San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains 

Special Resource Study &

Environmental Assessment

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Finding of No Significant Impact

October 2012

Page 1

San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains 

Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment

California

October 2012

Introduction

The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act (P.L. 108-042, July 2003) authorized the National Park Service (NPS) 

to conduct a special resource study of (1) the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including the 

city of Santa Fe Springs, and (2) the San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower 

Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy.

The purpose of this special resource study is to determine whether any portion of the San Gabriel Watershed 

and Mountains study area is eligible to be designated as a unit of the national park system. Through the study 

process, the NPS identified alternative strategies to manage, protect, or restore the study area’s resources, 

and to provide or enhance recreational opportunities. The study conveys information to the U.S. Department 

of the Interior and Congress to aid in determining whether designation of a unit of the national park system is 

desirable and appropriate.

The National Park Service finds that the resources evaluated through this study are nationally significant, 

suitable, feasible and appropriate for NPS management. This document identifies the selection of the most 

effective and efficient alternative (“the selected alternative”) and the basis for a determination that completion 

of the study results in no associated significant impacts on the human environment.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this study is to comply with the San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-042) 

which directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the area described above, 

in consultation with the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and other 

appropriate governmental entities, and with consideration of regional flood control and drainage needs and 

publicly owned infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities.

The special resource study followed the process established by the National Park System New Area Studies 

Act (P.L. 105-391, 16 U.S.C. § 1a-5). This law requires that these studies be prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321- 4347). At the beginning of the study process, 

the NPS initiated a notice of scoping that was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2005 (70 FR 

3064). Through the initial public scoping process, the NPS identified a range of issues to address through the 

study, as well as impacts of concern to the public.

This study is needed to provide the Secretary of the Interior and Congress with information on opportunities 

for management of the resources found within the study area. It identifies and analyzes alternatives for the 

management, administration, and protection of those resources, and evaluates their appropriateness for 

becoming a unit of the national park system.
Page 2

Study Area

The study legislation directed the NPS to conduct a Special Resource Study of the following areas: (1) the San 

Gabriel River and its tributaries north of, and including, the city of Santa Fe Springs; and (2) the San Gabriel 

Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. 

The National Park Service defined the area for study through examination of the study act’s legislative history 

and intent and through the public scoping process.

The study area covers more than 1,000 square miles (over 700,000 acres) in the greater Los Angeles 

metropolitan region. It includes some of the most densely populated and diverse areas of the United States. 

Most of the study area is located in Los Angeles County (approximately 85%) and the remainder lies in Orange 

and San Bernardino counties. In addition to a portion of the San Gabriel River watershed, the study area also 

includes portions of the Los Angeles River, the Santa Clara River, and the Antelope Valley watersheds, as well as 

very small portions of the Santa Ana River and Mojave watersheds. 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages approximately two thirds of the study area (450,000 acres in the 

San Gabriel Mountains) as part of the Angeles National Forest (Angeles NF). With the exception of private 

inholdings, permitted cabins, ski areas, roads, and flood protection structures and other utilities, the forest 

remains primarily undeveloped. In close proximity to highly urban areas, the forest provides a refuge for 

wildlife and recreational opportunities for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. 

Over fifty communities are located in the study area, with approximately 1.5 million residents. The Los Angeles 

metropolitan region is home to over 16 million residents. The largest communities in the study area include 

Pomona and Santa Clarita, with populations near 150,000. The City of Palmdale is the largest community at the 

northern end of the study area with approximately 115,000 residents. 

Evaluation of Nationally Significant Resources

The NPS has determined that two regions of the study area are nationally significant under the National 

Park Service New Area Studies Act criteria; the San Gabriel Mountains and the Puente-Chino Hills. The San 

Gabriel Mountains and foothills are nationally significant for their geologic resources, high biodiversity, 

dynamic river systems, and a long history of scientific study and discovery. The active mountain system has 

created scenic and unusual landscapes that support a high level of ecological diversity and contain a uniquely 

diverse assemblage of geologic resources and features. Nationally significant cultural resources include the 

Mount Wilson Observatory and San Dimas Experimental Forest. The Puente-Chino Hills contain a high level of 

biodiversity and outstanding examples of southern California communities, including coastal sage scrub, one 

of the most endangered plant communities in California, and the best remaining stands of California walnutdominated forests and woodlands in their southern limit of distribution.

Evaluation of Suitability

This study concludes that portions of the San Gabriel Mountains and Puente-Chino Hills, as described in the 

draft study report, are suitable for inclusion in the national park system, based upon an evaluation of the 

study area resources and their relative quality, character, and rarity. Together, the San Gabriel Mountains 

and Puente-Chino Hills contain a combination of themes and resources not found in any national park unit or 

comparably managed area.
Page 3

Evaluation of Feasibility

The study concludes that a collaborative partnership-based park unit, which respects the complex mix of 

land use, ownership, and regulatory authority in the study area, is feasible. Opportunities for collaborative 

management with local, state and federal managers to protect natural and cultural resources, to provide 

recreation, public access, interpretation and educational opportunities, and other compatible uses in a 

partnership-based park unit have been demonstrated to exist. A large traditional national park unit, owned 

and operated solely by the National Park Service, is determined to be infeasible.

Need for NPS Management

The study concludes that a collaborative management approach which includes a leadership role for the 

National Park Service is a superior management option for meeting the complex conservation and recreation 

needs of the study area. In particular, the NPS has the ability to work in a coordinated fashion, on a regional 

basis, to address equitable access to open space, protection of significant resources, and interpretation and 

education of significant resources. Existing NPS assistance programs are currently insufficient to address these 

needs in the study area.

Alternatives Analyzed

Four alternatives were analyzed in the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Draft Special Resource Study 

and Environmental Assessment. The alternatives are based on the purpose and need for the project and are 

consistent with existing laws, NPS policy and the special resource study legislation.

No Action Alternative: Continuation of Current Management

Public land management agencies and local governments would continue their land management, visitor 

services, public education, recreation and interpretive programs at approximately the current levels of activity 

and funding, according to current plans. Existing cooperative management efforts would continue. The 

National Park Service would have no role in the study area beyond the existing segments of two national 

historic trails, some ongoing technical assistance from the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, 

and limited financial assistance through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Alternative A: San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area

Congress would designate the San Gabriel Mountains unit of the Angeles National Forest (Angeles NF) as a 

National Recreation Area (NRA) that would continue to be managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The 

designation would bring additional recognition, tools, and support to the Angeles NF in order to steward 

watershed resources and ecosystems, and improve recreational opportunities. The National Park Service 

would have no role in the NRA beyond a continuation of the informal partnership between the U.S. Forest 

Service and Santa Monica Mountains NRA.

