hills Intermodal Facility, the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer facility, and South Gate Transfer Station. These facilities constitute critical infrastructure at the local terminus of a regional disposal system that will provide solid waste management for the region for the next century. The imposition of additional federal regulations may impact the Districts' ability to provide solid waste management.
We encourage the development of a new alternative that combines the following elements of the three current alternatives, with some modifications, to the extent practicable: A leading role for the National Park Service in coordinating management throughout the San Gabriel watershed and providing educational and interpretive services (as outlined in Alternative C). We encourage the development of a new alternative that combines the following elements of the three current alternatives, with some modifications, to the extent practicable: An extended network of parks, habitats, and open spaces linked to the National Recreation Area that includes all San Gabriel Valley communities south of the Angeles National Forest that voluntarily agree to participate (building upon Alternative B)
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.
The US Forest Service has been destroyed by congressional politics over the last 20 years. It has been de-funded (except for fire) and no longer has the ability to do its job. Congress ideally would adequately fund the US Forest Service and the National Forests, however since it has recently been unable to do this, creating a San Gabriel Mountains NRA sounds like the next best idea.
The NRA should be cooperatively managed by the Forest Service, National Park Service, and other local agencies, and it should also include local parks and public open space areas along the San Gabriel River outside the National Forest boundaries. This will help connect urban communities to the forest and the entire watershed.
A National Recreation Area (NRA) should include all of the area historically considered to be part of the San Gabriel Mountains and all of the watershed study area outside of the national forests and with the management structure in 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 biggest mistake made by the forest service is the ridiculous mismanagement of those in charge of the station fire, a fire which I strongly believe should have never been allowed to cross the Angeles crest highway and I also strongly believe could have EASILY been prevented from crossing that road but I've seen this lack of attitude about putting fires out before. The approach by some is too slack, too slow to react and for some reason, there is a lack of real concern about possible outcome. Now it will be years before this forest ever recovers and some of it never will be the same due to this mismanagement by those who should not have been in charge. If any project management is to be created, it is important that those doing the duties are those who are as concerned about the Angeles forest as we were. We did a great job and since then, the forest areas that I worked have fallen into disrepair because no official people are inspecting these sites anymore; they haven’t for several years now.

If anyone is to "lead," they need a direction. Sustainable civilization, not crazed neo-con plans for overconsumption, corporate profiteering and total irresponsibility is the goal of that true leadership.
The Park Service is finding its resources to manage parks sorely lacking.
With your help and some funding the San Gabriel Mountains can become a National Recreation Area, supporting wildlife, habitat, and creating a great outdoor experience for visitors. Please help this great natural area survive and thrive for now and the future.
I would like to see the National Park Service play a lead role in conservation.
Greater involvement of the National Park Service in developing a thoughtful plan for all interests in the San Gabriel Mountains couldn't be timelier.
I would like to see the NPS play a lead role in conserving the San Gabriel Watershed.
Leave nature to nature! We humans always mess everything up; that's why we are in such trouble now.
Please recommend to Congress to create a San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area and include: a leadership role for the National Park Service in coordinating the management of the NRA. I would like to see the National Park Service play a lead role in conserving the San Gabriel Watershed. The designation of a San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area (NRA) with the involvement of the National Park Service would provide additional resource protection, improved recreational opportunities, and enhanced educational and interpretive programs for children and adults by involving America's lead land management agency, the National Park Service.
We would also like to reiterate our concern regarding the potential for a future designation to impact water rights or local land use authority. For this reason, we request the following assurances as conditions for support of any recommended action for this study:

Protection of local water rights, preservation of our water supply (including use of adjacent lands to access that supply), and prevention of water contamination from recreational activities.
Provisions allowing private property owners, entities with water or sanitation facilities, and cities to "opt out" of any future designation.
Guarantees that any future designation would respect and abide by the General Plans and Zoning Ordinances of each City (and the County)

I see no need for any part of the Angeles National Forest to become a National Recreation Area. The US Forest Service managed the Forest appropriately under the multiple use standards. If they do have any problems managing certain aspects, (which, I believe was the concern that led to this study being authorized in the first place), it is due to years of appropriations cut-backs. Bringing another bureaucracy in, to "help" manage the Forest is not the answer.
