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

<< Back to Comment Summary

Proposals for a New Alternative

 

  • Support Alternative C. Management and expertise of the NPS. It should be much bigger - entire mountain range and communities.
  • Alternative A is more comprehensive but like Alternative C’s focus on the watershed, educational materials, and programs. Apply C focus to Alternative A.
  • Maximum Alternative - Would like the management plan in Alternative C with maximum involvement of the NPS resources and funds. Would like to add the geography of the forest/San Gabriel Mountains FWY 14 all the way to FWY 15 and the San Bernardino National Forest. Better linkages for Santa Clarita and surrounding areas to the forest. Connect by trails and transportation. NRA = part of plan.
  • Separate the watersheds as two separate areas within larger maximum watershed with separate resources and separate funding.
  • Need Tujunga NRA with a recreation and wildland focus.
  • Want more NPS involvement, like in C, with the whole territory in A.
  • Like the geographic area of Alternative A - also include Santa Clarita, San Antonio Creek, Antelope Valley, Cucamonga Creek, and Lytle Creek.
  • I like a combination of Alt. C and A. The San Gabriel Mountains have a lack of resources, e.g. rangers, trail building, trash pick-up, more education.
  • Support separating Tujunga Watershed. Too often ignored in these types of planning studies.
  • Chance to be a National Monument = protected wilderness.
  • Prefer a combination of B and C.
  • Like Alternative C - but it is not big enough. Needs to include all of the San Gabriel Mountains and watershed.
  • Alt A and B added to C -Adding Coyote Hills to Ocean.
  • Likes Alternative C plus inclusion of the Puente-Chino Hills.
  • 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.
  • 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 funds: USFS doesn't have enough funds alone. Need NPS funds.
  • 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.
  • Want to see a hybrid between Alternatives A and C (combine boundaries into larger area).
  • Would like to see a new alternative that would combine the land areas identified in Alternatives A and B, but with the management proposed for Alternative C.
  • Like Option C- area should be expanded as in "A." Management like in "C" - not like the lack of management in B.
  • Land area in A is preferred management structure of C is preferred.
  • Support C overlapping A - important to protect watersheds, drinking water comes from parks, part of the reason why Yellowstone was designated. Anytime you can protect a watershed - you should.
  • Combine C with A to bring NPS interpretation into forest and additional funding for facilities
  • From a local point of view, Alternative A is good b/c it affects our area plus add NPS, amenities, programming and assistance from C.
  • Likes the map (area) in Alternative A because it includes west side of mountains; Alternative C doesn't include the North Slope, but likes 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.
  • Would like a combination of the map in Alternative A (include all of the San Gabriel Mountains) the management and funding structures of Alternative C make the most sense
    • How would this affect the NEPA process? Could it speed it up?
    • Would like to maintain recreation access for a variety of user groups
    • Would like more funding
  • Likes Alternative A for the area coverage and the management structure in Alternative C.
  • Would like a hybrid of Alternatives A and C - NPS and ANF working together can be positive and effective.
  • Prefer the management structure of Alt C with the largest possible land area, and connections to the urban communities along the San Gabriel River.
  • Look for solutions where everyone wins - clean water, education, recreation.
  • Would like to see Alternatives A and C combined. All of the USFS lands should be designated an NRA. There should be better protection of the forest in general.
  • Combine all three alternatives.
  • Combine all three alternative concepts to obtain more funding and distribute among the NPS, USFS, and other agencies and organizations to provide more opportunities for recreation.
  • Combine Alternatives A and C and include the Puente Chino Hills.
  • Combine all three alternatives but make sure that the organizations involved consider the community needs. Need provide opportunity for input during implementation.
  • I prefer a combination of Alternatives A and C. Land management should be by both the NPS and the USFS.
  • Combine all three - provide more services.
  • Likes comprehensiveness of Alternatives A and C. Make Alternative C bigger to include a broader geographic area. Take Alternative A as an example and extend to include the Cucamonga Wilderness.
  • Suggestion of a hybrid alternative involving connections - habitat connector to Castaic and Santa Monica Mountains. Alternative B connects the Puente-Chino hills. Hub of connecting - regional. Alternative C would facilitate this type of connection; representatives would pick and choose.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • None of the alternatives appear to do enough on their own. The best alternative would be a hybrid of all three alternatives. The expanse of the study area is appreciated.
  • One participant supported the alternative that includes Angeles National Forest and the river areas that extend south from the mountains (Alternatives A and C). Technical assistance and financial resources are needed. USFS needs more funding for recreation.
  • Favors Alternative C for uses in area of flatlands, incorporate Emerald Necklace by bringing in NPS.
  • Prefer a combination of Alternatives A and C.
  • 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.
  • Idea that these are not a series of alternatives; but rather a series of stages. i.e. headwaters in Nat'l recreation area.
    • Land
    • Partners
    • NRA. Reference, "Reconnecting Study".
  • Want combo of all 3 alternatives because USFS area is now very congested with only one access.
  • Number 1 concern = conservation at the forefront of this plan. Prefers land area protection of Alt A, likes C for multi-use areas (parks in urban areas). Provide a range of different kinds of protection and use.
  • Alternative C, and land in Alternative A, good connection to Whittier Narrows.
  • Alternative B with education centers of C.
  • Land in Alternative A, with community partnerships.
  • Alternative B with cites to southeast (Huntington Park).
  • Alternative A and C, extend study area to the southeast.
  • Like the land in Alternative A and Alternative C because of education centers, extended to the southeast.
  • Alternative A is not inclusive enough; add all the community programs from B and C.
  • Combine B and C, field trips for youth.
  • Alternative A, plus resource sharing of B and C.
  • Space in A/involvement in B.
  • Conservation and education of Alt C w/ area of A and B. Want connections to waterways and Puente Hills and Santa Ana watershed.
  • Combine Alternatives A and B together with Alternative C management.
  • Alternative A+C - Recreation area, also includes more land together.

