Obama to designate chunk of San Gabriel Mountains a national

[RichardK]

It is strange to me that everything east of Mt. Baldy Rd. is not in the monument. Icehouse Canyon and associated trails are badly overused. This area could sure benefit from more resources assuming that monument status will actually bring more resources. Mt. Baldy road, village and the ski lifts could have been cherry stemmed out of the monument.

[walker]

It is strange to me that everything east of Mt. Baldy Rd. is not in the monument.

I think the monument boundary more or less follows the San Bernardino County line. The San Bernardino County Supervisors were strongly opposed to monument designation as was the ownership of Mt. Baldy Ski Lifts. But even those who were closely involved with the monument designation like Judy Chu seem to be a bit bewildered and confused by the opaque process by which the Forest Service drafted the final boundaries. She's used safety at Eaton Canyon as one of her main press points when discussing this and the monument boundary ended up on the other side of Mt. Wilson.

[Gene]

I cannot help but say, If you like your access to Angeles National Forrest, you can keep your access to Angeles National Forrest.

Politicians rarely act without a political donor calling the shots. I don't see how more people can get access and not have more trash, graffiti and pressure on limited resources.

[shreddy]

I cannot help but say, If you like your access to Angeles National Forrest, you can keep your access to Angeles National Forrest.

Politicians rarely act without a political donor calling the shots. I don't see how more people can get access and not have more trash, graffiti and pressure on limited resources.

... there were limited public hearings / comments too. Lack of info.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[AW~]

Heres a document of significance from October 10 on the area...
http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/file ... hments.pdf

[AW~]

https://www.nationalforests.org/assets/ ... -10-15.pdf

The first mandate/vision comes forth.....here is a snipet...
* The Forest Service should identify and comment on the potential impacts of the proposed high speed rail system on the National Monument.

* An ordered priority list of identified, needed transportation projects,with priority given to: Providing public transportation options
The system should transport visitors into the Monument from public transportation terminals, satellite parking or other locations to high use areas, and provide a method to move within the Monument to various sites without the need to use a car and accessible to the disabled. Consider a funicular system to provide access to viewpoints or trails in high use and more developed areas.

*Massive multi-lingual website
including: Identify all trails, allowed usage (hiking only, biking, equestrian, etc.), and difficulty levels to allow visitors to better plan their visit in advance. Complete a trail characterization project based on accepted trail assessment protocols to help ensure trail users can safely match their skills and abilities to appropriate trail options.

--------------

In other words, lets set a court date for the army of lawyers already being gathered....and keep the forest service up to their eyes in litigation and paperwork. Better to spend millions on a website that no one is going to use.

[HikeUp]

Laughable. The war against cars continues.

[AW~]

Laughable. The war against cars continues.

Ahh, let them go up in their multi-lingual public buses to the top of Hwy2&39, and MtBaldy road. It should be a fun ride down? Test out the emergency crash lane from brake failure on Highway 2? Or admire the effects of city buses on the chip seal? At least the so-called forest experts know the forest service owns and runs the roads

[Mike P]

Maybe the Monument will kill the ridiculous bullet train.

[AW~]

Another 25 page document from last year...strangely on the internet.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/w ... 1437593369

Public transport is in order...with some strange(since its not a FS highway) declaration about reconnecting Hwy39 to Hwy2.

others include 'more than just tent camping at Crystal Lake', new Hwy39 entrance work...a cafe and river terrace overlook, welcome center(didnt mention if this is the Linda Solis building or the Chu building with statue).

The agreement puts the public out of the way for whatever they decide and the FS signed that the FS must "work together" with them on FS decisions/policies. Toss in a 15% mgmt fee of spending....$60,000 to them for a few tables put on Oaks Picnic area,etc.

[Taco]

I still think this whole national monument thing is a bunch of bullshit.

[SGBob]

I still think this whole national monument thing is a bunch of bullshit.

The original intent of those campaigning to get the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area established was to have the management of the San Gabriels taken away from the Forest Service. The Forest Service's structure, politics, and mission are directly responsible for the poor condition of the Angeles National Forest, and the monument designation has done nothing to change that. As long as the USFS is the lead agency, the state of the San Gabriels is not going to change in any significant way.

[Sean]

Toss in a 15% mgmt fee of spending....$60,000 to them for a few tables put on Oaks Picnic area,etc.

I read the entire document. Thanks for linking to it.

