Date post: | 20-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jemima-wilkerson |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Why Metrics Matter: Prioritizing Strategies for Measuring and Managing Reactive Nitrogen in the San Joaquin ValleyAriel Horowitz, William R. Moomaw, Dan Liptzin, Benjamin Gramig, Carson Reeling, Johanna Meyer, and Kathleen Hurley
Tufts university Fletcher School of International Law and DiplomacyUniversity of California – DavisPurdue UniversityWestern Michigan University
10/03/2015 Horowitz 1
Outlineo Introductiono Current approaches to managing nitrogen in the United Stateso Nitrogen in the San Joaquin Valleyo Multiple metrics approacho Implications arising from use of multiple metricso Conclusions
10/03/2015 Horowitz 2
Impacts of reactive nitrogeno Health impactso Respiratory (NOx)o Colon cancer (NO3
-)
o Biodiversity losso Acid raino Climate change (N2O)o N saturation
10/03/2015 Horowitz 3
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries.html
Study areaSan Joaquin and Tulare hydrological regionsOne of the most agriculturally-intensive areas of the world!10/03/2015 Horowitz 4
Current regulation of nitrogen in the USAo Clean Air Act
o Regulates emissionso NOX (criteria pollutant)o NH4o Ammonium nitrate particulates
o Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Actso Regulates concentrations
o Nitrateo No regulation based on damages caused!
10/03/2015 Horowitz 5
Nitrogen flowsShown in tonnes/year
CroplandsLeaching200,000
CroplandsLeaching200,000
Runoff43,000
(Incl. 29,000 from crops)
Runoff43,000
(Incl. 29,000 from crops)
Fertilizer300,000
Fertilizer300,000
Dairies - Leaching11,000
Dairies - Leaching11,000
Dairies - VolatilizationNHx – 120,000
N2O – 1600
Dairies - VolatilizationNHx – 120,000
N2O – 1600
Harvested Crops280,000
Harvested Crops280,000
Stationary EmissionsNHx – 30,000NOx – 13,000
N2O – N.E.
Stationary EmissionsNHx – 30,000NOx – 13,000
N2O – N.E.
Mobile EmissionsNHx – 2400
NOx – 53,000N2O – N.E.
Mobile EmissionsNHx – 2400
NOx – 53,000N2O – N.E.
N2 Fixation130,000
(Incl. 100,000 to crops)
N2 Fixation130,000
(Incl. 100,000 to crops)
Deposition to Land
NHx – 28,000OxN – 34,000
Deposition to Land
NHx – 28,000OxN – 34,000
Deposition to WaterNHx – 340OxN – 610
Deposition to WaterNHx – 340OxN – 610
Dairies - Manure190,000
Dairies - Manure190,000
Wastewater TreatmentN2 – 1500N2O – 10
NO3- (ground) – 7100
NO3- (surface) – 5500
Biosolids – 1700
Wastewater TreatmentN2 – 1500N2O – 10
NO3- (ground) – 7100
NO3- (surface) – 5500
Biosolids – 1700Septic System
Leaching3700
Septic System Leaching
3700
Soil EmissionsNHx – 61,000NOx – 16,000N2O – 6100N2 – 3600
Soil EmissionsNHx – 61,000NOx – 16,000N2O – 6100N2 – 3600
10/03/2015 Horowitz 6
N2/non-reactive
Oxidized N
NHx
N2O
Nitrogen damagesShown in $1000/year
CroplandsLeaching$500,000
CroplandsLeaching$500,000
Runoff$120,000
(Incl. $87,000 from crops)
Runoff$120,000
(Incl. $87,000 from crops)
FertilizerN.E.
FertilizerN.E.
Dairies - Leaching$30,000
Dairies - Leaching$30,000
Dairies - VolatilizationNHx – $490,000N2O – $24,000
Dairies - VolatilizationNHx – $490,000N2O – $24,000
Harvested CropsN.E.
Harvested CropsN.E.
Stationary EmissionsNHx – $300,000NOx – $170,000
N2O – N.E.
Stationary EmissionsNHx – $300,000NOx – $170,000
N2O – N.E.
N2 FixationN.E.
N2 FixationN.E.
Deposition to Land
NHx – $220,000OxN – $270,000
Deposition to Land
NHx – $220,000OxN – $270,000
Deposition to Water
NHx – $1600OxN –$2300
Deposition to Water
NHx – $1600OxN –$2300
Dairies - ManureN.E.
