Significance and Suitability

 

• National significance - river infrastructure and river conservation.

• Show locally-designated areas (LA County's "Significant Ecological Areas") as being significant.
• Significant resources: Feel that the whole study area is significant, especially because of the huge population adjacent to it.
• Regarding significance findings:
• Puente-Chino Hills need to be considered; SEA status
• Flood Control Systems
• Tonga
• Chino Hills- ancient whale bones found there (area was once deep under the ocean)
• Areas of National Significance:
• Cucamonga Wilderness
• Puente-Chino Hills
• Visual backdrop is significant
• Mt. Wilson/ Mt. Baldy
• San Andreas Fault
• Wildlife

• Put a national designation over the Puente-Chino Hills since it is nationally significant - an important natural area and part of the watershed.
• National significance of Puente Hills/ Need to be brought in specifically. They tie in all of the linkages.
• Consider LA County Significant Ecological Areas and DFG's significant areas.

• 50 miles/11,000 feet rise in mountains.
• No glaciations in Ana, biodiversity high, many things ancient/very old.
• Citrus Industry and the Watershed.
• Would hate to see the Puente-Chino Hills left out; Significant Ecological Area and connection to Chino Hills State Park.
•  Connection to Whittier Hills and new potential Discovery Center at the hub of the Emerald Necklace; the Discovery Center could be an information center (Alternative C)

• There is general agreement with the significance findings.

• Harakmongna means "place where the people gather." So significant. Cultural center place where you can learn/share about resources, living with land. Also, trails are mainly old Native American trails to access Harakmongna.

• The City does not believe that the findings of the study for the Puente-Chino Hills area should be deemed "Of National Significance" or in the area of "Suitability" for inclusion into the NPS. Approximately 16,000 acres of the Chino Hills State Park is currently located within the City of Chino Hills and has preserved many natural resources such as the California walnut and coastal sage scrubs. This fact contradicts the NPS conclusions that the Puente-Chino Hills study area is suitable to be added to the National Park System because the area contains a unique and "the best remaining stands of California walnut-dominated forests and woodlands south of Ventura County." The City of Chino Hills does not believe that the Puente-Chino Hills study area contains a unique combination of themes and resources not found in other national parks or comparably protected areas, since the Chino Hills State Park already has similar habitat that is being protects.

• The types of plant and animal species the National Park Service uses to justify federal involvement in the Puente-Chino Hills already receive protection in existing parks and open space near the study area. For example, the coastal sage scrub receives protections at several local conservation projects including Chino Hills State Park, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Project, and the National Park Service's Solstice Canyon Project. In addition, Chino Hills State Park contains some of the areas largest stands of California walnut trees.
• We don't believe that NPS can support the finding that the Puente-Chino Hills area is "nationally significant" based on the stated NPS criteria. Newsletter #4 acknowledges that "this area is somewhat of an island of open space surrounded by urbanized areas". The Puente-Chino Hills area is indeed surrounded by urban uses, a fact that contradicts the NPS requirement that an area must "retain a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of a resource." In the case of Aera's property, nearly a century of continuous oil and cattle operations have altered the property, and extensive work will be required to remediate those impacts and restore the property to its natural biological function. This fact is not acknowledged or addressed anywhere in the NPS discussion. The size of the Puente-Chino Hills acreage within the study area is not provided in the newsletter, but the Santa Ana Mountains acreage appears to represent the lion's share of the total acreage recited. Since the Santa Ana Mountains are 10 miles distant from the Study area and are not proposed for inclusion in the NPS action, this acreage should not be included for purposes of meeting the "sufficient size" test of feasibility.
• First, we concur with your findings of national significance, suitability and feasibility. With regard to "Nationally Significant Resources," we would like to add one more piece to the story of this region. The Puente-Chino Hills in particular offer yet another interesting aspect to the history that has defined the development of this entire region - namely the discovery of oil, black gold. From its geologic origins as it relates to the Whittier- Elsinore Earthquake fault, to its uses by Native Americans, to its impact on the environment and the development of oil drilling technology, oil has helped define how we grow, how we travel, how we live, and the quality of the air we breathe. This piece of our history is worth understanding and interpreting.
• The determination that Puente/Chino Hills are nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the national park system is questionable. This is particularly true when considering that the "rare plant communities, including coastal sage scrub and walnut woodlands" found by NPS in the Puente/Chino Hills area, are, in fact, already publicly protected by the State of California in the 14,102 acre Chino Hills State Park.
• I'm glad you included the Pacific Electric Railway corridor as significant, but it appears as being outside the scope of further study. When it was at the peak, it was the largest electric transit railway system in the world with over 1100 route miles, many of which are in your boundaries.
• It was interesting to discover that the San Dimas Experimental Forest is deemed historically and scientifically significant. I think that it would benefit the communities in the San Gabriel Valley to recognize this, as well as other culturally significant places within the study area, such as La Casa Nueva in the City of Industry, and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic trail.

• I agree with the findings.
• I believe that, due to the impact of the station fire to a significant amount of the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest, the assumptions upon which the special resources study is based are no longer valid. Given the devastation wrought by the Station Fire (still ongoing), it seems that this plan has been rendered, by and large, moot. At least until an assessment of the damage wrought by the fire (and, certainly, by the subsequent debris flows come the rain) on the natural and developed resources can be done. The assumptions upon which the study was based are no longer valid- at least for most of the range west of Highway 39. Certainly, "close to home" recreational opportunities have been/will be drastically affected, and, no doubt, curtailed in a great many areas, not to mention the loss of habitat. River systems will be affected by the winter runoff, etc., etc. So, I propose that, come the spring, a new resource analysis be performed so that we can assess what remains, and then formulate policies accordingly.