Creating a National Recreation Area at the proposed scale allows for the most flexibility in funding and operations for the National Park Service's (NPS) administration of the Recreation Area. There are agreements allowed under the federal code that allow for funds to flow to projects that are within or adjoining the boundary of a Park Unit/Recreation Area. This would certainly be advantageous to the state and local agencies and non-profits that have on going and future projects in this area. The RMC, WCA, USFS, Cities and other agencies and organizations with land and interests in the area would continue to manage their own land. Specifically, the upper watershed would continue to be operated by the USFS. In the lower portion of the watershed the operation and maintenance would continue with the existing owners. The members of this partnership would work through the partnership to develop and implement a comprehensive management strategy for the watershed's natural and cultural resources, public access and recreation opportunities, as well as interpretive and educational opportunities. The partnership would also develop a voluntary program throughout the rest of the watershed that would allow existing conservation and recreation-oriented sites to offer coordinated interpretation and information. Water and flood protections would continue to be managed by those currently responsible. Alternative B is the creation of a park and open space network whose focus is to connect urban neighborhoods, mountains and rivers within a broader watershed (see Exhibit A for map on page6). It is a loose collaboration of local, state and federal entities that are focused on land management, recreation and conservation. It calls for the National Park Service to be active in the partnership for a five year period. This alternative would enable the current park, open space and recreation efforts a platform and a period time to work together with a larger purpose; it would not provide structure or funding to continue the partnership into the future.
After considerable review of these alternatives, the Forest recommends developing an alternative that combines elements from all three alternative concepts. The Forest's recommendations are only for Forest System lands administered by the Angeles National Forest. We are committed to being a partner with other governmental agencies and conservation organizations should the NRA designation be expanded to other lands within the study area. The purpose for this partnership would be to protect, maintain, and enhance watersheds for open space, recreational use, and for habitat and species conservation. The new alternative would encompass the following: 1. Description of Concept: SG Mountains NRA boundary (from Alt. A). The Forest would be a willing participant in the development of a park and open space network within the study area through a formal partnership of federal, state, and local land management agencies, along with recreation and conservation organizations. A comprehensive plan for a connected system of parks and open space would be created under the partnership, detailing coordinated management strategies to protect and enhance natural resources, cultural resources, recreation, and access. The partnership would coordinate interpretive and educational messaging throughout the network. This partnership would serve as a model for future efforts in other areas such as the Santa Clara River and Antelope Valley (from Alt. B). 2. Management Structure: A formal partnership would be created to develop and implement a coordinated and comprehensive management strategy for the watershed. Each partner, including the USFS, would retain all of its land ownership, management, and decision-making authorities. Water and flood protection would continue to be managed by those currently responsible (from Alt. C). The new alternative would encompass the following: 3. NPS Role: The NPS would take the lead role in the coordination of the partnership, including providing technical, planning, and administrative services. The NPS would be authorized to enter into interagency agreements with the other NRA partners, in order to share resources and manage the NRA efficiently. For example, through interagency agreements, the NP S could provide educational, interpretive and other services, including providing "river rangers" along the river corridor (from Alt. C). The NPS would operate a California Mediterranean Research Learning Center satellite office in the study area. Opportunities for collaboration with the San Dimas Experimental Forest would be explored (from Alt. B). 4. Funding: Lands within the NRA would remain under their control jurisdictions, with each land management agency continuing to fund their own operations. The NPS would receive federal funding for its administrative, educational, and interpretive roles. The partnerships could establish a fundraising organization or be a coordinating body for existing grant programs. The partnership could leverage funds from a variety of sources (e.g. state bonds, Land & Water Conservation Fund) to increase and prioritize funding for projects in the NRA and strategic acquisitions (from A lt. C). We believe that this new alternative would provide the most benefits emphasizing partnerships, recreation, environmental education, open space, and protection of natural resources. The devastating effects from the recent Station fire make it even more imperative that communities and other governmental land agencies within the study area seriously consider the importance of working together for the creation and protection of open space and recreational opportunities.