However, more careful attention should be paid to the details if you plan to criticize the project. In principle I am against government land-grabbing and regulating, but, nevertheless, I realize that it is possible for people (groups) involved in government projects to do excellent work, despite the fact that the land should be owned by private individuals or groups.

Regarding these projects within the Monument, the Federal overlord is still the Forest Service, but essentially they are the checkbook and little more. The Watershed Conservation Authority, a state agency, is managing the improvement projects described in the agreement, of which only the East Fork budget is listed. The $60,000 is not a "fee." It's actually for WCA staff time to develop and plan the Oaks Picnic Project. Apparently this part of the budget needs to be "fixed" at 15% of the total budget for the project. The Oaks Picnic site, a nine month project, will include tables, BBQ grills, trash and restroom improvements, landscaping, signage, and other related crap related to government regulations.

When put in context, I'd rather have this money going toward fixing up the East Fork than supplying our Middle Eastern enemies with food and guns, though clearly there is enough in the Federal lootbag to finance both endeavors.

[SGBob]

15% for project planning and management is actually very low ... much more efficient than the generally accepted 18-20% in the private sector. Private contractors also usually add a 10 - 15% contingency to estimated project costs, which means that projects that finish "on budget" are actually 10-15% over budget.

[Sean]

The original intent of those campaigning to get the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area established was to have the management of the San Gabriels taken away from the Forest Service.

The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land. The lack of private land holdings in the Gabes results in a lack of government interest and ability to protect the land from natural and human disasters. Emergency and disaster prevention services prioritize efforts based on saving human lives and structures. Allow more humans and structures in the wilderness, and better management and public services will naturally follow.

The problem is bigger and more fundamental than simply switching which federal agency manages the land.

[SGBob]

The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land. The lack of private land holdings in the Gabes results in a lack of government interest and ability to protect the land from natural and human disasters. Emergency and disaster prevention services prioritize efforts based on saving human lives and structures. Allow more humans and structures in the wilderness, and better management and public services will naturally follow.

The problem is bigger and more fundamental than simply switching which federal agency manages the land.

Development of the San Gabriels would, by my definition, be the poorest possible outcome.

[Mike P]

The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land. The lack of private land holdings in the Gabes results in a lack of government interest and ability to protect the land from natural and human disasters. Emergency and disaster prevention services prioritize efforts based on saving human lives and structures. Allow more humans and structures in the wilderness, and better management and public services will naturally follow.

Huh???

[Uncle Rico]

The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land.

Guess it depends on your end game. Private ownership of the land I think is incompatible with the way most of us on this forum like to use it.

Personally, I'm happy the land is in public ownership, warts and all.

[Sean]

Without private enterprises building roads, houses, and business operations throughout the mountains, we would still be chafing our hides on multi-day mule rides along old Indian trails, simply to reach the top of the front range. The way we use the wilderness today is a direct result of private development, which has opened up more and more recreational opportunities. Government hoarding of the land only stunts both developmental and recreational advancements within the forest.

[AW~]

However, more careful attention should be paid to the details if you plan to criticize the project.

If you dont know then you'll find out. The public lost, and these land grabbers run the show.

The who/what/when/where/why is already documented on this site and available for everyone to read....but the bottom line is they 'won', and America lost. I am not trying to comment on a project that is not even open to a public process, nor will be open. The whole grab attempt came as no surprise to me, as Ive been aware of this since 2008. The success of overpowering a democratic process and the showing of true colors was surprising....but now I know it was just city politics brought to the mountains.

As far as managing, I dont get your viewpoint or theirs on it. I never will. As an adapter, I have never wanted to manage the Angeles forest and its former 1000 voices. Ive always been humbled by our mountains and inquisitive, being a visitor and not behaving like I know it all. Id hate to demand the land be managed as a politicized local resource for my recreation, vs a national resource. My travels are always about the land and ecosystems, ...not about altering the land like a corrupt city politican who gave away city land to developers and seized public land while flinging hate and offensive racial accusations. To me, a New Yorker has as much right to land as someone from Asuza, and if the NYers arent sending in comments, they have every expectation that the land is being treated on the up and up.

Saying that tyrants accomplish good things assumes only tyrants could accomplish designing the acreage of Oaks Picnic Area....or know who maintains highway 39. "The Forest Service is hearing from a lot of interest groups that this is an important issue{highway 39 closure}. It needs to be put to the top of the list,” said Belinda Faustinos, chairwoman of San Gabriel Mountains Forever," ......ah...its not unlimited money and there are priorities now. Until they change their mind again.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-a ... ine-region

[AW~]

Private contractors also usually add a 10 - 15% contingency to estimated project costs, which means that projects that finish "on budget" are actually 10-15% over budget.

