DOCSLIB.ORG

Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA Table of Contents Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Study Area........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4.1 Prior Appropriation System .....................................................................1-2 1.4.2 Reclamation and Green Mountain Reservoir...........................................1-2 1.4.3 Western Area Power Administration.......................................................1-4 1.4.4 Springs Utilities’ Collection Systems and Customers .............................1-4 1.4.5 Blue River Decree....................................................................................1-7 1.4.6 Substitution Year Operations...................................................................1-8 1.4.7 Substitution Memorandums of Agreement............................................1-10 1.5 Required Permits and Approvals ....................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Agency and Public Input.................................................................................... 1-11 1.7 Environmental Resources.................................................................................. 1-12 2.0 Alternatives..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternative Screening Process ............................................................................. 2-1 2.3 No Action Alternative.......................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Proposed Action................................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Introduction and Methodology ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Impact Thresholds....................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Climate Change........................................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Water-Based Actions Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................................3-3 3.2 Issues and Impact Topics Considered but Excluded from Further Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 3-7 3.3 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................3-10 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................3-29 3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................3-58 3.4 Hydroelectric Generation................................................................................... 3-62 3.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................3-62 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................3-65 i Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA 3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................3-67 3.5 Water Quality..................................................................................................... 3-67 3.5.1 Affected Environment............................................................................3-69 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................3-70 3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................3-70 3.6 Aquatic Resources and Special Status Species.................................................. 3-74 3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................................................3-74 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................3-79 3.6.3 Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................3-87 3.7 Wetland and Riparian Resources and Special Status Species ........................... 3-87 3.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................3-89 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................3-93 3.7.3 Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................3-96 3.8 Recreation .......................................................................................................... 3-96 3.8.1 Affected Environment............................................................................3-96 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................3-98 3.8.3 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................3-100 3.9 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 3-100 3.9.1 Affected Environment..........................................................................3-100 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences..............................................................3-101 3.9.3 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................3-102 3.10 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................ 3-102 4.0 Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Scoping Process................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Comments on the Draft EA.................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Preparers .............................................................................................................. 4-2 5.0 References....................................................................................................................... 