Agricultural Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change in Yolo County, CA Louise Jackson UC Davis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Publications 2012 Agricultural mitigation and adaptation to climate change in Yolo County, CA Louise Jackson UC Davis Van R. Haden UC Davis Allan Hollander UC Davis Hyunok Lee UC Davis Mark Lubell UC Davis See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Jackson, L., Haden, V.R., Hollander, A.D., Lee, H., Lubell, M., Mehta, V.K., O’Geen, T., Niles, M.T., Perlman, J., Purkey, D., Salas, W., Sumner, D., Tomuta, M., Dempsey, M., Wheeler., S.M (2012) Agricultural mitigation and adaptation to climate change in Yolo County, CA. California Energy Commission Project 500-09-009, pp.153. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Louise Jackson, Van R. Haden, Allan Hollander, Hyunok Lee, Mark Lubell, VIshal Mehta, Toby O'Geen, Meredith T. Niles, Josh Perlman, David Purkey, William Salas, Daniel Sumner, M Tomuta, M Dempsey, and Stephen Wheeler This article is available at ScholarWorks @ UVM: http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac/2 ADAPTATION STRATEGIES FOR AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A White Paper from the California Energy Commission’s California Climate Change Center Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: University of California, Davis JULY 2012 CEC‐500‐2012‐032 Louise Jackson Van R. Haden Allan D. Hollander Hyunok Lee Mark Lubell Vishal K. Mehta Toby O’Geen Meredith Niles Josh Perlman David Purkey William Salas Dan Sumner Mihaela Tomuta Michael Dempsey Stephen M. Wheeler University of California, Davis DISCLAIMER This paper was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this paper; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This paper has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this paper. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We greatly appreciate the involvement of our steering committee in many aspects of this project: John Young (Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner), Chuck Dudley (President of the Yolo County Farm Bureau), John Mott‐Smith (Yolo County Climate Change Coordinator), Hasan Bolkan (Campbell Soup), and Tony Turkovich, and Jim and Deborah Durst (farmers in Yolo County). The University of California Cooperative farm advisors of Yolo County provided much information and support (Gene Miyao, Rachel Long, and County Director, Kent Brittan). We would like to thank Tim O’Halloran, Max Stevenson, and the staff of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for their generous contributions of data, time, and insight. For the assessment of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, we are grateful for discussions and information exchange with many farmers and organizations in Yolo County, especially the Yolo County Planning and Public Works Department, Ascent Environmental, and AECOM. For technical input on greenhouse gas inventory methods, we wish to thank Webster Tasat and Shelby Livingston at the California Air Resources Board, and Stephane de la Rue du Can at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. We would also like to thank Dr. Changsheng Li for DeNitrification‐DeComposition model calibration and testing for California rice agroecosystems. Funding for the DeNitrification‐DeComposition modeling of emissions from rice was provided by Conservation Innovation Grant program administered by the National Resource Conservation Service; Agreement Number NRCS 69‐3A75‐7‐87. Planning of the entire project benefitted from discussions with David Shebazian and the staff of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Many University of California faculty and extension specialists have given input on the project. We also appreciate discussions with Duane Chamberlin (Yolo County Board of Supervisors), Ed Thompson (American Farmland Trust), Steve Shafer (Sustainable Conservation), and the input of many other people on these topics during the past two years. We would also like to thank Susan Ellsworth and Sarah Lin for careful editing of this report. We also acknowledge Unai Pascual from the University of Cambridge and the Basque Center for Climate Change, and Renata Brillinger and Jeanne Merrill from the California Climate and Agriculture Network, for serving as external peer reviewers for this publication. i ABSTRACT This place‐based case study in an agricultural county in California’s Central Valley focused on the period of 2010–2050, and dealt with biophysical and socioeconomic issues related to both mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adaptation to an uncertain climate. In the past 100 years, changes in crop acreage has been more related to crop price and availability of irrigation water than to growing degree days during summer, and in fact, summer temperatures have increased less than winter temperatures. Econometric analysis indicated that warmer winters, as projected by Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory‐Bias Corrected Constructed Analog during 2035–2050, could result in less wheat acreage, more alfalfa and tomato acreage, and slight effects on tree and vine crops. The Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) model showed that these econometric projections did not reduce irrigation demand under either the B1 or A2 scenarios, but a diverse, water‐efficient cropping pattern combined with improved irrigation technology reduced demand to 12 percent below the historic mean. Collaboration during development of Yolo County’s Climate Action Plan showed that nitrous oxide (mainly from nitrogen fertilizers) was the main source (≅40 percent) of agricultural emissions. Emissions from cropland and rangeland were several orders of magnitude lower than urbanized land per unit area. A survey distributed to 570 farmers and ranchers achieved a 34 percent response rate. Farmers concerned about climate change were more likely to implement water conservation practices, and adopt voluntary GHG mitigation practices. Use of the urban growth model (UPlan) showed that channeling much or all future urban development into existing urban areas will increase ecosystem services by preserving agricultural land and open space, immensely reducing the Yolo County’s GHG emissions, and greatly enhancing agricultural sustainability. Keywords: crop acreage shift, farmer survey, urban growth model (UPlan), Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP), water conservation Please use the following citation for this paper: Jackson, Louise, Van R. Haden, Allan D. Hollander, Hyunok Lee, Mark Lubell, Vishal K. Mehta, Toby O’Geen, Meredith Niles, Josh Perlman, David Purkey, William Salas, Dan Sumner, Mihaela Tomuta, Michael Dempsey, and Stephen M. Wheeler. 2012. Adaptation Strategies for Agricultural Sustainability in Yolo County, California. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC‐500‐2012‐032. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... xi Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Yolo County: Background on Agriculture as Relevant to Climate Change ............................ 7 1.2 Previous Work on Climate Change Impacts on Yolo County Agriculture .............................. 8 1.3 Climate Change Scenarios for Agriculture in Yolo County ..................................................... 12 1.4 References ....................................................................................................................................... 13 1.5 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Section 2: Climate‐Induced Changes in Acreage of Crops, Including Projections to 2050 ............ 18 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................