The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1963-10-25
Upper Missouri Power Potential
Over q Million KiIowutts Gould
Be Developed Above Fort Peck

euiIoI ODLhO " w En-, WdSu., IL. y
different sizes of projects, some o
which are at approximately the sam
sites.
The minimum hydro plans would b
limited to generation at Fort Benton
while the maximum would have thre,
hydro projects with a total installed
capacity of 1,114,OOO XIV. There is M
direct relationship between the cos
benefit ratio and the installed capac
lily. For example, of two plans which
only consider Fort Benton Dam one
has a cost-benefit ratio of II to
and the other Ia to 1. This is a re-
suit of varying ALLEGATIONS which have
been assigned to other parts of each
plan, such as fish and wildlife and
recreation.
| One of the most favorable plans
endorsed by the recent annual con-
vention of the American Public Pow
er Association is Plan A. This plan
would develop 100000 XIV with two
projects, Fort Benton and High Cow
Creek (720,000 kw) adequately meet
recreational needs; provide for an
intensified land management pro-
gram; and protect fish and wildlife
resources of the area.
Plan A would cost total of $780,
641, 900, of which 1881, 575, 900 would
be for reservoir projects. and would
have benefit-cost ratio of 20 to 1,
the most favorable benefit-cost ratio
of any of the plans.
FPC BACKS DEVELOPMENT
The Federal Power Commission has
termed Plan 'tthe best combination
of projects. This includes Fort Ben
ton, Heller Bend (74O,OOO kw) and
Low Rocky Point $4,000 XVI for a
total of 1,113,00O XIV. The Commits |
sion also commented that there would |
be market for the power in the |
area by 1880 and added that this |
hydro could be developed advan-
in conjunction with thermal
generation in the Ignite beds in
Montana and North Dakota.
The program for development of
fish and wildlife resources includes
establishment of the Fort HawIey
Waterfowl Development and the
Missouri Breaks Wildlife Area to
establish ga complex of big game
species on rehabiIitated range"
The cost of this particular phase of
would vary, according :
to which of the various plans was I
adopted, from nearly !
$40 million to So million. =
Each alternative plan contains an s
location for recreation. Any of the S
lans would promote recreation to a c
reater extent than at present by i'm /
rowing access to the area. Principal b
ccess is country road and jeep trail, v
sed by hunters and cattlemen. II
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS v
TIED
Under comprehensive plan, the +
,untry would be opened up for tour |
is and sportsmen at either the wild
ness waterway which emphasizes "
atural attractions or reservoir de- RI
,lopment which would offer both the 81
ltural beauty of the Missouri River ii
reaks with reservoir sports such as I'll
trimming, boating, water skiing and fl
ke-shore camp sites. tt
r recreational development ranges la
ON So million plus to Sta million
tn cost benefit ratios as high as ce
} to 1 with reservoir development ca
low of or to 1 with the wilder h,
SIS waterway plan. al
At an estimated cost of nearly 81 DC
llon, the Bureau of Land Manage To-
mt would institute a program of DO
ensified agricultural land manage tic
mt. Detectives would be to improve ne
productivity of the land for live tn
ok and to make the area more ac- it's
sible for hunting and sightseeing.
The comprehensive survey of the Il
per Missouri is a field report. 1t r,
low being reviewed by each of the -
erior bureaus interested in the +;o
rs. When these reviews are COM ~,
ed, departmental recommends 90,