Alternative C: San Gabriel Watershed National Recreation Area

Congress would designate the upper San Gabriel River watershed within the Angeles NF and a half-mile 

corridor around the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo rivers within the study area as a National Recreation Area 

to be managed by a voluntary partnership of agencies and organizations with land and interests in the 

designated area. The primary roles of the NPS would be coordination of the partnership and taking a lead role 

in coordinating interpretative and educational messages about significant resources. Each partner and other 

jurisdictional authorities would retain land ownership, management, and decision-making authority for lands 
Page 4

that they own. The partnership would work to create new recreational and open space opportunities that are 

compatible with maintaining watershed values, water supply, flood protection, and habitat values.

Alternative D: San Gabriel Region National Recreation Area 

Congress would designate the San Gabriel Mountains unit of the Angeles NF, adjacent foothill areas with 

ecological resource values, areas near the San Andreas Fault, portions of the western Puente Hills, and halfmile corridors along the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo rivers as a National Recreation Area. The NRA would be 

managed much the same as described under alternative C, under a partnership comprised of agencies and 

organizations with interests in the area. The NPS role would be essentially the same as in alternative C, but 

with the addition of a technical assistance program to provide conservation and recreation planning assistance 

to interested public agencies, private landowners, and organizations beyond the NRA boundaries to create and 

connect parks, conserve habitat and provide new recreational experiences throughout the region.

Alternatives Considered But Dismissed

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NPS policy, alternatives may be eliminated from 

detailed study based on the following reasons (40 CFR 1502.14(a)):

1. Technical or economic infeasibility;

2. Inability to meet project objectives or resolve need for the project;

3. Duplication of other less environmentally damaging alternatives;

4. Conflicts with an up-to-date valid plan, statement of purpose and significance, or other policy; and 

therefore would require a major change in that plan or policy to implement; and

5. Environmental impacts would be too great.

Public review of preliminary alternatives revealed a high level of dissatisfaction for preliminary alternative 

B, the San Gabriel Parks and Open Space Network. Alternative B envisioned a network of public and private 

partners engaged in collaborative planning and information sharing, focused on open space, recreation, 

wildlife corridor, and interpretive opportunities. This alternative was dismissed for its inability to meet project 

objectives, as determined through agency and public input.

The Selected Alternative

Concept

The most effective and efficient alternative is primarily a combination of management concepts from 

alternative A (San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area) and alternative D (San Gabriel Region National 

Recreation Area), as presented in the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Draft Special Resource Study. 

Some additional refinements have been made to reflect public concerns, provide for efficient management, 

and to take advantage of new authorities provided to the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) through the Service First authority (made permanent in December 2011). 

The selected alternative would establish a San Gabriel unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area which would provide the NPS, and other land management agencies and organizations with guidance 

and direction to work together in new ways. Partnership arrangements among federal and state agencies, 

local governments, non-profit organizations, and area landowners would be the primary means to achieve the 

conservation, recreational, and educational goals of the San Gabriel unit. The Angeles National Forest (Angeles 

NF) would not be included in the San Gabriel unit. The NPS and USFS would work in partnership through 
Page 5

the Service First Authority and legislative guidance would provide additional support and authorities for the 

Angeles NF to steward resources and improve recreational opportunities.

Specifically, components of the selected alternative would include:

San Gabriel unit of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA (San Gabriel unit). The San Gabriel Mountains foothills, 

San Gabriel and Rio Hondo river corridors and the western Puente Hills (alternative D south of the Angeles 

NF) would be established as an additional unit of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA. The NPS and numerous 

other agencies and organizations with land and interests in the area would: 1) work collaboratively to protect 

significant resources, restore ecological communities, and improve recreational opportunities; 2) provide 

technical assistance to willing communities for conservation planning to extend open space connections 

and form a network of parks, habitats, and open spaces; and 3) offer new educational and interpretive 

opportunities. 

Angeles National Forest. The selected alternative would also bring additional recognition, tools, and support 

to the Angeles NF in order to steward watershed resources and ecosystems and improve recreational 

opportunities. In lieu of a new designation for the Angeles NF, this guidance would: 1) reaffirm the 

primary importance of the Angeles NF in preserving watershed and natural resources, while continuing to 

provide for multiple use management; and 2) prioritize funding for resource protection, recreation, and 

education, and establish mechanisms to increase funding for facilities, maintenance, ecological restoration, 

visitor management; and offer new educational programming, and stewardship activities. This would be 

accomplished without a national recreation area designation on the Angeles NF.

Collaborative Federal Management. The NPS and USFS would collaborate through the Service First authority 

and other mechanisms to protect the significant resources of the San Gabriel watershed and mountains, 

provide high quality recreation and education opportunities, and assist the surrounding communities in 

providing community-based recreation and conservation opportunities. The NPS and the USFS would work 

together:

• To explore opportunities to protect and enhance interconnected ecosystems essential for long-term 

viability of significant natural resources. 

• To help communities provide close-to-home outdoor recreation, conservation and education 

opportunities for their residents, as well as to better connect to the nearby national park and national 

forest areas.

• To provide an array of seamless outdoor experiences in the San Gabriel watershed and mountains.

Proposed Area

The San Gabriel Unit

The San Gabriel unit of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA is shown on the attached map (p. 23) and would 

include:

• The San Gabriel Mountains foothill areas in the San Gabriel Valley with ecological resource values. 

Areas with ecological resource values include designated critical habitat for federally listed threatened 

or endangered species, and areas within one of the Los Angeles County proposed significant ecological 

areas;

• A half-mile corridor around the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo rivers from the Angeles NF boundary south 

to Santa Fe Springs; and 

• Portions of the western Puente Hills with ecological resource value and recreational potential (areas 

west of Harbor Boulevard). This primarily includes lands owned/or and managed by the Puente Hills 
Page 6

Habitat Preservation Authority and lands proposed by Los Angeles County to be included in the Puente 

Hills Significant Ecological Area. The Puente Hills Landfill would not be included in the boundary. 

However, at some time in the future, the NPS and the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority 

could enter into management agreements with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County to 

provide recreational opportunities in this area.