5-1 Glossary ..........................................................................................................................................1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Summary of Historical Substitution Year Operations Table 3-1 Springs Utilities Substitution Summary, Modeled Differences between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (AF) Table 3-2 Blue River below the Continental-Hoosier System, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) ii Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA Table 3-3 Blue River below Dillon Reservoir at USGS Gage 09050700, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-4 Blue River below Green Mountain Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-5 Upper Blue River Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Content between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (AF) Table 3-6 Dillon Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Content between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (AF) Table 3-7 Green Mountain Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Content between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (AF) Table 3-8 Williams Fork River below Williams Fork Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-9 Williams Fork Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Content between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (AF) Table 3-10 Muddy Creek below Wolford Mountain Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-11 Wolford Mountain Reservoir, Modeled Differences in Content between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (AF) Table 3-12 Colorado River below the Confluence with the Williams Fork River, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-13 Colorado River near Kremmling at USGS Gage 0905800, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-14 Colorado River below the Confluence with the Eagle River, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table 3-15 Homestake Creek below Homestake Project at USGS Gage 09064000, Modeled Differences in Flow between No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives (cfs) Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership
    DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC COLLABORATION DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP • TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? • WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE BLM ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP • INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP. • 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP) • 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN (DR-RAP) 1. IDENTIFIED A VISION: “A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.” “A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.” DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant Ecologic communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve Social aesthetic enjoyment;
    [Show full text]
  • See the Notice
    Notice Date: July 19, 2019 To: General Authorities; General Officers; Area Seventies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents; Members of Stake and Ward Councils From: Priesthood and Family Department (1-801-240-2134) Subject: For the Strength of Youth (FSY) Conferences in the United States and Canada As part of the Children and Youth effort announced on May 8, 2018, the Church will begin holding For the Strength of Youth (FSY) conferences in the United States and Canada. These conferences have been held outside the U.S. and Canada for many years and have proven to be a strength to youth and also to the young single adults who serve as counselors. See the attached description of FSY conferences for more information. Beginning in 2021 and 2022, all stakes in the U.S. and Canada will participate in FSY conferences every other year. During 2020, a smaller number of FSY conferences will be held at locations in the U.S. and Canada to prepare for full implementation. Attached is the list of stakes participating in 2020. If your stake has been selected to participate in FSY in 2020, please do not plan treks or youth conferences to be held during that year. Young Women and Young Men camps may be held annually, as usual. If your stake has been selected but you believe your stake has an exceptional circumstance and cannot participate in FSY in 2020, please contact your Area Seventy. Dates, locations, financing arrangements, and other information, such as the calling of young single adults as counselors, will be shared at a later date.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region
    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Drainage Changes in Uncompahgre Plateau-Grand
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/32 Pleistocene drainage changes in Uncompahgre Plateau-Grand Valley region of western Colorado, including formation and abandonment of Unaweep Canyon: a hypothesis Scott Sinnock, 1981, pp. 127-136 in: Western Slope (Western Colorado), Epis, R. C.; Callender, J. F.; [eds.], New Mexico Geological Society 32nd Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 337 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1981 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Packet, and Kailey Rosema, Our Water Quality Coordinator, Will Present on This Topic As Part of the Operations Report in April
    MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors FROM: Catherine Hayes, Board Secretary DATE: April 18, 2019 RE: April 25, 2019, Regular Board Meeting This memorandum shall serve as notice of the Regular Board of Directors Meeting of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:30 a.m. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Office Walter Kirch Room 846 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 Cc public items: Board Materials via Email: ERWSD Managers Bob Armour, Vail resident Ken Marchetti, Marchetti & Weaver, PC Caroline Bradford, Independent Consultant Robert Lipnick, Vail resident Rick Sackbauer, Vail resident BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING April 25, 2019, 11:30 a.m. 1. Consultant/Guest Introduction 2. Public Comment• 3. Action Items 3.1. Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2019, Special Meeting☼ 3.2. Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2019, Joint Meeting with UERWA☼ 3.3. Resolution Consenting to Overlapping Boundaries – Jim Collins☼ 3.4. Resolution re Bighorn Terrace Sanitation Subdistrict Budget – James Wilkins☼ 3.5. Consent Agenda: Contract Log☼ 4. Strategy Items 4.1. Board Member Input 5. General Manager Report – Linn Brooks* 5.1. General Manager Information Items 5.1.1. Recruiting.com Video – Ali Kelkenberg and Amy Vogt 5.1.2. Climate Action Collaborative 2018 Annual Report* 5.1.3. Stillwater Update – James Wilkins 5.2. Operations Report* 5.2.1. Lead and Copper Sampling – Kailey Rosema* 5.3. Engineering Report – Jason Cowles* 5.3.1. Eagle Park Reservoir Comprehensive Dam Safety Evaluation* 5.4. Public Affairs Report – Diane Johnson* 5.5. Monthly Reports 5.5.1. Development Report* 5.5.2. Authority March Meeting Summary – draft* 5.5.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Primitive Areas Gore Range-Eagles Nest And
    OC1 LO STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS OHIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEt OCT 2 r iQ70 GORE RANGE-EAGLES NEST AND VICINITY, COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1319-C f* MINERAL RESOURCES of the GORE RANGE-EAGLES NEST PRIMITIVE AREA and VICINITY, COLORADO Crest of Gore Range and head of middle fork of Black Creek. View is westward. Mount Powell (alt 13,534 ft) is massive peak at right of cen­ ter. Eagles Nest Mountain is at far right. Duck Lake is in right foreground. Trough above right end of lake marks fault zone of north-northwest trend. Dark area on steep front of rock glacier at left in photograph is typical "wet front" suggesting ice core in rock glacier. Mineral Resources of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area and Vicinity, Summit and Eagle Counties, Colorado By OGDEN TWETO and BRUCE BRYANT, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, and by FRANK E. WILLIAMS, U.S. BUREAU OF MINES c STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1319-C An evaluation of the mineral potential of the area UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. WASHINGTON : 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 78-607129 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 ^. STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS The Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, Sept. 3, 1964) and the Conference Report on Senate bill 4, 88th Congress, direct the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to make mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER USE Flow Regimes for In-Basin Water Users Are Reviewed
    Water Users and Recreation Appendix D WATER USE Flow regimes for in-basin water users are reviewed in this appendix. Water users include irrigators, municipalities and industry, and recreationalists. Flows include a wide range of parameters, affected by a wide range of uses and in some cases, such as recreation, may be somewhat subjective. The following sections include parameters, and approaches or methods to estimate these flow requirements. Much of the information presented herein was developed and presented in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study, Phase II, Final Report, May 29, (HRC 2003), herein referred to as the ‘UPCO Report’. WATER USE BY MUNICIPALITIES, INDUSTRY AND IRRIGATORS Water use as a parameter for this analysis and in terms of stream flow management focuses on two issues. The first is the physical limitations associated with stream flow that may affect the ability of a local water user to retrieve or use water. The second issue is the water user’s impact on flows in the stream relative to maintaining recommended flows. These issues are discussed in the following sections. Physical Limitations Irrigators: In general, most users are experiencing some difficulty in retrieving or using water, especially during the recent drought years. Many irrigators are constructing make-shift cobble dams to divert flows. In 2002 it was reported that the KB ditch was shut down voluntarily because the diversion was taking the majority of flows out of the Colorado River, leaving it in a dewatered condition. Pumping for irrigation is also limited by the available supply as well as by nuisance clogging from algae growth.
    [Show full text]
  • RV Sites in the United States Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile
    RV sites in the United States This GPS POI file is available here: https://poidirectory.com/poifiles/united_states/accommodation/RV_MH-US.html Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile Camp Map 370 Lakeside Park Map 5 Star RV Map 566 Piney Creek Horse Camp Map 7 Oaks RV Park Map 8th and Bridge RV Map A AAA RV Map A and A Mesa Verde RV Map A H Hogue Map A H Stephens Historic Park Map A J Jolly County Park Map A Mountain Top RV Map A-Bar-A RV/CG Map A. W. Jack Morgan County Par Map A.W. Marion State Park Map Abbeville RV Park Map Abbott Map Abbott Creek (Abbott Butte) Map Abilene State Park Map Abita Springs RV Resort (Oce Map Abram Rutt City Park Map Acadia National Parks Map Acadiana Park Map Ace RV Park Map Ackerman Map Ackley Creek Co Park Map Ackley Lake State Park Map Acorn East Map Acorn Valley Map Acorn West Map Ada Lake Map Adam County Fairgrounds Map Adams City CG Map Adams County Regional Park Map Adams Fork Map Page 1 Location Map Adams Grove Map Adelaide Map Adirondack Gateway Campgroun Map Admiralty RV and Resort Map Adolph Thomae Jr. County Par Map Adrian City CG Map Aerie Crag Map Aeroplane Mesa Map Afton Canyon Map Afton Landing Map Agate Beach Map Agnew Meadows Map Agricenter RV Park Map Agua Caliente County Park Map Agua Piedra Map Aguirre Spring Map Ahart Map Ahtanum State Forest Map Aiken State Park Map Aikens Creek West Map Ainsworth State Park Map Airplane Flat Map Airport Flat Map Airport Lake Park Map Airport Park Map Aitkin Co Campground Map Ajax Country Livin' I-49 RV Map Ajo Arena Map Ajo Community Golf Course Map