Preliminary Alternative Concept B proposes to create a San Gabriel Parks and Open Space Network managed by "a partnership of land management agencies, conservation organizations, and recreation interests." Any NPS designation or inclusion of any properties in such a "network" proposed to be governed under such a vague management structure leads to significant local land use concerns. All land use decision-making authority should remain that. of the local agency without exception or interference.
Land management responsibility and decision-making should be made at the local level where officials have a clear understanding of community and resource needs. The cities in the 42nd Congressional District, which I represent, have worked hard to address the challenges associated with the rapid pace of growth in our region, including finding innovative solutions to manage future development, alleviate traffic congestion, and preserve open space. Local governments are in the best position to make decisions regarding land use within their boundaries and I am opposed to any federal action that conveys the perception that this authority might compromise the ability and authority of individual communities to effectively manage population growth.
Due to the state of our economy, there is a concern that long term funding and plan sustainability could be at risk. A number of agencies would need to work together in order to achieve the alternative plans, and therefore, all of those agencies would need to be fiscally sound. The concern would remain with regards to long term funding and financial stability for all agencies involved. The most valuable aspect of the proposed plans is that existing agencies will continue to maintain their own land/resources and there will not be a recommendation to pursue eminent domain. Furthermore, it's beneficial to know that each concept respects existing property rights, jurisdictions, and authorities.
The management structure envisioned in Alternative C is superior to the other alternatives. This approach would implement a comprehensive management program for the NRA that would best allow the NPS to carry out its vision of expanding recreational and educational opportunities to all of the nearby residents. The NPS has a long history of emphasis in providing quality visitor services that embody educational programs and facilities required when large numbers of people utilize an area. The larger area with the more robust management structure would allow for more flexibility in funding and operations for the NRA.
The Task Force is excited about the prospect of national recognition for what we believe is one of the largest untapped opportunities in the nation. It would provide quality recreational and educational opportunities for the larger Southern California region. The National Park Service is extremely popular for its professional tradition of preservation of natural landscapes and interpretive relationships with visitors. Assigning the name "National Park Service" to facilities would, in itself, heighten awareness of the value of naturally significant resources in the minds of the public. We also believe it can bring back to the San Gabriel Mountains the concept of public use, as exhibited in the Santa Monica Mountains NRA, and in contrast with the "parking permit" system of the National Forest. 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.
Improving or increasing wildlife corridor connections must be undertaken with thoughtful planning and a clear understanding of the potential risks from increased human-wildlife interactions - to both human and animal health. Our district should be involved with such planning efforts within the urban matrix. This district is charged under the California Health & Safety Code with protecting public health from vector-borne disease. Our service area includes 260 square miles of urban San Gabriel Valley within the Study Area. Any potential project, restoration effort, ownership change, or use designation has the potential to impact our ability to prevent human disease in these areas and coordination with our agency is critical. This agency must be an involved partner in future planning decisions where aquatic habitat management is at issue.
The management structure of the NRA would be similar to what was proposed in the three alternatives, in that land management agencies, such as the Forest Service and state and local parks departments, would continue to own and manage their lands. Additional areas, however, could be acquired and managed by the National Park Service.
There should be special mention of the rights of access to those cabins. Any roads that exist to them should be allowed to continue to be used. Finally, specific mention should be added stating that all such cabins should continue to be administered exclusively by the U. S. Forest Service in the same way Recreation Residence Permits are administered in all other National Forests. It is the Forest Service who has the expertise in this area, as the Park Service removed all cabins developed under a similar program many years ago. They did not value their recreation use then, and there is resulting great distrust of the Park Service on the part of our members.
