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

<< Back to Comment Summary

Study Process

 

  • Next draft should have a bigger emphasis on wilderness. Wilderness areas protect the watershed and provide spiritual opportunities - baptisms.
  • Study should have specific recommendations for wild and scenic rivers and wilderness areas.
  • Arrange/re-order alternatives as least to most:
    • Territory
    • Resources
    • Funding
    • NPS
    • Still two separate NRA’s by watershed or equitable resources between both.
  • Look at long-term restoration plans.
  • Designate the current wilderness recommendations as part of the study proposal.
  • Idea that these are not a series of alternatives; but rather a series of stages. i.e. headwaters in national recreation area. 1.
    • Land
    • Partners
    • NRA. Reference, "Reconnecting Study"
  • More Wilderness area mentioned in the report, attributes emphasized, species.
  • Collaborative approach should be maintained in Final Draft.
  • Concern of whether legislators will see the importance of this legislation/park.
  • More descriptive attributes of Wilderness and Scenic Rivers.
  • Would like additional analysis.
  • Feels NRA acronym needs to be changed.
  • Update maps to show all protected lands (State, JPA, county, local), not just forest. Would like to see these protected land included in NRA designation.
  • Study/report should include wild and scenic river designations and opportunities for national monuments.
  • Integrate designations identified by USFS in their recent Forest Management Plan (wild & scenic rivers, wilderness areas, etc.)
  • See better ID of areas that are of quality for Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers designations.
  • Important to show that you can still make change and motivate other environmental movements to make change - advertise the report to show this.
  • Provide the report widespread to the public - not just environmental group.
  • Clarify how each of the three alternatives would unfold.
  • What are the basic goals of the study? There is too much uncertainty in the information that is presented.
  • Be clear about the purpose of the study. Is it about recreation or protection of resources?
  • The alternatives present some good options, but you can do better.
  • In outreach efforts, define recreation and address habitat corridors.
  • Identify under each option the loss of opportunities.
  • It is difficult to comment on the scope of the study without more information about the context within southern California. We need to know more about the larger regional area and opportunities to make broader connections.
  • Recommend including all recreational users in the study process- mountain bikers, hikers, skiers, etc.
  • Important the NPS communicate the scope of the study. Provide context - what is in the broader LA area, connections to forests & parks throughout southern California, and then focus in on this study area.
  • Suitability: material in our newsletter doesn't make the case that the area is unique and different from other national park units. What does it have that Santa Monica doesn't? We like it and we like the idea of NPS involvement, but I'm not sure it meets your suitability criteria. Need to document & explain better.
  • Timing for advocating the NRA - better timing in 2011.
  • In 2005 we enumerated several reasons why our property should not be considered for inclusion within the study boundary, and we requested that it not be part of the NPS effort. The maps provided in Newsletter #4 indicate that some of the Aera property was nevertheless included in the study area. Aera remains opposed to the inclusion of any of our property in the study, and we believe that any resource protection or recreation designations should be left to the determinations that will result from ongoing planning and processing at the local level.
  • It is important to note that my congressional district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains, nor does it contain a tributary, and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs. In fact, it is east of the area that was authorized to be studied. I did not oppose the original authorization of this study because, according to my interpretation of the legislative language and that of the Department of Interior, my district would not be affected or included. As noted in my letter during the public comment period in May 2005, I believe the National Park Service reached beyond congressional intent by extending the scope of the study eastward into the communities of the 42nd District of California. 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. I believe that the National Park Service's ecological reasoning for including the Puente-Hills in the study area and in Alternative B is unwarranted and unjustified. Out of concern that the results of this study could ultimately be used to compromise the ability of local governments to decide what is best for their communities, in 2005 several cities in my congressional district and surrounding communities contacted me and the National Park Service in extreme opposition to their inclusion in this special resource study. After several letters and much discussion, the National Park Service refused to remove these areas from the Special Resource Study. It is important to note that even four years after this study process commenced, these concerns remain.
  • Preliminary Alternative Concept B includes maps identifying properties located within the Coyote Creek tributary as Nationally Significant Areas, including some within Diamond Bar's city limits and sphere of influence. As the only tributary located south of the City of Santa Fe Springs, and therefore outside the Congressionally-authorized Study Area, properties in the Coyote Creek tributary watershed should not be eligible for NPS consideration. The City of Diamond Bar again requests that the NPS remove all properties in the Coyote Creek tributary watershed from the Study Area to meet the terms established by Congress. Preliminary Alternative Concept "B" identifies properties not included in the map of Nationally Significant Areas. If these properties are not identified as Nationally Significant, they seemingly fail NPS suitability requirements for inclusion in the national park system. The City of Diamond Bar urges NPS to remove Preliminary Alternative Concept B from consideration.