·        Alternative C - why weren't the tributaries included? Also why weren't the Puente Chino Hills included?

·        Add B and C areas together as another alternative to best incorporate rivers, mountains and tributaries.

·        Alternative C with NPS involvement and include larger boundaries of A and B.

·        Alternative C and NPS and larger San Gabriel boundaries, including Cucamonga.

  • Alternative A = Area/ Alternative C = brings more parties together.
  • Combine Alternatives A and C.
  • Supports Alternative C, with area of A.
  • Combination of A and C
    • Interagency cooperation w/ USFS and NPS for managing the river areas, wants restoration
    • River rangers
    • Trash clean up
    • Education/info where trails/recreational opportunities are
    • Little Rock creek - portion is accessible
    • Low impact, healthy recreation at Little Rock Creek. Education of this (NPS and USFS)
  • Likes A for land, C for Funding - recreation and education.
  • A for amount of land, C for management/oversight.
  • For Antelope Valley, A is best but like the access and watershed in B and C. Would address nature deficit.
  • We believe that a fourth alternative that incorporates the entire Study Area into a new National Recreation Area (NRA), managed in accordance with the framework outlined in Alternative Concept C, would provide the maximum public benefit. The existing public open space and currently unprotected lands in the Study Area represent some of the most important natural habitat in an otherwise densely populated urban and suburban environment. This more inclusive approach would not only provide significant recreational opportunities to an even broader population, but also would allow for the preservation of invaluable wildlife corridors between pockets of habitat that are in danger of being permanently isolated.
  • I feel that a combination of the alternatives you presented would be more useful. The area encompassed by alternative A plus the lower sections of the river in alternative B would make a broader National Recreation Area. It would allow the protection/management of the entire forest/watershed as a whole.
  • Of the alternatives presented, I prefer Alt A - creating a NRA out of the Angeles National Forest with the management plan proposed in Alt C - coordinated meeting between NPS and USFS. 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. An even better concept would be to make a larger NRA that combines Alt A and Alt C, with the management plan proposed in Alt C. This would provide more recreational opportunities to a much larger and diverse population areas.
  • 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.
  • The Park Service's role in the new San Gabriel Watershed NRA, as outlined in Alternative C, is my preferred role for the Park Service. The expanse of land defined by the new San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area, as described by Alternative A, is a good beginning. I urge the Park Service to adopt a modified alternative, combining the best elements of Alternative C, with the land under management proposed under Alternative A. I'd really love option "B" if you'd include making it a National Recreation Area (NRA). Extending the designation to NRA would really help with the protection of the area and increase the opportunities for funding future improvements. Congress will go for it. A National Recreation Area (NRA) study 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. I agree with the San Gabriel Mountains Forever campaign that supports a combination of the best of the study group’s Alternatives A and C, having the maximum amount of the Angeles National Forest in the NRA as in the study group's Alternative A with the National Recreation Area and community recreation network presented in Alternative C.
  • I favor a combination of provisions from Alternative A and Alternative C. From Alternative A - put a maximum amount of the Angeles National Forest in the National Recreation Area. From Alternative C - create the National Recreation Area and community recreation network as presented in this alternative.
  • I feel that the laud reflected in Alt. A and the management proposal in Alt. C would be most beneficial to the Santa Clarita area as well as the other bordering communities.
  • 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.
  • The main proposal seems better than any of the alternatives.
  • I'd like to see more of San Gabriel Mtns (Alt. A) (North part) incorporated into Alt. B or vice versa.
  • First, what is needed is a wild animal refuge. The U.S. Congress created the Angles Forest Protection Area in the late 1800s to assure a maximum water outflow from the San Gabriel Mountains. None of the presented alternatives suggested by the park service will increase the water flow in the late spring or summer. Second, change the name of the Angeles NF to the Angeles Water Protection Area. The legislation in the late 1800s ended homesteading in the San Gabriel Mountains. This allowed the developed valleys downstream to utilize the outflow. Creating winter recreation areas (such as ski areas with snowmaking) delays the runoff from precipitation thus increasing the downstream flow in the late spring and summer when it is needed.
  • I would like to request you consider having the largest area, as shown in Map A be combined with the management scope offered in Alternative C. Especially after the devastating Station fire, this level of management would insure that the recovering forest vegetation, wildlife, and water resources are protected and enhanced to the maximum level possible while mapping out trails and use areas for the future.
  • 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 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 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.