    [Show full text]
  • Draba Weberi Price & Rollins
    Draba weberi Price & Rollins (Weber’s draba): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 31, 2006 Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Decker, K. (2006, July 31). Draba weberi Price & Rollins (Weber’s draba): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/drabaweberi.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the employees of Colorado Springs Utilities (Mike Herrin, Bruce Newell, and Kirsta Scherff-Norris) and Colorado Division of Water Resources (Mark Haynes) who responded quickly and openly to my inquiries about the upper Blue Lake Reservoir. USDA Forest Service personnel, including Steve Olson, Paul Semmer, Terry Edelmon, and Greg Laurie, were also extremely helpful in determining the status of Draba weberi and its environs. Dr. Michael Windham of the Utah Museum of Natural History provided helpful clarification of the status of the genus Draba. Bill Jennings provided photographs and records of his observations. Georgia Doyle and Ellen Mayo provided information from the most recent observations of D. weberi. Thanks also to David Anderson and Jill Handwerk of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program for assisting with the preparation of this assessment. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Karin Decker is an ecologist with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). She works with CNHP’s Ecology and Botany teams, providing ecological, statistical, GIS, and computing expertise for a variety of projects. She has worked with CNHP since 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Right Track 2004 Annual Review Colorado Lottery a Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue
    We're on the Right Track 2004 Annual Review Colorado Lottery A division of the Colorado Department of Revenue COLORADO LOTTERY Looking n behalf of the Colorado Lottery, a division of the Colorado Department of ORevenue, I am pleased to present the calendar year 2004 annual review. And yes, the Colorado Lottery is "on the right track" in our efforts to maximize revenues, provide new and exciting games, and maintain our commitment to customer service Ahead and efficient operations. Through hard work and dedication, the Lottery was able to set new sales records in to 2005 2004, while at the same time identifying efficiencies that allowed us to return additional dollars to our proceeds recipients. s in 2004 The Lottery celebrated yet another successful year with sales over $408 million, breaking the previous calendar year record of $398 million in 2002. The Scratch product line once again led the way in setting the new sales record. In 2004, the Lottery sold more than The Colorado Lottery ended fiscal year 2004 by setting an The Colorado Lottery will undergo $274 million in Scratch tickets. all-time Scratch sales record of $260.9 million. a major computer conversion in Proceeds recipients received more than $ 104 million during 2005. Changes will include new, In addition, the Colorado Lottery began implementation of an entirely new computer game system and fiscal year 2004. This was the second-highest proceeds state-of-the-art terminals that introduced state-of-the-art Scratch game vending machines. These changes will provide the opportunity for produce Powerball, Lotto and distribution in the Lottery's 22-year history.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholders Finalize Management Plan for Upper Colorado River
    News Release BLM Colorado, Colorado River Valley Field Office, Kremmling Field Office U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest July 20, 2020 Contacts: Roy Smith, Bureau of Land Management, (303) 239-3940 Kay Hopkins, White River National Forest (970) 945-3265 Stakeholders finalize management plan for Upper Colorado River GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colo. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service have formally accepted the final plan from a group of Upper Colorado River stakeholders that seeks to protect recreational fishing- and boating-related values along the Upper Colorado River from Gore Canyon to lower Glenwood Canyon. The Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group Management Plan represents more than twelve years of work by 26 entities with diverse interests on the Upper Colorado River, from municipal water providers to recreationists. “This diverse group, with seemingly different views for managing the Upper Colorado River, rolled up their sleeves and developed a plan that balances protection of the river with flexibility for water users. The work of this group serves as a model for other flow management efforts across the state,” said White River National Forest Supervisor, Scott Fitzwilliams. “The final plan addresses an arena where federal agencies have very limited authority,” said Larry Sandoval, Colorado River Valley Field Office Manager. “When our federal land management authorities are combined with this cooperative flow management effort, all of the important natural and social values in the river corridor are proactively managed.” In 2008, the stakeholder group formed as the BLM was revising its land use plans to include studies that determined which stretches of the Colorado River had specific values that make them “eligible” for protection under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
    [Show full text]