Nov. 22 Daily News editorial

U.S. District Court Judge James Redden has scheduled a hearing Monday on the Obama administration’s recently submitted salmon recovery plan. It’s thought to be the last hearing before Redden decides whether the plan meets the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Little, if any, mystery remains as to what that decision will be. The Portland judge signaled his likely rejection of the plan in a letter sent to the attorneys more than a week ago.

Associated Press environmental writer Jeff Barnard reports that Redden’s concern focuses on the procedure the government followed in developing new measures for protecting endangered salmon — specifically whether or not the government followed the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Obama plan is a slightly revised version of an earlier Bush administration plan rejected by the courts. The changes in the previous plan were made unilaterally, with consulting other parties involved in the lawsuit challenging the plan. Redden reportedly worries that this may violate the APA.

Government attorneys, of course, may find a way to address this procedural concern and any other problems Redden might have with the administration’s recovery plan. But we doubt it. Redden’s courtroom not been a friendly environment for those tasked with drafting plans to balance the needs of salmon against the needs of hydroelectric power consumers throughout the Pacific Northwest. The judge has tossed out two previous salmon recovery plans for reasons that we find difficult to comprehend.

Indeed, Redden’s dismissal of the previous administration’s recovery plan as inadequate was baffling. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had committed to a 10-year salmon restoration effort that would cost Pacific Northwest ratepayers some $6 billion. It included costly, court-ordered spills at Columbia River dams. Many doubted the effectiveness of the spills, which the BPA estimated would result in $7 million in lost revenue. Still, Redden found the plan inadequate.

The Obama administration’s recovery plan is little changed from the Bush administration plan that Redden rejected. Environmental critics condemn the plan as a repeat of the Bush plan. But the new plan is changed enough to be taking fire from both the right and left. That generally tells us the government has it about right.

To be sure, the Obama administration’s recovery plan offers an aggressive strategy for salmon restoration, while recognizing the irrigation needs of Northwest growers and attempting to moderate the burden shouldered by hydroelectric power consumers. That burden already is considerable. Cowlitz PUD ratepayers invest about $30 million annually in salmon recovery. We would hope Judge Redden’s court doesn’t find this sort of investment inadequate. But we’re not optimistic.