  • The incredible value of the West Coyote Hills as a recreational area is detailed by Dr. Travis Longcore in his March 3, 2008 51-page-long Technical Review of the West Coyote Hills, which I've attached. Dr. Longcore is Research Professor at the University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities, and Lecturer for the UCLA Institute of the Environment. Dr. Longcore is regarded in scientific circles as a foremost authority on coastal sage scrub communities, which is what makes up the West Coyote Hills property. Please study the attached report of Dr. Longcore, and then follow the recommendation of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy; make the West Coyote Hills a National Recreation Area.
  • None of the alternatives are appropriate as an initial offering. Therefore, the best alternative would be for the NPS to assist in developing recreational areas Outside the National Forest. E.g. in the southern portion of alternative 'B'.
  • A combination of Alternatives B & C would both provide for resource management of the most accessible portion of the Angeles National Forest watershed and allow the expanded network of the interconnected system which is most accessible to the Los Angeles basin population.
  • The selfish hiker in me likes the emphasis on trails and access in Plan A, the environmentalist in me likes the habitat and historic resource protection of Plan B along with its educational emphasis and the pragmatist in me likes the management and funding proposals of Plan C.
  • 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.
  • Not only would this alternative offer wildlife protection through greater connectivity but it would create much needed nearby wilderness-park recreational opportunities for residents throughout the greater Los Angeles basin. This particular place in America offers the NPS a unique opportunity to create something new, something needed and something important. It will be more difficult logistically, financially and I'm certain politically, but most really important ideas usually do require extra effort.
  • I support Alternative C with the inclusion of all the San Gabriel Mountains as in Alternative A.
  • 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. We support the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy's proposed alternative in their staff report dated September 21, 2009.
  • The City of Santa Fe Springs believes that there should be an alternative that covers the majority of the area under the auspices of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC). In addition, the alternative should allow for the largest potential benefits that can be derived from NPS involvement within the territory. Furthermore, the City believes that there are significant elements from each of the three alternatives that should be included in the final alternative.
  • 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.
  • We strongly support the establishment of a San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area (as in Alternative C), that includes the both the study area and the entire lower reach of the San Gabriel watershed to the Pacific Ocean. Our rivers for the most part are regarded as drainages with little recreational value. The concept (in Alternative B) of a recreational network along the river and its tributaries could be easily included in the NRA to enhance the parkland in these communities and provide education and recreation.
  • Hills For Everyone (HFE) strongly supports the establishment of a National Recreation Area (NRA) in this region of eastern Los Angeles County and not simply a "Network" of parks and open space. We have reviewed the three alternatives presented in Newsletter No. 4 of the Special Resource Study. While each provides different benefits, we believe that a better alternative might be developed that merges those strengths into an Alternative "D."
  • We believe this NRA should combine the best of the three alternatives presented to the public in 2009 to create a structure with the broadest geographical reach and the maximum support and participation of the National Park Service. The NPS would take the lead role in a partnership to manage the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area. This cooperative arrangement with the U.S. Forest Service and local entities outside the forest would offer the best structure for improving the quality of the public's recreational experience in the mountains and along the watershed while preserving natural resources.
  • Please create and recommend to Congress what we are calling the maximum public benefit alternative national recreation area that combines the best of the three alternatives and adds important features. This maximum public benefit alternative would provide the strongest framework for improving the quality of the recreational experience available to the public in the Angeles and western San Bernardino National Forests, creating additional opportunities for healthy recreation in the San Gabriels and better connecting adjacent communities to those opportunities. 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 new maximum public benefit alternative we advocate would include all of the territory historically considered to be part of the San Gabriel Mountains. This would include the national forest land between the I-14 on the west to the I-15 on the east. This vision represents an expansion of the landscape in Alternative A to include the section of the San Bernardino National Forest east of the watershed study area that contains heavily used Ice House Canyon, the Cucamonga Wilderness and Lytle Creek.
  • The NRA should include all of the San Gabriel Mountains as in A, with all the San Gabriel watershed areas as in B and the professional help of the National Park Service as described in C. We believe the NRA should also include the Puente-Chino Hills (Alternative B) and the addition of open space in the Montebello Hills. The latter includes a significant population of California gnatcatchers and other endangered species.