The draft report should analyze the prospective economic value of an NRA to communities adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains. It should include figures on job creation and identify opportunities for green jobs, especially serving for historically under represented populations. The indirect benefits should illustrate the increase in tourism spending, improved property values for adjacent communities and forecast job creation by attracting new business. Much research has been done on the positive economic impacts of protecting open space. The NPS study team should further document the many cooperative projects the NPS successfully manages with other agencies such as the Forest Service and California State Parks. It should also document the viewpoints of cities within NPS jurisdictions, such as the city of Malibu, which is in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The draft report should explore the possibility of a San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area including additional communities adjacent to San Gabriels outside of the watershed study area, such as Los Angeles (Tujunga Canyon), Santa Clarita (the Placerita Canyon Nature Center), and Antelope Valley cities such as Palmdale. The NRA proposal should address how cities and other entities outside the formal NRA boundaries could participate in NRA planning and have their communities benefit from the national recreation area. The San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation area proposal should detail how the National Park Service and the Forest Service will partner together to improve recreational conditions along the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel River is a gateway for thousands of mainly working-class Latino families who visit the river's east and west forks each year. Improved basic facilities and staffing, including more restrooms, access trails, picnic sites, interpretative signs and rangers who speak Spanish would improve public safety and quality of the visitor experience. It would also improve water quality and fishing by reducing the amounts of trash, sewage, graffiti and user-created dams in and along the San Gabriel River. We suggest that all alternatives developed for the Draft Report include a national recreation area since there seems to be little public interest in the voluntary management structure in Alternative B, which proposes no NRA and which is unlikely to have much more impact than no action at all. We believe that the public meetings demonstrated broad support for the maximum public benefit national recreation area concept and we ask that it become one of the alternatives presented in the Draft Report. We ask that it be the preferred alternative when one is developed. The new alternative we recommend would feature the management structure in Alternative C which offers major support from the National Park Service. NPS would take the lead role in the formal partnership that would manage the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area. This management model would allow for bold new approaches to chronically underfunded concentrated use areas such as those along the San Gabriel River. A National Recreation Area could be transformative, leading to new interpretive services and public education programs where the National Park Service excels. The management partnership vision in Alternative C is the only one we think likely to bring in significant new recreational resources and staff to supplement the historically 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 that an NRA bringing National Park Service experience and funding to the region would greatly improve recreational opportunities within the forest and encourage even greater enjoyment and appreciation of its resources by the large urban population that the San Gabriels serve.
The San Gabriel plan should set standards to measure progress and equity and to hold public officials accountable. The San Gabriel plan should incorporate New Deal goals and programs to create local green jobs through Civilian Conservation Corps-type programs, including jobs for youth of color and low income youth, while improving parks and recreation and promoting the diverse values at stake.
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.
We urge acceptance of the management envisioned in Alternative C as this will allow a more comprehensive approach to the complex and varied entities, uses and biology of the area. This more robust presence of the National Park Service would be a welcome addition in terms of funding opportunities and expertise.
The NPS name alone says respect for valuable resources and excellent recreational opportunities. The NPS is just the right agency to guide the management partnership of agencies and organizations with land interests in the area. The NPS would bring the resources and protection that would assure that the watershed would be maintained in perpetuity. The NPS has the resources and expertise to coordinate educational and interpretive activities for the park poor, densely populated, multicultural communities of the lower watershed.
We question the value of overlaying a new designation on the San Gabriel River and other waterways in the basin, many of which are already included in existing and proposed recreation and restoration plans, such as the Emerald Necklace and the Golden Necklace and which are already managed under plans that include the San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan and Common Ground: from the Mountains to the Sea. While we in principle approve of the concept elements that allow it to reach "beyond the forest boundary to protect connected habitats and educate people about the mountains" and allow the forest service to "coordinate a regional land management partnership," we believe the public needs far more information if we are to provide an informed evaluation of these elements.
There are currently dozens of community groups that utilize the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Gabriel River as sources of inspiration and education. In order to expand participation in such experiences, local communities themselves need to feel more connected to the natural landscape around them. The most logical step to facilitate such a goal is for the new NRA to form Natural History Education/Recreation Districts, organized in a collaborative manner by the Park Service, the Forest Service, and local conservation and education entities. 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.
