http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/portal/ ... loopback=1
San Gabriel Mountains could get new federal designation, more money
By Rebecca Kimitch, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/05/2009 08:33:40 PM PDT
For the first time ever, the San Gabriel Mountains and the land along the San Gabriel River could become a National Recreation Area, which would bring new money and resources.
New trails and picnic areas, more park rangers and explanatory signs, and increased connections between the mountains and local parks could result from the process.
"We are very excited that the San Gabriels are finally getting some attention and that the shortage of resources here is being highlighted by the federal government," said Juana Torres, associate regional representative of the Sierra Club.
The National Park Service initially considered creating a national park in the area. The agency deemed local natural resources unique and significant enough to be protected as a national park. But in a study released Tuesday, the agency determined a national park is not feasible.
The San Gabriel Mountains are some of the fastest-growing mountains in the world, growing as much as 2 inches a year. They also host 123 wildlife species and 73 plants considered sensitive or endangered. And the upper reaches of the San Gabriel River meet the criteria for Wild and Scenic River designation.
Instead, the park service has proposed several options for new collaborations that could bring National Park Service rangers and resources to the region for the first time. The San Gabriel range and its watershed could also be declared a National Recreation Area.
"They are finally recognizing the tremendous recreational opportunity here." Torres said. "You have 15 million people, many from park-poor areas who can use this forest."
Congress requested the study in 2003 to determine how to increase opportunities for San Gabriel Valley residents to connect with the natural resources in the area.
The National Park Service is now looking for public input on its proposals.
Three alternatives offer varying boundaries for a National Recreation Area, varying levels of involvement by the National Park Service, and different types of partnerships with the National Forest Service and local agencies.
All would, in theory, bring increased resources and attention to the area, according to project manager Martha Crusius. A final proposal will be presented to Congress in 2011.
Congress recently gave a portion of the San Gabriel Mountains wilderness protection - the highest protection under federal law. And much of the range is partially protected through the Angeles National Forest.
But the area's recreational value has been "very undervalued" by the federal government, according to Jane Beesley, project manager for the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, which collaborated on the NPS study.
Beesley and others say the Santa Monica Mountains have received much more recognition for their recreational value than the San Gabriels, despite the range's popularity.
About 1.5 million people visit the San Gabriel Canyon portion of the forest every year. But some popular areas have few rangers and bathrooms, Torres said. Picnic tables and parking spaces fill quickly, and a few times a year access is completely shut down.
"It is very difficult to manage all the recreational use we get," said Marty Dumpis, deputy forest supervisor for the Angeles National Forest. "The demand is greater than the area can possibly support."
Dumpis said forest access needs to be expanded, but so does access to regional and local parks.
"Right now, the Angeles National Forest is 72 percent of all open space in Los Angeles County. We don't want that to be 90 percent in 20 years," he said.
Because parks in the Valley along the San Gabriel River are part of the forest's larger watershed and ecosystem, they should be part of a future National Recreation Area, Dumpis and others said.
One of the study's proposals would establish such a regional area - San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area.
Under this proposal, the National Park Service could bring its expertise, and its well-recognized arrowhead logo, to informational signs along the area, often referred to as the Emerald Necklace, Beesley said.
In addition to recognition of recreational value, the latest federal attention underscores the national geological, biological and cultural significance of the nearby range, Crusius said.
"We know we live in a nationally significant area, and we think our river is nationally significant ... so it's nice to have that recognition," Beesley said.
San Gabriel Mountains could get new federal designation
Just off the top of my head, I was thinking that this might be just what the San Gabriel River area needs. There's so much crime, trash, and graffiti that I won't even go up there anymore. I'm too afraid my car will be burglarized, stolen, or vandalized. Were I to come back late (after dark) from a hike, I'd fear for my own safety. My fear might be a bit overblown but I've read of people getting robbed at gunpoint in the canyon at night.
Even if the NPS did impose some restrictions, it would effectively result in more access for me if the area is made safer, and it might be a nice area again instead of a used diaper and trash strewn grafitti zone. Maybe the NPS could prevent Crystal Lake from being re-trashed now that it has been fixed up.
Then again, if the area gets nice, maybe more people (like me and my wife) would come.
On the other hand, if the area gets nicer and has real law enforcement, maybe the riff-raff would feel less comfortable and that would result in fewer crowds.
Dunno.
Other thoughts??
Permits might be required but then again they might not. Hard to say. IIRC, permits are not required to hike in the Santa Monica Mountains in the areas run by the NPS.edenooch wrote:does this mean hiking permits?
Even if the NPS did impose some restrictions, it would effectively result in more access for me if the area is made safer, and it might be a nice area again instead of a used diaper and trash strewn grafitti zone. Maybe the NPS could prevent Crystal Lake from being re-trashed now that it has been fixed up.