  • Natural Resource Management requires that the most vital natural resources of the upper watersheds in the National Forests be economically ranked for protection and assurances to the SGVCOG member cities. Of these rankings, the first priority must not only be given to water, but also air and soil for emergency preparedness, working seamlessly with federal and county fire first responders - for fire, flood and infrastructure proven concerns. Other such Natural Resource Management strategies are essential to a comprehensive and smoothly operating set of recommendations. Protection and sustainability of our regional native waters and water supply must not be neither overlooked, nor compromised in recommendations. Similar recommendations are vital to the health, environments, and economy of our SGVCOG cities and County regions. It is our belief that the guarantees discussed above address the concerns of interested stakeholders while at the same time meeting the needs of our region.
  • 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.
  • Due to the recent fires in the Angeles National Forest, we the public need to have in our hands the report of the special group formed to study the fire damage, predictions of the impacts and make recommendations. Without such a report I and others cannot comment on the National Park Service to create a recreation area within the Angeles National Forest.
  • 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.
  • The study findings in the flyer are so superficial it's difficult to comment on them.
  • More community meetings are needed to have different opinions.
  • The City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs wishes to go on the record commending the National Park Service (NPS) for undertaking the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study. This comprehensive Study of one of the most significant and beautiful regions in the State of California is an essential undertaking and should/could/will have a positive impact in the coming decades.
  • The portion of the study area within the City of Chino Hills is located well beyond the boundaries described within the San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act, "San Gabriel River and tributaries north of Santa Fe Springs and a portion of the San Gabriel Mountains." It is our position that this area has been in appropriately included within the study area. The two maps illustrating the affected areas within the city are very vague and do not identify which parcels are being included. The City of Chino Hills respectfully requests that the portions of the city be removed from the San Gabriel River Watershed Study. 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.
  • 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. As with the exclusion of the Castaic Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains portions of the Angeles National Forest, we wonder the reason for ending the southern portion of the study area well before the San Gabriel River and Los Angeles River reach the ocean. Without adequate explanation for excluding what would seem natural parts of the study area, we believe a significant gap in information exists, leaving the public to make decisions in the dark.
  • I would like to see the proposal better identify the location and attributes of wilderness quality open space and wild and Scenic Rivers.
  • The public presentation (in Glendora) I attended, plus the materials available online, have not provided me with enough detail for me to be able to provide an informed opinion. I'm unsure exactly how the area would be managed under each alternative. Broad concepts are given; but clearly, much more detail on various goals and objectives is needed.
  • I recommend including more parameters into the study findings. It appears that the stud(ies) focused generally on existing facilities, resources, current management policies, and proposed strategies. I would like to see more specific detail on current usage and recreational behavior. I recommend recreational use studies (both existing and future studies) be correlated with the management policies of each concept to see if the alternatives are even relevant to current and future recreational use and threats to resources. Otherwise, this whole effort seems moot. The focus should be more on what the wants/needs of the people and resources are (and will be) and less on developing alternatives and then trying to find out how they will affect people and resources. Be pro-active instead of reactive.
  • First and foremost I would like to request that the comment period be extended for this study. Most of the businesses and residents in the San Gabriel Mountains have not been aware of the proposal, the meetings or the public comment period. I can assure you that if more people who actually live in and around the San Gabriels, not as visitors or vacationers but as residents who are aware of their surroundings (and who have an understanding of the ecological processes of the wilderness areas) knew of this study, you would be getting more feedback, specific to your study, specific to your questions, specific to your alternative concepts. Few people who will actually be affected by this proposal are even aware of it, or have the time or presence of mind to respond. Any such proposal needs to have the thoughtful input of those who may be able to shed light on issues that researchers not intimately familiar with the area may not be aware of. Speaking for myself, I need more time to study your plans and concepts, and the potential long-term impacts they will have on a National Forest that is doing surprisingly well in the heart of Southern California. I would ask that you extend the comment period and commit to active measures that will insure a much broader base of input.