We believe that it is imperative that land-use planning decisions be made at the local level. We are extremely concerned about the NPS's ability to use "eminent domain" or other land use and land development restrictions as part of the potential recommendations made as a result of the watershed study. The City of Chino Hills is concerned that the results of the study could ultimately be used to compromise our ability as a local government to decide what is best for our community. Land use management should be the responsibility of the local government without federal involvement, especially in this rapidly growing region.
The Study Area is a vast and diverse region that needs to be protected. The NRA designation would qualify for future federal funding and technical assistance and allow for the most administrative flexibility in the future. The involvement by the NPS will enable local entities to work together in a way that is not now possible. The developed alternative should be structured to permit the RMC, U.S. Forest Service, cities, County, and other agencies and organizations with land and facilities in the area to continue to manage and control their holdings. It is very important for the NPS to craft an alternative that recognizes the importance of local control while helping these entities work toward common goals. There are numerous roles and responsibilities already in place carried out by bodies such as water districts, special districts, cities, County, USFS, etc. Trying to supplant these groups would be an overwhelming task and quite unnecessary. The existing agencies should be treated like partners and their abilities viewed as resources by the NPS. The proposed alternative should establish an information sharing network led by the NPS to organize, consolidate, and distribute scientific information related to the Study Area and the region. The NPS has tremendous experience and resources when it comes to collecting and distributing information and scientific data. This source of knowledge and experience should be available to aid the Study Area which is within easy driving distance of 10 million people.
The nationally significant portions could be additions to the national park system when collaborated with existing land managers to protect natural and cultural resources, provide recreation, public access, and interpretation and educational opportunities. Technical and administrative assistance for conservation and recreational planning is feasible role for NPS. The National Park Service affiliation will help raise awareness of these resources in people's backyards and the importance of preserving them, resulting in increased respect and sensitivity for their intrinsic value. This expanded NRA will create opportunities for partnerships with NPS that currently do not exist such as with interpretation or technical assistance. A variation of Alternative C is the most valuable in terms of improving recreational opportunities and protecting significant resources. This variation would also include the Puente Hills as a part of a national recreation area (NRA). This idea is valuable because it adds a federal layer of protection to the significant natural resources identified in the study area and provides for their management when there is not a management entity in place.
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. Any efforts to add or increase federal agency jurisdiction or to expand recreational activities in the San Gabriel River watershed will pose a threat to the water supply upon which millions of residents and businesses, from Azusa to Long Beach, are heavily reliant.
If the NPS will take the lead role in the coordination of the efforts of the partnership including the educational, interpretive and the selling of the ideas of what a National Recreational Area is all about, I believe this concept could work. The Forest Service needs help in protecting the area and providing services to the public. The designation of a San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area would do wonders for recognition and help in seeing that this work will be done. I believe having the Partnership including the NPS, USFS and the other agencies and organizations (both public and private) will help bring it together. The areas have started to deteriorate due to the loss of funding and manpower (and overuse) and the new designation for the area will help bring in needed funds and what I hope will be a new era of local involvement.
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.
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). Over time, the USFS has eliminated the naturalist and interpretive specialist functions which has left education to willing individuals 'on the ground' and also volunteers. The broader recreation function is minimal. The management of a National Recreation Area should not be left in the hands of the USFS. Alternative A leaves the entire program up to the USFS. If the purpose of this alternative is to provide improved recreation, education and access to the Angeles National Forest, administration would need to greatly reprioritize its functions.
That you would have all the responsibility to be able to conserve the area as it was historically.
If you involve different organizations that would like to work, not manage.
Most valuable alternative. Alternative "A". It includes a larger portion of the Angeles National Forest. The management structure is not burdened by the participation of yet another bureaucracy (NPS would have no role), no fund-wasting "learning center" dacha.

It is my wish that the Forest Service continue to administer the area under consideration, rather than turn control over to the National Parks Service.
The USFS is already performing management of the San Gabriel National Forest and in recent years, under new local management, they are doing a good job.
The Forest Service has always listened to us and we feel very comfortable with the present arrangement.