Maybe. Maybe not. At some NPS facilities there's a pretty hefty (compared to the $5/day Adventure Pass) entry fee. Sequoia is $20.00 for example. Higher fee, fewer people.EnFuego wrote:More crowds????
Then again, if the area gets nice, maybe more people (like me and my wife) would come.
On the other hand, if the area gets nicer and has real law enforcement, maybe the riff-raff would feel less comfortable and that would result in fewer crowds.
Dunno.
Other thoughts??
More details:
http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/index.htm
You can download their newsletter #4 from this page that shows current alternatives proposed:
http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/newsletters.htm
http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/index.htm
You can download their newsletter #4 from this page that shows current alternatives proposed:
http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/newsletters.htm
This has been too long in coming!
The Forest Service has mis-managed this valuable resource for far too long (like from the git go)
Hopefully the first idiocy to go will be "Multi-use" mandate, this has been one of if not the most destructive policy for the San Gabriel's
They're will be things done many won't like, long used routes etc...
On the whole I think it will be GREAT!
I just wish the FS would be completely kicked out on their A&$
The Forest Service has mis-managed this valuable resource for far too long (like from the git go)
Hopefully the first idiocy to go will be "Multi-use" mandate, this has been one of if not the most destructive policy for the San Gabriel's
They're will be things done many won't like, long used routes etc...
On the whole I think it will be GREAT!
I just wish the FS would be completely kicked out on their A&$
lolDamOTclese wrote:Man, look at me rant. I'm absolutely crazy.
Nurse! Where the fuck is my 6 O'Clock sedation? Nurse! NURSE!
Dude, take some freakin' chill pills.Thanks for letting us know about the good folks who are actually "boots on the ground" types in our local forest.
Still, despite the hard work of many local rangers, let's get real: the San Gabriel River is a frickin' mess. The USFS hasn't been able to get it under control. Not the local ranger's fault, but it's not under control. Why not give it to the NPS and see how they fare.
There's an old saying, "if you do what you've always done, then you're going to get what you've always got." Also, "nothing changes unless something changes." The same ol' same ol' isn't working. Let's face it and try something else, yes?
I think this plan will make it worse. You get more money, but you get an extra bureaucratic layer. Of course, the NPS handily raises fees seems like every year....adventure pass will probably end up being $80 to support the local parks like the Whittier Narrows farther down the river. Increased traffic will squeeze popular spots even further, while the NPS gets together with the forest service,various police,feds,Caltrans,LA County,State of CA, utility companies, fire fighting service, thousands of homeowners, dozens of recreational groups,water companies(including their federal counterparts), congressional representation(to ensure 'diversity')...its going to make our forest further ineffective in getting anything done.
When the NPS takes over, you can say good-bye to taking your dog on a hike.
Nunc est bibendum
Hey, didn't HJ and I have a bit of a discussion about this right here?
Did my posts disappear?
I'm I thinking of the right forum?
Well, I'm against it.
Probably a tougher permit system and more restrictions.
Probably currently allowable hunting will be banned.
Probably currently allowed MTB will be banned.
Probably no dogs off paved trails/roads.
Probably no dogs off leash.
How will the NPS magically have more $ and solve the problems.
Want more examples of problems, think of the Santa Rosa and SJ NM.
Massive areas closed to all access and many other restrictions esp re dogs.
Did my posts disappear?
I'm I thinking of the right forum?
Well, I'm against it.
Probably a tougher permit system and more restrictions.
Probably currently allowable hunting will be banned.
Probably currently allowed MTB will be banned.
Probably no dogs off paved trails/roads.
Probably no dogs off leash.
How will the NPS magically have more $ and solve the problems.
Want more examples of problems, think of the Santa Rosa and SJ NM.
Massive areas closed to all access and many other restrictions esp re dogs.
The other discussions were on the SJ forum. Probably better to discuss San Gabs issues on the San Gabs forum.Rumpled wrote:Hey, didn't HJ and I have a bit of a discussion about this right here?
Did my posts disappear?
I'm I thinking of the right forum?
Well, I'm against it.
Probably a tougher permit system and more restrictions.
Probably currently allowable hunting will be banned.
Probably currently allowed MTB will be banned.
Probably no dogs off paved trails/roads.
Probably no dogs off leash.
How will the NPS magically have more $ and solve the problems.
Want more examples of problems, think of the Santa Rosa and SJ NM.
Massive areas closed to all access and many other restrictions esp re dogs.
Well, yep, the NPS would probably make things more complex, and yes, your Adventure Pass wouldn't work in the SG River area (it doesn't now as I recall -- the City of Azusa collects a separate fee).
Still, it ain't working now in the SG River area. It just plain ain't working. To me it's worth a shot 'cause I don't even want to go in to that blighted area.
