WSP07510

• File Number: 8200.760
• Description: Yampa River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 1/1/1981
• Author: USGS
• Title: Assessments of Impacts of Proposed Coal-Resource and Related Economic Development on Water Resources - Yampa River Basin - Colorado and Wyoming - A Summary - 1981
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

IlD!11S

the residuals coefficients were derived using a
variety of sources.
Not all of the estimates of residuals discharge
were linked solely to the value of the output of the
various sectors. Some also were based on estimates
of residuals discharged per person and, thus, were
linked to the regional population. For example. the
quantity of biochemical oxygen demand was linked
both to the dollar value of the output of the
livestock sector and the population of the region.
Population estimates for the Yampa River basin
were based on estimated employment in each sec-
tor. The employment estimates were, in turn,
based on sector-employment coefficients. which
are estimates of the num ber of persons employed
per dollar of output by each sector. Due to space
limitations, the estimated employment coef-
ficients, residuals coefficients. and the corres-
ponding multipliers for each sector are not
presented herein.
The input-output model was used to predict the
impacts of alternative methods and rates of coal
use on several aspects of the basin's environment.
In making these predictions, the output of the ex-
isting coal-mining and electric-energy sectors (sec-
tors 6, 7. and 27. table 2) was constrained to 1975
levels. All additional coal mining and utilization is
assumed to occur in the new and expansion sectors
(33 through 38. table 2).
Predictions were made using two sets of
scenarios. In the first set of four scenarios, it was
assumed that an additional 12.5 million tons (11.3
million t) of coal, above the estimated 4.6 million
tons (4.2 million t) extracted in 1975, is to be sur-
face mined. Tbe second set of aeven scenarios (the
coal-resource development alternatives presented
in table 1) is intended to encompass the range of
anticipated coal-resource development in the
basin.
The four scenarios were employed to obtain
across-use comparisons of the impacts of using the
additional coal in each of four ways.
1. All of the additional coal is used within the
basin by thermal-electric powerplants to generate
electricity, solely for export from the basin.
2. All of the additional coal is used within the
basin by coal-gasification plants to manufacture
gas for export from the basin.
3. All of the additional coal is exported from the
basin via a coal-slurry pipeline.
4. All of the additional coal is exported from the
basin via unit trains.

In this first set of scenarios, any required con.
struction under each of the alternatives has been
assumed to be completed and the economy is as-
sumed to be in a relatively steady state. This, of
course, ignores part of the problem, as many
severe, though relatively short-lived. impacts of
energy development. may occur during. the con-
struction phase (Luken, 1974).
Estimates of population, water withdrawal and
consumption. and residuals discharge under each
of the scenarios are presented in table 3. Estimates
also are presented for the existing (1975) level of
development.
The two scenarios under which coal is used
within the basin give rise to the most economic
development, which results in the greatest increase
in population, residuals output. and water use. The
export of coal from the basin for use elsewhere, as
in the other two scenarios, does not, of course,
eliminate either residuals output or water use-it
only "exports" these problems along with the coal.
If a goal is to increase the level of economic ac-
tivity in the Yampa River basin. then coal-
gasification plants could be considered, for they
prod uce the greatest increase of the four scenarios
(table 3). On the other hand. if a goal is to remove
coal resources with the least disruption to the ex-
isting conditions in the region (at least to those
aspects considered), then either unit trains or a
coal-slurry pipeline appear to be better alternatives
(table 3).
The coal-slurry pipeline would consume, directly
and indirectly, more water than would unit trains.
The estimates of residuals discharge associated
with the coal-slurry pipeline, however, are less than
or equal to those in the unit-train scenario, for most
types of residuals considered. Moreover, estimates
were not made of noise pollution and of "damages"
imposed on motorists who must wait. at railroad
crossings for unit trains to pass. These problems as-
sociated with unit trains may be of significant
magnitude if trains are frequently used.
Though all water used directly by a coal-slurry
pipeline would be consumed through export from
the basin, the total rate of consumption under the
pipeline alternative would be considerably less
than that for either the thermal-electric power.
plant or coal-gasification-plant scenarios.
The total impacts of energy development under
each scenario are divided into percentage direct
and percentage indirect in table 4. It can be seen
that plant-process models, which estimate only
direct impacts. provide nearly the same, but lower

17