The National Park Service announced April 10 that it was recommending to Congress that it adopt a "national recreation area" designation for the San Gabriel foothills, San Gabriel River, Rio Hondo, and Puente Hills. Missing from the recommendation were the hundreds of thousands of acres of the San Gabriel Mountains/Angeles National Forest--an area that more than 95 percent of public comments received for the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study recommended including in the NRA.
As the Pasadena Star-News' Steve Scauzillo reported, the "Forest Service won
the jurisdiction battle. The largest urban-interface forest in the
country still would be managed only by the U.S. Forest Service, a
division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
The Los Angeles Times' Louis Sahagun summed up the larger effort and the way it fell short: "The National Park Service spent nearly a decade researching
alternatives, conducting public hearings, developing a 316-page report
and evaluating 12,000 public comments that led to Wednesday's
announcement."
Including the national forest, he said, "would have
emphasized recreational use and brought new environmental protections to
a region now designated as a national forest charged with managing
multiple uses including mining, hunting, logging and other activities.
The 655,000-acre portion of the Angeles National Forest suffers from
illegal campfires, crime and pollution."
Whatever your feelings about the proposed national recreation area--and we at the Friends continue to have significant concerns about the authority that agencies other than the park service would have under the new designation--it's pretty clear that the park service has proposed (to borrow from a Supreme Court justice) a skim-milk national recreation area for the San Gabriel Mountains and Valley.
But the process isn't over. Former Secretary of Labor and U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis, who launched the study in 2003, said that the NRA boundaries could change as the proposal works its way through Congress. We hope that also means that the roles of various partners could be clarified and the overall values that would guide management of the national recreation area would be made clearer.
No, not over by a long stretch of the imagination.
--
Useful links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment