DOCSLIB.ORG

Water for Oil Shale Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Denver Law Review Volume 43 Issue 1 Symposium - Oil Shale Article 6 April 2021 Water for Oil Shale Development Robert Delaney Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Robert Delaney, Water for Oil Shale Development, 43 Denv. L.J. 72 (1966). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Water for Oil Shale Development By ROBERT DELANEY* Before a shale oil industry can become a reality, a firm and dependable supply of water must be developed. No process yet devised can function without the use of considerable quantities of water. If not in the mining, then certainly water is required in the necessary refining and processing required for the movement of shale oil through pipelines or by other means. The quantity of water required for industrial use varies according to the process being considered. Some processes involving mining and a minimum of refining after extraction require relatively small quantities of water. If the products are refined to the point of use at or near the site of mining, then a much greater supply of water will be required. If the in situ process of retorting, utilizing steam, should be employed, then obviously an enormous amount of water would be necessary.j Apart from water required for removal, refining and processing of shale oil, the industry will require many people. A common estimate is that for each individual directly engaged in the shale oil industry, there will be five persons resident in the area. Using an- other common estimate of one-fourth of an acre foot of water per year per person, a large amount of potable water with low mineral content must be developed suitable for domestic use.1 Assuming the area of water use to be in proximity with the oil shale deposits along the northerly side of the Colorado River from Rifle, westerly and extending northerly into the Piceance Basin, the source of water must necessarily be the Colorado River and the White River, with their tributaries, together with a limited ground water possibility of uncertain potential. The water demand may be expected to increase proportionately as the shale oil industry develops; likewise, since shale oil technology is developing from experimental processes to prototype plants, and may be expected to proceed into full scale commercial production, *Partner, Delaney & Balcomb, Glenwood Springs, Colo.; member, Colorado and American Bar Associations; LL.B., Westminster Law School, 1946. tEditor's Note: Space does not permit detailed attribution of technical data related to mining and refining processes involved in the production of kerogen. For a brief and lucid technical reference work, see East, Oil-Shale Mining, Rifle, Colo., 1944-56 (U. S. Bureau of Mines Bull. 611, 1964). 1 The Mineral Resources Board of the State of Colorado in 1961 estimated that a shale oil production of 1,000,000 barrels per day in western Colorado would require development of a new metropolitan area of 340,000 people, with some 59,130 residents directly employed in the shale oil industry. Mineral Resources of Colorado, First Sequel (1960), 458. 1966 OIL SHALE SYMPOSIUM water requirements should have a corresponding gradual increase. Many indulge in the fallacious assumption that the development of firm water supplies to meet the potential demand may be deferred until technology and other conditions launch the industry. To date, there has been little cooperative planning or unified action by the oil shale interests toward developing water supplies required for a major industry. It is surprising that several of the major oil companies, while expending millions of dollars for the acquisition of oil shale deposits, have failed to take even a second look at water requirements obviously necessary for the development of those deposits. It is more surprising that the United States, with the Naval Oil Shale reserves, the vast amounts of oil shale under control of the Bureau of Land Management, the money spent through the Bureau of Mines on the oil shale demonstration plant with a declared interest in being a major participant in the oil shale program has not taken an active role in studies and planning for water supplies to meet the requirements of the industry.2 If this water supply euphoria continues, the day will almost certainly come when oil shale developers will find themselves seriously handicapped or curtailed by lack of water and at a serious disadvantage with their more farsighted competitors who are now actively engaged in developing supplies of water to keep pace with the development of the industry. The water that could be developed to support a major oil shale industry is subject to the intense competi- tion for water from the Colorado