Is the WCA a construction firm and not a conservancy...that claims the appropriate knowledge to design and execute forest development?
Granted, a couple of picnic tables are being thrown up for $500,000, not anything epic.

Must be the WCA board that reflects such an expertise?
1)Hilda Solis, Supervisor, First District
The original takeover proponent politician,
2)Mark Ridley-Thomas, Supervisor, Second District
another politician
3)Don Knabe, Supervisor, Fourth District
politician
4) Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor, Fifth District
Since I know of this guy, I cant say anything nice....but yeah, politician.
5) Dan Arrighi
Incumbent Temple City City Councilmember, Past Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem ...ahh, one of those cities that gave away all their land
6) Frank Colonna
politician
7) Roberto Uranga
politician who is also collecting retirement pay from Calpers for another political position.
8 ) Gail Farber
DWP...so you got one credible person with unknown involvement(probably zero). "Non-voting".

[SGBob]

Without private enterprises building roads, houses, and business operations throughout the mountains, we would still be chafing our hides on multi-day mule rides along old Indian trails, simply to reach the top of the front range. The way we use the wilderness today is a direct result of private development, which has opened up more and more recreational opportunities. Government hoarding of the land only stunts both developmental and recreational advancements within the forest.

We don't have to speculate about what private ownership of the San Gabriels would do. We can look to places that are actually privately owned today, like Vulcan's property at the mouth of Fish Canyon and the decades-long battle over access to the Fish Canyon Falls trail.

I think we have plenty of space that has been green-lighted for development. There's a reason nobody on this board "hikes" the streets of El Monte, and it's because we specifically want to get away from development. I find that the roads in the San Gabriels serve primarily as a means of conveying graffiti vandals and litterbugs further into the forest. I would welcome closing all of them. If you want to go see it, you'll hike it.

[Sean]

Permitting Vulcan's operations in Fish Canyon serves a human need far more important than the need for another poison-oak filled canyon mouth in the front range.

Besides, there are much better examples of private development in the Gabes. How about the city of Wrightwood? I love using Wrightwood as a springboard for hiking over the Blue Ridge and beyond.

Also, we have the observatory and towers on Mt. Wilson to thank for keeping the roads open up there.

And do I even need to mention Baldy Village and the ski lift?

There are other, smaller examples, Newcomb's Ranch, Little Santa Anita Canyon, the Tujunga Canyons. Basically, where civilization is allowed, there are more services and recreational opportunities.

You'll always have the deep wilderness to flee too. But many places below 7000 feet or so are perfectly habitable and could be developed for various purposes.

[SGBob]

Permitting Vulcan's operations in Fish Canyon serves a human need far more important than the need for another poison-oak filled canyon mouth in the front range.

Besides, there are much better examples of private development in the Gabes. How about the city of Wrightwood? I love using Wrightwood as a springboard for hiking over the Blue Ridge and beyond.

Also, we have the observatory and towers on Mt. Wilson to thank for keeping the roads open up there.

And do I even need to mention Baldy Village and the ski lift?

There are other, smaller examples, Newcomb's Ranch, Little Santa Anita Canyon, the Tujunga Canyons. Basically, where civilization is allowed, there are more services and recreational opportunities.

You'll always have the deep wilderness to flee too. But many places below 7000 feet or so are perfectly habitable and could be developed for various purposes.

Every place you mention I avoid like the plague, because I pretty much consider them as much.

[Sean]

Every place you mention I avoid like the plague, because I pretty much consider them as much.

Don't you hike to Hoegee's? And I believe you've mentioned frequenting Monrovia Canyon, whose entrance is lined with houses. Shouldn't such a place be full of the plague as well?

[walker]

Interesting discussion. I think the disagreements here are perhaps more about word choice and terms than about substance.

I tend to agree that if people are more directly and personally engaged with the land and the environment around them, they have more at stake and participate more in the process which can lead to better outcomes in governance and management. Especially when those participating are intimately connected to or familiar with the area.

Whether or not "private development" is the mechanism through which this is achieved is another matter. Most of the positive examples mentioned here started as individual private parcels or enterprises grandfathered in from another era when such things were undertaken on a smaller scale and with a less heavy-handed approach than today. A great number of such sites have been lost. I often wonder what it would be like to travel back in time and visit some of the mountain inns or inhabited canyons back in the day.