·        This is a very valuable resource adjacent to very large population center. Potential benefit to cost ratio is very high. Easily equals value of Santa Monica NRA and merits comparable response.

·        Some of the language seems pretty overblown in its description of what is largely a lot of chaparral.

·        As the Puente-Chino Hills serves as the southern boundary of our community we are pleased to learn that the National Park Service in its San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act recognizes it as a nationally significant habitat resource. We support the comments on the preliminary alternatives in the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and urge the National Park Service to include our Puente-Chino Hills in the San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area.

·        The two areas contain a combination of themes and resources not found in any national park unit or comparably managed area.

·        The City believes that the preliminary findings regarding the purported "national significance" and "suitability" of the Puente-Chino Hills area for inclusion in the national park system that form the underlying basis for this alternative are not supported by the facts or consistent with established NPS criteria for evaluating resources.

·        Given the brevity of the self-described "summary" on page 3 of the Newsletter with respect to potential nationally significant resources in the PCH area, it is somewhat difficult for the City to respond in detail. Nevertheless, what is immediately obvious to even the casual reviewer is the attempt to literally "link" the PCH area to the San Gabriel Mountains. (See page 4 of the Newsletter: "The two areas contain a combination of themes and resources not found in any national park...."). While we recognize they are part of the same Study area, the two areas are very different in terms of resources and are separated by one of the most densely populated urban areas in the country. As the Newsletter aptly describes it, the PCH is indeed "an island of open space surrounded by urbanized areas." The description of the multiple significant resources in the San Gabriel Mountains contains five distinct categories (geology, architecture, scientific research and discovery, dynamic river systems, and biodiversity), whereas the PCH area offers a single potential category (biodiversity). In short, minus the "combination" with the San Gabriel Mountains, the purported significance of the PCH area is limited to a single factor. With respect to this single factor, the summary on page 3 of the Newsletter asserts that there is an "abundance of endemic, threatened and rare plants and animals" within the vaguely defined Puente-Chino Hills area. The City is not aware of any published biological survey reports that would substantiate this finding for areas within the City's holdings.

·        The Newsletter also alleges that the Puente-Chino Hills contain outstanding examples of coastal sage scrub ("CSS") and the best remaining stands of California walnut-dominated woodlands south of Ventura County. The vegetation present on the City's Tonner Canyon holdings is dominated by northern mixed chaparral, a common habitat type. CSS is extremely limited onsite, and comprises somewhere on the order of less than 2% of the total area. With respect to California walnut-dominated woodlands, there are some scattered stands in Tonner Canyon, but significant portions recently burned in the 2008 Freeway Complex fire and previously burned in the 1990 Carbon Canyon fire. While these recent natural impacts are regrettable, the remaining unaffected woodland areas can hardly be described as meeting the NPS criteria of a "relatively unspoiled example of a resource." The Tonner Canyon floor and some hillside areas of the City's holdings contain permanent improvements that have been and continue to be used for camping, sports and other recreational activities by the Boy Scouts and other organizations. Oil extraction remains active as is cattle grazing, and urban encroachment along the ridgeline is visible from many locations within the property. While the City's Tonner Canyon property allows for public enjoyment and recreation in a generally attractive setting (i.e., where suburban sprawl and oil extraction activities are not visible), the City does not believe that its holdings, nor the adjacent holdings of Aera Energy LLC ("Aera"), rise to the requisite level of being an "unspoiled example of a resource." For the above reasons, the City respectfully requests that the NPS reconsider its preliminary finding regarding the significance of the limited resources identified in the PCH area, and appropriately revise such analysis in the final version of the Study.

·        Just as the PCH area by itself lacks the variety of resources that are found in the San Gabriel Mountains, the summary at page three of the Newsletter similarly attempts to compensate for the modest size of this area by another act of combination: "the Puente-Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, connected together, encompass about 500,000 acres of wildlands" (emphasis added). Any connection between the Puente-Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains/Cleveland National Forest would include Chino Hills State Park, which is already protected state parkland. Moreover, by process of elimination, given that the Cleveland National Forest consists of over 460,000 acres and the Chino Hills State Park is approximately 15,000 acres -this would leave less than 25,000 acres of land not already under federal and state control, of which 5,000 acres is controlled by the City and an additional 3,000 acres are owned by Aera. In short, approximately one-third of the PCH area consists of the land holdings of the City and Aera. In light of the foregoing facts regarding the Study's apparent overestimate of the significance of the biological resources in the PCH area, and the proximity of Chino Hills State Park and the Cleveland National Forest, the purported finding on page four of the Newsletter regarding the PCH area being "suitable" for inclusion in the national park system is clearly at odds with the criteria listed in that section since CSS habitat and walnut woodlands are already "comparably represented and protected for public enjoyment" by both federal and state agencies.

·        With respect to Alternative B, the unconcealed need to link the so-called Puente-Chino Hills area to other existing publicly protected lands that do have readily apparent significant resources simply underscores the City's concern that the preliminary finding of national significance for the PCH area itself (much of it owned the City) is really just a case of the "significance" tail wagging the federal "funding" dog. The City cannot support strained interpretations of well-established NPS regulations, however, to achieve this funding purpose. Accordingly, the City does not support Alternative B at this time, and strongly recommends that the NPS consider other approaches to bringing additional federal funding for parks and open space to our region.