River, and oil shale is in danger of losing by default. The water supply problem has been recognized from the begin- ning of major planning on oil shale development. In 1953 a state financed study was made under direction of the Colorado Water Conservation Board to determine present and potential water re- quirements in Western Colorado in an attempt to secure agreement about transmountain diversions.3 In the course of these studies, an excellent committeee comprised of the best engineers, hydrologists, and other persons obtainable, including representatives of most of the major oil companies, then interested in the area, conducted intensive studies concerning oil shale industry water requirements, and concluded that for a two million barrel per day operation a diversion or stream withdrawal of 625 cubic feet of water per second of time, or 455,000 acre feet of water per year, would be required." 2 While some 31,000 acres of Piceance Creek lands in shale-bearing areas are in Naval Reserves 1 and 3, over 200,000 acres are privately held. Id. at 451. 3 Colorado Conference Committee & Colorado Water Conservation Board, Water Requirements of an Oil Shale Industry, Sept. 24, 1953. 4Id. at 4. DENVER LAW JOURNAL VOL. 43 This would involve a net consumptive use of 400 cubic feet of water per second, or 290,000 acre feet per year with a return flow to the stream of 225 cubic feet of water per second, or 165,000 acre feet per year. It was further stated in their report that: A large scale oil shale operation will require water at essen- tially a constant rate throughout the year. ....5 From available hydrographic data, it seems evident that the only practical and economic source of water to a shale oil industry is the Colorado River, and its tributaries, in and upstream from the oil shale area. It also seems apparent that storage reservoirs will be required to assure a continuous water supply to an oil shale industry of 625 cubic feet per second. The industry hopes that the report of the Conference Com- mittee to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and, in turn, the Board's report to the General Assembly of the State of Colorado will show: (1) that a potential oil shale development in Western Colo- rado will require an estimated 625 cubic feet per second of Colorado River Water, (2) whether 625 cubic feet per second of Colorado River Water will be available to a shale oil industry, (3) what storage will be required to assure the availability of this amount of water, (4) how the financing, construction and operation of such storage facilities can most appropriately be handled and, (5) the availability of reservoir site or sites, which will be required for storage purposes, to assure a continuous water supply to an oil shale industry of 625 cubic feet per second. 6 In the course of the same studies, a report was written and published entitled: "Report on Depletion of Surface Water Supplies of Colorado West of Continental Divide." Mr. Raymond Hill, an eminent engineer and hydrologist of the firm of Leeds, Hill and Jewett of Los Angeles was the author of the report, which was compiled after months of study and investigation at a cost of nearly fifty thousand dollars. The report is recommended reading to any- one interested in water supplies from the Colorado River or its tributaries. It is stated in the report that: Development of the oil shale reserves in Western Colorado should be anticipated and the consumption of water for industrial, municipal, and other purposes resulting therefrom may reach 300,000 acre feet per year.7 Importantly, it should be pointed out that this is a depletion, or consumed-use figure, and not a stream diversion figure with return flow. 5ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Report on Depletion of Surface Water Supplies of Colorado West of Continental Divide 59 (Bull. No. 1, Surface Water -Series, Colorado Water Conservation Board, 1953). 1966 OIL SHALE SYMPOSIUM The answer to the oil shale water supply problem rests with surmounting both natural and legal obstacles. There is a tremendous fluctuation in the flow of both the Colorado and White Rivers from day to day, from month to month, and from year to year. Most annual runoff occurs within a month or six weeks when the snow melts in the high mountains. In this short interval, water supplies exceed the present adjudicated demands. During the remainder of the irrigation season, in most years, the adjudicated demands exceed th supply, so that, on the Colorado River at least, releases from storage are necessary to satisfy the present irrigation and other adjudicated rights, without taking into account new uses for oil shale.
Recommended publications
  • Historical Information H.4 Pre-Event Reports Book 1 Project Rulison: Pre

