Rim of the Valley Corridor Study

The Tierra Rejada Endangered Species Preserve that has been recently bisected by Urban Sprawl

The Vernal Pool toward the left of the picture is the home of the Endangered "Riverside Fairy Shrimp"

Underwood Farms can be seen toward the background
(Image property of SoCal Earth Science Blog)

The Study

I recently stumbled upon the "Rim of the Valley Corridor Special Recourse Study" by the National Park Service, which can be seen here: http://www.nps.gov/pwro/rimofthevalley/Newsletter3EnglishWEB.pdf

To sum the document up, there are four alternatives:
Alternative A - No Action

Alternative B - Cooperative Conservation Partnership
-SMNRA partners with other land owners and managers to protect and expand open spaces

Alternative C - Connecting Urban Communities 
-Adds more of the eastern study region to the SMNRA
Pros:
-Includes the Verdugo Hills
-Includes open space close to urban Los Angeles
-Provides corridors to nearby Angeles National Forest
Cons:
-Does not provide corridors to the Los Padres National Forest
-Does not include most or all of the Santa Susana Mountains and Simi Hills
-Does not include land in Ventura County that is/will be subjected to urban sprawl near Moorpark and Thousand Oaks

Alternative D - Connecting Natural Habitat 
-Adds more of the western study region to the SMNRA
Pros:
-Includes the Santa Susana Mountains and more of the Simi Hills
-Provides corridors to the nearby Los Padres and Angeles National Forests.
-Includes areas that are at risk to habitat fragmentation
Cons:
-Does not include the Verdugo Hills
-Does not include connections to urban Los Angeles

My Stance

I feel that an alternative that is a hybrid of C and D, would be adequate. One that includes natural areas and corridors, as in alternative D, but also protects the Verdugo Hills, as in alternative C.

If I had to choose between the two, although many may argue that Alternative D would not bring as much parkland into the Los Angeles Area, Alternative D would prevent habitat fragmentation and include the almost completely unprotected Santa Susana Mountains and Simi Hills. Thus, I would go with alternative D.

I have experienced the horrible fragmentation every time I visit my friends in Moorpark. Much of Moorpark was once open space and farmland. However in recent years, developers have developed even ecologically sensitive regions. This can be seen in a relatively recent development that bisects a small watershed that drains into a vernal pool (home of the endangered Riverside Fairy Shrimp). Although developers have stated that they have minimized their impact, by not destroying the vernal pool, they have destroyed much of the watershed that provides the pool with water every few years, and created a system of concrete ditches that artificially transport water around the development and to the pool. This can be seen in the image at the top of the page.

To prevent such atrocities from destroying more natural areas in Ventura County, I would support Alternative D to protect vulnerable areas that are at a significant risk.