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