As you can see, the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery is an extremely important project to this community. It offers a way to spur economic development and recreational opportunities in the area. I believe it is also a way to help the environment. The hatchery will give us the option of rearing both sport fish and fish considered threatened and endangered.
The hatchery project has been citizen led, and supported by the state legislature. Warmwater fishermen are now purchasing fish stamps to help cover the eventual costs of operation and maintenance. The Corps of Engineers has worked tirelessly on the project, and I am dedicated to shepherding authorizing language through Congress so we can break ground on the project as soon as possible.
I introduced S. 2027, the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery Authorization Act of 2000, earlier this year to spur your Subcommittee's involvement in the process. Notice I called it the Act of 2000. I did so because I hope we can move this project forward as soon as possible. The groundwork is in place. The Corps has completed a Preliminary Design Study and Environmental Assessment, and this town is ready to go.
While I would like nothing better than to see S. 2027 move as a stand alone bill, I have talked both to you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Bob Smith, Chairman of the full committee about including this project in the Water Resources and Development Act of this year to move the project forward as quickly as possible. Chairman Smith has looked favorably on the project and I hope that this hearing will help us find the answers we need to finalize the details of the hatchery.
At this point in time there are a few outstanding issues that we will need to address. First, and perhaps the easiest from an authorization standpoint, but more difficult from my position as a member of the Appropriations Committee, is the cost of the project. From the latest set of figures presented by the Corps, it is my understanding that the total cost for the hatchery project will be approximately $18.7 million. This will allow the completion of a state-of-the-art facility that will meet the needs of the region to raise numerous fish species, including those listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
While I admit this is an expensive undertaking, the Corps of Engineers has compared these figures with the cost to construct other federally financed hatcheries and determined that the build cost is comparable to previous projects.
The second issue of contention that has been brought to my attention relates to the delivery of power to the hatchery. It is my understanding that the Corps and the State of Montana have discussed the ability to deliver low cost project power to the hatchery in an attempt to keep Operation and Maintenance costs at a minimum. However, the local electric cooperative has raised concerns that this power should be delivered through the co-op. I have asked the cooperative to estimate what they would charge for electricity to power the hatchery so we can compare whether this cost increase threatens the viability of the project.
Finally, there has been a discussion of Operation and Maintenance costs and who should shoulder this burden. As I pointed out previously, the State has begun marketing a fish stamp to cover some of these costs, but is it highly unlikely the sale of this stamp will generate enough revenue to cover all the O&M; costs. To make matters more contentious, State law dictates that the State share of Operation and Maintenance can not exceed the revenue produced by the sale of the warmwater fish stamp. However, considering that this hatchery will be used to raise pallid sturgeon, it is my hope that we can identify a portion of the hatchery's Operation and Maintenance that will remain a federal responsibility to support raising threatened and endangered species.
I look forward to discussing these issues with our witnesses.