    Historical Information H.4 Pre-Event Reports Book 1 Project Rulison: Pre

    Historical Information H.4 Pre-Event Reports Book 1 Project Rulison: Pre-Shot Predictions of Structural Effects HPR .2 DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. PROJECT RULISON: Pre - Shot Predictions of Structural Effects John A. -~lume& Associates Research Division San ~rancisco,California March 1969 Prepared under Contract AT(26-1)-99 for the Nevada Operations Office, USAEC This page intentionally left blank PROJECT RULISON: PRE-SHOT PREDICTIONS OF STRUCTURAL EFFECTS CONTENTS -Page ABSTRACT ......................../'. .... i i I SUMMARY ............................ v INTRODUCTION.......................... 1 SEISMICITY ........................... 2 STRUCTURAL HAZARD EVALUATION .................. 3 EARTH STRUCTURAL HAZARDS .................... 11 HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE AND WATER SUPPLY HAZARDS .......... 17 SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND EVACUATION RECOMt4ENDATIONS ....... 22 DAMAGE COST PREDICTIONS .................... 24 CONDITION SURVEYS ....................... 26 MAP (In pocket inside back cover) This page intentionally left blank . ~ ABSTRACT This report includes results of pre-RULISON structural response investigations and a preliminary evaluation of hazards associated with ground motion effects on buildings, reservoirs, and earth structures. Total damage repair costs from an engineering judg- ment prediction are provided. Spectral Matrix Method calcula- tions are now in progress. Also included are general safety recommendations. A summary of predictions follows: Structural Response Damaging motions are probable in the region inside 25 kilometers. Structural hazards exist in Grand Valley, at the Anvil Points Research Station, and at various small ranches out to a distance of 14 ki lometers from Ground Zero (GZ) . The area is much more densely populated than would appear from initial project informa- tion. Earth Structure Hazards Rockfall and hazards to slope stability create major problems.
  • The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?

    The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?

    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, or the Vestige oF a Failed Past? Liam Patton* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 42 I. THE EVOLUTION OF HYDROPOWER ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU ..... 45 A. Hydropower and the Development of Pumped Storage .......... 45 B. History of Dam ConstruCtion on the Plateau ........................... 48 C. Shipping ResourCes Off the Plateau: Phoenix as an Example 50 D. Modern PoliCies for Dam and Hydropower ConstruCtion ...... 52 E. The Result of Renewed Federal Support for Dams ................. 53 II. HYDROPOWER AS AN ALLY IN THE SHIFT TO CLEAN POWER ............ 54 A. Coal Generation and the Harms of the “Big Buildup” ............ 54 B. DeCommissioning Coal and the Shift to Renewable Energy ... 55 C. The LCR ProjeCt and “Clean” Pumped Hydropower .............. 56 * J.D. Candidate, 2021, University oF Colorado Law School. This Note is adapted From a final paper written for the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. Thank you to the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review staFF For all their advice and assistance in preparing this Note For publication. An additional thanks to ProFessor KrakoFF For her teachings on the economic, environmental, and Indigenous histories of the Colorado Plateau and For her invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. I am grateFul to share my Note with the community and owe it all to my professors and classmates at Colorado Law. COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 42 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. [Vol. 32:1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLATEAU HYDROPOWER ...............
  • Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Record of Decision Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement I. Summary of Action and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam. The EIS describes the potential effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The four endangered fish species are Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail (Gila elegans). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). Reclamation’s goal is to implement the proposed action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), including those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. As the Federal agency responsible for the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS. Eight cooperating agencies also participated in preparing this EIS: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S.
  • PCA) Report Name Colorado River Site Code S.USCOHP*15679