The San Gabriel unit would include approximately 49,000 acres of land; approximately 37% of this area is 

already protected for conservation or recreation by existing agencies and organizations.

Angeles National Forest

The San Gabriel Mountains, within the Angeles NF, are also addressed in the selected alternative. However, no 

new designation would be applied to this area. 

Management

San Gabriel Unit

The San Gabriel unit of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA would be managed in partnership with agencies 

and organizations with land and interests in the area. Agencies and organizations that own and manage 

land within the San Gabriel unit would continue to manage their lands according to their own policies and 

regulations. NPS policies would only apply to lands that the NPS acquires. As much of the land within the NRA 

is currently in public ownership and much of the remaining land is comprised of commercial and residential 

uses inappropriate for NPS management, land acquisition by the NPS would be limited. 

The San Gabriel unit partners could include, but would not be limited to, the following agencies: the U.S. 

Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains 

Conservancy, the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Los Angeles County, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the 

Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority, the Mountains and Recreation Conservation Authority, and the 

Watershed Conservation Authority. Local communities/cities could also participate in the partnership. Through 

cooperative management agreements, partners would be able to provide coordinated educational and 

recreational programming, and share funding, staff, and facilities. In existing public land areas, interagency 

agreements could augment agency staffing to manage heavily used areas providing higher levels of visitor 

services, education, and safety. Other partnerships could also be established, such as with community-based 

organizations and tribal groups.

NPS Role. The NPS would take a lead role in coordinating partnership-based activities within the San Gabriel 

unit. Through cooperative management agreements, the NPS could also provide educational, interpretive, 

law enforcement and other services to partner agencies. The NPS would also take a lead role in providing 

coordinated interpretative and educational messages about the significance of the San Gabriel watershed and 

mountains for existing nature centers, museums, park programs, etc. 

The NPS would have no land use regulatory authority for lands that it does not own. As funding permits, the 

NPS would be authorized to acquire lands from willing sellers within the San Gabriel unit to protect significant 

resources or for operational purposes. 

The NPS would offer technical assistance to interested public agencies, private landowners, and organizations 

to create and connect parks, conserve habitat, provide new recreational experiences, and foster a sense of 
Page 7

regional identity. The NPS could also assist in organizing volunteer programs within the San Gabriel unit and on 

the Angeles NF.

Angeles National Forest

The Angeles NF would continue to be managed by the USFS according to existing guiding policies. Additional 

guidance would authorize the USFS to enter into cooperative management agreements with local agencies 

and conservancies to protect biodiversity and watershed resources, interpret significant resources, enhance 

recreational opportunities, and provide more educational and interpretive opportunities within San Gabriel 

Mountains. In addition, the Angeles NF would have the ability to accept donations from philanthropic and 

partner organizations to improve facilities and resources. 

Service First Authority. Legislative guidance would also direct the USFS and the NPS to engage in partnership 

efforts and interagency coordination to protect the significant resources of the San Gabriel watershed 

and mountains, provide high quality recreation and education opportunities, and assist the surrounding 

communities in providing community-based recreation and conservation opportunities. Such partnerships 

could be facilitated through the Service First authority and other mechanisms.

The laws creating the Service First authority (December 2011) give the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Agriculture the authority to establish programs involving certain land management agencies to:

• Conduct activities jointly or on behalf of one another;

• Collocate in Federal offices or leased facilities; and

• Make reciprocal delegations of their respective authorities, duties and responsibilities

• Make transfer of funds and reimbursement of funds on an annual basis, including transfers and 

reimbursements for multi-year projects.

The Service First authority provides for interagency operational efficiency in attaining shared goals and 

missions, allows agencies to develop programs and projects tailored to meet shared objectives, allows agencies 

to share equipment, facilities and other resources to accomplish mutually agreed-upon work, and allows 

the re-delegation of staff authorities, duties and responsibilities among participating Service First agencies 

(NPS, USFS, BLM, FWS). Execution of partnership efforts is achieved through a Service First agreement, which 

documents agency commitment to accomplish mutual interest. Allocation of specific funding can be identified 

to implement and accomplish programs and projects outlined in a Service First agreement.

Existing Agencies, Regulatory Authorities, and Land Use

San Gabriel Unit

Much of the land within the proposed San Gabriel unit (approximately 37%) is already protected by various 

agencies and organizations. The National Park Service recognizes that existing public agencies, private 

conservation organizations, and individuals successfully manage important natural and cultural resources and 

recreational opportunities within the proposed San Gabriel unit. The NPS applauds these accomplishments 

and actively encourages the expansion of conservation activities by state, local, and private entities and by 

other federal agencies. 

Retention of Local Land Use and Existing Regulatory Authorities. The designation of an NPS national 

recreation area unit would not establish additional regulatory or land use authorities over local governments. 

The NPS is not a regulatory agency. NPS land management policies and regulations would only apply to lands 

that the NPS acquires. The NPS would only consider acquiring land on a limited basis from willing sellers. The 
Page 8

selected alternative would respect existing general plans and local zoning, as well as state and local laws and 

policies for lands that are not federally owned.

Protection of Water Supply, Flood Protection, and Sanitation Infrastructure Facilities and Functions. The 

Los Angeles metropolitan region has highly complex systems of public infrastructure to transport and store 

local and regional water supplies. In addition, numerous facilities are necessary to treat wastewater and 

manage solid waste. Many of these facilities are located on or near the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel 

River Watershed Study Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-042) directed that the study consider regional flood control 

and drainage needs and publicly owned infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities. The study 

recommends that any resulting legislation ensure that infrastructure designed for flood protection, storage and 

transport of water supplies, treatment of water and wastewater, and management of solid waste would be 

unaffected by the designation. This includes exemption from 16 U.S.C. § 460l-22(c) (prohibition of solid waste 

disposal operations in national parks) for existing solid waste facilities and operations, such as landfills and 

transfer stations, within the San Gabriel unit. 

The selected alternative would retain existing water rights. Management of water supply and treatment plants 

would continue under current authorities. The proposed San Gabriel unit designation would not entail any new 

or future beneficial uses or requirements for water supply, water quality, or air quality regulations.

Private Property Rights. Any legislation proposed to implement study recommendations should specify that 

eminent domain would not be used for land acquisition within the San Gabriel unit. The NPS would only 

consider acquiring land on a limited basis from willing sellers. Designation would not impact local land use 

authority over lands not owned by the NPS.

