Trout-Protection Data Questioned (washingtonpost.com)

Trout-Protection Data Questioned (washingtonpost.com):

"Instead, in releasing the report on bull trout and their vast habitat in four states, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made public only those parts of an analysis that detailed the costs of saving the fish.

"They were put at $230 million to $300 million over 10 years, adversely affecting hydropower, logging and highway construction.

"Gone from the published analysis, which was written for the Fish and Wildlife Service by a Missoula, Mont., consulting firm called Bioeconomics Inc., were 55 pages that detailed the benefits of protecting bull trout.

"Estimated at $215 million over 20 to 30 years, they include revenue from sport fishing, reduced drinking water costs and increased water for irrigation farmers, especially late in the summer when streams run low."

More on how the U.S. Government (under the Bush Administration) deals with knowledge. I would be the first to admit that the Government has a long history of poor estimates of benefits from water projects (See Porter's "Trust in Numbers"). But eliminating estimates of relatively well measured benefits from analyses does not seem to be the way to improve the situation.

Here is the Alliance for the Wild Rockies release on the issue.