    PCA) Report Name Colorado River Site Code S.USCOHP*15679

    Level 4 Potential Conservation Area (PCA) Report Name Colorado River Site Code S.USCOHP*15679 IDENTIFIERS Site ID 1328 Site Class PCA Site Alias Colorado River Megasite Network of Conservation Areas (NCA) NCA Site ID NCA Site Code NCA Site Name - No Data County Garfield (CO) Grand (UT) Mesa (CO) SITE DESCRIPTION Site Description This site includes the stretch of the Colorado River that extends from Rifle to the Utah border. The Colorado River riparian corridor is the most heavily developed area in Mesa County. The floodplains near the river were historically dominated by stands of Rio Grande cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. wislizeni) with an understory of skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata). However, development of the floodplain, agriculture, and most notably, the invasion of non-native species such as tamarisk ( Tamarix ramosissima), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) have greatly reduced the amount of native riparian vegetation within this site. Extensive gravel mining operations in the river floodplain up and downstream of the City of Rifle has included the removal of cottonwood gallery forests and commensurate riparian and stream values that these forests provide. Along the immediate banks of the river and around wetlands in the floodplain, coyote willow (Salix exigua), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), reedcanary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), common reed (Phragmites australis), cattail (Typha latifolia), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), threesquare bulrush (S. pungens), alkali bulrush (S. maritimus), and redroot flatsedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos) are typically dominant. This site provides critically important habitat for endangered fish such as the razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and humpback chub (Gila cypha).
  • Equity and the Colorado River Compact

    Equity and the Colorado River Compact

    TOJCI.ROBISON & KENNEY.DOC 11/26/2012 8:47 PM EQUITY AND THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT BY JASON A. ROBISON & DOUGLAS S. KENNEY* The Colorado River and the elaborate body of laws governing its flows (Law of the River) are at a critical juncture, with a formidable imbalance between water supplies and demands prompting diverse efforts to evaluate and to think anew about Colorado River governance. One such effort is the Colorado River Governance Initiative (CRGI) at the University of Colorado Law School. Incorporating CRGI research undertaken over the past two-and-a-half years, this Article focuses on the interstate compact constituting the foundation of the Law of the River—the Colorado River Compact (Compact)—and approaches the water apportionment scheme established by this Compact as a subject of central importance in current efforts to navigate the future of the river. Lying at the base of the Compact is a commitment to equity—“equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System”—which poses the fundamental question explored in this Article: To what extent does the Compact’s apportionment scheme fulfill this commitment to equity in its existing form? After providing an initial overview of the Compact, this Article considers the meaning of “equity” as a norm, setting the stage for a subsequent examination of water supplies and demands in the basin and of longstanding interpretive disputes involving the Compact’s key terms. This examination reveals several equity-related concerns associated with the composition of the Compact’s apportionment scheme and the governance structure devised for it.
  • Colorado River Compact, 1922

    Colorado River Compact, 1922

    Colorado River Compact, 1922 The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the Act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921 (42 Statutes at Large, page 171), and the Acts of the Legislatures of the said States, have through their Governors appointed as their Commissioners: W.S. Norviel for the State of Arizona, W.F. McClure for the State of California, Delph E. Carpenter for the State of Colorado, J.G. Scrugham for the State of Nevada, Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for the State of New Mexico, R.E. Caldwell for the State of Utah, Frank C. Emerson for the State of Wyoming, who, after negotiations participated in by Herbert Hoover appointed by The President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles: ARTICLE I The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water, to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.
  • Grand Junction Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan And

    Grand Junction Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan And

    Appendix C Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process ..................................................................................... 1-4 1.1.1 Eligibility Phase ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.1.2 Suitability Phase .............................................................................................................. 1-4 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Suitability Criteria Used to Evaluate River and Stream Segments .................................... 2-1 2.2 Data Sources and Methodology ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.1 Geographic Information Systems ............................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2 BLM Resource Interdisciplinary Team ...................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Informational Sources ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Other Agencies .............................................................................................................
  • Law of the River the Colorado River Compact