Fire Protection. Fire protection would remain the responsibility of existing federal, state, and local agencies 

(Los Angeles County, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). The 

San Gabriel unit partnership could work together to take a pro-active approach to coordinated resource 

management to reduce catastrophic fires.

Angeles National Forest

U.S. Forest Service management of existing Angeles NF lands would continue. USFS policies would continue to 

be applied to management of these lands.

Education and Interpretation

San Gabriel Unit

Through new interpretive and educational programs, the NPS would engage people of all ages in learning 

about the significant natural and cultural resources within the San Gabriel watershed and mountains. Examples 

of interpretive messages would include the history and importance of water resources, regional biodiversity, 

the geological significance of the San Gabriel Mountains, Native American history and prehistory, the role of 

fire on the landscape, and early California settlement. 

The NPS would coordinate a voluntary information network to partner with established environmental 

education centers, visitor centers, etc. throughout the watershed to help augment and enrich interpretive 

and educational programming related to the significance of the San Gabriel watershed and mountains. 

The primary role of the NPS within the San Gabriel unit would be to lead the effort to provide coordinated 

interpretive messages and educational programs. The NPS would also work with partners to develop accessible 

interpretive and educational materials, including multi-lingual information and signage, to reach broader 

audiences.
Page 9

In addition to programs conducted within the San Gabriel unit, NPS staff would coordinate with local school 

districts and area youth organizations to conduct environmental stewardship programs and engage youth 

in learning about the natural world around them. When needed and as funding permits, new facilities and 

programs could be developed to support educational efforts. The NPS Junior Ranger program could be 

promoted for school-aged children. There are also opportunities to inspire youth about the rich cultural 

heritage of the region.

Angeles National Forest

The Angeles NF would be recognized for its nationally significant resources associated with the San Gabriel 

Mountains. Working through Service First agreements, the USFS and the NPS would provide more interpretive 

information about significant resources and offer new educational programs. Educational programs would 

emphasize to visitors the value of watershed resources and how to recreate in a way that is compatible 

with protecting such resources. New opportunities for educational programs associated with the San Dimas 

Experimental Forest would be explored.

Recreational Opportunities and Access

San Gabriel Unit

Within the San Gabriel unit, a variety of recreational opportunities would continue to be available to the 

public. Many communities in the region, however, lack appropriate access to park and recreational resources. 

Recreational uses and activities would be determined by the existing land management agency. The NPS and 

partner agencies would seek to improve recreational access and opportunities in urban areas that are deficient 

in recreation and park lands by offering assistance in planning for close-to-home recreational opportunities, 

better trail access, and improved public transportation options to recreational areas. Additionally, the NPS and 

partner agencies would explore opportunities to restore vacant or unused land to provide new recreational 

opportunities. 

The NPS and partners would work together to target underserved and disadvantaged communities for 

engagement in the opportunties for and benefits of outdoor recreation. Children in communities that do 

not have adequate access to outdoor recreation tend to have higher rates of childhood diseases related to 

obesity such as diabetes. The NPS would conduct outreach to local communities, organizations, and schools to 

promote opportunities for healthy recreation in the San Gabriel unit. 

The NPS would also work with partners to seek ways to improve the recreational experience in more 

heavily impacted areas by providing more education, improving facilities, improving maintenance and law 

enforcement, and enhancing visitor management to reduce impacts. Improved recreational experiences 

in more rural areas could focus on protecting the rural recreational experience by providing better trail 

connections and improved equestrian staging areas. 

The voluntary information network would identify parks and sites with recreational and learning opportunities. 

This network would be expansive, including sites with recreational and learning opportunities associated with 

the San Gabriel River watershed, the Puente Hills, and the San Gabriel Mountains. At each site, visitors could 

find maps and guides linking one site with others pertaining to the same or related themes. 

Many agencies are currently working to improve accessibility, as is required by the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. The NPS would work with partners to improve recreational access to the area’s parks and public lands for 

persons with disabilities.
Page 10

Angeles National Forest

Recreation is the primary use in the Angeles NF. With over 3 million annual visitors, the Angeles NF has one 

of the highest national forest visitation levels in the nation. Over the past ten years, funding for recreation, 

interpretation, and education has remained flat. Increased attention and focused management resulting from 

new legislative directives may encourage additional or reprioritized federal funding for enhancing recreation 

in the San Gabriel Mountains. This could include improved visitor management in heavily used recreational 

areas as a result of more forest rangers, better facilities, improved trail connections and trailheads, better 

educational efforts, and new approaches to manage visitation. 

Existing recreational opportunities would remain on the Angeles NF pursuant to USFS established rules 

and regulations. Future decisions regarding appropriate recreational opportunities would continue to 

be determined by the USFS, including administration of any recreational special use permits such as for 

recreational residences and ski areas. 

New partnership opportunities may also assist the Angeles NF in fundraising for improved recreational 

experiences and planning for recreational connections (e.g. trails, bicycle paths). The NPS and USFS would 

partner and work together on recreational opportunities on the Angeles NF through Service First agreements. 

Such agreements allow the two agencies to share staff, funding, and offices to achieve mutual objectives. 

Resource Protection (Ecological Communities and Cultural Resources)

The selected alternative would emphasize protecting significant resources associated with the San Gabriel 

Mountains and Puente Hills. 

San Gabriel Unit

The NPS would facilitate opportunities to work in collaboration with resource management agencies and 

organizations to conserve and enhance resources through research, cooperative management, monitoring, 

and restoration. Ecological communities could be enhanced by additional scientific knowledge, expertise, and 

technical assistance.

The NPS and partner agencies would work together to identify opportunities to protect ecosystems and 

wildlife corridors. For example, the San Gabriel Mountains and Puente-Chino Hills are refuges for rare and 

endangered species. These species need to be able to move to and from these open space areas, particularly 

in the case of wildfire events and for adaptation associated with climate change. Better ecosystem connectivity 

also fosters greater biodiversity. The NPS and partner agencies would seek to leverage additional funding for 

ecological restoration and wildlife habitat conservation efforts. 

Coordinated cultural resource management would also be an emphasis. The NPS would seek to document, 

protect and interpret cultural resources within the San Gabriel unit. Such efforts would improve the ability of 

the NPS to develop interpretive materials and programming related to cultural resources. 

