Least Cost Control of Agricultural Nutrient Contributions to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone Sergey Rabotyagov, Todd Campbell, Manoj Jha, Hongli Feng,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview – Nutrient Fate and Transport Mark B. David University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Presented at Building Science Assessments for State-Level.
Advertisements

Green Water Credits Use of quantitative tools to evaluate potential Green Water Credits options Peter Droogers Wilco Terink Johannes Hunink Sjef Kauffman.
RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.
5. Final Remarks Information and the GIS package developed will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented watershed management practices in.
1 Economic and Environmental Co-benefits of Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Retiring Agricultural Land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
Designing Practice Based Approaches for Managing Agricultural Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution Catherine Kling Center for Agricultural and Rural Development,
Walnut Creek: Monitoring, Modeling, and Optimizing Prairie Restoration Sergey Rabotyagov 1, Keith Schilling 3, Manoj Jha 2, Calvin Wolter 3, Todd Campbell.
By Kudzai F. Ndidzano Limpopo Basin Development Challenge (LBDC)
Soil Conservation: Soil Conservation: towards sustainable agriculture.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions – Estimating a Tradable Commodity Allen R. Dedrick Associate Deputy Administrator Natural Resources & Sustainable.
Illinois Farmers as Nutrient Stewards: Opportunities via the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy IFB Commodities Conference July 30, 2014 Lauren.
Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas Catherine L. Kling Department of Economics Center.
Eric G. Hurley, Nutrient Management Specialist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Agricultural Water Pollution: Some Policy Considerations Catherine Kling Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University Iowa Environmental.
Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Eugene S. Takle with significant assistance from Manoj Jha, Chris Anderson,
Impact of Climate Change on Flow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Economic and Biophysical Models to Support Conservation Policy: Hypoxia and Water Quality in the Upper Mississippi River Basin CARD Resources and Environmental.
Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Policies: In-stream vs. Edge-of-Field Assessments of Water Quality. Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits.
The potential benefits of Green Water Credits Part 1: Quantifying the role and advantages for upstream farmers Johannes Hunink Peter Droogers Wilco Terink.
Tradeoff Analysis: From Science to Policy John M. Antle Department of Ag Econ & Econ Montana State University.
1 Iowa Conservation Practices: Historical Investments, Water Quality, and Gaps (Final progress report) February, 2007 (revised version) October, 2007.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell March 11,
Co-Benefits from Conservation Policies that Promote Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: The Corn Belt CARD, Iowa State University Presented at the Forestry.
World Resources Institute. Hypoxia: What is it? What causes It? The Dead Zone > Seasonally oxygen depleted zone in the Gulf of Mexico > Mobile aquatic.
The Importance of Watershed Modeling for Conservation Policy Or What is an Economist Doing at a SWAT Workshop?
Assessing Alternative Policies for the Control of Nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Catherine L. Kling, Silvia Secchi, Hongli Feng, Philip.
Watershed Management Assessment Through Modeling: SALT and CEAP Dr. Claire Baffaut Water Quality Short Course Boone County Extension Office April 12, 2007.
First meeting, Ames September 21. Agenda  Introduction to “Reverse Auctions” and “Watershed Trading”  What are they?  How might they be implemented.
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico Implications and Strategies for Iowa Remarks by Craig Cox Environmental Working Group October 15, 2008 Remarks by Craig Cox.
Tradeoff Analysis and Minimum-Data Modeling John Antle Jetse Stoorvogel Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Change, Nairobi September