There are recreational residences within the boundaries suggested for this National Recreation area. There are historic cabins in Big Santa Anita Canyon, currently under Special User permits. I feel that those should be permitted to remain and should be administered exclusively by the U. S. Forest Service in the same way Recreation Residence Permits are administered in all other National Forests. If the area must be converted to a National Recreation area, then any recommendations must clearly state that the area will be administered exclusively by the U. S. Forest Service, with no changes to the recreational residence permits and trail usage.
I support the Alternative A recommending a NRA for the San Gabriel Mountains watershed. I also support the management structure of Alternative C which has the NPS playing a leading role in management. Having a combination of these 2 alternatives would be my preferred option.
Emphasize NPS sponsorship: people have good impression of and pride in NPS. I like components of all three parts. I favor a hybrid that combines the extensive area of Alt. A: as much of the SG mountains as possible; the community and habitat connectors of Alt. B; and the comprehensive management and service components of Alt. C, especially the NPS involvement.
I don't know why NPS would want to work in an NRA where they own no land. I think the partnerships considered in Alt. B should be added to Alt. A so that USFS can solidify its partnerships. I recommend alternative A since so much land is currently owned and managed by USFS. I think they should be given additional support to expand their abilities.
Manage as NRA under NPS leading, along with FS and R MC, etc. This proposal includes more control over water and pollution. There are no upstream pollution sources. This proposal provides a "critical mass." Too limited a project vs. not economic. Put all three alternatives together.
I value the involvement of NPS-it adds a special level of attention to a resource, a quality "class," and prime interpretive abilities.
We feel there is no need for an additional layer of government to be involved in the San Gabriel Watershed or in the San Gabriel Mountains. We think the USFS is properly administering the Angeles National Forest, and any additional governmental involvement will result in unnecessary increased costs. Therefore, we think your study should recommend that no action be taken by Congress.
Management authority may benefit from multiple partners and stakeholders. This model has been successful in the Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, and Lake Tahoe Basin. Thus, restructuring the current management responsibilities would provide additional technical input and political support for a reformation of management strategies in the SGM that would benefit natural and recreation resources.
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?
Forest Service and/or NPS role should be strengthened as in A and C.
While receiving federal funds, assistance in developing, implementing and managing the San Gabriel Mountains and Watershed Recreation Area, I am concerned about the ability of local agencies to maintain control. I think the better option would be a hybrid of the best parts of the three plans. Alternative A: recognizes the special character of our mountains and watershed as not only a nationally significant natural resource but also a habitat connector between neighboring wilderness's Castaic Mountains, Santa Monica Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains. Alternative B: recognizes the national significance of the Puente-Chino Hills, its rare native plant communities, biologically diverse wildlife habitat and offers protections to our hills and the San Gabriel River. Alternative C: recognizes the invaluable assistance the National Park Service can offer in developing, implementing and managing this very valuable recreational, wilderness and watershed national treasure. We have a perfect example of this kind of management in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreational Area.
I would like NPS to have a role in the entire area. We need NPS resources and expertise. Alternatives B and C are too small.
I would like the federal agency to handle all the land of the area. I believe it being managed by federal agencies is much better than with local. You never know what local council member will plan.
The Study takes an area that is managed by the Forest Service with the multiple-use concept, and converts it to a more restrictive land management concept.
I don't see why the NPS would be involved. There are multiple agencies now to oversee the area in question, why would adding one more change things?
Alternatives B & C increase Bureaucracy.
I am in support of preserving the mountains and think this can best be accomplished by alternative A, management of San Gabriel Mountains NRA by the USFS. This area is so vast and varied that a true NPS presence does not seem feasible. However, NPS association is important so that the area can receive more funding to protect significant resources within the mountains.
We do not need more unfunded collaborative partnerships - we have plenty. On the other hand, a commitment by the feds to join our partnerships and even bring funding would be very welcome. I particularly do not like Alternative B.

A NRA should include the management structure in Alternative C in which the National Park Service takes the lead in creating a partnership between the Park Service and the Forest Service (which would continue to manage the San Gabriel Mountains).