Angeles National Forest

The Angeles NF would continue to balance use and resource protection in accordance with its multipleuse policy. Legislative guidance could affirm the original intent of the national forest to protect watershed 

resources. Legislation could bring additional, tools, and resources to the Angeles NF in order to steward the 

significant geological and biological resources associated with the San Gabriel Mountains. For example, the 

San Gabriel Mountains function as a refuge for many rare and endangered species. To protect the habitats 

and ecosystems associated with these species, the USFS could enter into management agreements with non-
Page 11

federal agencies and organizations to protect habitat that spans multiple jurisdictional boundaries, providing 

opportunities for the dispersal of wildlife and plants within the forest and into other areas. Protection of 

habitat across the region would also benefit wildlife and plant adaptation to climate change. In general, a 

higher priority would be placed on ecological restoration. 

The San Gabriel Mountains are rich in cultural resources including archeology, Native American resources, 

historic recreation sites, historic mining sites, architecture, and historic flood protection structures. New 

resources could be allocated to document, protect, and interpret cultural resources in the San Gabriel 

Mountains. Programs could be designed for the public to experience the cultural, historical, and spiritual value 

of the San Gabriel Mountains. 

Operations and Maintenance

San Gabriel Unit

Existing agencies would continue to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of their lands and 

facilities. The NPS would be responsible for operations and maintenance of lands which it acquires. 

Staffing. Given NPS budget constraints, it is likely that the San Gabriel unit would initially have a small staff, or 

rely on support from existing staff at Santa Monica Mountains NRA. However, funding would likely increase 

over time, subject to Congressional budget priorities. Soon after establishment, the NPS would complete a unit 

management plan that would identify park priorities, management emphases, and required NPS staffing for a 

15-20 year timeframe. 

Because the San Gabriel unit would be managed as part of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA and managed 

in partnership with other agencies, less staff would be required than what would be expected in a traditional 

national park. Partnership parks typically require staff to handle park coordination and outreach, assist 

partners with conservation planning, and provide interpretive and educational programs. 

Based on comparisons of staffing levels for existing partnership parks of similar size and with small NPS 

landownership, the following types of staff might be recommended for the selected alternative. Some 

positions would be shared with the Santa Monica Mountains NRA staff based in Thousand Oaks, CA.

• Partnership Specialist

• Unit Manager

• Administrative Assistant

• Visitor Use Assistant 

• Interpretive Park Rangers 

• Law Enforcement Park Rangers 

• Teacher Ranger 

• GIS Technician

• Volunteer/Outreach Program Coordinator

• Education Program Specialist 

• Cultural Resource Specialist

• Outdoor Recreation Planner/Community Planner 

• Wildlife Ecologist 

• Biological Technician
Page 12

Through Service First or cooperative management agreements, the NPS and other partner agencies could 

share staff, facilities, and funding to assist in the operations and maintenance of heavily used visitor areas. For 

example, the NPS could provide rangers to supplement USFS staff in high use areas of the Angeles NF. The NPS 

and partners agencies could also leverage funding and resources to improve existing facilities or provide new 

facilities where necessary.

The NPS would coordinate new partnerships and facilitate the development of more volunteer programs 

to assist in the maintenance of facilities, preservation/restoration efforts, and interpretation of significant 

resources. Additionally, the NPS would provide opportunities for job training and conservation stewardship 

programs for youth and community members. 

Land Acquisition. Lands within the San Gabriel unit would remain under their current jurisdictions, with 

each land management agency continuing to fund its own operations. Approximately 37% of the land in 

the proposed NRA is already protected for recreation and conservation by partner agencies (18,500 of 

approximately 49,000 acres). Much of the remaining lands are comprised of commercial and residential uses 

that would not be appropriate or feasible for NPS land acquisition. The NPS could request funding for land 

acquisition for acquisition of areas with resource significance such as a historic site or open space with native 

habitat. NPS land acquisition funding is extremely limited. Partner agencies may also pursue land acquisition 

within the San Gabriel unit. The NPS would be directed to identify priority parcels for acquisition (through 

donation or purchase) within two years of designation. 

Operational and Visitor Facilities. Construction of new administrative facilities for NPS operations and 

management would not likely be required to support the proposed San Gabriel unit. Some staff and 

operational work could be accomplished at existing facilities within the Santa Monica Mountains NRA. 

However, given the distance to the San Gabriel Valley, an operational presence would also be necessary in the 

San Gabriel unit, particularly for education, outreach, and agency coordination positions. Given the existing 

amount of office space available in and near the proposed San Gabriel unit, it is likely that the NPS could share 

administrative and operational facilities with partner agencies or lease other office space available in the area. 

There may also be opportunities to adaptively reuse an historic building or property if the NPS acquired land 

that contained such facilities. The NPS could also use partner facilities or adaptively reuse buildings to provide 

visitor facilities. The Angeles NF and various local and state park and recreation agencies also operate and 

manage existing visitor facilities. If established, the NPS would identify specific operational and visitor facilities 

needs through a unit management plan.

Angeles National Forest

Legislative guidance may direct additional funding for operations and maintenance of the Angeles NF 

to provide more rangers and other staff in heavily used visitor areas. New volunteer programs would be 

developed to assist in the maintenance of facilities, preservation/restoration efforts, and interpretation of 

significant resources.

Use of the Service First authority would improve the customer service, effectiveness and efficiency of the NPS 

and Angeles NF in attaining shared goals by authorizing the two agencies to use each other’s staff, equipment, 

facilities, and other resources, as appropriate, to accomplish mutually agreed-upon work.

Funding and Costs

The selected alternative would rely on the funding streams of partner agencies, as well as newly authorized 

NPS funding. Legislative guidance for the Angeles NF may authorize additional funding. Working in partnership 

with the NPS and other agencies, partners may be able to explore new fundraising opportunities to achieve 
Page 13

resource restoration and protection goals, as well as provide improved recreation, interpretation, and 

educational facilities and programs. 

San Gabriel Unit

The NPS would need additional federal funding for its administrative, educational, technical assistance, and 

interpretive roles. In addition, the NPS and partner agencies could establish a fundraising organization, be a 

coordinating body for existing grant programs, and work together to leverage funds from a variety of sources 

(e.g. state bonds, Land & Water Conservation Fund) to increase and prioritize funding for projects and staff in 

the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains. Partner organizations could also work together to leverage private 

funding and donations. 

NPS operating costs for national recreation areas vary widely, depending on the amount and type of resources 

managed, number of visitors, level of programs offered, safety and security issues, and many other factors. 