    Law of the River the Colorado River Compact

    Colorado River Water Users Association: Law of the River . The Colorado River Compact . As the 20th century dawned, the The Colorado River Compact vast domain of the Colorado River lay almost entirely Boulder Canyon Project Act untouched. Though there had been a few early filings for Treaty with Mexico diversion and a "grand ditch" conveying water some 16 miles across the Continental Divide Upper Colorado River Basin into eastern Colorado in the late Compact of 1948 1800s, California's Imperial Valley was among the first areas to tap the river's true potential. In early 1901, the 60 mile long Alamo Canal, Colorado River Storage Project developed by private concerns, was completed to deliver Colorado Act River water for irrigation, and a wasteland was transformed. But the Imperial Valley did not move ahead without problems. About 50 miles Grand Canyon Protection Act of the canal coursed through Mexico, leaving the valley farmers at the mercy of a foreign government. And in 1905, the river, raging with Arizona vs. California floods, eroded the opening to the canal, roared through and created the Salton Sea before the river was pushed back into its normal channel. Future of Western Water With the constant threat of flood looming along the lower Colorado, demands grew for some sort of permanent flood control work -a storage reservoir and dam on the river. And Imperial Valley farmers called for a canal totally within the United States, free of Mexican interference. By 1919, Imperial Irrigation District had won the support of the federal Bureau of Reclamation. A bureau engineering board recommended favorably on the canal and added the government "should undertake the early construction of a storage reservoir on the drainage basin of the Colorado." While this report was greeted with enthusiasm by people along the river's lower stretches, it was viewed with alarm by those in upper reaches.
  • The Colorado River Compact and the San Juan–Chama Project

    The Colorado River Compact and the San Juan–Chama Project

    THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT AND THE SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT The Colorado River Compact was signed in about 840,000 acre-feet/year (afy) to New 1922. This is an agreement for dividing the Mexico. water in the Colorado River basin between the “Upper Basin states” of Wyoming, Colorado, The San Juan-Chama Project was authorized Utah and New Mexico and the “Lower Basin by Congress in 1962 to allow some of New states” of Arizona, California and Nevada. Mexico’s share to be transferred across the The demarcation line between the two basins Continental Divide into the Rio Grande Basin. was set at Lee’s Ferry in northern Arizona, Construction began in 1964, and the tunnels close to the Utah border. The upper basin were completed in 1970. The water flows states are obliged to deliver 75 million acre- from three Colorado tributaries of the San feet (maf) at Lee’s Ferry during each 10-year Juan River, itself a tributary of the Colorado. period, or an average of 7.5 maf per year. An It is channeled through 26 miles of tunnels additional 1.5 maf per year was allocated to into creeks flowing into Heron Reservoir. Mexico in 1944, pursuant to a treaty relating From the reservoir the water is released into to the use of waters of the Colorado and the Chama River. Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. The project is managed by the Bureau of In 1948, the Upper Colorado River Compact Reclamation and provides an average distributed 51.75% of the Upper Basin’s share diversion of about 110,000 afy, primarily for to Colorado, 23% to Utah, 14% to Wyoming municipal, domestic, and industrial uses, but and 11.25% to New Mexico.
  • Colorado River Slideshow Title TK

    Colorado River Slideshow Title TK

    The Colorado River: Lifeline of the Southwest { The Headwaters The Colorado River begins in the Rocky Mountains at elevation 10,000 feet, about 60 miles northwest of Denver in Colorado. The Path Snow melts into water, flows into the river and moves downstream. In Utah, the river meets primary tributaries, the Green River and the San Juan River, before flowing into Lake Powell and beyond. Source: Bureau of Reclamation The Path In total, the Colorado River cuts through 1,450 miles of mountains, plains and deserts to Mexico and the Gulf of California. Source: George Eastman House It was almost 1,500 years ago when humans first tapped the river. Since then, the water has been claimed, reclaimed, divided and subdivided many times. The river is the life source for seven states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – as well as the Republic of Mexico. River Water Uses There are many demands for Colorado River water: • Agriculture and Livestock • Municipal and Industrial • Recreation • Fish/Wildlife and Habitat • Hydroelectricity • Tribes • Mexico Source: USGS Agriculture The Colorado River provides irrigation water to about 3.5 million acres of farmland – about 80 percent of its flows. Municipal Phoenix Denver About 15 percent of Colorado River flows provide drinking and household water to more than 30 million people. These cities include: Las Vegas and Phoenix, and cities outside the Basin – Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Recreation Source: Utah Office of Tourism Source: Emma Williams Recreation includes fishing, boating, waterskiing, camping and whitewater rafting in 22 National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and National Recreation Areas along river.
  • Birds Western Colorado