Dairies - ManureN.E.
Wastewater TreatmentN2 – N.E.
N2O – $150NO3
- (ground) – $19,000NO3
- (surface) – $14,000Biosolids – N.E.
Wastewater TreatmentN2 – N.E.
N2O – $150NO3
- (ground) – $19,000NO3
- (surface) – $14,000Biosolids – N.E.
Septic System Leaching
$9600
Septic System Leaching
$9600
Mobile EmissionsNHx – $340,000
NOx – $1,500,000N2O – N.E.
Mobile EmissionsNHx – $340,000
NOx – $1,500,000N2O – N.E.
Soil EmissionsNHx – $360,000NOx – $220,000N2O – $91,000
N2 – N.E.
Soil EmissionsNHx – $360,000NOx – $220,000N2O – $91,000
N2 – N.E.
10/03/2015 Horowitz 7
N2/non-reactive
Oxidized N
NHx
N2O
Different metrics suggest different actions
Top 5 flows by MASS:1.Fertilizer2.Crop export3.Leaching from croplands4.Manure from dairies5.NH3 volatilized from dairies
Top 5 flows by DAMAGE:1.Mobile NOx2.Leaching from croplands3.NH3 volatilized from dairies4.Atmospheric deposition5.Mobile NH3
10/03/2015 Horowitz 8
Flows and damages are both localized!
10/03/2015 Horowitz 9
Use of Nr leads to concentrated burdens
o Damage costs are extremely geographically-specifico Health damage cost due to tailpipe NOx conversion
to PM2.5 in San Joaquin Valley: $22.74/kgo Health damage cost due to tailpipe NOx conversion
to PM2.5 in Chesapeake Bay: $15.83/kg
o Some damages are known but unpricedo Biodiversity losso N saturationo Damaged quality of life
o Benefits of Nr use are distributed; costs are concentrated!
10/03/2015 Horowitz 10
Conclusionso A unified strategy is needed to measure and manage Nr in all its forms
o Mass- and concentration-based regulations do not consider how damage varies by source
o Damage costs are extremely geographically-specific
o Health effects dominate damage costs
o Using a combination of damage costs and abatement costs can identify cost effective mitigation options
o Multiple metrics approach combined with improved monitoring will increase the effectiveness of policies and actions for managing Nr
10/03/2015 Horowitz 11
Thank you! Questions?We gratefully acknowledge support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Hatch project W-3133.
10/03/2015 Horowitz 12
Damage flows
Source of Nr Damage Cost ($/kg)Atmospheric Emissions
HEALTH EFFECTS
Mobile NOxa 22.74
Nonmobile NOxa 7.39
Mobile NH3a 140.36
Dairy and fertilizer NH3a 3.02
Nonmobile NH3a 9.18
Biome NH3a 17.01
OTHER COSTS
Reduced visibility4 0.31Crop declines from ozone (NOx only) 4 1.51
Forest declines from ozone (NOx only) 4 0.89
N2O - UV Damage4 1.33
N2O - Climate Change 13.52
Aqueous
Nitrate treatment in wells4 0.16Colon cancer due to nitrate in wells4 1.76Undesirable taste9 0.14Nitrate contamination9 0.54
From Deposition
Damage to buildings from acidification (NOx only) 4 0.09
Loss of plant biodiversity from N enrichment9 7.73Deposition of NOx
b 3.27
Deposition of NH3b 0.62
10/03/2015 Horowitz 13
Emissions(2008 NEI) of
secondary PM2.5 in the
SJV
NitrateNitrateMobile sourcesMobile sources
Classification of source categories
Stationary sources
Stationary sources
Allocation of secondary
PM2.5
Ammonium ion from Nitrate
Ammonium ion from Nitrate
Ammonium ion from sulfate
Ammonium ion from sulfate
SulfateSulfate
Reduction in PM2.5 from eliminating NO3
- flow (Table S1)
Reduction in PM2.5 from eliminating NO3
- flow (Table S1)
Source apportionment based on air quality model
in Ying and Kleeman (2006)
EPA BenMap model
EPA BenMap model
Health impactsHealth impacts
Economic damagesEconomic damages
NrChemical Cascade
NrDamage Cascade