Whatever, not up to us. Even if the NPS thing doesn't go through, I hope they figure out a way to clean up the SG River area. It used to be really nice.
Dogs aren't supposed to be off leash in National Forests, either.Rumpled wrote: Probably no dogs off leash.
Nunc est bibendum
Edward Abbey's fans may get excite about this whole issue....
What makes they think the moutain is "underutilized"?
First they want more restrooms than more paved roads then cell phone towers. The list goes on and on.
I smell that this issue is related or result of the "economic stimulus" $. The NPS got money from the package and don't know how to handle it, so it wants to use the money to destroy the forest.
What makes they think the moutain is "underutilized"?
First they want more restrooms than more paved roads then cell phone towers. The list goes on and on.
I smell that this issue is related or result of the "economic stimulus" $. The NPS got money from the package and don't know how to handle it, so it wants to use the money to destroy the forest.
Yeah. In the case of corporate (private sector) doublethink one can gain a lot of understanding from Dilbert. The government sector needs an equivalently insightful observer.Hikin_Jim wrote:Dude. Don't try to understand government doublethink. You could hurt yourself.
That is open to debate. Even the Sierra Club has off leash dog hikes.
A hunting dog would not be very effective on a six foot leash.
I take their admonishments to mean under control; which means voice control.
I notice that most USFS websites state no dogs off leash in wilderness areas; I need to research that and regular areas of the USFS to see what is the actual law.
Based exclusively on my dealings with the Sierra Club in my capacity as a Forest Service volunteer ranger, I'd have to say they are the last people I would go to for advice on what is legal in National Forests and what is not.Rumpled wrote:That is open to debate. Even the Sierra Club has off leash dog hikes.
Nunc est bibendum
The SC would not be my first choice for law either. I trust 36 CFR.
Three mentions of dogs
Don't violate state or fed regs
No dogs off leash in developed recreation areas.
No dogs in swimming areas.
SBNF website says no dogs in wilderness off leash w/o a cite. Text of wilderness act does not contain the words pet or dog.
Three mentions of dogs
Don't violate state or fed regs
No dogs off leash in developed recreation areas.
No dogs in swimming areas.
SBNF website says no dogs in wilderness off leash w/o a cite. Text of wilderness act does not contain the words pet or dog.
Looking at the sgwa.org website regs
http://www.sgwa.org/regs.htm
they have
16. Possessing a dog not on a leash or otherwise confined. 36 CFR 261.8(d)
Which I believe is an improper cite (there's that new word again, HJ) in terms of proof.
Looking at
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/ ... r261.8.htm
Shows
The following are prohibited to the extent Federal or State law is
violated:
...
(d) Possessing a dog not on a leash or otherwise confined.
Meaning you cannot possess a dog not on a leash violating ANOTHER Fed or State law. The other parts of 261.8 refer to hunting equipment. Reading the dog section similarly to the hunting sections will show this.
http://www.sgwa.org/regs.htm
they have
16. Possessing a dog not on a leash or otherwise confined. 36 CFR 261.8(d)
Which I believe is an improper cite (there's that new word again, HJ) in terms of proof.
Looking at
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/ ... r261.8.htm
Shows
The following are prohibited to the extent Federal or State law is
violated:
...
(d) Possessing a dog not on a leash or otherwise confined.
Meaning you cannot possess a dog not on a leash violating ANOTHER Fed or State law. The other parts of 261.8 refer to hunting equipment. Reading the dog section similarly to the hunting sections will show this.
I personally don't like the idea of the NP taking control over any parts of ANF. The first thing they would do is restrict access by banning activities. San Gabriel River is one of the last rivers in Southern California where you can still legally prospect for gold. As soon as the NP Nazis took over, prospecting would be gone, hunting would be gone, and i'm sure my passion Geocaching would be banned also.
I don't care for the homeless squatters calling themselves "prospectors," i'm referring to people that want to bring a pan and sluice box to play along the river. I used to frequent the river in the mid 90s but too many confrontations with hispanics, and homeless people, soured me to the area. Most of the E-coli issues in those rivers are from the weekend "bathers," not the homeless miners.
I've personally witness firsthand the damage done by the weekend bathers in the Big Rock Creek area. Besides leaving their diapers and trash along the creek, the even used brush to create an outhouse within 40 feet of the creek. I don't speak enough Spanish to explain to them why they are doing something wrong.
I've personally witness firsthand the damage done by the weekend bathers in the Big Rock Creek area. Besides leaving their diapers and trash along the creek, the even used brush to create an outhouse within 40 feet of the creek. I don't speak enough Spanish to explain to them why they are doing something wrong.