    Birds Western Colorado

    BIRDS . Ill WESTERN COLORADO by William A. Davis prepared for the Colorado Field Ornithologists CONTENTS General Topography of Western Colorado •• 1 H~it~s • • • • • • • 2 Explanation of text 6 Acknowledgements and references •••••••••••••••• ·7 BIRDS IN WESTERN COLORADO 8 through 37 Trips and Special Birds • • • • • • • 38 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument ••••• 39 Colorado National Monument • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 De Beque Canyon • • • 43 The Grand Mesa • • 44 Hanging Lake •• 46 Hart's Basin . o •• o ••••••••• 47 Highline Lake and Mack-Mesa Reservoir • 48 Mesa Verde National Park •••••••• 49 Rifle Gap Reservoir, Falls and Fish Hatchery ••• 50 Rock Creek Bird Nesting Area ••••• • • 51 The San Juan Mountains • • • • • 52 Sweitzer Lake 55 Black Swifts • 56 Gray Vireo, Burrowing Owls • • • • • • • •••• 56 & 57 White-tailed Ptarmigan, Rosy Finches • • 57 & 58 Empidonax Flycatchers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 I Western Colorado is Colorado west of the Continental Di­ vide. It has an area of about 38, 000 square miles and consti­ tutes about one third of the state. Much of it is wild or sparse­ ly inhabited, and unreachable by paved roads. It is rich in num­ bers of species of birds, some of which are unknown in most parts of the country. Yet it is relatively unexplored ornitho­ logically. Bailey and Niedrach's "Birds of Colorado" has few records from the western side of the state and notes " that there has been comparatively little field work in the counties west of the Continental Divide". This booklet has two purposes. One is to present a pre­ liminary fi'e1d list of the birds of Western Colorado which will be increased, improved and corrected by future observers.
  • Tertiary Geology and Oil-Shale Resources of the Piceance Creek Basin Between the Colorado and White Rivers Northwestern Colorado

    Tertiary Geology and Oil-Shale Resources of the Piceance Creek Basin Between the Colorado and White Rivers Northwestern Colorado

    Tertiary Geology and Oil-Shale Resources of the Piceance Creek Basin Between the Colorado and White Rivers Northwestern Colorado By JOHN R. DONNELL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ECONOMIC GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1082-L UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_-----.__--.-_-.-_._ ............................ 835 Introduction._ __--_---_--_-__-_-----_-----___-_-------_-__.____--- 836 Location of area..._-_-_-_--__-------_-_-___-_-_-_-___-________ 836 Purpose of the investigation_____-_-___-________________________ 836 Geography .-_. ._..---_-.. ._. _____ 838 Industry..--.--_---------------------------------_-- ----'--- 838 Population......________----_-_____j^___.____ _.___._.__ 839 Accessibility ___-_-----------------_---_-_-.._-_..-.__._-_-____ 839 Previous investigations....-------_---_--_--..-----__---_-_..--- 840 Present investigation ____-_-_-_____-___-________________ _.__ 840 Acknowledgments _____________________________________________ 841 Stratigraphy. ________-_---___-_---------_____-___-_-______________ 842 Cretaceous system___________________________________________ 842 Upper Cretaceous series----------_-_-___-----_-_-_________- 842 Mesaverde group.______________ .....^................. 842 Tertiary system_______________________________________________ 843 Paleocene(?) series_--___-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_______.________ 843 Ohio Creek conglomerate.______________________________ 843 Paleocene series______._---_-_-___: ___-_-_-_.____________ 844 Unnamed unit_-__--_-----_---_---_-___-______________ 844 Eocene series__ ......................................... 846 Wasatch formation. _--___-_-_-________________________ 846 Green River formation .............................iL.