Chad E. Kruger

Greenhouse Gas Balance for Composting Operations

The greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of composting a range of potential feedstocks was evaluated through a review of the existing literature with a focus on methane (CH(4)) avoidance by composting and GHG emissions during composting. The primary carbon credits associated with composting are through CH(4) avoidance when feedstocks are composted instead of landfilled (municipal solid waste and biosolids) or lagooned (animal manures). Methane generation potential is given based on total volatile solids, expected volatile solids destruction, and CH(4) generation from lab and field incubations. For example, a facility that composts an equal mixture of manure, newsprint, and food waste could conserve the equivalent of 3.1 Mg CO(2) per 1 dry Mg of feedstocks composted if feedstocks were diverted from anaerobic storage lagoons and landfills with no gas collection mechanisms. The composting process is a source of GHG emissions from the use of electricity and fossil fuels and through GHG emissions during composting. Greenhouse gas emissions during composting are highest for high-nitrogen materials with high moisture contents. These debits are minimal in comparison to avoidance credits and can be further minimized through the use of higher carbon:nitrogen feedstock mixtures and lower-moisture-content mixtures. Compost end use has the potential to generate carbon credits through avoidance and sequestration of carbon; however, these are highly project specific and need to be quantified on an individual project basis.

BioEarth: Envisioning and developing a new regional earth system model to inform natural and agricultural resource management

As managers of agricultural and natural resources are confronted with uncertainties in global change impacts, the complexities associated with the interconnected cycling of nitrogen, carbon, and water present daunting management challenges. Existing models provide detailed information on specific sub-systems (e.g., land, air, water, and economics). An increasing awareness of the unintended consequences of management decisions resulting from interconnectedness of these sub-systems, however, necessitates coupled regional earth system models (EaSMs). Decision makers’ needs and priorities can be integrated into the model design and development processes to enhance decision-making relevance and “usability” of EaSMs. BioEarth is a research initiative currently under development with a focus on the U.S. Pacific Northwest region that explores the coupling of multiple stand-alone EaSMs to generate usable information for resource decision-making. Direct engagement between model developers and non-academic stakeholders involved in resource and environmental management decisions throughout the model development process is a critical component of this effort. BioEarth utilizes a bottom-up approach for its land surface model that preserves fine spatial-scale sensitivities and lateral hydrologic connectivity, which makes it unique among many regional EaSMs. This paper describes the BioEarth initiative and highlights opportunities and challenges associated with coupling multiple stand-alone models to generate usable information for agricultural and natural resource decision-making.

Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team

Integrating stakeholder perspectives is increasingly important in environmental science as a growing number of research projects are justified with a “solutions” orientation prioritizing societal relevance. In earth systems modeling, there is potential for model developers to engage with stakeholders who may use modeling results to inform decisions about resource management and policy. Challenges associated with stakeholder engagement relate to how researchers perceive the role of stakeholders and how they view the utility of integrating knowledge and perspectives from outside academia in model development. This study analyzes researchers’ perceptions of stakeholder engagement within BioEarth, a large collaborative regional earth systems modeling project designed to integrate input from agriculture and forestry sector decision-makers. The project addresses the impact of climate change on water, nitrogen and carbon cycling in the US Pacific Northwest. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess perceptions of stakeholder engagement among the 18principal investigators (PIs). Results reveal that PIs have varying perceptions of the role of stakeholders in earth systems modeling and diverse assessments of the optimal type and timing of stakeholder engagement. As funding agencies and research institutions promote increased collaboration with stakeholders from outside academia, these findings demonstrate fundamental differences of opinion among environmental scientists regarding the value of stakeholder engagement. This research has implications for transdisciplinary research projects that seek to address sustainability challenges by involving stakeholders in technical academic modeling. Facilitating learning opportunities for researchers who are new to stakeholder engagement is essential, as is close collaboration among researchers with different levels of prior stakeholder engagement experiences.

