Enemies of Oxford Lagoon?

Last minute pleas by so-called environmental and community groups masquerading as “Friends of Oxford Lagoon” should be soundly rejected by County Supervisors, and the Oxford Basin refurbishment should go forward as planned. Some leaders of these groups are well-known, having opposed many successful environmental enhancement projects over the last decade, including the Ballona Freshwater Marsh, the Ballona Lagoon Trail and Habitat, and the Malibu Lagoon restoration. All three projects were fought by these individuals, making baseless and unsupported assertions. All three projects are now wildly successful, providing rich native habitat and regulated access for people, where degraded land once dominated.

The Oxford project is proceeding as do all projects involving trees that support bird nesting; by waiting until after nesting season has concluded. From October through February, trees are not occupied by nesting birds, and voluminous studies show that when birds return in spring to nest, they simply occupy other nearby trees if trees from the prior season were removed. Every Audubon Society member in good standing knows this, and that the project opponents speak hogwash.

The Black-Crowned Night Herons and Snowy Egrets which opponents claim to be protecting are abundant and nest throughout the Marina, Ballona and Playa Del Rey areas. Stand beneath the ficus trees in front of the Marina Ritz Carlton, just a click south of the Oxford Basin, and you’ll see plentiful evidence on the sidewalk of egret nesting above. You’ll see the birds roosting there in the spring.

The opponents of this project will only succeed in wasting more public resources if the Supervisors hear their pleas. The cost imposed on public agencies due to their failed opposition to the Malibu restoration was so significant, that the California Coastal Commission considered sanctioning these intervenors to recover wasted taxpayer dollars[1]. Marcia Hanscom (co-director of Ballona Institute) and allies had petitioned to revoke the Commission’s permit for the Malibu project, which at the time was already about one quarter complete. Official Transcripts of the public meeting held on August 8, 2012 highlight the Coastal Commission’s displeasure with Hanscom’s tactics:

Commissioner Jana Zimmer: “petitioners have not produced a single shred of evidence to support revocation, and I am especially concerned that this petitioner failed to exercise due diligence.”

Commissioner Esther Sanchez: “Staff has done a very thorough analysis, and staff is correct in determining there are no grounds for revocation.”

Commissioner Richard Bloom: “Repeatedly, the integrity of our Commission has been challenged over and over again…and not one scintilla or iota of evidence was produced to support the revocation request.”

Chairwoman Mary Shallenberger: “It does the beg the question of how expensive these kinds of things are, for our Commission, for Parks, and, um, there is a provision for revocation for the Executive Director to determine them frivolous,…..but I think that some day when we may have the Executive Director perhaps save both, whatever agencies are involved a great deal of money and to declare such things as frivolous…”

[1] Transcript of California Coastal Commission meeting, August 8, 2012. See the video archive at http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=CCC&date=2012-08-08 click on the film reel icon next to Item 4.5a on the agenda.