While no formal estimates of operating costs have been completed for this study, budgets from comparable 

NPS units illustrate the potential range. Boston Harbor Islands NRA, Chattahoochee River NRA, Mississippi 

National River and Recreation Area, and Santa Monica Mountains NRA are all partnership-based NPS units 

comprised primarily of non-NPS lands. The annual operating base budgets for these units range from $1.22 

million to $8.9 million. Based on the size of the area, and the types of services and assistance offered through 

the partnership, the cost of NPS operations for the San Gabriel unit could be expected to be $1 to $3 million. 

The operational budget would primarily fund salaries. Additional costs would include leasing or maintaining 

administrative space, interpretive and educational materials or media, and maintenance of any NPS-owned 

facilities or lands.

Planning and Implementation Projects. The San Gabriel unit would be eligible to receive funding for planning 

and projects through the NPS. For example, soon after establishment, the NPS could provide initial planning 

funds for a unit management plan which would define management priorities, more specific actions, and 

funding needs for the San Gabriel unit. The unit management plan would be completed in collaboration with 

partners. A unit management for the size and scale of unit proposed in the selected alternative would likely 

take 4 to 5 years to complete and could cost between $500,000 and $700,000. Additional NPS funding may 

also be available for specific projects such as trail planning and development and interpretive materials. A unit 

management plan would identify more specific implementation needs.

Many NPS partnership parks also rely on private fundraising through “friends” groups. The funds raised 

through these groups can be used to supplement the operating budgets of the partners. At Boston Harbor 

Islands NRA, for example, the Boston Harbor Island Alliance is a nonprofit organization authorized through 

legislation to raise and manage funds for facilities and programming on partner lands. In 2008, the Alliance 

spent $2.25 million for visitor programming and capital improvements within the NRA on lands owned by 

state, federal, municipal, and private entities. In addition, the Alliance received $5 million for environmental 

mitigation projects over several years, to be used on partner lands.

Angeles National Forest

In order to accomplish the goals of the selected alternative, additional funding would be required, either 

through appropriations, partnerships, or philanthropy. The increased attention and a narrower management 

focus may encourage additional or reprioritized federal funding, over time, for the Angeles NF to achieve 

resource restoration and protection goals, as well as provide improved recreation, interpretation, and 

educational facilities, and programs. 
Page 14

The Angeles NF receives the majority of its funds through allocations appropriated by Congress. In FY2011, 

the Angeles NF received $32 million in funding for the entire forest. Of this amount, 60%, or $19.3 million, 

was budgeted for wildfire preparedness and fuels reduction, with the remaining 40 percent, or $12.7 

million, covering all other operations. Of this funding, $2.9 million was appropriated for recreation, planning, 

resources, and wildlife management. Capital Improvement funds which includes facilities, trails, and roads 

maintenance totaled $900,000 for the entire forest. When adjusted for inflation, the Angeles NF has had a 

continuing drop in non-fire operational funding since 1995. Within the study area, total funding for the Angeles 

NF for FY2011 is $7.4 million (non-fire). Of this amount, $1.7 million is allocated to recreation (700k), planning, 

resources, and wildlife management. Only $540,000 is allocated to capital improvements including facilities, 

trails, and roads maintenance, $78k of this is allocated for trail maintenance. 

The Angeles NF does receive revenue from a variety of forest programs and users, especially use fees collected 

under the Recreation Enhancement Act (the Adventure Pass). This source of funding has become increasingly 

important, as it can be used for a wider range of purposes than reimbursable revenue, and has helped to 

supplement appropriated funds. However, the cost of enforcing and administering this program is almost equal 

to the revenue.

This study recommends that any resulting legislation provide for specific additional funding to be allocated 

each year for recreation, planning, visitor services, wildlife management, and resource protection. Without this 

legislative direction, the Angeles NF is not likely to experience an increase of appropriated funds to meet the 

objectives of the selected alternative. 

Additional opportunities for increased funding exist from outside sources. Legislation could allow the USFS 

to accept direct donations and provide mechanisms for developing diverse partnerships with nonprofit 

fundraising, support or friends groups. The elevated visibility and attention of a new designation adjacent to 

the Angeles NF, coupled with an increased sense of identity for those living in the region, could enhance the 

ability of the Angeles NF to more successfully raise private funds and seek special appropriations for particular 

projects. Legislative guidance could also create new authorities to retain fees such a special use permits, etc. to 

fund forest operations and programs.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The “environmentally preferred” alternative is the course of action that would best protect, preserve and 

enhance historic, cultural and natural resources, and that would cause the least damage to the biological and 

physical environment. The environmentally preferred alternative is not the same as an agency’s “preferred” 

or “most effective and efficient” alternative. The NPS has determined that alternative D would be the 

environmentally preferable alternative because it would protect natural and cultural resources, provide 

opportunities for recreation and visitation, realize greater economic benefits, and foster a broader framework 

for cooperative management over a larger area, as compared to the other alternatives, including the selected 

alternative. While the selected alternative would also provide these benefits, alternative D would provide 

them over a broader geographic area. However, because many of the same benefits could be realized under 

a more efficient management structure, alternative D was not selected as the most effective and efficient 

alternative.

Why the Selected Alternative Will Not Have a Significant Effect on the Quality of the Human 

Environment

The NPS has determined that the selected alternative can be recommended with no significant adverse effects 

on biological resources, cultural resources, recreation resources, socioeconomics, land use, or water resources. 
Page 15

This determination is based on the environmental impact analysis published in the draft study report which 

examined the effects of No Action and alternatives A, C, and D. 

As defined in 40 CFR § 1508.27, significance of impacts is determined by examining the ten criteria below.

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency 

believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

The NPS evaluated the potential environmental consequences of each alternative related to the following 

topics: biological resources; cultural resources; recreation use and visitor experience; socioeconomics; land 

use; and water resources. A range of minor impacts and beneficial effects is associated with the selected 

alternative (combination of alternatives A, C, and D).

Environmental effects would generally be beneficial. The impact analysis for all alternatives is necessarily 

broad to avoid speculation as to site-specific impacts, given the broad nature of the study. The outcome of the 

study is a recommendation to Congress. If Congress enacts the recommendations in this study, then specific 

actions would be developed and new environmental analyses would be undertaken prior to implementation. 

As with alternatives A, C, and D, the selected alternative would benefit biological resources by increasing 

opportunities for agencies to assist each other on restoration and conservation projects. Potential minor 

adverse effects due to increased recreational use would be mitigated through planning, visitor education, 

and staffing. Coordination of documentation, protection, and interpretation would benefit cultural resources. 