Alternative C would benefit from added resources supplied by the National Park Service, but the Forest Service would retain its authority to manage national forest lands in the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area. A partnership is needed between the National Park Service and the Forest Service (which would continue to manage the San Gabriel Mountains).

I'm not sure how you do any of this without putting yet another layer of bureaucracy in place. Who needs that?
I support the NPS "Leading the coordination of the partnership and providing technical, planning and administrative services." The NPS clearly has more resources available to them than the ANF, and having the NPS take the lead would hopefully result in much needed improvement(s).
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.
Feasibility of adding a new National Recreation Area to the national park system appears valid. The arguments make clear that the NPS would act as a coordinating agency, and by no means would it be responsible for drastic changes in management practice. There are many players. With the Park Service actively engaged in the region, a tight and well-defined San Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains NRA will be a highly prized addition to the national park system. With the help of the NPS, much could be accomplished in terms of realizing sought-after protection for irreplaceable natural and historic landscapes. It's important to recognize the importance of bringing the National Park Service into the region. The Park Service brings funding, management expertise, and most importantly, personal, to help improve recreational opportunities and protect significant resources within the region.

It really doesn't matter which agency looks after the forest, as long as it is looked after.
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.
National Park signage would garner more respect from the general public and this is important.
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 am a bit concerned about the "partnership" and "collaboration" aspects of the proposals. These aspects would have to be carefully detailed out so that it is clear where the lines of authority are and so that the end result is protection of the land and conservation of the plants and animals.
I realize that the entire area would be too unwieldy for management by the National Park Service but I don't see why the Angeles National Forest part of the area could not be managed as a National Park. This area is constantly under threat for development and overuse and would greatly benefit from National Park protection.
I support a combination of the proposals. I like the structure of Alternative C as far as funding and management but would like to see it covering a greater area such as that proposed in Alternative A. Alternative C includes a robust community recreation network, maximum support from the NPS, new resources to manage an NRA, and a collaborative partnership. Alternative A includes the maximum amount of the San Gabriel Mountain range.
I think that a combination would provide additional funding and opportunities to better manage the area. We need improved hiking trails, restroom and picnic facilities, more and better signage for historical areas such as the Mt Lowe railroad and Echo Mountain, better surveillance and security for vandals and litterers and more public education on endangered species that frequent the area such as the California Condor. These things can be better accomplished if NPS is a partner.

My concerns with the cooperative alternatives are whether this has worked well in other areas of the country, and whether the NPS has helped to prevent friction between the various groups involved.
Cooperation between the NPS and the USFS would provide more resources to enable more adequate educational and recreational activities to be supported.
I recommend a closer working relationship between the agencies responsible for the study area and the Environmental Analysis/Science programs at the local colleges and universities. I favor alternative A in which the USFS would retain responsibility for the management of the proposed national recreation area.
The alternative A is the most significant, suitable, feasible for LA County and So Cal – compared to scope and significance of Santa Monica Mountains. Equity and comparability. However, much is to be desired among your selection, lobbying, and choices among "potential managers." With the current economic downturn, now is not the best time to be shaping long-term management entrenchment, nor decision-making. Better and wiser care of our natural resources is and should be our top priority for the County, for the water, watershed, habitats, biodiversity, headwaters, mountains, and collective regional source outlined in Alternative A. Our health and future in LA County depend on it!
The Forest Service should definitely continue to manage wildland fires with support from the county fire departments and NPS. Public abuse of the forest needs more extensive control.
More people in the forests would require more control and more search and rescue teams. NPS must be prepared to provide the resources required.
San Antonio Canyon Town Hall would like to open a dialog with the study panel to get beyond the vagueness and talk about "real timeline" and what sorts of "on the ground" changes we might expect to see from this program should all or parts of it be implemented. We feel that as in holders, we deserve a more thorough and expeditious explanation of the realities of this study than the general public.
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!

San Gabriel Mountains and Watershed Special Resource Study			National Park Service
Comments by Code