Damn those hispanics! They are ruining everything!Kit Fox wrote:I don't care for the homeless squatters calling themselves "prospectors," i'm referring to people that want to bring a pan and sluice box to play along the river. I used to frequent the river in the mid 90s but too many confrontations with hispanics, and homeless people, soured me to the area. Most of the E-coli issues in those rivers are from the weekend "bathers," not the homeless miners.
Nunc est bibendum
Next thing you know, we'll see them on the goddamned SUPREME COURT!
Nunc est bibendum
The following is from http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/. I plan to go to the August 31 El Monte meeting.
===============
The National Park Service is conducting a “special resource study” of portions of the San Gabriel River watershed and the San Gabriel Mountains. Our current newsletter presents several draft alternative concepts for the area, each of which offers a different collaborative, partnership-based approach to resource protection and public use and enjoyment, while respecting existing land management and ownership. You may download newsletter #4 from www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel or you may request a printed copy from our office. We will be hosting five public meetings between August 31 and September 15 in cities throughout the study area. The schedule is listed below. Please join us at one of the public meetings to learn more about the draft alternative concepts, and to share your ideas, thoughts and concerns. Your comments by mail, e-mail and internet are welcome through October 30, 2009.
Public Meeting Locations and Times
We look forward to meeting you and hearing your ideas and comments at one of the following public meetings:
El Monte
Monday, August 31st
7pm - 9pm
City of El Monte Senior Center
3120 N. Tyler Avenue
Diamond Bar
Wednesday, September 2nd
7pm - 9pm
Diamond Bar Center Ballroom
1600 S. Grand Avenue
Santa Clarita
Thursday, September 3rd
7pm - 9pm
George A. Caravalho Activities Center
Santa Clarita Room A
20880 Centre Point Parkway
Glendora
Monday, September 14th
7pm - 9pm
Glendora Public Library
140 South Glendora Avenue
Palmdale
Tuesday, September 15th
7pm - 9pm
Larry Chimbole Cultural Center,
Lilac Room
38350 Sierra Highway
As directed by Congress in July 2003 (P.L. 108-042) , the National Park Service (NPS) is conducting a “special resource study” of portions of the San Gabriel River and its tributaries from the city of Santa Fe Springs to the north, and the San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. This area includes portions of the Angeles National Forest, as well as many communities along the San Gabriel River. Many people, organizations, and agencies are working to conserve resources in this area to provide recreational opportunities, habitat restoration, watershed improvement, and flood protection. This study is intended to build on and complement the efforts that are underway.
Contact Information
Mail:
National Park Service
San Gabriel Special Resource Study
Park Planning and Environmental Compliance
1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94607
email: pwr_sangabriel@nps.gov
Martha Crusius, Project Manager, (510)817-1447
===============
The National Park Service is conducting a “special resource study” of portions of the San Gabriel River watershed and the San Gabriel Mountains. Our current newsletter presents several draft alternative concepts for the area, each of which offers a different collaborative, partnership-based approach to resource protection and public use and enjoyment, while respecting existing land management and ownership. You may download newsletter #4 from www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel or you may request a printed copy from our office. We will be hosting five public meetings between August 31 and September 15 in cities throughout the study area. The schedule is listed below. Please join us at one of the public meetings to learn more about the draft alternative concepts, and to share your ideas, thoughts and concerns. Your comments by mail, e-mail and internet are welcome through October 30, 2009.
Public Meeting Locations and Times
We look forward to meeting you and hearing your ideas and comments at one of the following public meetings:
El Monte
Monday, August 31st
7pm - 9pm
City of El Monte Senior Center
3120 N. Tyler Avenue
Diamond Bar
Wednesday, September 2nd
7pm - 9pm
Diamond Bar Center Ballroom
1600 S. Grand Avenue
Santa Clarita
Thursday, September 3rd
7pm - 9pm
George A. Caravalho Activities Center
Santa Clarita Room A
20880 Centre Point Parkway
Glendora
Monday, September 14th
7pm - 9pm
Glendora Public Library
140 South Glendora Avenue
Palmdale
Tuesday, September 15th
7pm - 9pm
Larry Chimbole Cultural Center,
Lilac Room
38350 Sierra Highway
As directed by Congress in July 2003 (P.L. 108-042) , the National Park Service (NPS) is conducting a “special resource study” of portions of the San Gabriel River and its tributaries from the city of Santa Fe Springs to the north, and the San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. This area includes portions of the Angeles National Forest, as well as many communities along the San Gabriel River. Many people, organizations, and agencies are working to conserve resources in this area to provide recreational opportunities, habitat restoration, watershed improvement, and flood protection. This study is intended to build on and complement the efforts that are underway.
Contact Information
Mail:
National Park Service
San Gabriel Special Resource Study
Park Planning and Environmental Compliance
1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94607
email: pwr_sangabriel@nps.gov
Martha Crusius, Project Manager, (510)817-1447