Collaboration between partners would also provide new recreational opportunities compatible with other 

values, such as flood protection and water supply. With enhanced or new recreation opportunities, small 

increases in visitation could have modest beneficial economic effects on surrounding communities. Park-poor 

communities would experience beneficial effects through collaborative planning for close-to-home recreation 

and improved access. There would be no effects on public and private land use and jurisdictional authority. 

Increased restoration efforts would have beneficial effects on water resources. Improved planning to align 

river recreation opportunities with the goals of flood protection, water quantity, and water quality, along 

with increased enforcement and visitor education, would mitigate the potential adverse effects of increased 

recreation.

The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

Selection of the most effective and efficient alternative will not adversely affect public health or safety. The 

study seeks to address public health and safety issues through its alternatives by fostering collaborative 

planning and management and increasing opportunities for healthful outdoor recreation. Because this level 

of study does not lend itself to meaningful environmental analysis of this topic, the topic was dismissed from 

additional analysis. 

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, 

prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

Although situated in a large metropolitan region, portions of the study area contain wetlands, some prime 

farmlands, many historic and other cultural resources, ecologically critical areas, and an array of municipal, 

state, and federal park lands. These types of resources are among the values that the selected alternative 

would enhance and protect through coordinated planning, if Congress enacts the recommendations in the 

study, as well as additional funding and staffing. No adverse impacts to these resources have been identified. 

The degree to which effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

No highly controversial effects, resulting from actions proposed in the alternatives, have been identified 

during either initial public scoping, preparation of the environmental assessment, or the public review period. 
Page 16

The vast majority of comments supported selection of alternative D, from which many of the management 

concepts of the selected alternative were retained. Objections to the action alternatives often focused on 

elements not contained within the alternatives presented to the public, or within the selected alternative. For 

example, many such comments expressed concern that an NPS national recreation area designation would 

transfer management and regulation of the Angeles National Forest to the NPS, an action not proposed in any 

alternative. Furthermore, the selected alternative does not propose a national recreation area overlay on the 

Angeles National Forest.

The degree to which the possible effects on the quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or 

involve unique or unknown risks.

There were no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks identified during either the preparation of the 

environmental assessment or the public review period.

The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or 

represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The study does not establish a precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle because it only 

makes recommendations, based on completion of a prescribed evaluation process. These recommendations 

from the Director may be conveyed by the Secretary to the Congress. Development of specific actions 

responsive to the recommendation would require Congressional action and would subsequently be refined 

through a managment planning process, including unit-specific environmental analysis, if established. 

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant 

impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the 

environment. Significane cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into 

small component parts.

Other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions were analyzed for their potential to contribute to 

cumulative impacts in association with implementation of the selected alternative, if enacted by Congress. 

These include the cumulative effects of land use trends, including continuing development, urbanization, 

and population growth and demographic trends, both past and projected. The selected alternative seeks to 

ameliorate the adverse effects associated with these factors so that the overall level of cumulative impact 

under each impact topic would either be arrested or would decline as compared to the no action alternative. 

The effects of the selected alternative would comprise a very small component of these cumulative impacts, 

given the size and scope of the urban landscape within and surrounding the study area. Overall, the 

predominately beneficial impacts of the selected alternative, combined with the negligible to major adverse 

impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in a significant 

cumulative adverse effect. 

The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or 

historic resources.

Loss of historic sites from development, lack of documentation, and inadequate resource protection are 

continuing effects that the selected alternative seeks to remedy through increasing interagency coordination 

of cultural resource planning, protection, and documentation, as well as visitor education efforts. Overall, 

protection of historic structures and sites would be improved through the selected alternative. There would 

be no adverse effect or no effect on historic structures and identified cultural landscapes within the area of 

potential effect as a result of the selected alternative, beyond baseline conditions.
Page 17

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that 

has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Increased restoration, interpretation and education, and inter-agency coordination of habitat protection 

would provide beneficial effects to threatened and endangered species. While the provision of new recreation 

opportunities holds the potential for additional impacts on wildlife and ecological communities, an emphasis 

on enhanced visitor education and coordinated planning, particularly with wildlife agencies, for recreation 

compatibility with watershed resource protection would keep adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

to minor levels. This would result in a “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” determination under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the 

protection of the environment.

The selected alternative would not violate federal, state, or local environmental protection laws.

Public Engagement

Public Scoping

The NPS initiated public scoping for this study in January 2005. The scoping process included meetings with 

agencies, elected officials and organizations, public meetings and workshops, three newsletters, a web page, 

and written public comments. These sources were used to identify the issues, significant resources, ideas for 

alternatives, and impact topics to be considered for environmental analysis.

The NPS study team used a variety of methods to notify the public and stakeholders of the study initiation. On 

January 19, 2005, a Notice of Scoping was published in the Federal Register, formally initiating the comment 

period for public scoping. The comment period extended to May 20, 2005. The study team compiled a 

mailing list of 3,000 from partner agencies and mailed a newsletter to this list. This newsletter described the 

study process and announced the dates and locations of public scoping meetings held throughout the study 

area. Public meetings were held in Rosemead, Claremont, Diamond Bar, Downey, and Acton. During the 

public scoping period, the NPS received 65 comment letters and e-mails from individuals, agencies, cities, 

organizations and elected officials.

Input on the scope of the study was also provided by the approximately 175 people who attended public 

meetings hosted by the NPS. Additional input was gathered through meetings with various individuals, 

agencies, organizations, cities, and local elected officials. After scoping comments were received, the NPS 

published a second newsletter summarizing the comments. The majority of scoping comments were related to 

the study process and scope, opportunities, potential impacts, and important resources to consider.

Following the scoping period, the NPS conducted additional outreach by holding numerous meetings with 

cities, communities, government councils, and elected officials to refine the study boundary based on both 

public comments and legislative intent. A third newsletter was published describing changes to the study scope 

(scope revision). 

Alternative Concepts

The study team released draft alternative concepts in a newsletter for public review in the summer of 2009. 

The public comment period was open from August to November 2009. The study team distributed over 3,000 

newsletters to organizations and individuals on its mailing list, partner agencies, and at public and stakeholder 

meetings. A limited number of newsletters translated into Spanish were also distributed. The newsletter was 
Page 18

also available for comment on the National Park Service’s Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) 

website.

