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

<< Back to Comment Summary

Water / Hydrology

 

·        Protecting the watersheds is critical. Water is a scarce resource. We need to educate about water and the watersheds. Due to new regulations we are going to have water limitations.

  • Like word watershed, protect it and make it science-based.
  • Clean, maintain rivers and streams.
  • Education - focus on San Gabriel River watershed, water conservation and flood control
  • How will plans affect the water resources and availability?
  • Watershed approach of Alt C w/ addition of headwaters protection.
  • Need to address water issues (30% water from San Gabriel Mountains).
  • Connectivity to the watershed is a good idea.
  • The Watershed NRA is a very good idea. Awareness of connection with water is needed. This gives a bigger picture.
  • There is a lack of understanding of what a "watershed" is - water supply, droughts, where water comes from, etc.
  • 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. Dept. of Agriculture is not the best dept. to manage these values.
  • 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.
  • The watershed is the key functional unit thus any and all management decisions, planning projects, use declarations, and outreach efforts etc. in this region should be made such that the health of this watershed as a whole remains the first priority.
  • 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). 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 either overlooked, or 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.
  • Despite the stated intent in the description of the Alternatives to avoid impacts on public works infrastructure, the types of regulations and limitations that would apply are very unclear. Furthermore, it is not apparent whether the National Park Service's (NPS) intent to not apply restrictive regulations would allow exemption from 36 CFR or preclude other agencies, such as state agencies, from applying an overlay of new restrictions intended to protect the NPS' protected area. Districts' staff has serious concerns regarding the establishment of an NRA, and its effect on the operation of the WRPs (San Jose Creek WRP, Pomona WRP, and Whittier Narrows WRP) that discharge to the San Gabriel River, its tributaries, or the Rio Hondo River. Specifically, the Districts must maintain the ability to use recycled water for beneficial uses and to discharge this water to these waterways when the demand for recycled water is low. The Districts have serious concerns that the establishment of an NRA in the area may have unintended consequences on both wastewater and solid waste infrastructure that have not been fully evaluated. The exhibits associated with the proposed Alternatives have boundaries that are poorly defined.
  • The California Wildlife Action Plan identified as a stressor affecting wildlife and habitats within the project area is water management conflicts and degradation of aquatic ecosystems.
  • Where does Walnut Creek fit into this plan? Specifically, what is the plan for dealing with the problems of this creek in the city of San Dimas?
  • I think Alternative B is best because it offers the most protection for riparian habitat- the most threatened.
  • 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. 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 believe that the NRA should include the largest possible area, as shown in Map A. However, I am concerned that this proposal does not include the management that is offered in proposal C, which would make a huge difference in the quality of life in my city, would improve our water quality, maintain the connectivity within the animal corridors, and the environment for our endangered species.
  • I'm excited about Alt. C because it draws in the downstream resources and the SG River which are currently not managed well and it expands nature-related recreational opportunities. I would like the LA River and its headwaters added: both rivers connect Angelinos to our mountains.
  • Drainage and watershed based NRA starting at all headwaters and going downstream as far as feasible. Include entire San Gabriel River drainage including San Jose and Coyote Creeks, Riotondo (Montebello Hills), Walnut Creek, and stream washes and canonized streams upper Arroyo, etc.
  • 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. Any of the alternatives presented could potentially have adverse effects on local water use:
    • A special federal designation could easily impact the use of local lands (especially those adjacent to or near the River) for new or expanded water supply facilities
    • A greater focus on recreation in the San Gabriel Mountains and along the River could allow activities detrimental to water supply or water quality (such activities that allow body contact or use of water craft, especially motorized craft)
    • Water rights and water supply could also be threatened if federal agencies chose to "take" local surface water to sustain habitat or recreational activities. Groundwater levels in the Central Basin continue to fall with very little opportunity for replenishment. Imposing a new federal recreation designation and adding the jurisdiction of another federal agency to develop additional recreational activities will only create an even greater demand on the scarce and limited water supply for our community.
    • CBWA therefore opposes any new or increased federal jurisdiction over the San Gabriel River watershed without concrete assurances of the 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.
  • I'd like to see expansion of the educational component of the appropriate body in plan C to include greater emphasis on keeping the streams clean from down-water contamination of cities' waters and beaches: do not throw trash or used oil, etc.
  • I would like to see trails taken away from creeks so that riparian areas can recover from trampling. The NPS is moving a lot of trails away from creeks and meadows and I would like to see that policy applied in the Angeles Forest. I see few frogs in Eaton Canyon and other busy canyons, whereas in canyons without trails, there are millions of frogs. This probably applies to fish who summer over under the creek beds.
  • One way of strengthening the alternative concepts would be to reconsider your stance in regard to water and infrastructure. Specifically, a minimum CFS flow rate should be established below Morris Dam that would allow for bringing the San Gabriel River back to life in a manner that would support a thriving fishery and riparian environment. If the streambed below the dam continues to be sealed off from water, as it is many times throughout the year, it will continue to look ugly and unloved. You can't care for something that you don't love.
  • A NRA should include recognition of the importance of wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers. It should address opportunities to expand these resources and support their recreational use with additional rangers.
  • Sand and gravel pits should be deeded back to state or federal government once they are mined out, rather than turning them to dumps and pollution. The pits can become both recreational and for water storage.
  • 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.