Slide 1 Robert Kellogg NRCS, Beltsville Results and Lessons Learned on Regional/National Modeling Efforts: Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
Cathy, Phil, Keith, Calvin, Manoj, and Todd Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University 2011 The Potential for Agricultural Land.
Status of the CEAP National Assessment Robert Kellogg Jerry Lemunyon Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Social Welfare and Environmental Degradation Tradeoffs in Agriculture: The Case of Ecuador Eduardo Segarra, Professor Department of Agricultural and Applied.
How Breakthroughs in Information Systems Can Impact Local Decisions Bruce Babcock Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa State University.
The Value of Accurate, Field-Scale, Soil Carbon Assessment Technology: Conservation Tillage in Iowa Lyubov Kurkalova, Catherine Kling, and Jinhua Zhao.
Assessment of Runoff, Sediment Yield and Nutrient Load on Watershed Using Watershed Modeling Mohammad Sholichin Mohammad Sholichin 1) Faridah Othman 2)
Invest Nutrient Retention model Yonas Ghile.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University.
Water Quality Index for Runoff from Agricultural Fields (WQIag) By Harbans Lal, Environmental Engineer Shaun McKinney, Team Leader National Water Quality/Quantity.
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and Nutrient Management in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, U.S. Geological Survey.
Linking Land use, Biophysical, and Economic Models for Policy Analysis Catherine L. Kling Iowa State University October 13, 2015 Prepared for “Coupling.
Market- Based Regulation of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Externalities Catherine L. Kling Iowa State University Ames, Illinois Providing Environmental.
The University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center NASA MRC RPC – 11 July 2007 Evaluating the Integration of a Virtual ET Sensor into AnnGNPS Model Rapid.
Multiple Environmental Externalities Of Conservation Tillage: Empirical Assessment of Practice And Performance Based Targeting Luba Kurkalova, Catherine.
Biofuels and Water Quality in the Midwest: Corn vs. Switchgrass Silvia Secchi, Philip W. Gassman, Manoj Jha, Lyubov Kurkalova, and Catherine L. Kling Center.
April 8, 2009Forestry and Agriculture GHG Modeling Forum Land Use Change in Agriculture: Yield Growth as a Potential Driver Scott Malcolm USDA/ERS.
Soil Conservation Agriscience II. Performance Objectives 1) Explain how the major types of soil erosion affect the environment and agricultural production.
Santhi et al.ASAE1 Environmental and Economic Impacts of Reaching and Doubling the USDA Buffer Initiative Program on Water Quality C. Santhi 1, J. D. Atwood.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell August 8,
Effect of Potential Future Climate Change on Cost-Effective Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Strategies in the UMRB Manoj Jha, Philip Gassman, Gene.
National Assessment for Cropland. Analytical Approach Sampling and modeling approach based on a subset of NRI sample points. Farmer survey conducted to.
Trade-Offs of Carbon Sequestration through Land Retirement versus Working Land Hongli Feng, Luba Kurkalova, and Catherine Kling Center for Agricultural.
Design Reservoir Water- Management Data Model By: Adel M. Abdallah Instructors: David Rosenberg and Dr. Jeff Horsburgh Oct. 16, 2012 Hydroinformatics,
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation awards SES and DEB , as well as two regional collaborative projects supported.
 Decreasing Nutrient Runoff from Iowa Farms to Improve Water Quality Everywhere from Local Sources in Iowa to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Yahara River Watershed RCPP
Economic Joint Venture model: summary of progress
Iowa Conservation Practices:
Costs and Environmental Gains from Conservation Programs
Lyubov Kurkalova, Catherine Kling, and Jinhua Zhao
Department of Environmental Quality
Lyubov Kurkalova, Catherine Kling, and Jinhua Zhao
Costs of P Reductions in Lake Erie.
Image courtesy of NASA/GSFC
Human Impact on Soil.
Markets and Regulation: Alternative or Complements?
Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance
Jacob Piske, Eric Peterson, Bill Perry
Presentation transcript:

Least Cost Control of Agricultural Nutrient Contributions to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone Sergey Rabotyagov, Todd Campbell, Manoj Jha, Hongli Feng, Philip W. Gassman, Lyubov Kurkalova, Silvia Secchi, and Catherine L. Kling. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University October 2008

2 How do we solve this complex problem? Enormous number of farm fields/decision makers Enormous number of farm fields/decision makers Each can have one or more land use/conservation practice Each can have one or more land use/conservation practice Retire land (e.g., CRP) Retire land (e.g., CRP) Reduced, mulch, or no till Reduced, mulch, or no till Terraces Terraces Contouring Contouring Grassed Waterways Grassed Waterways Nutrient management: reduce fertilizer, better timing, etc. Nutrient management: reduce fertilizer, better timing, etc. Costs and effectiveness of practices can vary across locations Costs and effectiveness of practices can vary across locations

3 CARD-UMRB Model: Economics, Land use, and Water Quality Models can help answer questions, evaluate alternatives, play out scenarios that real world cannot Model of Upper Mississippi River Basin – water quality and land use Unit of analysis: National Resources Inventory “point” in the UMRB as unit of analysis (field) 110,000 total “points” and expansion factors, 37,500 cropland observations Data from many sources to describe each location: land use, weather, crop history, tillage, slope, HEL, existing conservation practices, costs, prices, yields, etc. SWAT component A hydrologic and water quality model developed by USDA-ARS A hydrologic and water quality model developed by USDA-ARS Watershed-scale simulation model, operates on a daily time step, assess the impact of different management practices on water quality Watershed-scale simulation model, operates on a daily time step, assess the impact of different management practices on water quality Gassman et al. (2007) identifies over 250 publications using SWAT Gassman et al. (2007) identifies over 250 publications using SWAT Economics component Economics component Cost of adoption practices Cost of adoption practices Profits and revenues from alternative crops Profits and revenues from alternative crops

4 189,000 square miles in seven states, 189,000 square miles in seven states, dominated by agriculture: 67% of total area, dominated by agriculture: 67% of total area, > 1200 stream segments and lakes on EPAs impaired waters list, > 1200 stream segments and lakes on EPAs impaired waters list, SAB Report: 43% of N and 41% of P delivered to Gulf SAB Report: 43% of N and 41% of P delivered to Gulf The Upper Mississippi River Basin

5 Using Models to inform Policy Using a water quality model, Evaluate water quality effects of a configuration of conservation practices Estimate the costs of the set of practices But how to choose which set of practices is best (and what policies would be needed to get those changes in place)? But how to choose which set of practices is best (and what policies would be needed to get those changes in place)? Could evaluate lots of different alternatives to find most cost-efficient Could evaluate lots of different alternatives to find most cost-efficient Using water quality model, analyze all the feasible scenarios, picking cost-efficient solutions Using water quality model, analyze all the feasible scenarios, picking cost-efficient solutions But, if there are N conservation practices possible for adoption on each field and there are F fields, this implies a total of possible N F configurations to compare But, if there are N conservation practices possible for adoption on each field and there are F fields, this implies a total of possible N F configurations to compare 30 fields, 2 options  over 1 billion possible scenarios 30 fields, 2 options  over 1 billion possible scenarios

6 One possible watershed configuration a d b a b c a d a b a a a 13 Fields 4 conservation practices 13 4 =28561 possible configurations Genetic Algorithm lingo Field = gene Practice options =allele set watershed configuration = individual (described by set of genes) Population = set of configurations

7 Algorithm flow diagram Individual = watershed configuration = specific assignment of practices to fields Population = set of watershed configurations

8 Fitness assignment example Strength S(i)= # of individuals i dominates Strength S(i)= # of individuals i dominates Raw fitness R(i)= sum of strengths of individuals that dominate i Raw fitness R(i)= sum of strengths of individuals that dominate i

9 Pareto frontier: UMRB

10 Selection of individuals for a 30% reduction in N or P

11 Consequences of seeking a 30% reduction in NO 3 Conservation and Land use to achieve reduction Conservation and Land use to achieve reduction N fertilizer reductions N fertilizer reductions grassed waterways (extensive) grassed waterways (extensive) terraces (combined with N fertilizer reductions) terraces (combined with N fertilizer reductions) additional (substantial) land retirement additional (substantial) land retirement A 30% reduction in outlet NO 3 automatically leads to a 35% reduction in outlet P A 30% reduction in outlet NO 3 automatically leads to a 35% reduction in outlet P The annual additional cost is estimated to be The annual additional cost is estimated to be $ 1.4 billion (more than quadrupling baseline cost)

12 Final Remarks CARD-UMRB model can help quantify tradeoffs between: CARD-UMRB model can help quantify tradeoffs between: cost and pollution reductions cost and pollution reductions different pollutants different pollutants Many assumptions and caveats, but Many assumptions and caveats, but The model is flexible and amenable to improvement The model is flexible and amenable to improvement Need to keep in mind purpose of modeling “All models are wrong, some are useful,” George Box Need to keep in mind purpose of modeling “All models are wrong, some are useful,” George Box Policy Role: Can we really set policy based with modeling results?? Yes and no Policy Role: Can we really set policy based with modeling results?? Yes and no