Folks dispute salmon recovery plan

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

By Chris Thew
Omak Chronicle staff
     A meeting to discuss possible changes to the salmon recovery plan, brought forward by the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, turned into a meeting to agree on disagreeing.
     The meeting, held in Okanogan on Aug. 17, brought two groups of people - those that felt parts of the plan could be changed to come up with a better version and those who felt the entire plan needed to be scrapped.
     Chuck Pevin, a biologist under contract with Okanogan County and one of the writers of the hotly contested habitat section of the plan, left wondering if he would pull out of his contract. Pevin felt that if the group really wanted to throw out the entire plan, he had nothing he could offer. He feels that parts of the plan could be dropped and parts could be changed, but to create a plan anew would be next to impossible. When asked how the group could obtain the science to back up the new plans, his response was simple.
     “Exactly!” said Pevin.
     Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, believes the science already exists to put into the plan. He thinks that many of the people at the meeting would be able to come up with something workable.
     “So much work has been done behind the scenes,” said Kretz. “Different people with different backgrounds will be working on it. It can have local support with defensible, scientific background.”
     The meeting left many questions about how future meetings in Okanogan will operate, but left many with a feeling that a new, Okanogan County plan can be written.
     Okanogan County Commissioner Bud Hover attended the packed meeting hoping to start fixing the plan in place - not starting the much harder task of a whole rewrite. He sees the current plan as something that can and should be changed.
     “They’ll get it when we can get it to them,” said Hover.     
     Hover said he would like to know what Okanogan County residents need to do for salmon recovery and how much. He wants the work done in this county measured by the successes.
     “We have to come up with something we can accept,” said Hover. “Something we can live with.”
     Pevin, who has been under contract to assist in the process, tried to get the group behind reworking the current plan.
     “If the plan is broke, let’s fix it,” said Pevin. “I don’t think it’s broke beyond repair.”
     Pevin agreed that parts of the plan could be deleted or changed and mentioned an earlier meeting in Okanogan that he attended that allowed for people to suggest changes to the plan.
     Pevin said things had to be phrased a certain way to be accepted (by NOAA). He said, “No one wants erroneous information in the plan. Let’s fix this if it’s broken.”
     The group strayed from what Pevin called a “possible agenda” and questioned him on what was missing in the plan, such as predators that are one cause for fish deaths.
     “If we’re going to recover fish, we need to look at the cause,” said Kretz.
     Pevin warned the group about the dangers of sending a plan that does not meet the expectations of NOAA. Pevin was then asked to get the requirements for the document.
     “I want to know what our responsibility is,” said Hover. “What can we do here that will provide what they need and what we need also.”
     The focus then turned on Chuck Pevin’s comments.
     “You’re fighting us,” said Sarah Kretz to Pevin. “These are the people that should be telling you what the plan is.”
     A vote of the audience showed that a majority felt a rewrite of the plan was required. However, others felt that with work, parts of the current plan could be fixed. Pevin responded that if the group wanted to fix the current plan he was there to help. When many in the audience decided against the direction of repair, Pevin questioned his presence.
     “I think you’re on a road to failure,” said Pevin. “I don’t want to be along for the ride.”
     Kretz told the group that much of the scientific work had already been done. He called for a steering committee to lead the work.
     Hover reminded the people that the UCSRB could always reject the changes, resulting in wasted hours of work.
     “If you want this thing written, it’s on your backs,” said Hover.
     Hover suggested that the group should work within the framework of the current plan and work on the specifics.
     “I’m kind of leaning toward leaving some of the structure there,” said Kretz. “It’s going to be a huge rewrite either way.”
     At the end of the night, names were written down for a steering committee to lead the creation of a new Okanogan County-backed plan.