|
<br />'1-: ,; 71 ?
<br />'_' _ i . i __ ~4
<br />
<br />ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
<br />
<br />Contractual studies conducted as part of the
<br />basin-assessment project included:
<br />
<br />1. Regional economic input-output analysis of
<br />Routt and Moffat Counties: Bernard Udis, R. C.
<br />Hess, T. H. Adams, D. V. Orr. and consulting
<br />economists aasociated with the Bureau of
<br />Economic Research, University of Colorado,
<br />Boulder, Colo.
<br />
<br />2. Water rights and institutional analysis: W. I.
<br />Knudsen, Jr., and J. A. Danielson, of the Colorado
<br />Department of Natural Resources, Division of
<br />Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer.
<br />Denver, Colo.
<br />
<br />Other individuals contributing to basin-
<br />assessment studies included: P. E, Stark, Routt
<br />
<br />County Department of Environmental Health; R.
<br />M. Eddy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
<br />Technical Investigations Branch, Surveillance and
<br />Analysis Division, Region VIII; and R. D.
<br />Anderson, Colorado Department of Health, Water
<br />Quality and Control Division,
<br />U.S. Geological Survey personnel assisting in
<br />specific studies included: G. K. Moore, remote-
<br />sensing applications; R. E. Rathbun and D. A.
<br />Schultz, instream-reaeration studies; and J. D.
<br />Sherman. multireservoir analysis. Additional sup-
<br />port to various studies was provided by D. B.
<br />Tramberg. Stockton, Calif.; T, L. Washington.
<br />Denver, Colo.; P. E. Harrold, Bradley, Ill.; S. M.
<br />Hofford. Fort Collins. Colo.; Dan Sinn, Lawrence.
<br />Kans.; and numerous personnel of the Colorado
<br />and Wyoming District offices of the U.S.
<br />Geological Survey.
<br />
<br />PART I. STUDY FRAMEWORK
<br />
<br />REGIONAL COAL-RESOURCE
<br />DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
<br />AND ASSESSMENT APPROACHES
<br />
<br />By TI~I()THY D(MK STEELE'
<br />
<br />Most coal-resource development in the Yampa
<br />River basin-at least through 1990-is expected to
<br />occur in areas south of the Yampa River between
<br />Steamboat Springs, Colo., and Craig, Colo. (fig. 2),
<br />where there are extensive coal deposits that have
<br />been or will be leased, largely by the Federal
<br />government (U.S. Department of the Interior,
<br />1976a, fig. RI-3, p. RI-7 and 8). Projections of coal
<br />production are subject to some uncertainty
<br />because of various regulations and Federal policy
<br />affecting the rate of leasing and development.
<br />Moreover, environmental-control measures cur-
<br />rently in force may change. Consequently.
<br />regional-resource planners have to cope with these
<br />and other uncertainties when considering the
<br />ramifications of mining, processing, energy conver-
<br />sion, and transportation of coal, especially with
<br />respect to waste residuals released to the environ-
<br />ment and water use (Steele. James, and others.
<br />
<br />'Former Project Cluef, YnlTIJlIl Rivet Hallin AAIle6~ment; Current Iv with WlJ'JdWliTd.
<br />Cl\'dE' Clln~uIIRnts. Denver. Colo
<br />
<br />1976b; Steele, Bauer. and others, 1979). Alter-
<br />natives for disposal of waste residuals and water
<br />use in mining will vary with mining techniques and
<br />required land reclamation (Keefer and Hadley.
<br />1976).
<br />Starting with conditions for the base year 1975,
<br />seven a~sumed coal-resource development alter-
<br />natives, projected at 5-year intervals to 1990, were
<br />developed (Udis and others, 1977; Steele and
<br />others, 1979), which are summarized in table 1.
<br />These alternatives are based in part on coal-
<br />prod uction projections for the basin descri bed in
<br />the Northwest Colorado Coal environmental state-
<br />ment (U.S. Department of the Interior, ]976a). A
<br />maxim Urn coal production of 20 million tons (18
<br />million t) per year was assumed for 1990 in alter-
<br />natives 1-4; a 50-percent variance in coal produc-
<br />tion was assumed in alternatives 5-7. The seven
<br />alternatives imply that coal mined in the basin
<br />may be used in different ways. That is, all coal
<br />mined in the basin between 1975 and 1990 will not
<br />be converted to electricity or gas products by plants
<br />within the basin, nor will all coal mined be trans-
<br />ported in raw form by railroads or possibly a slurry
<br />pipeline to markets outside the basin. Rather. a
<br />combination of such uses, listed in table I,
<br />probably will occur.
<br />
<br />5
<br />
|