  • The Acton Town Council is disappointed that impacts on rural communities located near the ANF are not are not addressed in any of the literature, handouts, presentations or newsletters prepared by the NPS as part of the SRS effort even though they were specifically and publicly enumerated at Acton Town Council meetings in which the SRS was discussed with federal agency representatives.  Acton Town Council further expects that any environmental documents prepared in support of Alternative Concept "B" pursuant to CEQA and NEPA will thoroughly address the development restrictions and limitations that shall be imposed in rural, equestrian communities that are located adjacent to federal lands to ensure the long-term preservation of existing rural and equestrian community profiles.
  • A big one, where is the USFS in all this? The biggest player should be out front.
  • This may be a continuous process but please stay the course; it will be well worth it to the residents of San Gabriel Valley and our local habitat.
  • Due to the Station Fire, what needs to be done in the months and years to come is to perform a new resource analysis and public scoping process to evaluate what we have left in the study area and what to do with it.
  • Because the Los Angeles County cities in the lower portion of the San Gabriel watershed (Gateway Council of Governments) did not want to participate in the legislation, the line was arbitrarily drawn at Santa Fe Springs/La Habra. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Buena Park, Cypress, Placentia, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos and Seal Beach and their citizens in Orange County were not allowed to weigh in on the decision to study the San Gabriel Watershed. This was a tremendous oversight since Coyote Creek is the largest tributary to the San Gabriel River. The Coyote Creek Watershed Report describes the value of this part of the San Gabriel watershed.
  • The Draft Report should recognize the degree that communities within the study area are park poor, identify them, and note how they could benefit from a SGM NRA. The Draft Report should document the potential public health benefits of a SGM NRA. The draft should show how childhood obesity and diabetes rates are soaring in southern California and how a SGM NRA could help address this crisis by better connecting people in the San Gabriel Valley and other areas adjacent to the mountains with healthy recreational activities in the forest. The Draft Report should compare the visitor services provided and recreational resources available in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area with those in the Angeles National Forest, and note the significant inequities.
  • The National Park Service (NPS) publishes the report Five Views: An Ethnic Site Survey for California (originally produced by the California Parks and Recreation Department) based on the public's need to become more aware of cultural diversity and its tangible manifestations on the land. The survey was originally conceived to broaden the spectrum of ethnic community participation in historic preservation activities and to provide better information on ethnic history and associated sites. The information can help planners identify and evaluate ethnic sites, which have generally been underrepresented in historic property surveys. Most sites and surveys commemorate widely known historical events, or architecturally distinguished or famous buildings, but ethnic sites are often important because of people or events that are less familiar to many in the dominant culture. The public needs the opportunity to become more aware of then nation's cultural diversity and its tangible manifestations on the land. This report can serve as a best practice example for what the San Gabriel plan should do. The report is available at: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/5views/5views.htm.
  • And as Alternative C states, each partner would retain all of its land ownership, management and decision-making authority. Because this is such a critical point, with the possibility of turf battles or at least damaging publicity or rumors about rivalries, this retention of ownership and authority should be reiterated at every step, perhaps in the Draft Report and the Final Report, and in news announcements about them. It might be well to quote prominent local officials as commending the arrangement and reaffirming their ownership and authority, while also welcoming the NPS' technical and planning expertise and additional resources. These supportive local officials could include those of the U.S. Forest Service, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and various city and county leaders.
  • 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 study team should document the visitor services provided and recreational resources available in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and compare them with those available in the Angeles National Forest.
  • The development of the three alternative concepts was likely limited by a concern that sufficient financial resources would not be available for a more ambitious program of protection. This is understandable given the experiences in recent years of fewer federal dollars for programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the difficulties faced by the state and local governments as their budgets have shrunk during the recession. In planning for the future, however, there are other trends that should be considered. There is a renewed commitment to LWCF, which in FY 2010 will reach its highest level of appropriations since FY 2005 and is expected to grow further. Congress is actively considering proposals for full and permanent funding of LWCF. Climate change legislation includes substantial funding for wildlife adaptation, some of which would go to programs that could be used within the San Gabriel watershed and mountains. It is time to think more broadly about how to protect important resources, particularly those in an extremely threatened area like the study area.
  • We have found difficulty analyzing these alternatives as they are presented in very general terms with little to no specifics given.
  • 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.
  • Significant improvements could be made with true/authentic science BMPs, practices, management planning in ALL three alternatives – disappointing as presented with the current 3 alternatives!
  • Little to no real research/vision for sustainable (and regenerative) discussions and methods for fire and for watershed best management practices – leading to better management of land, resources and sustainable recreation practices/design.