Quote:
|
for us, WG2 is the best we can hope for, but I don't konw how it affects you guys. seems we're getting played against each other. and that's their plan.
|
Workgroup 2 is by far the best plan for La Jolla and greater San Diego. It's balanced - the conservation value is excellent, every science guideline is met, and economic impacts are reduced.
Everything stays virtually unchanged at LJ. The most resiliant kelp bed in the county at north Pt Loma is the one that is closed, and rightly so. Rare deep water rock is captured by the proposed Del Mar SMR.
The workgroup 2 proposal was assembled by fishing, defense and govt institutional reps with the specific goal of reducing economic impacts. There was no playing one group off another in WG2, just an intent to balance the pain.
That said, in the WG2 proposal Palos Verdes area kayak anglers would lose access to the Terranea Resort launch at southwest PV, an area that was only opened a couple of months back. They may ask the BRTF for an adjustment to WG2 or support another plan in that specific area. When testifying at the upcoming meeting, you may want to limit your comments to your own backyards, such as "In San Diego and Malibu I support the WG2 plan."
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about workgroup 2's proposal. Looking at the big picture, by far it sucks the least. WG1 and 3 call for massive closures that exceed science guidelines in Orange County, Malibu, and other places around the coast. WG1 does the most damage to San Diego - I recommend BWE oppose it vigorously for the southern portion of the SoCal study region.