News releases announcing the availability of the alternatives newsletter and the public meetings schedule 

were distributed to local media, and several newspaper stories were published. The purposes of the newsletter 

were to: 1) present preliminary study findings; 2) present preliminary alternatives; and 3) solicit comments on 

the preliminary findings and alternatives. The newsletter also contained information on the date, time, and 

locations of public meetings that were held to solicit comments on the preliminary findings. 

Between August and October 2009, the study team held six public meetings at locations throughout the study 

area including Diamond Bar, El Monte, Santa Clarita, Glendora, Palmdale, and Tujunga. All of the meetings 

were well attended by diverse groups of community members (approximately 450 total). In addition to 

the public meetings, the NPS study team held meetings with local, state and federal government agencies, 

organizations, communities, and Congressional offices. 

The NPS received approximately 4,800 comments. Most of these comments were submitted via written 

letters and through e-mail. There were 205 unique letters and 4,600 form letters of five different types. The 

NPS received comments from 36 different agencies and organizations. The remainder was from individuals. 

The public meeting transcripts are also part of the public comments. A variety of views were expressed, but 

the majority of comments supported combining different aspects of the alternatives and having more NPS 

involvement and leadership. Some communities and agencies expressed concerns about loss of local control, 

or restrictions on their ability to carry out necessary functions. Other commenters expressed concerns about 

restrictions on recreational activities or impacts on their communities from increased recreational use. Better 

access to recreation and providing close to home opportunities were important goals for many commenters. 

Others expressed interest in furthering opportunities for connecting wildlife habitats and protecting watershed 

values. Following the comment period, the study team continued to meet with stakeholder groups and 

agencies to refine the alternatives.

Draft Report

In October 2011, the study team produced and distributed the Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains 

Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment to elected officials, government entities, organizations 

and individuals on the mailing list for review and comment. Approximately 600 copies of the draft study report 

and 2000 copies of the newsletter were distributed through mail, email and at public meetings. Additional 

copies were available online.

Five public meetings were held between October 29, 2011 and November 17, 2011 in El Monte, Palmdale, 

Pomona, Santa Clarita, and Tujunga. Over 400 individuals participated in the meetings, including various 

elected officials and stakeholders. The NPS presented the study process and criteria used in the study, 

discussed the study results, and solicited comments. Copies of the draft study report were made available 

and participants were encouraged to submit comments by mail or through the PEPC website. The comment 

period ended February 13, 2012, after being extended twice. The NPS received over 12,000 comments. There 

were 822 unique letters and over 11,000 form letters. Comments were received from diverse groups, including 

conservation organizations, Latino organizations, local governments, elected officials, park and conservation 

agencies, recreational interests and organizations, and public works agencies, including water, sanitation, and 

flood protection. 

Comment Summary

Generally, public comments were in favor of a national recreation area designation with NPS involvement. 

The vast majority of comments supported alternative D, citing a desire for NPS involvement over a broad 
Page 19

geographic area and a need for additional funding support for the Angeles NF. Many others supported the 

no action alternative, often questioning the need for NPS management or expressing concern that NPS 

involvement could lead to increased closures, restrictions, and regulations. In comparison, support for 

alternatives A and C was slight.

Approximately 95% of the comments were submitted as a result of several organized campaigns in support 

of alternative D. Supporters of alternative D often expressed a belief that NPS involvement in the area could 

provide valuable assistance to public land agencies, including the Angeles NF, and to local communities, 

improving recreation access and experiences for residents and enhancing the protection of open space, 

wildlife corridors, and other natural resource values. Many of the comments supporting alternative D also 

recommended changes outside of the scope of the study, including inclusion of lands outside of the study area 

and designation of new wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers on the Angeles NF. 

Many who supported no action were concerned that a national recreation designation would lead to increased 

recreation in areas that are already heavily impacted, such as the San Gabriel River Canyon. Although it was 

not proposed in any of the alternatives, supporters of the no action alternative were often concerned that an 

NPS national recreation area designation would transfer management and regulation of the Angeles NF to the 

NPS, resulting in changes to existing recreation opportunities and special uses. Similarly, a few agencies were 

concerned whether a designation would have regulatory impacts on flood protection, water supply, sanitation, 

vector control, fish and game management, and agency operations. Increasing funding and support for the 

Angeles NF to manage recreation, however, was a common desire expressed by many supporters of both 

alternatives D and no action. 

A public comment and response report summarizing comments received by the National Park Service during 

the public comment period is available on the study website at www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel.

Agency Consultation

As required by law, the National Park Service sent letters to the following agencies and tribal organizations in 

November 2005 to notify them of the study process and to seek their input:

Agencies

• Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service

• Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

• Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs

• Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy

• California Department of Fish and Game

• State Historic Preservation Office

Tribal Organizations

• Alliance of Native Americans

• Cahuilla Band

• California Indian Council Foundation

• Chumash

• Coastal Gabrielino Diegueno

• Costanoan - Rumsen Carmel Tb
Page 20

• Fernandeno / Tataviam Tribe

• Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc.

• Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council of San Gabriel

• Gabrielino - Tongva Nation

• Gabrielino - Tongva Springs

• Gabrielino – Tongva Tribe

• Gabrielino - Tongva Youth Council

• Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians of CA

• Ish Panesh United Band of Indians

• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians

• Kawaiisu Tribe

• Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians

• LA City/County Native American Indian Comm

• Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians

• Owl Clan

• San Luis Rey Mission Band

• San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians

• San Manuel Tribal Administration

• Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians

• Soboba Band of Mission Indians

• Tehachapi Indian Tribe

• Tejon Indian Tribe

• Ti’At Society

• Tongva

• Tumamait

• Urban Indian Council

Congress directed that the study would be conducted in consultation with the San Gabriel and Lower Los 

Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and other appropriate federal, state, and local governmental 

entities, along with consideration of regional flood control and drainage needs and publicly owned 

infrastructure such as wasterwater treatement facilities. The National Park Service met with or distributed 

information to many regional, state, and federal agencies, as well as local governments, public utilities, and 

organizations, throughout the study process. During the public review period, the NPS received over fifty 

comments from agencies, organizations, local governments, private business, and elected officials. Alternative 

D received wide support from cities, county agencies, state agencies, and twenty-three members of Congress. 

Most of the management concepts described under alternative D are also found in the selected alternative. 

Page 22
Page 23

San Gabriel Unit

of SMMNRA

Guidance and authorities

for Angeles NF