Design and Use of Representative Agricultural Pathways for Integrated Assessment of Climate Change in U.S. Pacific Northwest Cereal-Based Systems

This paper presents the design and use of Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs) in regional integrated assessment of climate impacts. In the first part of the paper, we describe the role of pathways and scenarios in regional integrated assessment as well as the three RAPs developed for a study of dryland wheat-based systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We use this example to illustrate the challenges associated with the development and implementation of RAPs, including the engagement of research team and stakeholders, the dimensionality problem in integrated assessment, incorporation of economic data and quantification of uncertainties. In the second part, we illustrate the use of RAPs in the study of climate impacts on dryland wheat-based systems. Results show that the direct impacts of future climate projections through crop yields provide the largest source of uncertainty in the climate impact and vulnerability analysis, but the indirect impacts of climate change through price projections embedded in RAPs also play an important role in the analysis. We conclude that in addition to being an essential element in designing an integrated assessment at the regional level, the RAPs development process can facilitate stakeholder engagement and improve communication of climate impact assessments.

Northwest U.S. Agriculture in a Changing Climate: Collaboratively Defined Research and Extension Priorities

In order for agricultural systems to successfully mitigate and adapt to climate change there is a need to coordinate and prioritize next steps for research and extension. This includes focusing on “win-win” management practices that simultaneously provide short-term benefits to farmers and improve the sustainability and resiliency of agricultural systems with respect to climate change. In the Northwest U.S., a collaborative process has been used to engage individuals spanning the research-practice continuum. This collaborative approach was utilized at a 2016 workshop titled “Agriculture in a Changing Climate,” that included a broad range of participants including university faculty and students, crop and livestock producers, and individuals representing state, tribal and federal government agencies, industry, nonprofit organizations, and conservation districts. The Northwest U.S. encompasses a range of agro-ecological systems and diverse geographic and climatic contexts. Regional research and science communication efforts for climate change and agriculture have a strong history of engaging diverse stakeholders. These features of the Northwest U.S. provide a foundation for the collaborative research and extension prioritization presented here. We focus on identifying research and extension actions that can be taken over the next five years in four areas identified as important areas by conference organizers and participants: (1) cropping systems, (2) livestock systems, (3) decision support systems to support consideration of climate change in agricultural management decisions; and (4) partnerships among researchers and stakeholders. We couple insights from the workshop and a review of current literature to articulate current scientific understanding, and priorities recommended by workshop participants that target existing knowledge gaps, challenges, and opportunities. Priorities defined at the Agriculture in a Changing Climate workshop highlight the need for ongoing investment in interdisciplinary research integrating social, economic and biophysical sciences, strategic collaborations, and knowledge sharing to develop actionable science that can support informed decision-making in the agriculture sector as the climate changes.

Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Offset Quantification Protocols for Nitrogen Management in Dryland Wheat Cropping Systems of the Pacific Northwest

In the carbon market, greenhouse gas (GHG) offset protocols need to ensure that emission reductions are of high quality, quantifiable and real. Lack of consistency across protocols for quantifying emission reductions compromise the credibility of offsets generated. Thus, protocol quantification methodologies need to be periodically reviewed to ensure emission offsets are credited accurately and updated to support practical climate policy solutions. Current GHG emission offset credits generated by agricultural nitrogen (N) management activities are based on reducing the annual N fertilizer application rate for a given crop without reducing yield. We performed a “road test” of agricultural N management protocols to evaluate differences among protocol components and quantify nitrous oxide (N2O) emission reductions under sample projects relevant to N management in dryland, wheat-based cropping systems of the inland Pacific Northwest (iPNW). We evaluated five agricultural N management offset protocols applicable to North America: two methodologies of American Carbon Registry (ACR1 and ACR2), Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Climate Action Reserve (CAR), and Alberta Offset Credit System (Alberta). We found that only two protocols, ACR2 and VCS, were suitable for this study, in which four sample projects were developed representing feasible N fertilizer rate reduction activities. The ACR2 and VCS protocols had identical baseline and project emission quantification methodologies resulting in identical emission reduction values. Reducing N fertilizer application rate by switching to variable rate N (sample projects 1-3) or split N application (sample project 4) management resulted in a N2O emission reduction ranging from 0.07 to 0.16 and 0.26 Mg CO2e ha-1, respectively. Across the range of C prices considered (

Global change implications on long-term water supply and demand forecasts in the columbia river basin

5,

Estimating climate change effects on grazing management and beef cattle production in the Pacific Northwest

10, and

Influence of Contrasting Biochar Types on Five Soils at Increasing Rates of Application

50 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent), we concluded that the N2O emission offset payment alone (

Assessment of climate change impact on Eastern Washington agriculture

0.35 to