  • The Puente-Chino Hills Task Force strongly supports the development of a National Recreation Area (NRA) that would provide a much needed recreational/educational resource for the large urbanized population of the Los Angeles region. While each of the alternatives detailed in Newsletter #4 of the Special Resource Study provides separate specific benefits, we would encourage that the strengths of each alternative be combined into one alternative. Specifically we would recommend that the land included in the NRA be made up of all the land in each alternative. This would include all of the San Gabriel Mountains (including the North Slope), the San Gabriel Watershed, and the Puente-Chino Hills.
  • 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.
  • RMC staff proposes that there be an alternative that creates a National Recreation Area (NRA) that encompasses the entire study area (See Exhibit B) provided that it can be established consistent with many of the provisions which led to the formation of the RMC. Such language would first and foremost mandate consistency with local land use, water conservation, flood control and water quality mandates as may currently exist and are updated in the future. This would include appropriate provisions for landfills (there are currently two active landfills in the area), discharge facilities for reclaimed water, the flood control infrastructure, water conservation, water storage and others. This NRA option would also allow for the National Park Service to own and manage property which ultimately could benefit such Watershed Conservation Authority properties as the Duck Farm and Azusa River Wilderness Park. 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. The vision of the National Recreation Area would be to expand and protect the interconnected system of parks, habitats, and open spaces, connecting urban neighborhoods, mountains, and rivers within a broader ecosystem. Coordinated education and interpretation focuses on connecting people to the special resources and stories of their mountains and watershed. Access to recreational opportunities closer to home is increase and enhanced. Including the Angeles National Forest and the Puente Hills recognizes the special character of the San Gabriel Mountains and the associated foothills and hills in our region as a collection of nationally significant resources, a habitat connector, and an urban recreation area. Public awareness and appreciation of the mountains will be elevated through the increased and improved recreation, education and access. An information sharing network led by NPS would be established to organize, consolidate, and distribute scientific information related to the region. An urban satellite office connected to the California Mediterranean Research Learning Center at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area would provide research and educational opportunities to communities, universities, colleges and schools. Serving as a research facility as well as information dissemination point, this partnership would serve as a model for future efforts in other areas such as the north slope of the San Gabriel Mountains, the Santa Clara River and Antelope Valley.
  • We believe that a broader scope is needed in order to address the unique character of our region. For this reason, we support the recommendation that has been developed by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC), which would create a National Recreation Area that encompasses the entire study area. This would provide the greatest benefit to our region by expanding the opportunity for open space funding, technical assistance and coordination between agencies.
  • Los Angeles and the surrounding counties need a nature-oriented and conservationist recreational national park. This park could:
    • Develop educational programs to teach conservation of natural resources in urban areas.
    • It could reinforce water conservation education.
    • It could offer training programs to the schools in California.
  • The Alternative Maps should include the entire San Gabriel watershed. West Coyote Hills is mapped as part of the Chino-Puente Hills Important Bird Area, and all of the remaining open space there deserves protection as a natural area with access. Other remaining open spaces in the lower watershed are also important to preserve as natural areas, such as Montebello Hills. Coyote Creek should be restored to a natural condition as much as possible.
  • 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).
  • There are unique elements of all three alternatives that if combined, would have the greatest benefit for the public and natural resources of this area. 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 expansive National Recreation Area that includes as much of the National Forest land within the San Gabriel Mountains as possible (building upon Alternative A). 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). 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).
  • The San Gabriel plan should incorporate the mission statement of Manzanar National Historic Site. Manzana is a best practice example of how historic sites can celebrate diversity, democracy and freedom. The San Gabriel plan should provide for sites that preserve the stories and resources of diverse people for this and future generations. Sites should facilitate a park experience that weaves the stories of diverse people faithfully, completely and accurately. The San Gabriel plan should provide leadership for the protection and interpretation of diverse sites. The San Gabriel plan should stimulate and provoke a greater understanding of, and dialogue on, civil rights, democracy and freedom.