I think what most people fear from the term "private development" currently are the "walled city" type developments like La Vina near Millard canyon or various others which may in fact have had the opposite of the desired effect. First the developer then the homeowners association antagonizes the long-standing engaged community and forest users by privatizing and fortifying access points that have been effectively treated as public easements, part of the commons, for decades.

Perhaps I misunderstand some of the language being used here, but I tend to be more suspicious of private interests behaving like "land grabbers." If anything, the forest service/government is tasked with managing all of the competing interests and uses of the land so that we all get to enjoy a bit of it. However, whether they even have the resources to actually get to that part of their mission is not clear. I think their tendency to issue blanket closure orders comes out of desperation, not some malicious or nefarious intent.

[SGBob]

Every place you mention I avoid like the plague, because I pretty much consider them as much.

Don't you hike to Hoegee's? And I believe you've mentioned frequenting Monrovia Canyon, whose entrance is lined with houses. Shouldn't such a place be full of the plague as well?

The entrance to Monrovia Canyon is not lined with houses unless you mean the streets you have to drive to get there. I do not consider that a positive addition to the trip. I am trying to get away from those things when I go to the mountains, not find more of them.

Hoegee's Camp is not privately owned or operated, so I'm not sure how that's related to whether opening the San Gabriels to the development that plagues the Los Angeles basin is a good thing.

[SGBob]

Most of the positive examples mentioned here started as individual private parcels or enterprises grandfathered in from another era when such things were undertaken on a smaller scale and with a less heavy-handed approach than today. A great number of such sites have been lost. I often wonder what it would be like to travel back in time and visit some of the mountain inns or inhabited canyons back in the day.

The problem is that back when Lowe and Eaton were around, the number of forest visitors could be counted in the thousands. Today it's in the millions. You cannot increase the utilization of the San Gabriels by a thousand-fold under the same practices and expect them to survive as we know them. Anyone who has lived long enough to watch how the market in property works knows that the drive to increase the value of the land drives the tendency to subdivide and develop. I've watched entire valleys covered by a few dozen ranches and farms be buried in suburban development, as if a giant sewer pipe from Los Angeles had opened up and spewed forth graffiti, shopping carts, dirt, and every imaginable form of human filth. Each farm and ranch succumbing to the financial incentive of subdividing and building, and then those owners further subdividing and building. The process continues until it's a cesspool of condominiums and apartments and the only remnants of the natural wonders that were there before are the streets and shopping centers featuring names like "Oaks" and "Sycamore" to reflect that which was destroyed to make way for them.

[Mike P]

Most of the positive examples mentioned here started as individual private parcels or enterprises grandfathered in from another era when such things were undertaken on a smaller scale and with a less heavy-handed approach than today. A great number of such sites have been lost. I often wonder what it would be like to travel back in time and visit some of the mountain inns or inhabited canyons back in the day.

The problem is that back when Lowe and Eaton were around, the number of forest visitors could be counted in the thousands. Today it's in the millions. You cannot increase the utilization of the San Gabriels by a thousand-fold under the same practices and expect them to survive as we know them. Anyone who has lived long enough to watch how the market in property works knows that the drive to increase the value of the land drives the tendency to subdivide and develop. I've watched entire valleys covered by a few dozen ranches and farms be buried in suburban development, as if a giant sewer pipe from Los Angeles had opened up and spewed forth graffiti, shopping carts, dirt, and every imaginable form of human filth. Each farm and ranch succumbing to the financial incentive of subdividing and building, and then those owners further subdividing and building. The process continues until it's a cesspool of condominiums and apartments and the only remnants of the natural wonders that were there before are the streets and shopping centers featuring names like "Oaks" and "Sycamore" to reflect that which was destroyed to make way for them.

Trying to find the "Like" button...

[Sean]

I think what most people fear from the term "private development" currently are the "walled city" type developments like La Vina near Millard canyon or various others which may in fact have had the opposite of the desired effect.

Won't happen. Which mountain village is completely walled and gated?

Tourism in the mountains is well-established, and many residents and businesses rely on recreation-based traffic. One of the great benefits of further development will be more amenities for travelers and easier access to remote areas.

New Mountain villages won't look like the city of Vernon or downtown LA--or LA Vina or Bradbury, for that matter. They will look like the villages we already have.